Chiropractic & Atheism

[Gilgamesh]

Are you implying that an Atheist who believes in Chiropractic as a form of wellness, is a dumb Atheist?..

Yep.

But more properly, I'm implying that anyone who believes in any sort of woo is dumb.

[Oliver]

Are you implying that an Atheist who believes in Chiropractic as a form of wellness, is a dumb Atheist?..

Yep.

But more properly, I'm implying that anyone who believes in any sort of woo is dumb.

This is what I'm talking about. The aspect of Chiropractic that is considered "woo" is as far fetched as religion can be at times. True, and I don't agree with it. However, simply speaking of the benefits that adjustments can give one with a problem is a physical thing that you can observe. But it seems that most, like you, seem to only view Chiropractic as the "woo" kind, which is just not true. It's not all like that. I'm a user of Chiro but don't subscribe to the woo aspect of it, such as innate intelligence, flow of energy, healing, etc. I'm not going to defend that.

I can't possibly believe that all Chiropractors believe in the "make believe" aspect of it all, but can hopefully use their reasoning and logic to still trust in the benefits of adjustments. Which is why I think there have to be Atheist Chiropractors out there.. yet I only seem to find ones, in America at least, linked to believing in God.

[Faith No More]

Well, I think then it would be prudent to explain and detail the "benefits of adjustments" that lie outside of the "woo."

[Oliver]

Well, I think then it would be prudent to explain and detail the "benefits of adjustments" that lie outside of the "woo."

Right.
By "benefits" I'm referring to things like helping alleviate neck or back pain from an injury, accident, sports injury/performance, helping with headaches, etc. Results that aren't based on "faith healing."
The "woo" would be the aspect that seems very similar to believing in a higher power. It's the "faith healing" branch of traditional Chiro philosophy that believes it can heal & prevent all diseases & deals with an innate & universal intelligence, etc.

[The Grand Nudger]

I've been told that chiro is different in Australia, for example, but in the US, the only difference between chiro and pt is the magic (well, that and the pt is vastly more qualified to handle whatever you went to the chiro for- but probably more expensive, you get what you pay for).

[cneron]

I've no doubt that chiropracty "works" to some degree for some people, whether as a form of suggestion or simply advanced knuckle-cracking---it probably depends on what "works" means in this context. But those of you who swear by it should probably be aware that such neck and spinal manipulation has been linked to stroke.

[Darth]

Just as I go to the doctor and not the naturopath when I think I might need some medicine, I'll go to a physical therapist, and not a chiropractor if/when I need that sort of therapy, sublimation my ass.

From what I remember reading in the literature, chiro actually does help with lower back pain.

And ugh yeah, I've heard about the stroke risk before. No thanks, I've seen far too many people after stroke.

[Fidel_Castronaut]

Consensus in the Studies i've read is that Chiropractors do little to nothing that simple rest couldn't fix. Beyond that, treatments for 'bad backs' are treated much more effectively through conventional scentific based medicine (which CP certainly is not), especially when this is a long-term issue for the patient. My issue with CP is that, in using it as a first port of call, patients may miss a diagnosis by a trained MD for something that could be deadly serious which the CP simply isn't trained for or licensed to examine.

There is no universal education for CPs, neither are there regulatory guidelines.

Simon Singh challenged the claims of CPs in 2008 effectively dismissing their treatments as bogus, and sometimes dangerous:

http://trickortreatment.com/

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/8621880.stm

http://www.rationalinquiry.org.uk/chiropractic.php

http://www.chirobase.org/

It must be noted that the British Chiropractic association challenged Singh's claims in court by issuing a libel proceeding. They dropped it upon being asked to present evidence to challenge Singh's claims...mainly becuase there isn't, highlighting more evidence that their claims are bogus and can in fact be dangerous (Just for an example, claims that CPs could treat asthma, and even ear infections, were what was challenged by Singh et al).

But as to the OP's question; yes. It's self-evident looking at this thread

[KichigaiNeko]

Just as I go to the doctor and not the naturopath when I think I might need some medicine, I'll go to a physical therapist, and not a chiropractor if/when I need that sort of therapy, sublimation my ass.

From what I remember reading in the literature, chiro actually does help with lower back pain.

And ugh yeah, I've heard about the stroke risk before. No thanks, I've seen far too many people after stroke.

Subluxation Stu.

Lower back pain does get some relief from chiro. As for any other "benefits" I would call woo.

Was lucky my Chiro was a Physical therapist first, chiro second.

[Creed of Heresy]

Yes, dumb atheists do, in fact, exist.

Are you implying that an Atheist who believes in Chiropractic as a form of wellness, is a dumb Atheist?..

He implies a lot of things. Few of them ever get taken seriously.

To answer the OP: Yes. Chiropractic techniques are known to be used to successfully treat certain back problems and joint pains. It's when people go to them as a "regular visit" kind of thing where they're using it to somehow gain a health benefit that doesn't exist that it becomes stupid. As treatment for pain, it can help. For anything else, there's no real point to it.