[geocrasher]

I've lived both sides of this. I once went to a chiropractor for back issues and he made me seriously worse and it took months to recover because what he thought just needed to be put in was actually a herniated disc.

Fast forward more than a decade and I have an amazing chiropractor. Every time I go there, I walk away feeling better, walking straighter, and in less pain. My daughter also goes there and the chiropractor has helped her tremendously with various issues.

If anything I think it's a shame that the quacks and the Good Guys can share the same title. But it's the same in any profession, isn't it?

It reminds me of the joke: What do you call a med student that graduates at the bottom of his class?

Doctor.

[hondo77]

> Every time I go there, I walk away feeling better, walking straighter, and in less pain.

So what is your chiro fixing, if you have to keep going back for ten years?

[geocrasher]

There is no correlation between 10 years ago and the more recent visits. They are unrelated. Usually my hip is out of place and my lower and upper back are out. I only go in when I feel like I need it, I don't visit regularly.

[mellosouls]

If anything I think it's a shame that the quacks and the Good Guys can share the same title. But it's the same in any profession, isn't it?

No. Chiropractic medicine is pseudo-scientific, so inevitably the percentage of quacks will be far greater than in a scientific-based medicine.

So not remotely the same.

[geocrasher]

And I have quite literally watched PhD's ignore science and go based on their feelings- making [incorrect] diagnosis without even standing within 5 feet of the patient. If that isn't pseudo-scientific, then I don't know what is.

So yes, it is remotely the same.

[mellosouls]

You are confusing anecdotal observations of outlier instances (bad docs in medicine) with a general approach (the pseudo-science of chiropractic "medicine"), which is essentially restating your initial comment.

[briantakita]

Everyone claims to be "Science based", yet there is an element of faith that one's worldview is the only correct true worldview while other worldviews are "pseudoscience". It's almost is if fundamentalist religions, with priesthood, are claiming to be "Science based" as a way to have authority over the audience's critical thinking.

If you claim to be "Science based" you have to prove it with your actions. Words are not enough...Vitriolic rants only make you look like the kook...

[the_af]

> If anything I think it's a shame that the quacks and the Good Guys can share the same title. But it's the same in any profession, isn't it?

I actually agree with most of your post, but want to comment on this: yes, it's the same in any profession, but the profession itself also matters. Some are grounded in science, some aren't, and this matters. People are going to be people, but the foundations of their jobs matter.

[cosmotic]

Every time you go? That doesn't sound effective.

[geocrasher]

Think of it like taking aspirin for a headache. It works. Then later, you get another headache, so you take more aspirin. To expect more than that for any treatment is as unreasonable.