Fit blondes in Berlin

[Laxie]

I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well.

This is why your my hero.
I'm off to find a slug.

Don't do it!  They're slimy little buggers.

Bell ends or slugs?

Sigh.  Knew I'd walk into it.   

[gatso]

would've been so awesome if kin had been born years ago and insisted on curing everything with slugs while laughing at people trying out new fangled, unproved penicillin

[EvilPie]

Gatso winning the internet.

[EvilPie]

No Matt, have a look at what chiropractic is based on.

Seriously Dan do you really think that skepdic article is helpful in any way whatsoever? I thought you were intelligent.

To quote the article: "Chiropractors think that by adjusting the misalignments they can thereby restore the nerve signals and cure health problems. This idea was first propounded in 1895"

Well yes maybe back in 1895 they thought that was the case. I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well. Things have changed a bit since then.

Every chiropractor that I've been to has only claimed to be able to stop my joints aching when they've ached. To this end they've achieved their claims. Not one of them claimed to be able to cure anything else.

Yes there will be chiropractors making bogus claims and there will also be bad chiropractors. The ones that I know of are bloody good at making your joint pains go away and that'll do for me.

So the chiropractors who claim to cure asthma, colic, etc., don't exist or aren't real chiropractors?

Chiropractic is founded on the theory of sublaxations. They have been shown not to exist.  So what science is chiropractic based on?  Modern medicine is based on empirical study, things like germ theory show how many diseases are caused, discoveries in genetics, knowledge of cells, etc.  A lot of older practices have been shown to be wrong or less than ideal, and these are replaced with better (more effective) medicine.  That's how medicine improves, and treatments for things like cancer are improving.

Where's the harm in chiropractic?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported

this isn't about bad chiropracters or fraudulent ones - it's primarily about chiropracty being performed in the way that it's meant to be done

These aren't bad or 'fraudulent' (any more fraudulent than the rest that is) chiropractors.  That is about chiropractic in general, it's a flawed theory that does actual damage.

I'd say it's similar to the other supplements

I think all these things - might help - and they might do something

But without sufficient scientific evidence to support it - you don't know whether it's helping - and you don't know exactly what it's doing

...and they can also do harm.

Wow Dan you really are blinkered when it comes to this aren't you.

This: "These aren't bad or 'fraudulent' (any more fraudulent than the rest that is) chiropractors." is probably the most cocktarded thing you've ever said.

Of course they are!!

You're telling me that the guy I go to who has consistently helped me out with skeletal problems is the same as the chiropractors who claim to be able to cure liver disease?

Amazing.

[Skippy]

would've been so awesome if kin had been born years ago and insisted on curing everything with slugs while laughing at people trying out new fangled, unproved penicillin

[Jon MW]

The bad/fraudulent types was originally a comment on the study about how many injuries chiropracty causes

The only part of chiropracty that actually works is basically physiotherapy - and it's not necessarily even as good a version of physiotherapy as you'd get from a properly qualified physiotherapist. Once you take that away - it doesn't really leave much.

[kinboshi]

The bad/fraudulent types was originally a comment on the study about how many injuries chiropracty causes

The only part of chiropracty that actually works is basically physiotherapy - and it's not necessarily even as good a version of physiotherapy as you'd get from a properly qualified physiotherapist. Once you take that away - it doesn't really leave much.

It leaves repeat visits to the chiropractor to treat the ailment they're not fixing...

[kinboshi]

would've been so awesome if kin had been born years ago and insisted on curing everything with slugs while laughing at people trying out new fangled, unproved penicillin

Think you'll find that the logic there is backwards. Penicillin was developed as a treatment through empirical research, not clinging on to something that has been shown not to work. If medicine didn't follow the scientific approach (which involves replacing existing treatments with better ones over time),we'd still be blood-letting and using witchcraft to treat people. That or homeopathy or chiropractic treatments.

[kinboshi]

No Matt, have a look at what chiropractic is based on.

Seriously Dan do you really think that skepdic article is helpful in any way whatsoever? I thought you were intelligent.

To quote the article: "Chiropractors think that by adjusting the misalignments they can thereby restore the nerve signals and cure health problems. This idea was first propounded in 1895"

Well yes maybe back in 1895 they thought that was the case. I believe back then that doctors thought they cure pretty much anything by sticking a slug on your bellend as well. Things have changed a bit since then.

Every chiropractor that I've been to has only claimed to be able to stop my joints aching when they've ached. To this end they've achieved their claims. Not one of them claimed to be able to cure anything else.

Yes there will be chiropractors making bogus claims and there will also be bad chiropractors. The ones that I know of are bloody good at making your joint pains go away and that'll do for me.

So the chiropractors who claim to cure asthma, colic, etc., don't exist or aren't real chiropractors?

Chiropractic is founded on the theory of sublaxations. They have been shown not to exist.  So what science is chiropractic based on?  Modern medicine is based on empirical study, things like germ theory show how many diseases are caused, discoveries in genetics, knowledge of cells, etc.  A lot of older practices have been shown to be wrong or less than ideal, and these are replaced with better (more effective) medicine.  That's how medicine improves, and treatments for things like cancer are improving.

Where's the harm in chiropractic?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2012/may/14/dangers-chiropractic-treatment-under-reported

this isn't about bad chiropracters or fraudulent ones - it's primarily about chiropracty being performed in the way that it's meant to be done

These aren't bad or 'fraudulent' (any more fraudulent than the rest that is) chiropractors.  That is about chiropractic in general, it's a flawed theory that does actual damage.

I'd say it's similar to the other supplements

I think all these things - might help - and they might do something

But without sufficient scientific evidence to support it - you don't know whether it's helping - and you don't know exactly what it's doing

...and they can also do harm.

Wow Dan you really are blinkered when it comes to this aren't you.

This: "These aren't bad or 'fraudulent' (any more fraudulent than the rest that is) chiropractors." is probably the most cocktarded thing you've ever said.

Of course they are!!

You're telling me that the guy I go to who has consistently helped me out with skeletal problems is the same as the chiropractors who claim to be able to cure liver disease?

Amazing.

I don't know mate, maybe you should ask him?

[Claw75]

I had to look up glucosamine sulphate coz i'd never heard of it.  wikipedia page says "In most of Europe, glucosamine is approved as a medical drug and is sold in the form of glucosamine sulfate. In this case, evidence of safety and efficacy is required for the medical use of glucosamine and several guidelines have recommended its use as an effective and safe therapy for osteoarthritis."

does that make it ok Kin, or only if it's prescribed for someone diagnosed with osteoarthritis in a country where it's been approved?

[kinboshi]

I didn't actually say anything against glucosamine sulphate. I think I've read some studies that it's useful in some acute cases, but not sure.

I used to take glucosamine, cod liver oil and multivitamins - dare I say 'religiously'. Then decided to read up on their effectiveness (and not from those selling the stuff). Soon after, I threw the lot in the bin. I used to swear by their effectiveness in helping prevent me getting colds, in keeping my clicking joints from getting worse or being painful. However, since I stopped using them, there's been no change. Except I'm saving a little bit of money.

As for what wikipedia says, I'm not sure it's designated as a medicine in the UK, at least not in the amounts used in supplements. But could be wrong.

[Jon MW]

The other elements in wiki regarding it's effectiveness are summed up by

... (2006) The results of this 6-month trial were published in 2006, and the publication explained that patients taking glucosamine HCl, chondroitin sulfate, or a combination of the two had no statistically significant improvement in their symptoms compared to patients taking a placebo ...

... (2007) A subsequent meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials was published in 2007 (it included the NIH trial by Clegg); the article concluded that hydrochloride is not effective and that there was too much heterogeneity among trials of glucosamine sulfate to draw a conclusion ...

... (2009) A 2009 review concluded that "Little evidence suggests that glucosamine is superior to a placebo treatment in restoring articular cartilage."
A 2009 scientific review of available studies concluded that glucosamine sulfate, "glucosamine hydrochloride, and chondroitin sulfate have individually shown inconsistent efficacy in decreasing arthritis pain", though "many studies confirmed pain relief with glucosamine and chondroitin sulfate in combined use" ...

... (2010) A meta-analysis published in the British Medical Journal published in 2010 concluded: "Compared with placebo, glucosamine, chondroitin, and their combination do not reduce joint pain or have an impact on narrowing of joint space

A subsequent paper criticised the 2010 meta-analysis, suggesting the findings were "questionable and likely due to heterogeneity" ...

However, currently OARSI (OsteoArthritis Research Society International) is recommending glucosamine as the second most effective treatmentfor moderate cases of osteoarthritis.

Which pretty much goes back to the point that it probably does something to treat something -- but exactly what it does to what is less obvious.

It might fix the problems - it might just fix the symptoms - it might do nothing and have a strong placebo effect - etc

With things like that I'd be inclined to try them out - see what they do

Whereas others might be more inclined to leave them alone - in case of what they might do

[EvilPie]

I didn't actually say anything against glucosamine sulphate. I think I've read some studies that it's useful in some acute cases, but not sure.

I used to take glucosamine, cod liver oil and multivitamins - dare I say 'religiously'. Then decided to read up on their effectiveness (and not from those selling the stuff). Soon after, I threw the lot in the bin. I used to swear by their effectiveness in helping prevent me getting colds, in keeping my clicking joints from getting worse or being painful. However, since I stopped using them, there's been no change. Except I'm saving a little bit of money.

As for what wikipedia says, I'm not sure it's designated as a medicine in the UK, at least not in the amounts used in supplements. But could be wrong.

Lol. So there was nothing wrong with you when you started taking them? You then continued having nothing wrong with you afterwards so that means they don't work?

Good stuff.

[kinboshi]

I don't have high blood pressure, or a high cholesterol level. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do anything to prevent those things from happening.

[EvilPie]

I don't have high blood pressure, or a high cholesterol level. That doesn't mean I shouldn't do anything to prevent those things from happening.

So when you still don't have high blood pressure or cholesterol in a couple of years will you assume that your prevention methods have been ineffective and start eating lard for breakfast?