My recent post on my back pain inspired me to do something I’ve been meaning to do for a while, which is get a better grasp on how anatomy actually works. I thought I’d start by getting a better understanding of how chiropractors think, which is something I’ve been curious about for a while. So, I obtained
Chiropractice + evidence based medicine already exists and it’s called osteopathic manipulation. There’s good evidence that manipulation of the spine by a professional has very clear positive effects, at least on pain, but it’s time consuming and physically intensive so actual and optimal use probably don’t line up.
The efficacy of spinal manipulation on distal issues is an empirical issue which hasn’t been bourne out in the literature. Lots of stuff might work on paper, but biological systems are stupidly complicated. Does a positive effect show up in aggregated patient outcomes that outstrips the risk? The practice of medicine today grounds in this question, and without it we can’t really improve anything.
Chiropractice + evidence based medicine already exists and it’s called osteopathic manipulation. There’s good evidence that manipulation of the spine by a professional has very clear positive effects, at least on pain, but it’s time consuming and physically intensive so actual and optimal use probably don’t line up.
The efficacy of spinal manipulation on distal issues is an empirical issue which hasn’t been bourne out in the literature. Lots of stuff might work on paper, but biological systems are stupidly complicated. Does a positive effect show up in aggregated patient outcomes that outstrips the risk? The practice of medicine today grounds in this question, and without it we can’t really improve anything.