Call The Police
Sometimes it feels like more than just a Sting.
Somehow, I pulled a muscle in my lower back. I first noticed it last Friday or Saturday, and I was kind of achy, but I could live with it. However, when I got up from my chair yesterday morning to accompany a coworker, I felt such pain that I had to stand still until it passed. As the day progressed, I learned which movements caused more or less pain. Eventually, I discovered that breathing quickly and shallowly (hyperventilating, in a sense) allowed me to twist or bend in certain ways with minimal pain, so I was able to roll over in bed.
Today, I get to play with the company's benefits system to see if I can find a back doctor on our medical plan. That is, if I can get past the logon screen.
posted by Captain Chlorophyll @ 6:40 AM
8 Comments:
Try a chiropractor.
If you must insist on a MD for whatever reason, then look for an osteopath.
If it's more than just a Sting, does that make you the King of Pain? (Sorry. Musical pun. Couldn't help myself.)
Man, I hope you manage to get some relief for that, though. It sounds unpleasant just to read about.
And for gods' sakes, don't go to a chiropractor, especially not as your first choice, and not unless you've checked them out carefully first. A lot of them are cranks. An MD has a much greater chance of doing you some good.
Betty: I welcomed your pun.
Both: The chiropractic association I went to was verified as excellent by Worker Bee.
Does Worker Bee believe in chiropractic nuttiness, though? Because lots of otherwise sane people do, but that doesn't mean it isn't still nutty. :)
Now now, Betty. Very few chiropractors are cranks.
I have been using them for years. The treatment actually works. It is not some witch-doctor waving incense and magic crystals over you. I am sure thate are those that do, but then there are MDs that would rather give you a pill or carve you up than tell you how to make life-style changes that would be more effective.
Chiropractics is based on the premise of communication pathways within the body. When the neural pathways are "impinged", the body becomes physically out of balance and biofeedback from organs and extremities is impeded.
When neural feedback paths are impeded, a host of problems can occur. The body tries to compensate and does for the most part, but does so poorly. In extreme cases, it is possible to lose the use of limbs permanently.
The body will try to compensate for being out of alignment by overworking other muscles. Meanwhile, the other muscles that are supposed to be working in symmetry are starting to atrophy from lack of use.
Have a look at quadriplegics. Their nerves have been severed and feedback is totally lost. The limbs atrophy and even risk of infection is increased due to the lack of the limb's ability to tell the rest of the body that something is wrong.
The main difference between an OD and DC is that the OD has additional training that will allow them to prescribe medication. Also, an OD is more likely to be allowed as a covered expense on medical insurance due to it being considered "mainstream".
Chiropractic treatment is a covered expense on my insurance.
Additionally, it may be easier to make an appointment with a DC. Most accept walk-ins. They also tend to be less expensive.
Unfortunately, while all of this sounds reasonable, it's not in fact supported by actual evidence. There are a few conditions for which the stuff that chiropractors do may actually be medically effective, and many more for which it feels effective in the short-term, but the theory behind it -- which many though not all chiropractors subscribe to -- is, frankly, quackery. (And, sadly, a lot of quackery is well-accepted enough, and promoted strongly enough by its partisans, to be covered by insurance. My insurance policy covers acupuncture, but that doesn't mean it's a good treatment, either.)
There's a good two-part article on the subject here and here, which I strongly recommend reading. (I've read a lot of stuff this guy's written, and regularly listen to his podcast. He knows what he's talking about.)
Betty,
So you are using an article that describes the dubious beginnings of the Chiropractic trade to imply that it is entirely without merit, and further admits that the field has not been studied well to tell me that the treatment is bogus?
Isn't this like reading about a pirate and then declaring that all modern sailors are likewise pirates because they have boats?
Not all sailors are pirates, but yet, pirates do exists and, indeed, sail.
Yes, many chiropractors suggest herbal remedies. Have you ever read Life Extension Magazine? That is a lot of highly degreed MDs that are hawking the same stuff.
I guess I have been lucky that all the chiropractors (5 or 6 so far in different states or cities) I have visited tend to be "mixers" or "scientific" leaning.
In all my years of visiting chiropractors, I have never had one of them try to cite the RAND or Meade studies.
I have read about the "innate intelligence" stuff and I still don't know what that is. It doesn't make any sense to me. The concept of biofeedback in the human body is a complicated one. The body is a fantastic machine with a lot of built-in redundancy and adaptive ability. The manipulation works.
Chiropractics cannot solve everything and the suggestion that it can solve any and every malady is indeed poorly conceived. I don't believe it is an effective treatment for, say, Ebola or AIDS.
As for the amount of force required to manipulate the spine: the experiment (sample size of?) used a cadaver. Not the same thing as a living body. Also, if that isn't my spine audibly popping, then what is? I am certain I am not made of bubble wrap.
I think most chiropractors suggest homeopathic remedies and herbal supplements since they are not allowed to prescribe accepted mainstream medications.
My experience with chiropractors is that they seem to take a more holistic approach and generally try to discover the source rather than treat the symptom.
Ie.
MD: Low back pain, eh? [poke poke probe] Take this narcotic pill and get bed rest. $150, please.
DC: Low back pain eh? [poke poke probe] Looks like your pelvis is out of alignment. [pop!] Apply a heat pad for 15 minutes, then a cold pad for 15, then heat again, when you get home. Start doing abdominal exercises to help balance out your spinal muscles. Remember to bend with your knees, not your back and cut back on your caffeine intake. Drink more plain water. $40, please.
When I threw out my back (extrusion at S1), my chiropractor actually refused to adjust my low back. He did give heat treatment and electrical stim, though.
Betty: "Electrical stim. Oh goody. You gonna use violet rays next? Ha! Ha!"
Actually, electrical stim is used by body builders: [link]
Violet rays are utter quackery, BTW.
Are alternative treatments quackery? Modern medical theory was quackery once, too. Various religions (the gate keepers of "truth" as it was) absolutely prohibited the study of the human body. Quackery? Acupuncture (I've never tried and remain highly dubious of) has many millions of satisfied customers and possibly billions of happy customers over its 8000 years of use. Many modern medicines have their start in herbal remedies. Ever hear of aspirin?
Bloodletting was once "modern medicine" and considered "scientific", too.
Quackery seems to me to be pretty subjective depending upon time, place, and culture.
Did you read part 2? It deals with modern chiropractic practice. In any case, any practice built around a bogus theory is legitimately suspect.
"Innate intelligence" indeed fails to make any sense. And there are chiropractors who will, indeed, claim that it is a cure for everything up to and including AIDS. That's why it's a good idea to check out chiropractors carefully beforehand to make sure they don't subscribe to the nutty side of things. Chiropractors may fall anywhere along the scale of nuttiness. I'm pretty close to zero-tolerance on that kind of thing, myself, but others may feel differently.
"The manipulation works" is a statement that should be accepted only to the degree that it has been scientifically verified.
Homeopathy is magic, not medicine, and anyone who prescribes it, IMHO, is automatically and immediately to be distrusted and avoided. If a chiropractor is prescribing homeopatic "medicines," that's an immediate red flag signal that he's a quack and you should get yourself the hell out of his office.
Many, many, many "alternative" treatments are quackery. Some are not. Many of the ones that are not are mixed in with stuff that is, or have not been studied well enough to be employed consistently in ways that are safe and effective.
It is true that one of the main reasons why alternative practitioners are popular is because they often have more time to spend with patients, and more willingness to tell patients the kind of things they want to hear. It is a pity that more MDs don't have as good a bedside manner, but a bedside manner and a valid approach to treatment are not the same thing. I know which of the two I would prefer. It is patently untrue however, that doctors don't care about "discovering the source." One thing that doctors hopefully are is less willing to assume they know the source before you even walk in the door. How often does your chiropractor tell you that what's wrong with you doesn't have anything to do with pinched nerves or something being "out of alignment"?
Acupuncture certainly has many "satisfied customers." So do faith healers, witch doctors, and purveyors of lucky rabbits' feet. That doesn't mean they have physiological benefits, only that they have psychological ones.
The logical reasoning that goes "aspirin is a traditional remedy and is effective"/"Thing X is a traditional remedy"/"therefore X is must be effective, too" is fallacious.
All medical treatments should be based on the best understanding we have of the universe at the current time. And "X was originally thought to be effective by doctors but turned out not to be"/"Y is thought to be effective by doctors, but Z isn't"/"Therefore Y is a bad treatment and Z is a good one" is also faulty reasoning. Y may or may not work as well as we think it does -- nothing in science, as in life, is ever eternally certain -- but the treatment that's based on our current best scientific understanding and backed up by careful, as-objective-as-possible testing is the best treatment we have.
My apologies to the good Captain for cluttering up his blog with this. I've tried to be succinct in my replies (and thus missed responding to a number of points, I know). I won't take this conversation any further. I know I'm not going to convince you, and I trust that Captain C is intelligent enough to do the research for himself and make his own health care choices rationally.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home