I have a few bulging discs in my neck and lower back and they limit my activity greatly
I have been thinking about visiting a chiropractor however the specialist I saw a while back told me to avoid them at all costs as they can potentially make the problem worse. It seems when I ask people how they feel about chiropractors, 50% absolutely love them and highly recommend them and the remaining 50% say they should be avoided!!!
What are your thoughts and experiences?
Cheers
And sometimes their treatments do more harm than good…
http://m.essentialbaby.com.au/baby/baby-health/call-for-age-…
Yes, personal experience is 10 minutes after a session I had to struggle to walk because worse pain at the back! That's the lesson I learned for not listening to my GP.
Got any citations for your outlandish claims?
I am not going to dignify your question by actually pulling out EndNote and formatting these references, but I'll bite; here's a quick and dirtyt selection. None of these papers' abstracts or conclusions are pay-walled, for your pleasure.
To date there is insufficient evidence to evaluate the efficacy of chiropractic care for paediatric and adolescent AD/HD. The claim that chiropractic care improves paediatric and adolescent AD/HD, is only supported by low levels of scientific evidence.
Chiropractic manipulation in pediatric health conditions – an updated systematic review
There has been no substantive shift in this body of knowledge during the past 3 1/2 years. The health claims made by chiropractors with respect to the application of manipulation as a health care intervention for pediatric health conditions continue to be supported by only low levels of scientific evidence.
Safety of Chiropractic Interventions: A Systematic Review
Most of the adverse events reported were benign and transitory, however, there are reports of complications that were life threatening, such as arterial dissection, myelopathy, vertebral disc extrusion, and epidural hematoma. The frequency of adverse events varied between 33% and 60.9%, and the frequency of serious adverse events varied between 5 strokes/100,000 manipulations to 1.46 serious adverse events/10,000,000 manipulations and 2.68 deaths/10,000,000 manipulations.
Chiropractic care for patients with asthma: A systematic review of the literature
Results of the eight retrieved studies indicated that chiropractic care showed improvements in subjective measures and, to a lesser degree objective measures, none of which were statistically significant.
Overall, there was limited high quality evidence for the effectiveness of manual therapy. Most reviewed evidence was of low to moderate quality and inconsistent due to substantial methodological and clinical diversity. Areas requiring further research are highlighted.
Chiropractic Care: Attempting a Risk–Benefit Analysis
Given this situation, a tentative risk–benefit analysis cannot produce a positive result. The conclusion must therefore be that, according to the evidence to date, chiropractic spinal manipulation does not demonstrably do more good than harm.
Despite claims that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for headache, the data available to date do not support such definitive conclusions. It is unclear to what extent the observed treatment effects can be explained by manipulation or by nonspecific factors (e.g. of personal attention, patient expectation).
I tried to prioritise systematic reviews and meta-analyses, but you get the picture.
Science bitches!
You know what is going on! Systematic reviews are the best evidence available utilising multiple studies, not just the 1 paper claiming something. An academic I assume?
Well, wouldn't go so far as to call myself an 'academic,' but I have a Master's degree in Epidemiology. It's a real sloppy search, but if a chiropractor asks 'do you have citations?' I'll take it as a dare.
Strand0410, I read the abstract 'Safety of Chiropractic Interventions: A Systematic Review', and you omitted that it only included 46 articles out of 376, and that it also stated:
"Conclusion. There is no robust data concerning the incidence or prevalence of adverse reactions after chiropractic. Further investigations are urgently needed to assess definite conclusions regarding this issue."
Not including that following section of the abstract seems misleading. I initially inferred from your quotation that the review conclusion was negative, however only one randomised control trial was used and 330 articles were culled from the initial 376. I agree with the response that more data should be collected, and other articles you quoted provide further evidence about the harm that can come from being treated by a Chiropractor.
@harro son: I only quoted whichever parts seemed pertinent after a quick skim. It's by no means, a comprehensive review; if people want further information, I do provide links encourage people to read them. Regarding:
you omitted that it only included 46 articles out of 376
That in itself is neither damning nor noteworthy as long as there is no selection bias in those studies included (none I could see). 330 culled studies from an initial pool of 376 is not unusual and depending on the question, can be excluded for reasons including but not limited to; poor methodology, inconclusiveness, or just irrelevance. Don't get fixated on the proportion exclusion because a poor review will often be non-specific and include too many, introducing the possibility of including bad science.
and that it also stated: "Conclusion […]
I thought I was being fair by quoting the fact that adverse events from adjustment were rare and rarely serious. My take-away, is that these accidents do happen, despite how much JimmyBinny protests. Again, I encourage people to read them; ditto with your last point.
Mate, that's not how you do a lit review, you've just copied and pasted from your favourite skeptic sites. You need to look at ALL the evidence, for and against. Your cherry picking. The main problem with your view is that your using the historical media construct of a chiropractor. Evidence based chiropractors don't treat visceral and organic conditions.
Evidence based chiropractors diagnose and treat neuromusculoskeletal conditions, and there is a bevy of research that demonstrates the efficacy and safety.
Perhaps the epidemiologists on here could volunteer to do some primary research into how many chiropractic adjustments and physiotherapy manipulations are performed in Australia each day and how many adverse events occur when compared with adverse events elsewhere in the field of health? That might be a useful application of their studies and experience, and be within their area of expertise. Otherwise you're hardly qualified to comment.
You're
@JimmyBinny: So by 'skeptic sites,' you mean PubMed/Medline, aka the largest and most comprehensive online database for biomedical literature in the world? The one that every medical and health school in Australia first introduces to its students, and encourages them to access during the course of their career? That's the 'skeptic site' you thumb your nose at? Pray tell, which untouchable bastion of scientific integrity do you use?
For someone who keeps giving lip service to 'evidence-based practice,' you sure as hell don't provide any. The fact that you keep mentioning how your undergraduate degree shared units with others, reveals how desperately you crave legitimacy, that you'd co-opt the goodwill of other, real, professions. You say that's not how one performs a lit review? I don't know what research methods you learned in clown college, but I dare you to attempt the same: find the data that supports exactly what it is you're trying to say. I'm done wasting hot air in this circus of a thread, but I'll drop back one more time to read your response and all its references, then tear it apart. So don't let me down.
Perhaps the epidemiologists on here could volunteer to do some primary research into how many chiropractic adjustments and physiotherapy manipulations are performed in Australia each day and how many adverse events occur when compared with adverse events elsewhere in the field of health?
1) How about you try?, 2) You're moving goalposts, 3) Irrelevant. Believe it or not, chemotherapy has a lot of adverse effects, but it does not mean that it's without value; conversely, 'eating healthy' like Belle Gibson probably has few adverse effects, but is worthless in treating cancer. 'X days since last accident' or 'we injured less people than surgery' is a very low bar you're setting, and pointless. What matters is whether an intervention is medically justified after consideration of both cost/benefit. By every law of the land, chiropractic is quackery that provides no more benefit than crystal therapy and faith healing; even if the financial cost was nothing and adverse effects nonexistent, it still doesn't justify its continued practice. For someone who purports to have a real, big boy, totally-not-fake-guys, health degree, you're either very rusty or you've been practising cargo cult science this whole time (likely the latter).
It's funny how you just signed up to protect your profession. Not changing any minds huh…
Hah! Dude, I feel like I'm eating fresh fruit at a junk food convention!
I'm obviously not going to change the opinion of arrogant bloody minded extremists but it's irresponsible to not put forward a balanced argument for people who are scientifically curious.
It irks me when the opinions put forward are based on the same crappy arguments that FoSM bandy about. There is nothing wrong with chiropractors who practice with an evidence base and work within their scope of practice.
Spinal manipulation therapy is thousands of years old. We now know it doesn't directly effect organic conditions, but it does impact health and some people find it beneficial.
i suffered a 6cm right sided vertebral artery dissection from chriopractic neck manipulation. had an ischemic stroke while watching ironman 2 at the movies shortly after (still can't bring myself to watch the end of the movie). there's plenty of literature available to educate people on the risks associated with neck manipulation. i wish I'd taken the time to read it beforehand.
Very sorry to hear. Did your neurologist explain to you that this may have happened to you if you had a pathological weakness beforehand? Did your Chiro warn you that this was a possible adverse event and that there is a causal association?
Healthy vertebral arteries do not dissect during manipulation. There was a really good cadaver study that demonstrated the force required to dissect a healthy artery, it doesn't help you now but I'll try to find it, it was way more force than a Chiro would use to adjust a neck.
It is also possible to undergo a dissection spontaneously with no warning at all. It can also happen some weeks after an injury or insult.
I assume you presented to the Chiro with neck pain or headache? It's possible you were already undergoing dissection and your Chiro finished the job. Were you in the front row at the movies? Did you reverse the car that day? Had you recently had your hair washed at the hair dresser? They can all do it too.
Be great to know more about your circumstances, was there a case study published? Cheers.
@JimmyBinny:
i had numerous neurologists working on my diagnosis & recovery, all of whom attributed my condition to the neck manipulation that immediately preceded the trauma. it's in the paperwork.
you said, "healthy vertebral arteries do not dissect during manipulation". every independent study I've read seems to affirm the contrary. i understand your desire to protect something you value, but trauma is a common cause for arterial dissection - the abrupt, quick & repetitive force applied to manipulate the neck by chiropractors is more than sufficient to do this to healthy arteries.
the chiropractor at treated me didn't send me for any scans etc prior to manipulating my neck. it was foolish on my part to allow this. I was naive & trusted the chiro the same as any other physician.
turns out I didn't have an underlying vascular condition or predisposition that made me especially vulnerable according to my doctors. spontaneous dissection typically occurs in those with these underlying issues. (no headaches here - i went for an old & ongoing shoulder issue).
there'd been 2 other cases treated on the ward i was on prior to me that year. i don't know if either of them went to the hairdresser or reversed the car prior, what I do know is hat they both had chiropractic neck manipulation beforehand - do the math. one died, the other was disabled. I expect the reason my doctors told me was to help me realise how lucky I'd been comparatively.
When you're talking about evidence based medicines it's about proving something works rather than defending something that doesn't.
Some Chiros lose credibility when they claim to be able to treat for example abdominal pain with non-proven treatments, without ordering any tests, and diagnosing it as a spine illness when in fact the problem is perhaps infection with H.pylori.
The government does not fund chiros, there is no Medicare claims available for consultations.
EPC. 5 govt funded Chiro visits if referred by your GP. GP gets cash back from the government too. It's around $9m per annum from memory. Idea was to keep chronic pain patients out of the GP office. Some people respond well to Chiro care.
I'm not defending crackpots. I'm putting forward a balanced argument in support of physios, osteos, chiros and any other evidence based manual or manipulative therapist. They are in business because they provide effective treatment for musculoskeletal conditions.
Science is great and all, but academics don't always understand how things work in the real world.
I was trying really hard to be nice in my earlier messages but this sentence tells you everything you need to know about JimmyBinny:
Science is great and all, but academics don't always understand how things work in the real world.
Arguing with him or even reading his messages is now pointless.
Discussion over.
I've tried chiropractors as both a child and as an adult and they either did nothing or made the problem worse.
During my pharmacy degree we were taught to never recommend for the above reasons from the previous post.
Is that the same reason that the government doesn't fund dental care through Medicare for the general population? I think most people would regard dentistry as scientifically based.
Pretty much as Titan84 said. Chiropractic medicine is pretty much a pseudo-science. Whether or not it's actively harmful or not I cannot say, but as with all sorts of alternative medicine and new age hodgepodge there's always people who would swear it's done wonders for them.
Are you a chiropractor? Yes it's been around longer than podiatry, and was founded by D. D. Palmer, a man who supposedly adjusted a deaf man's spine till he regained hearing, and made the statue of liberty disap- oh wait, wrong one.
Not a Chiro. Health Sciences. Physiology major. Did a study on physio manips vs surgery vs natural history for back pain. You can guess the results.
Funny about DD, but what were surgeons doing in the time of Palmer? Pretty sure they were just killing people for practice. I may be wrong but didn't DD accidentally hit the guy in the head with a book while laughing at a humorous comment, which then cured his deafness? Pretty sure he didn't adjust him. The accident lead to DD's notion that spinal health may effect function. Bone setting had been around for 1,000s of years in many different cultures, DD was just a marketer that branded it with a new name and started a school
Please don't hang shit on manual therapists. It's a real thing.
Voodo has been around longer than Chiro and podiatry. Please stop wasting money.
search for Penn and Teller Chiropractors
This is part of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xf-00yQDDwY
Seconded. Penn and Teller always tell it like it is!
What do you think of witch doctors?
@ Titan, can't find acupuncture at the hospital either - but both are services covered by health funds.
Okay so not every acceptable treatment is done in hospitals, so isn't a valid argument against chiropractic, but the rest of Titan's comment still gets +1
Limited evidence for acupuncture as well. Effectiveness depends on skill, knowledge and experience of practitioner and isn't standardised across the profession.
The government only pays for treatments that are considered cost effective and have are based on quality, safety and efficacy.
Health funds pay for almost any health service because it is actually your money, not the public purse.
If people have back, soft tissue pain they should go to a physiotherapist or multidisciplinary pain management centre. The wait list can be long, but at least you get the best care based on what science knows works today.
I was once told my a chiropractor that all diseases, including cancer, are as a result of a sick spine. This just goes to show how little they know about microbiology, the anatomy and medicine in general
My cousin got a collapsed lung from her acupuncturist. All treatments have side effects, some very serious ones.
You know not of what you speak @Titan84.
A great eye, lidless, wreathed in flame?
In some countries, homoeopathy students have anatomy and physio classes too. Now please don't tell me that homoeopathy is science too.
Well people can get a doctorate in theology too. Just because an educational institution happily took your money doesn't scientifically validate what you learned.
However I do understand if it's kind of a hobby or an interest, like theology, literature, arts or w/e. However just as much "faith" should be put into chiropractors to be able to fix you as you would a person that is into theatre.
What he said atleast part of it is very true… Not sure why he's getting negged..Lots of Chiro Haters here.
The govt fund Chiro through the enhanced primary care program. GPs get a little kickback for writing the referral too.
He is getting Negged for saying things like this when his arguments fail him.
Science is great and all, but academics don't always understand how things work in the real world.
Discussion over.
Former HBA/Bupa employee here.. and I can tell you that the limits for these types of services are low (usually $100) and included under extras, not any hospital cover. It's just there to entice idiots to sign up for cover they don't need because extras are a high margin product.
What sort of world do we live in where the government permits bullshit like chiro to be marketed by health insurance companies (the gov dictates the rules here, health funds play by them, they don't set them) yet medical cannabis is illegal.
Anyway, statistically, you do better health wise if you avoid doctors completely (look up taleb, doctors and anti-fragile).
Statistically, the greatest risk of death is birth.
Bupa has always paid the lowest benefits on manual therapies.
Acupuncture is the same. A pseudoscience and potentially harmful.
Even medicine in the wrong dosage is harmful
I highly recommend osteopaths, from personal experience and having back issues in the past. Gentle manipulation, some very light cracking always yielded great results for me. Where as chiropractic treatments required several follow ups and did not yield long term results.
I don't know what an osteopath is, but if there is cracking of vertebrae involved, I wouldn't be going near them. Does this not sound like dark ages medicine to you?
Osteopaths are highly trained - 5 year uni degree including a masters.
Basically they use a selection of physio, chiro and other techniques.
They choose the appropriate treatment rather than simply cracking someone and moving on.
Sorry but it's all quackery. Degree or not.
Is 'appropriate treatment' based on scientific evidence?
I got downvoted because the voting mechanism on ozbargain is just formalized mob mentality. It doesn't matter if what you say is true, or if it's based on fact. Only its popularity matters.
In the dark ages, they would set a bone with a wooden splint. Now they use a cast. Still sounds like dark ages medicine…
An osteo will diagnose the problem, massage the muscles around the problematic area, and then perhaps perform a manipulation to move the vertebrae back into the right place. They will probably give you stretches to help with the muscular side of things. It's treating both causes of the problem. There's no quackery and in my experience, after a few sessions, you don't need to go back. There's no claims of a miracle cure or any other hocus-pocus. All pretty straightforward.
A chiropractor on the other hand will perform a manipulation but the muscles around the suspect vertebrae will still be tense and the problem will resurface after 24-48 hours. In which case - surprise, surprise - you'll have to go back and give the chiro some more money. Not to mention those that claim to cure asthma, diabetes, etc.
I hyperextended my back in a surfing accident and still have issues today. Chiro saw me and did jack shit over 6-8 treatments. I lelt after a particular violent neck crack left me mildly concussed. In retrospect i am lucky i wasnt paralysed.
Went to see an osteo for the same problem 3m later, and although it had mostly resolved with stretching, it was still there and was aggravated by a sports injury. Ostro fixed me up in 2 appointments with a combination of remedial massage and joint manipulation. Felt fantastic, and stayed fantastic til another 6m down the track when i did a particularly big stretch and felt something pop in my chest. Worked that day with pain on a scale of about 8, making coffees..
Saw a doc who prescribed pain killers only. Then 4 days later, still feeling bad, i do a walk in to the osteo who examines my body, notices a rib protuding from my chest. She pops it back into place and does remedial around the other areas that were under strain from my altered posture.
Good as new again.
Have only required remedial massage every now and then since, but yoga and a foam roller does wonders.
Having said all this about my positive experiences, im pissed that chiros and osteos are walking around calling themselves doctors.
Considering everything that you've said is patently false, I'm going to assume that you have no knowledge or experience of what you are talking about.
@dazweeja: I'm not sure what you mean? I'm providing a balanced argument. There is nothing false in anything I've presented. Do your research. The person asked 'should I see a Chiro?' and I'm saying 'sure, it might help, it helped me' and in come the skeptics, most of which don't even know what a chiropractor is or does.
I think many people, including you, are thinking of the historical model of a straight chiropractor (curing cancer with magnets and blindly cracking everyone on a wellness care program with the same adjustments), while I'm referring to the evidence based neuromusculoskeletal technicians that are trained in universities doing the same health sciences degrees as future MDs, GPs and surgeons. This anti Chiro thing has to stop its not based on scientific fact, it's based on anecdotes and political agendas.
Go to the websites for the universities that teach it and look at the syllabus. It's not the kooky anti-vax bullshit that you're making it out to be. It's pretty much the same science everyone learns but with a focus on manual therapies.
You can't blindly say what I've said is false purely based on your own self-formed distorted view of reality, or what your FoSM pharmacy lecturer told you. I did my research, you do yours, otherwise it's just ignorant trolling. I stand by the information I have presented and don't appreciate being bullied.
Firstly, I work at a university that teaches Chiro. At no university in Australia that offers Chiro (there are only 4) will the undergraduate degree qualify as a prerequesite for a Bachelor of Medicine or Bachelor of Surgery. They are not "the same health sciences degrees as future MDs, GPs and surgeons" - they are aimed much, much lower and their entry requirements reflect this. So that is also wrong. Hilarious that you think that mine is a "self-formed distorted view of reality" when I actually work with these guys.
Secondly, it's interesting that you used the term "neuromusculoskeletal" when Chiros may be aware of but don't provide any effective treatment for the underlying muscular causes of problems. Osteos and physios do. Given this important distinction, to suggest that any of the three disciplines will give you equivalent results is also false. You may get some short term relief from Chiros but you'll have to keep coming back time and time again to get any sort of permanent result, if it all. A great business model to be sure but clearly not in the best interests of patient. That is my primary complaint with the discipline but also knowing them personally - and the ones I interact with have PhDs in the field - I have very, very little confidence in the academic rigour of the discipline too.
It is not just marketing, someone with chiropractic qualifications can't just become an osteo, and physios vary rarely crack (ie. spinal manipulation). To call you out for a comment riddled with incorrect statements is not bullying and I'm in no way surprised that it got negged to oblivion.
I recommend dry needling. I go to a myotherapist who massages and uses dry needling. I used to go to a chiropractor but found it made the problem worse and was a waste of money.
You know dry needling is a form of beauty therapy in Victoria. Haha good one
Well I have had hamstring and knee issues from sport and it's has helped me. With my private heath insurance the gap payment is small.
Last year I injured my meniscus and couldnt even straighten my knee. Doctor recommended an mri however I choose to see my myotherapist after the first session I could straighten my knee.
I have tried to go for traditional physio treatment when I injured my hamstring however did not find it helpful.
Some Physios use dry needling.
It's a way of getting down to deep muscles that can't be effectively reached by a thumb or elbow. It's quite quick and fairly painless. I've had it a few times and it was very effective.
I should mention it's an entirely different thing from acupuncture.
From what I've read there seem to be two "streams" of chiropractors.
One stream tries to correct/alleviate back and/or spinal problems using spinal manipulation. The second stream operates outside scientific evidence and believes the back is the gateway to all illnesses.
There is absolutely no evidence for anything the second type of chiropractor says so stay far away from them.
As for the first type, there appears to be some evidence that their therapies could help with chronic back pain as seen here and here and probably lots of other sites I didn't bother checking.
Thank you for pointing out the difference.
I have had two chiropractors, both brilliant, but there are others out there who are crap.
But that is the case with all medical practitioners. Some are great, some should never be allowed near patients.
"But that is the case with all medical practitioners"
Chiros are not medical practitiiners.
I've never tried chiros myself but my colleague was hospitalized for over a month after the chiro nearly severed one of her nerves after manipulation. I guess her experience kind of scared me off chiros a bit.
What? Really? Do you realise how difficult it is to sever a nerve?! I think you may be confused about what happened.
There is a causal link with vertebral artery dissection and people presenting with neck pain and headache, but the association is no greater than if you went to your gp with neck pain, or the hairdresser to get your hair washed, or turned your head to reverse your car.
Very, very unlikely that any Chiro except for a master of ninjutsu could sever a nerve with a neck adjustment. It just doesn't happen.
I have seen patients who suffered veterbral artery dissection after having chiro manipulation of their neck, resulting in a stroke.
This is well reported in medical literature.
Evidence here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=chiropractic+dissec…
Albeit rare. Same reason we no longer take carotid pulses, and only use vagal massage of the carotid body as a last resort.
There's only one way that could happen: there was already a vertebral fracture with partial vertebral canal stenosis, and the chiro failed to recognise that. This is highly unlikely as there's usually a questionnaire which asks the patient to disclose all information about prior and current injuries. If you had a vertebrae go on you, you'd know about it.
Several years ago, I suffered chronic lower back pain perhaps once a month and was diagnosed with periostitis pubis. I tried physio to manage it but it didn't help. I ended up trying a chiro and since then, I have never had the pain again. I get a monthly adjustment now and still haven't had the pain.
I had been a skeptic of chiros in the past, but I guess my chiro sessions are helping me if I don't experience the pain anymore and feel I have greater movement in my back.
Hope you find some relief somehow… health is always something we take for granted. :)
It's good that you are no longer in pain, Stix.
However, your interesting anecdote does not equate to evidence that chiropractic manipulation actually solved your issue.
There are several possible explanations for the disappearance of your pain, and the chiropractic adjustment is just one of them.
I would also have concerns of the need or requirement for regular (in your case, monthly) adjustments. Is your condition cured? Or is it just contained? What would happen if you did not continue your monthly appointments? Would placebo adjustments work equally as well as 'real' ones?
(It's a little bit like going to your doctor for a finger infection, having a course of antibiotics which fix it, and then going back to your doc each month for the rest of time, just because…. the infection will return if you don't?)
I didnt neg you but you look like your advertising…
I wasn't advertising.. I was scrolling through youtube and this channel suddenly appears. Clicked on it and watched some of the videos and thought wow wow wow.
Please I fully recommend if you're suffering.
You fully recommend something you watched on youtube, without any personal experience? You can see why it looks like advertising, NamandSpam.
@rompastompa you got me good buddy, you got me good.
You can get good ones and bad ones. I have been to both. The good one helped invaluably after I had a whiplash injury. I'd had various other treatments including physio, prior to going to him, with no significant benefit.
I went to another one several years afterward and always came out feeling worse than I'd gone it, with it taking about a week to recover, and had no noticeable difference in the condition I was going there because of. 3rd visit was enough to make me realise I was wasting my time
This.
There are good and bad chiropractors. Same as there are good and bad doctors.
Personally, I find they are great if you don't have biomechanical issues. If it's a structural problem with your body, Chiro will be a short term solution.
For bulging disc issues I would recommend an osteopath. But you would have to shop around…if you don't like one, go to another…don't be put off by a bad Chiro/physio/whatever.
But with doctors there are standard medical treatments that they can't stuff up. Like you have these symptoms, take these pills.
You can stuff up treatments if you don't have the correct diagnosis.
Even simple things like doctors not taking notes, or writing important bits of information in your file, like allergies can lead to dangerous treatments.
@ssx:
Sure, anyone can stuff up.
But with real medicine there are standardised and verified treatments.
True, but for things like a bulging discs, the standard treatment is physical therapy. Hence physiotherapists etc.
In extreme cases, surgery is an option.
Not sure what you mean by "real medicine".
Can't believe this was downvoted. You'd think OzBargain of all places would understand quackery is expensive placebo.
they can't stuff up
Literally thousands of people are killed in Australia each year by medical negligence:
By some estimates, as many as 18,000 people die every year as a result of medical error, while 50,000 people suffer a permanent injury.
Let's not give all doctors and nurses a free pass just because a few chiros are quacks too.
Yup, right on the money here.
I've had nothing but good experiences….with the right chiropractor. Some shockers with some bad ones. Frankly you'll know when you've found a good one because they won't be at all forceful, and if they're having difficulty manipulating an area with one technique, they'll move onto another until they find a relatively gentle way to adjust things. The bad ones just keep whacking away at it until it cracks and you regret it for a week, if you're lucky. The bad ones also have a tendency to recommend weekly, or far more frequent visits than are entirely necessary.
I will however state as a disclaimer that my experiences are based on the fact that my back mechanically is in reasonably good condition, and I mostly see chiropractors for "maintenance". When my back starts getting misaligned it starts to trigger headaches so I just get it tuned up now and again. For people with chronic conditions, you mileage may vary.
I think the reason for the expansive divide on the topic of chiropractors is primarily due to the number of dodgy practitioners out there giving the good ones a bad name. It's human nature to complain loudly about bad experiences, but good experiences don't often get as much exposure.
That's my 2c anyway.
Over the years I've had to see chiropractors a number of times. Only 1 bad one and others have all helped a lot.
What did the 'bad' one do?
Chiropractors do not follow any scientific evidence based standard for treatment. There's a reason why the government does not fund their services nor does any tertiary hospital have a chiropractic unit.