And I notice, nowhere in there does it say anything about chiropractic manipulation as treatment. I would still caution against putting too much into it until you get a second opinion from a neurologist.
>And I notice, nowhere in there does it say anything about chiropractic manipulation as treatment.
we were arguing diagnosis, hence the link that quick search brought.
I'm really surprised by the prejudice [especially baseless prejudice which is just plain offensive] against chiropractors that i met in this thread. I understand that you(+your family) had mixed experience and that provides basis for your opinion. My experience is completely different.
Even without going into personal experiences and opinions which as we see may vary (like in the case of regular medicine as well), the objectively most important fact here is that insurance covers chiropractors - this is ultimate and most important endorsement in the US :) - speaking from my personal experience of fighting an insurance several years ago when they refused to pay for a procedure an MD performed on me.
Wrt. my experience with chiropractors. My father was successfully treated for back pain by a chiropractor 30 years ago back in Soviet Union, and my wife got successfully treated for a joint issue here recently, and in my case everything has so far been consistent with my knowledge/understanding as well as with medical info i could find.
So, i don't see any reasons to worry or be suspicious with chiropractors beyond what would be typical and prudent in any other encounter with any other medical professional.
Do a more thorough search. I've done a bit more and have found no one but chiropractors suggesting chiropractics to fix this problem. Also note, while your link mentions degeneration, it is much less common of a cause than a congenital defect or the result of a medical treatment.
The prejudice is based on their ignorance of science. In fact, traditionally, chiropractics totally eschews science in exchange for philosophy. This leads to chiropractors using techniques that have been shown to be harmful, such as doing spinal manipulation to fix nerve impingement, which is contraindicated by numerous studies. Additionally, there are still many chiropractors that are anti-immunization, another scientifically baseless position, but one that is dangerous for both the individual and society.
Insurance coverage is not an endorsement whatsoever. It is the effect of heavy lobbying on the part of chiropractors. Remember, insurance is not incentivized to do what is best for the patient.
What is the point of this link? NIH is policy, not science. You have failed to provide a single piece of scientific research that chiropractors can properly diagnose and treat kyphosis.
"NIH is made up of 27 Institutes and Centers, each with a specific research agenda, often focusing on particular diseases or body systems."
My experience with a specific NIH's center - NCBI - and their work clearly correlates with it, they [ ie. their own researchers] are doing fundamental science.
