Is Chiropractic education equivalent to MD?

[611]

Let me be as polite as possible....are you crazy?? First i'm told on this forum that DC's cant dx nor can they do differential dx because their training isn't up to par, yet when the CMCC incorporates tools to help the DC learn these skills it is said that "its illegal" or they're "trying to practice medicine". So which is it?? Should DC's just learn to adjust with no knowledge of other medical conditions or should they learn to RECOGNIZE problems so they can refer out. My dad, a DC of 25 years, takes a BP of almost every patient he sees who is complaining on neck pain. He does this because hypertension contraindicates the use of a cervical adjustment and he will NOT touch someones neck who he feels is at risk for disection partly due to an increased BP. He always refers out to the MD accross the hall in his medical building. Now, i'm not so sure why foughtfyr says chiro school is 3 1/3 years long b/c at the cmcc there are three 10 month years of school and one 12 month clinical placement. So, i feel in that time, they can learn how to use these tools to help them be proficient in detecting medical abnormalities that contraindicate chiro services. It just seems to me, in all honesty, that no matter what DC's do they are the "bad guys". I guess all DC's need is the praise of their patients they have helped, but that is just my opinion of course.
Thank you.

Well put.

---

Members don't see this ad.

 

[ProZackMI]

Let me be as polite as possible....are you crazy?? First i'm told on this forum that DC's cant dx nor can they do differential dx because their training isn't up to par, yet when the CMCC incorporates tools to help the DC learn these skills it is said that "its illegal" or they're "trying to practice medicine". So which is it?? Should DC's just learn to adjust with no knowledge of other medical conditions or should they learn to RECOGNIZE problems so they can refer out. My dad, a DC of 25 years, takes a BP of almost every patient he sees who is complaining on neck pain. He does this because hypertension contraindicates the use of a cervical adjustment and he will NOT touch someones neck who he feels is at risk for disection partly due to an increased BP. He always refers out to the MD accross the hall in his medical building. Now, i'm not so sure why foughtfyr says chiro school is 3 1/3 years long b/c at the cmcc there are three 10 month years of school and one 12 month clinical placement. So, i feel in that time, they can learn how to use these tools to help them be proficient in detecting medical abnormalities that contraindicate chiro services. It just seems to me, in all honesty, that no matter what DC's do they are the "bad guys". I guess all DC's need is the praise of their patients they have helped, but that is just my opinion of course.
Thank you.

First of all, the length of one's professional curriculum is not commensurate with one's ability to practice within his/her scope of practice, ability/competence, and ethics. Medical school is really 3 years in length, the last year being non-didactic clerkships based on a quasi-didactic frame. So what? I know MDs and DOs who do not have an undergrad and finished their medical degree in 3 years, meaning they had at best, 6 years of formal school plus residency. Yet they were fantastic doctors. Whether your earn the DC in 3 years, 3.5 years, or 4 years is irrelevant and inconsequential. Length of one's program is not the sole factor to compare when asking whether one degree is equivalent to another.

Generally speaking, in technical terms, the Doctor of Chiropractic degree is equivalent to the Doctor of Medicine or Osteopathy degree insofar as they are both professional doctorates.

Generally speaking, in academic terms, to acquire the MD degree (or DO degree), requires much more brain power. Like I said earlier, most medical schools won't even look at students who don't have a BS/BA with a 3.5 GPA or higher. MCATs are required. Medical school is highly competitive and involves a lot of intellectual rigor to complete. Once medical school and boards are completed successfully, the MD/DO MUST (not an option) complete a residency of at least 2 years (for GP), but usually 4+ years.

To get into most US chiro schools, one needs about a 2.0 GPA, an associate's degree, and no admission test. Chiro school is 3-4 years of basic science and pseudo-science based clinical classes. One needs a 2.0 to graduate. The boards are relatively easy and most pass. There is no required residency. Many chiros earn a BS/BA AFTER their DC degree. Very little academic rigor is involved in the acquistion of a DC degree.

So, technically, they are considered equivalents. But knowing the facts, I would say, at best, a DC degree is more like a master's degree. In fact, I'd say those with an MPT degree probably have more formal academic training than those with a DC.

Having a JD and and MD degree, I would say the JD is on par technically and academically with an MD degree. I would argue that the DDS, DVM, PharmD, and DPM degrees are on par with the MD/DO degree. I do not think the DPT or AuD degrees are on par with the MD/DO since they are usually not professional programs, but quasi-academic programs still structured after MA/MS degrees. I no comment about the OD degree. A PsyD is basically still more like a PhD than it is an MD, so it's probably more academic than professional at this point in time.

Just my two cents.

 

[seanjohn]

First of all, the length of one's professional curriculum is not commensurate with one's ability to practice within his/her scope of practice, ability/competence, and ethics. Medical school is really 3 years in length, the last year being non-didactic clerkships based on a quasi-didactic frame. So what? I know MDs and DOs who do not have an undergrad and finished their medical degree in 3 years, meaning they had at best, 6 years of formal school plus residency. Yet they were fantastic doctors. Whether your earn the DC in 3 years, 3.5 years, or 4 years is irrelevant and inconsequential. Length of one's program is not the sole factor to compare when asking whether one degree is equivalent to another.

Generally speaking, in technical terms, the Doctor of Chiropractic degree is equivalent to the Doctor of Medicine or Osteopathy degree insofar as they are both professional doctorates.

Generally speaking, in academic terms, to acquire the MD degree (or DO degree), requires much more brain power. Like I said earlier, most medical schools won't even look at students who don't have a BS/BA with a 3.5 GPA or higher. MCATs are required. Medical school is highly competitive and involves a lot of intellectual rigor to complete. Once medical school and boards are completed successfully, the MD/DO MUST (not an option) complete a residency of at least 2 years (for GP), but usually 4+ years.

To get into most US chiro schools, one needs about a 2.0 GPA, an associate's degree, and no admission test. Chiro school is 3-4 years of basic science and pseudo-science based clinical classes. One needs a 2.0 to graduate. The boards are relatively easy and most pass. There is no required residency. Many chiros earn a BS/BA AFTER their DC degree. Very little academic rigor is involved in the acquistion of a DC degree.

So, technically, they are considered equivalents. But knowing the facts, I would say, at best, a DC degree is more like a master's degree. In fact, I'd say those with an MPT degree probably have more formal academic training than those with a DC.

Having a JD and and MD degree, I would say the JD is on par technically and academically with an MD degree. I would argue that the DDS, DVM, PharmD, and DPM degrees are on par with the MD/DO degree. I do not think the DPT or AuD degrees are on par with the MD/DO since they are usually not professional programs, but quasi-academic programs still structured after MA/MS degrees. I no comment about the OD degree. A PsyD is basically still more like a PhD than it is an MD, so it's probably more academic than professional at this point in time.

Just my two cents.

Just to add to that, if I may, giving chiroquackters the extreme benefit of the doubt, and saying that their 3 or 4 years of education in quackery school is equivalent to that of a medical school....who would you trust, Jesse, to diagnose you? Someone with a C average that got into chiro school, or someone with an A average that got into medical school?

I know who I'd trust with my health...and it's definately not the chiroquackter. I am ashamed of myself for even considering chiropractic as a career for even a moment. Why would I dedicate my life to a profession of quackery and pseudoscience? I'm getting my bachelor of science degree, and I'd like to continue on with integrity and go on to medical school, where science is embraced, and where pseudoscience is frowned upon. Thankfully my average is good enough to be considered for medical school. If someone with an A average in undergrad applied to chiropractor school they'd probably become a professor right away, which is sad.

 

[611]

Aren't we all full of ourselves
It's great to see everybody loves their respective professions, that's the way it should be.

 

[jesse14]

First of all, the length of one's professional curriculum is not commensurate with one's ability to practice within his/her scope of practice, ability/competence, and ethics. Medical school is really 3 years in length, the last year being non-didactic clerkships based on a quasi-didactic frame. So what? I know MDs and DOs who do not have an undergrad and finished their medical degree in 3 years, meaning they had at best, 6 years of formal school plus residency. Yet they were fantastic doctors. Whether your earn the DC in 3 years, 3.5 years, or 4 years is irrelevant and inconsequential. Length of one's program is not the sole factor to compare when asking whether one degree is equivalent to another.

Generally speaking, in technical terms, the Doctor of Chiropractic degree is equivalent to the Doctor of Medicine or Osteopathy degree insofar as they are both professional doctorates.

Generally speaking, in academic terms, to acquire the MD degree (or DO degree), requires much more brain power. Like I said earlier, most medical schools won't even look at students who don't have a BS/BA with a 3.5 GPA or higher. MCATs are required. Medical school is highly competitive and involves a lot of intellectual rigor to complete. Once medical school and boards are completed successfully, the MD/DO MUST (not an option) complete a residency of at least 2 years (for GP), but usually 4+ years.

To get into most US chiro schools, one needs about a 2.0 GPA, an associate's degree, and no admission test. Chiro school is 3-4 years of basic science and pseudo-science based clinical classes. One needs a 2.0 to graduate. The boards are relatively easy and most pass. There is no required residency. Many chiros earn a BS/BA AFTER their DC degree. Very little academic rigor is involved in the acquistion of a DC degree.

So, technically, they are considered equivalents. But knowing the facts, I would say, at best, a DC degree is more like a master's degree. In fact, I'd say those with an MPT degree probably have more formal academic training than those with a DC.

Having a JD and and MD degree, I would say the JD is on par technically and academically with an MD degree. I would argue that the DDS, DVM, PharmD, and DPM degrees are on par with the MD/DO degree. I do not think the DPT or AuD degrees are on par with the MD/DO since they are usually not professional programs, but quasi-academic programs still structured after MA/MS degrees. I no comment about the OD degree. A PsyD is basically still more like a PhD than it is an MD, so it's probably more academic than professional at this point in time.

Just my two cents.

Ok, let me see if i get this right... First you say the length of ones program is of little value to their performance once out of school and then you say a Dc is = to an MA, so i guess that tarnishes foughtfyrs assumption that since DC school is only "3 1/3" years, they cant possibley be good at anything to do with medicine. Next, you say getting an MD requires more "brain power"... since i have not been to med school nor DC school i can't comment on that CLAIM but i'll run with it... so, when does "brain power" and the ability to get an "A" vs. a "B" in med school or chiro school make someone a better doctor? I for one have NO clue what my GP's grades were in med school.. he has his licence which says to me he has done what needed to be done to be my Doc....same goes with my DC. Also, just because MD ischool s harder to get into doesn't make chiro school an worse..... i know for a fact that the cmcc in toronto admits 192 students out of an applicant pool of about 750 and they "weed out" those who cant handle the curriculum but that really besides th point. Also, my best friend is first year at a pod school and he didnt have an A average... does that make him inferior to the MD applicant who got in?? I doubt it.

Lastley, not to nit pick but it's at least a 2.5 GPA with all the same prereqs as med school to get into DC school. Also, 3 yrs of undergrad is a must to be admitted.

Overall, you seem to equate a high GPA with high technical/reasoning skills... i know plenty of people and my university that have near 4.0 GPA's but anything thats not formed as a test Q they're clueless about... it's all subjective my friend.
I would love to comment further on your claims but my "under achieveing DC want to be self" has an excercise phys exam to study for.

Just aiming for that 2.0!!!

 

[jesse14]

Just to add to that, if I may, giving chiroquackters the extreme benefit of the doubt, and saying that their 3 or 4 years of education in quackery school is equivalent to that of a medical school....who would you trust, Jesse, to diagnose you? Someone with a C average that got into chiro school, or someone with an A average that got into medical school?

I know who I'd trust with my health...and it's definately not the chiroquackter. I am ashamed of myself for even considering chiropractic as a career for even a moment. Why would I dedicate my life to a profession of quackery and pseudoscience? I'm getting my bachelor of science degree, and I'd like to continue on with integrity and go on to medical school, where science is embraced, and where pseudoscience is frowned upon. Thankfully my average is good enough to be considered for medical school. If someone with an A average in undergrad applied to chiropractor school they'd probably become a professor right away, which is sad.

One more thing. Please comment on my other post. Why cant a DC ever do something right in your eyes?

 

[FoughtFyr]

Most of this training is done following completion of the DC degree. For example, acupuncture training is available through the International Academy of Medical Acupuncture: http://www.iama.edu/

DCs interested in enhancing their skills in clinical nutrition may pursue a Master's degree in this area: http://www.bridgeport.edu/pages/3246.asp

All hail the chiro defender. Now, show me where in the link from your previous post (http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/ahcpr/chapter5.htm) it requires this advanced training in nutrition to "practice" clinical nutrition or dispense (read: sell) vitamins. I will grant you, certification is generally required for a chiropractor to perform acupuncture.

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

In the United States, absolutely NOT! This is blatantly illegal. They can use diagnostic instruments in aiding their NMS tx, but to go beyond that is outside the scope of their training and practice. So is nutritional counseling.

That's just puffery and fluffery. So they have one class in psychological evaluations and one class in "Female problems". If any DC lays a gloved hand on a female patient, gets out a speculum, or incorporates the use of stirrups in his physical assessment, he is not only going to lose his license, but most likely he will also do time/probation and be registered as a sex offender.

Actually, as scary as it is, their scope is much wider than you would reasonably think, and does include pelvic exams in at least three states (Idaho, Ohio, and Oklahoma). To quote the link provided by PublicHealth here:

"The United States and State constitutions empower States to grant licensure and to regulate scope of practice (Christensen, 1993). State regulatory agencies, established by the legislature of each State, manage the licensing process and disseminate information regarding scope of practice. In most States, the extent of the scope of practice will be influenced by laws enacted through legislation, policies, or guidelines issued by the regulatory agency responsible for licensing, and by court decisions.

All States currently exclude prescribing drugs and performing major surgery from chiropractic practice. Otherwise, differences in scope of practice vary considerably from State to State. These variations are categorized here as: (1) restrictive, (2) expansive, or (3) intermediate. States are considered restrictive in scope if they explicitly prohibit chiropractors from performing two or more of the following: venipuncture for diagnostic purposes, use of physiotherapy modalities, dispensing of vitamin supplements, or provision of nutritional advice to patients. Michigan is an example of a State with a restricted scope of practice (FCLB, 1996). In Michigan, the license limits chiropractors to the use of spinal analysis and x-ray to detect spinal subluxations and misalignments and the administration of spinal adjusting procedures to correct these subluxations. Michigan prohibits the use of any type of physiotherapy, a rather standard adjunct to chiropractic procedures in most jurisdictions. Chiropractors may give patients advice about nutrition but cannot dispense nutritional supplements. They are not allowed to perform venipuncture, even for diagnostic purposes. Five other States share similar restrictions with Michigan and can also be considered restrictive: Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

A State classified as having an expansive scope of practice allows three or more of the following practices: specialty diagnostic procedures, pelvic and rectal examinations, venipuncture for laboratory diagnosis, signing of birth and death certificates, and acupuncture using needles. An example of a State with an expansive scope is Oregon (FCLB, 1996). In Oregon, chiropractors are allowed to perform minor surgery, proctology, and obstetrical procedures. They also employ "chiropractic diagnosis, treatment and prevention of body dysfunctions, correction, maintenance of the structural and functional integrity of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects thereof or interferences therewith by the utilization of all recognized and accepted chiropractic diagnostic procedures and the employment of all rational therapeutic measures as taught in approved chiropractic colleges" (FCLB, 1996). Chiropractors practicing in Oregon may utilize physiotherapy devices, perform venipuncture to collect blood specimens for laboratory diagnosis, give nutritional advice, and dispense nutritional supplements from their offices. Three other States share the characteristics of an expansive scope of practice: Idaho, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

The remaining 40 States have practice statutes that fall somewhere in between the extremes of expansive or restrictive. An example of a state with an intermediate scope of practice is Kansas, where chiropractors may use venipuncture for diagnostic purposes, employ acupuncture using needles if certified, and utilize physiotherapies, but may not perform pelvic examinations or sign birth or death certificates. Lamm (1995) published a report that provides detailed information regarding specific diagnostic and treatment procedures that are either allowed or prohibited in 46 States whose board representative responded to a questionnaire."{emphasis added}​

Truly, truly scary...

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

Oh, come on. And MDs and DOs today are adhering EXACTLY to teachings of ancient physicians? I'm sure all the B.C. physicians had ready access to highly sophisticated medical technologies in use today. DOs were originally trained to manipulate by A.T. Still. The field developed in opposition to allopathic medicine. Today, DOs are operating on brains, performing LASIK, doing ECT, and resecting cancers. Professions evolve. Sure, sometimes it's for survival, but these changes generally benefit clinicians as well as their patients.

O.k., all true. But show me who "created" modern medicine. Show me the person claiming to be the "fountainhead" of all medical knowledge. A.T. Still included medicine in Osteopathy, he just thought it should be a "last resort". The system created by Palmer allowed no such distinction. If chiropractors now state that such things (you know drugs, surgery, etc.) are valid - GREAT! Go to medical school (MD or DO, your pick) and provide them!

Show me data supporting your claim that chiropractors are "generally sub-par when compared to those actually prepared to solely practice those treament modalities." There are many chiropractors who are very well-versed and trained in acupuncture, clinical nutrition, and physical rehabilitation.

Ahh, and here comes the same tired old argument. Since "some" chiropractors take advanced training, then "all" chiropractors should be enabled / empowered to do things within that scope. This is the same argument you used to say that since a few DC, PhDs had been hired to be faculty, all DCs were academically accepted.

But that is not the argument I am making. What I am saying is that a scope of practice for all chirpractors that includes clinical nutrition is far too encompassing. sure, a DC could take advanced training in nutrition and probably (depending on the training) councel patients well. But all chiropractors can not. There is simply not enough training provided in chiropractic college to equate to that provided to RDs or clinical nutritionists.

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

Let me be as polite as possible....are you crazy?? First i'm told on this forum that DC's cant dx nor can they do differential dx because their training isn't up to par, yet when the CMCC incorporates tools to help the DC learn these skills it is said that "its illegal" or they're "trying to practice medicine". So which is it??

You are correct in the fallacy of the argument. The question is regarding if chiropractic colleges can provide enough training to enable the "average" chiropractor to do this safely. It also speaks to the question of what the chiropractor wll do with the information. There exist chiropractors who will attempt to treat these patients for their medical problems through chiropractic modalities.

Should DC's just learn to adjust with no knowledge of other medical conditions or should they learn to RECOGNIZE problems so they can refer out.

Or option three, should we acknowledge that there is no real benefit of chiropractic manipulation over traditional medical therapy and just not have chiropractors? Or should we have chiropractic available only after a patient has been "cleaed" by an MD/DO?

My dad, a DC of 25 years, takes a BP of almost every patient he sees who is complaining on neck pain. He does this because hypertension contraindicates the use of a cervical adjustment and he will NOT touch someones neck who he feels is at risk for disection partly due to an increased BP. He always refers out to the MD accross the hall in his medical building.

Great. I have never said that all chiropractors screw up 100% of the time. Your dad checks for HTN and refers out, great. But is he qualified to check for about 1500 other problems that his patients might present with? And look, I find it distasteful to include specific individuals in this discussion (especially those related to posters), so let me ask you this - do you honestly believe it is the practice of every chiropractor to make these referrals? And what is the QI/QA mechanism to insure this (if you believe they do)?

Now, i'm not so sure why foughtfyr says chiro school is 3 1/3 years long b/c at the cmcc there are three 10 month years of school and one 12 month clinical placement. So, i feel in that time, they can learn how to use these tools to help them be proficient in detecting medical abnormalities that contraindicate chiro services.

We've been over this before. Most U.S. schools, and I've provided many examples, are 10 tri-mesters in length including clinical training. If we include "clinical placement" all MD/DOs have at least 19 trimesters of training with most exceeding 22.

It just seems to me, in all honesty, that no matter what DC's do they are the "bad guys". I guess all DC's need is the praise of their patients they have helped, but that is just my opinion of course.
Thank you.

I feel that the practice of an expensive, unproven modality with some measure of risk and little benefit, under no system of QI/QA, performed by practitioners trained under wildly variant standards, does not serve the public good. I acknowledge that, like yourself, some people have been led to believe that this system is "good". I believe, and this is solely my opinion, that objective science states that it is not. You have to decide for yourself.

- H

 

[FoughtFyr]

Ok, let me see if i get this right... First you say the length of ones program is of little value to their performance once out of school and then you say a Dc is = to an MA, so i guess that tarnishes foughtfyrs assumption that since DC school is only "3 1/3" years, they cant possibley be good at anything to do with medicine.

You are mis-characterizing my words. What I have said, repeatedly, is that it strikes me as odd that chiropractors, in 3 1/3 calendar years (the time needed to complete most U.S. chiropractic colleges), manage to learn all of chiropractic "science", as well as sufficent medical science to function as "primary care physicians" and obtain enough clinical experience to perform safely in these areas when it takes an MD/DO 6 1/3 calendar years, in general, to accomplish only a portion of that (the "primary care physician" portion).

Next, you say getting an MD requires more "brain power"... since i have not been to med school nor DC school i can't comment on that CLAIM but i'll run with it... so, when does "brain power" and the ability to get an "A" vs. a "B" in med school or chiro school make someone a better doctor? I for one have NO clue what my GP's grades were in med school.. he has his licence which says to me he has done what needed to be done to be my Doc....same goes with my DC. Also, just because MD ischool s harder to get into doesn't make chiro school an worse..... i know for a fact that the cmcc in toronto admits 192 students out of an applicant pool of about 750 and they "weed out" those who cant handle the curriculum but that really besides th point. Also, my best friend is first year at a pod school and he didnt have an A average... does that make him inferior to the MD applicant who got in?? I doubt it.

Lastley, not to nit pick but it's at least a 2.5 GPA with all the same prereqs as med school to get into DC school. Also, 3 yrs of undergrad is a must to be admitted.

Overall, you seem to equate a high GPA with high technical/reasoning skills... i know plenty of people and my university that have near 4.0 GPA's but anything thats not formed as a test Q they're clueless about... it's all subjective my friend.
I would love to comment further on your claims but my "under achieveing DC want to be self" has an excercise phys exam to study for.

Just aiming for that 2.0!!!

You are not really trying to insinuate that chropractic school admissions are more rigorous than MD/DO admissions are you? Believe me, that is not a fight you can win. There is ample, clear and objective evidence on point oft quoted here to state that you are very wrong (if you are trying to claim that). Do a search.

 

[jesse14]

You are mis-characterizing my words. What I have said, repeatedly, is that it strikes me as odd that chiropractors, in 3 1/3 calendar years (the time needed to complete most U.S. chiropractic colleges), manage to learn all of chiropractic "science", as well as sufficent medical science to function as "primary care physicians" and obtain enough clinical experience to perform safely in these areas when it takes an MD/DO 6 1/3 calendar years, in general, to accomplish only a portion of that (the "primary care physician" portion).



You are not really trying to insinuate that chropractic school admissions are more rigorous than MD/DO admissions are you? Believe me, that is not a fight you can win. There is ample, clear and objective evidence on point oft quoted here to state that you are very wrong (if you are trying to claim that). Do a search.

No foughtfyr, i am in no capacity trying to insinuate that. I am WELL aware of the rigor involved in gaining admission to an MD or DO school. Also, i am not saying DC school is harder to get into than MD school... that would be a bold faced lie. However, what i am trying to convey is that i fail to see the correlation between the "smart" student who got into MD school and the "dumb" DC student. Basically, what does admissions standards have to do with the final product.... a doctor (DC or MD). I know that sounds crazy because schools have interviews to weed out the "unfit" from the "fit" future doctors, but really, how much do people really show in year 1 that is still there in year 4 once they're done with their studies?? I respect the hell out of MD students because i know what it took to get there. It just bugs me how automaticaly since MD school is so hard to get into, anyone who didnt't get in or decided on a different career path isn't as accomplished.....that's just not the case.

Next, you say there isn't enough time in chiro school to learn chiro science and med science.....might i ask the difference? DC students learn the same anatomy, physiology, biochem, etc as MD students, but instead of the extensive pharm clases you had, DC students learn chiro skills. Now, i know that's a simplification but i just did it to stress my point. I don't see what chiro science is compared to med sci??? Please clarify for me.

I actually have a Q for you though because i really don't know the answer. Who decides what chiro's can and cant do in each state? Don't the people that make those laws know about what they're doing? If statesmen and woman feel a DC can do a procedure, what information are they using to base that law??

Thanks foughtfyr...always a pleasure!
I might use you as a reference... when a boss asks me how to contact you, i'll say go to the SDN forum

 

[jesse14]

Just to add to that, if I may, giving chiroquackters the extreme benefit of the doubt, and saying that their 3 or 4 years of education in quackery school is equivalent to that of a medical school....who would you trust, Jesse, to diagnose you? Someone with a C average that got into chiro school, or someone with an A average that got into medical school?

I know who I'd trust with my health...and it's definately not the chiroquackter. I am ashamed of myself for even considering chiropractic as a career for even a moment. Why would I dedicate my life to a profession of quackery and pseudoscience? I'm getting my bachelor of science degree, and I'd like to continue on with integrity and go on to medical school, where science is embraced, and where pseudoscience is frowned upon. Thankfully my average is good enough to be considered for medical school. If someone with an A average in undergrad applied to chiropractor school they'd probably become a professor right away, which is sad.[/QUOTE

i too am a science major undergrad... i'm a kinesiology and health science major. So, you have not been to chiro school nor md school... i havn't either, BUt, not to tute my own horn but i have a good knowlegde of the profession (in canada that is) and i can assure you, chiro students are taight "real" science. With that said, im happy you feel chiro isn't for you. The last thing the profession needs is disatisfied DC's

 

[FoughtFyr]

No foughtfyr, i am in no capacity trying to insinuate that. I am WELL aware of the rigor involved in gaining admission to an MD or DO school. Also, i am not saying DC school is harder to get into than MD school... that would be a bold faced lie. However, what i am trying to convey is that i fail to see the correlation between the "smart" student who got into MD school and the "dumb" DC student. Basically, what does admissions standards have to do with the final product.... a doctor (DC or MD). I know that sounds crazy because schools have interviews to weed out the "unfit" from the "fit" future doctors, but really, how much do people really show in year 1 that is still there in year 4 once they're done with their studies?? I respect the hell out of MD students because i know what it took to get there. It just bugs me how automaticaly since MD school is so hard to get into, anyone who didnt't get in or decided on a different career path isn't as accomplished.....that's just not the case.

I don't know. One would think that increased standards indicate an increased ability to handle academic rigor, but you are right - there is no proven correlation between that and clinician competence.

Next, you say there isn't enough time in chiro school to learn chiro science and med science.....might i ask the difference? DC students learn the same anatomy, physiology, biochem, etc as MD students, but instead of the extensive pharm clases you had, DC students learn chiro skills.

Not even close. The cirriculi are incredibly different. Chiropractic science - according to the CCE "Chiropractic concerns itself with the relationship between structure, primarily the spine and function, coordinated by the nervous system of the human body, as this relationship may affect the restoration and preservation of health. Further, the application of this science focuses on the inherent ability of the body to heal without the use of drugs or surgery." Whereas medical school is based on traditional pathophysiology.

Chiropractic is VERY, VERY different from medicine. That is what most chiropractors will tell you "sets them apart".

I actually have a Q for you though because i really don't know the answer. Who decides what chiro's can and cant do in each state? Don't the people that make those laws know about what they're doing? If statesmen and woman feel a DC can do a procedure, what information are they using to base that law??

Ususally the scope of practice for any health provider is set by the legislature of a given state. In some states, a separate board has been created by the legislature to make that decision for each profession. If the legislature decides directly then, much as for any other law, hearings are held in committee, legislation authored, debated, and voted on. Science has little to do with it (not just for chiropractors, but for any health prfessional), it is politics, pure and simple. In the states where independant boards act, the "science" may be better (as these boards are usually comprised of the professionals they regulate) but "turf wars" can erupt. A chiropractic example is in Arkansas where a PT was charged with "practicing chiropractic without a license" for using SMT, which the chiropractic board stated was "theirs" but the PT board said was "theirs" as well.

Thanks foughtfyr...always a pleasure!
I might use you as a reference... when a boss asks me how to contact you, i'll say go to the SDN forum

While it is always a pleasure, I unfortunately feel the need to "step away" from this forum again. I've done so in the past, but always seem to get "sucked back in". It is tiring and I am not really sure it does any good. I wish you the best of luck jesse. Do me a favor; you have been positively exposed to chiropractic as you have grown up. That is wonderful. But take some time to shadow an MD or DO for a while before you decide to enter chiropractic college. You may find a profession that will provide you a wider scope to help your patients.

- H

 

[ProZackMI]

Ok, let me see if i get this right... First you say the length of ones program is of little value to their performance once out of school and then you say a Dc is = to an MA, so i guess that tarnishes foughtfyrs assumption that since DC school is only "3 1/3" years, they cant possibley be good at anything to do with medicine. Next, you say getting an MD requires more "brain power"... since i have not been to med school nor DC school i can't comment on that CLAIM but i'll run with it... so, when does "brain power" and the ability to get an "A" vs. a "B" in med school or chiro school make someone a better doctor? I for one have NO clue what my GP's grades were in med school.. he has his licence which says to me he has done what needed to be done to be my Doc....same goes with my DC. Also, just because MD ischool s harder to get into doesn't make chiro school an worse..... i know for a fact that the cmcc in toronto admits 192 students out of an applicant pool of about 750 and they "weed out" those who cant handle the curriculum but that really besides th point. Also, my best friend is first year at a pod school and he didnt have an A average... does that make him inferior to the MD applicant who got in?? I doubt it.

Lastley, not to nit pick but it's at least a 2.5 GPA with all the same prereqs as med school to get into DC school. Also, 3 yrs of undergrad is a must to be admitted.

Overall, you seem to equate a high GPA with high technical/reasoning skills... i know plenty of people and my university that have near 4.0 GPA's but anything thats not formed as a test Q they're clueless about... it's all subjective my friend.
I would love to comment further on your claims but my "under achieveing DC want to be self" has an excercise phys exam to study for.

Just aiming for that 2.0!!!

The length of one's program has little consequence when considering the big picture of professional competence. Whether your professional degree is 3 years, 3.5 years, or 4 years is not important. That was my point. I was addressing froughtfyr's assertion that the DC degree is somehow inferior because it's not 4 years, which is absurd.

The DC degree is inferior because of quality, not quantity. An MD degree is much more difficult to obtain. In addition, to get into an MD program requires one to overcome huge obstacles: difficult admission test, high GPA, good grades in ALL classes, letters of recommendation, etc. Once in, med students have to maintain good grades and endure a hellacious curriculum and schedule. The USMLE I and II are torture. Residency is no cakewalk and adds more years of indentured servitude while accruing more student loan debt (or deferring it) coupled with long rotations, on-call hours, and lectures/seminars.

Read the original post. What was the question? The question was whether the DC was roughly equivalent to the MD/DO. I explained that on a purely technical level, and as a matter of semantics, both the DC and MD are "professional doctorates", but when you examine both degrees under strict scrutiny, you'll see that one is clearly superior to the other in terms of academic prerequisites, academic achievement, entrance requirements, curriculum, comprehensiveness of curriculum, quality of academic faculty, critical thinking skills acquired, reasoning skills imparted during academic training, licensure requirements, and postgraduate residency requirements.

When you examine the MD degree, it has more in common with a PhD than it does a master's degree. When you look at the DC degree, it's a rather inflated bachelor's or maybe even a master's degree, but not on par with the MD or PhD.

Like an MD, to acquire a JD, one must have a bachelor's degree with a high GPA, usually a 3.5+. One must do exceptionally well on the LSAT. One needs good letters of recommendation. At my law school, applicants needed a 3.5 GPA. Law is 3.5 years of pure hell similar to medical school. At my law school, you needed a 3.0 to graduate. Many JD grads go on to do a 1-4 year clerkship that is similar to a residency. To be licensed, the JD needs to study for the bar exam, which requires at least 3 months of rirgorous study, but could take longer depending on time. Taking the bar exam is no cakewalk either. It's different than the USMLE, but it was not easier. It tests essay subjects (24 possible subjects in Michigan with 15 essays), practical clinical problems, and 200 very difficult multiple choice questions.

Vet school, pharmacy school, dental school, and a few other professional programs have similar entrance requirements and professional standards. This level of academic rigor is not employed in the education of chiros.

You say that MD and DC programs have the same admission standards? Well, that may be true, but you can take organic chem at a local community college and pass with a D+ or C- to get into chiro, but you'll need to take it at a real college with a 3.0 or higher to get into medical school.

Since you've attended neither program, you not only lack relevant knowledge, but you also lack credibility. Your opinion and a nickel will buy you a piping hot cup of JACK SQUAT. If you were a DC, that would be one thing, but you're neither an MD or DC.

 

[ProZackMI]

Actually, as scary as it is, their scope is much wider than you would reasonably think, and does include pelvic exams in at least three states (Idaho, Ohio, and Oklahoma). To quote the link provided by PublicHealth here:

"The United States and State constitutions empower States to grant licensure and to regulate scope of practice (Christensen, 1993). State regulatory agencies, established by the legislature of each State, manage the licensing process and disseminate information regarding scope of practice. In most States, the extent of the scope of practice will be influenced by laws enacted through legislation, policies, or guidelines issued by the regulatory agency responsible for licensing, and by court decisions.

All States currently exclude prescribing drugs and performing major surgery from chiropractic practice. Otherwise, differences in scope of practice vary considerably from State to State. These variations are categorized here as: (1) restrictive, (2) expansive, or (3) intermediate. States are considered restrictive in scope if they explicitly prohibit chiropractors from performing two or more of the following: venipuncture for diagnostic purposes, use of physiotherapy modalities, dispensing of vitamin supplements, or provision of nutritional advice to patients. Michigan is an example of a State with a restricted scope of practice (FCLB, 1996). In Michigan, the license limits chiropractors to the use of spinal analysis and x-ray to detect spinal subluxations and misalignments and the administration of spinal adjusting procedures to correct these subluxations. Michigan prohibits the use of any type of physiotherapy, a rather standard adjunct to chiropractic procedures in most jurisdictions. Chiropractors may give patients advice about nutrition but cannot dispense nutritional supplements. They are not allowed to perform venipuncture, even for diagnostic purposes. Five other States share similar restrictions with Michigan and can also be considered restrictive: Mississippi, New Jersey, South Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.

A State classified as having an expansive scope of practice allows three or more of the following practices: specialty diagnostic procedures, pelvic and rectal examinations, venipuncture for laboratory diagnosis, signing of birth and death certificates, and acupuncture using needles. An example of a State with an expansive scope is Oregon (FCLB, 1996). In Oregon, chiropractors are allowed to perform minor surgery, proctology, and obstetrical procedures. They also employ "chiropractic diagnosis, treatment and prevention of body dysfunctions, correction, maintenance of the structural and functional integrity of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects thereof or interferences therewith by the utilization of all recognized and accepted chiropractic diagnostic procedures and the employment of all rational therapeutic measures as taught in approved chiropractic colleges" (FCLB, 1996). Chiropractors practicing in Oregon may utilize physiotherapy devices, perform venipuncture to collect blood specimens for laboratory diagnosis, give nutritional advice, and dispense nutritional supplements from their offices. Three other States share the characteristics of an expansive scope of practice: Idaho, Ohio, and Oklahoma.

The remaining 40 States have practice statutes that fall somewhere in between the extremes of expansive or restrictive. An example of a state with an intermediate scope of practice is Kansas, where chiropractors may use venipuncture for diagnostic purposes, employ acupuncture using needles if certified, and utilize physiotherapies, but may not perform pelvic examinations or sign birth or death certificates. Lamm (1995) published a report that provides detailed information regarding specific diagnostic and treatment procedures that are either allowed or prohibited in 46 States whose board representative responded to a questionnaire."{emphasis added}​

Truly, truly scary...

- H

WOW! Pelvic exams, venipuncture, and collect blood specimens? Why not EKGs, EEGs, EMGs, and surgery?

 

[ProZackMI]

O.k., all true. But show me who "created" modern medicine. Show me the person claiming to be the "fountainhead" of all medical knowledge. A.T. Still included medicine in Osteopathy, he just thought it should be a "last resort". The system created by Palmer allowed no such distinction. If chiropractors now state that such things (you know drugs, surgery, etc.) are valid - GREAT! Go to medical school (MD or DO, your pick) and provide them!



Ahh, and here comes the same tired old argument. Since "some" chiropractors take advanced training, then "all" chiropractors should be enabled / empowered to do things within that scope. This is the same argument you used to say that since a few DC, PhDs had been hired to be faculty, all DCs were academically accepted.

But that is not the argument I am making. What I am saying is that a scope of practice for all chirpractors that includes clinical nutrition is far too encompassing. sure, a DC could take advanced training in nutrition and probably (depending on the training) councel patients well. But all chiropractors can not. There is simply not enough training provided in chiropractic college to equate to that provided to RDs or clinical nutritionists.

- H

Most DCs who actually go on to earn real degrees, like MDs, DOs, PharmDs, and PhDs, usually don't associate themselves with chiropractic anymore. I don't think a DC can qualify one to teach anything other than chiropractic or maybe a community college level bio class. Of course, as you know, to teach at the community college level, all you need is an MA/MS.

 

[611]

Here's an article with which the sharks can have a feeding frenzy...enjoy! (This info. has got to be way off base)
www.drgrisanti.com/mddc.htm

 

[ProZackMI]

Here's an article with which the sharks can have a feeding frenzy...enjoy! (This info. has got to be way off base)
www.drgrisanti.com/mddc.htm

I know you posted that as a joke, and it worked: I laughed hard when I read that quack's article. Thanks for the daily chuckle.

Check out that chiropractor's bio: http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/department49.cfm

Now, in all seriousness, while some medical schools/osteo schools may admit students with 90 credit hours of college sans degree, this is not the norm and those students would have to walk on water.

ALL (and I mean ALL) medical schools (allo and osteo) in the US and Canada require the MCAT. There is no exception to this. All accredited schools that is. No DC school requires any form of entrance exam.

Here's the thing to remember about education. Among MD and DO programs, there is little significant difference between the programs. An MD is an MD no matter if you went to Harvard or the Medical College of Ohio. A DO is a DO whether you went to Kirksville, NOVA, or Michigan State. The core and substance of the MD program is the same no matter you go; it's mandated by the AMA.

An MD is very similar to the DDS, DVM, DPM, PharmD, and admittantly, to some extent, the OD in form, structure, length of study, etc. Of course an MD and a DDS or DVM are not the same and differ significantly, but all things considered, they share a lot of similarities including admission standards, academic rigor, clinical skills, etc.

It is a common misperception that all medical students must be exceptional students and all medical students must be super intelligent. I've known osteo med students who have 2.5 GPAs in college, 2.5 GPAs in DO school, and still made it through and are now physicians. I've met some incredibly dull MDs and DOs. The degree does not make you better; it's what you do with it and who you are.

Also, there are other health professionals out there who have more education and training than some physicians.

Some examples:

1) An Oral-Maxillofacial Surgeon (OMFS) - This is a dentist (DDS) who went on to do a dental residency of 4-6 years post DDS. OMFS have full hospital privis and perform complex surgery that goes beyond oral surgery. Your average OMFS has more years of residency training than your typical internist and even some general surgeons.

2) A clinical pharmacist friend of mine is another example. She has a BS in biology from U Washington. She went on for a 4 year PharmD at Purdue. After her PharmD, she did a 2 year residency in internal medicine and a 2 year residency in drug information/toxicology and then a post doc fellowship in medical informatics. Compared to most GPs, FPs, peds, psych, and IM physicians, she the same years of formal education and more years of residency/fellowship.

3) Many attorneys, psychologists, and other professionals actually have more formal years of schooling coupled with clerkships, internships, etc. than some general physicians.

MDs and DOs are not necessarily the top of the food chain in health care, even though we like to think we are. HOWEVER, going back to DC education, there is no comparison. To get into chiro school and graduate with your DC degree, you need little intelligence and very little scruples. It's an unscientific based field of study. You cannot compare the DC degree to an MD, DO, DVM, PharmD, PhD, DDS, OD, or DPM. It's substandard to all professional degrees.

 

[611]

There are a couple of chiro schools with very rigorous programs (e.g. National) but that is the problem with the profession...they should ALL be top notch. Some are little more than a joke, yet as I just said there are a very few that as far as classroom training goes are top notch. Would it enhance the chiro educational experience to have greater access to a hospital setting clinical experience, certainly. But that will never happen.

 

[nebrfan]

Here's an article with which the sharks can have a feeding frenzy...enjoy! (This info. has got to be way off base)
www.drgrisanti.com/mddc.htm

From the Harvard website... (http://hms.harvard.edu/admissions/default.asp?page=requirements )
"At least three years of college work and a baccalaureate degree are required prior to matriculation in medical school."

An undergraduate degree is going to more than cover the hours of communication, humanities, etc. that this guy is claiming are lacking from admission standards...

How about Stanford....(http://med.stanford.edu/md/admissions/preparation.html )
"Applicants must have received an undergraduate degree from an accredited college or university by the time of matriculation......Knowledge of a modern foreign language, specifically Spanish or Asian languages, and course work in behavioral sciences, calculus, physical chemistry and, in particular, biochemistry, are strongly recommended."

Again, an undergraduate degree is REQUIRED.

Now Parker College of Chiropractic (http://www.parkercc.edu/admissions/prerequisites.asp)
"Prospective students may apply for admissions to Parker College at any time before completing their prerequisites, but cannot be conditionally accepted until 90 hours of cumulative work have been completed or 63 hours of prerequisite work has been completed....Applicants must be graduates of or eligible to return to the last school attended, or be able to provide a letter of honorable withdrawal from that school."

What? No degree required? Only 90 hours?

Or maybe Palmer College of Chiropractic (http://www.palmer.edu/PCC_Academics/DC/DCProgram.htm)
"All applicants must furnish proof of having acquired a minimum of 90 semester hours or equivalent of college credit leading toward a baccalaureate degree...it is not a prerequisite for admission, Palmer College of Chiropractic recommends students complete a Bachelor’s Degree prior to entering the D.C. program."

Oh, but to be fair...Palmer is a little more strict - you must have at least a C-average in prereq courses to apply.

 

[611]

We start with the highest entrance requirements: National offers the only chiropractic program that requires a baccalaureate degree for admission to the program. http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=33
http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=177

 

[nebrfan]

We start with the highest entrance requirements: National offers the only chiropractic program that requires a baccalaureate degree for admission to the program. http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=33
http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=177

I find National's claims a little concerning...."National prepares you to become a chiropractic physician, fully qualified to practice as a first-contact, primary-care physician.[...] You’ll learn to diagnose, treat, and manage a wide range of human ailments—from sports injuries to pediatrics—using manipulation of the spine and extremities and additional natural methods of holistic healing."

 

[611]

concerning...yet true

 

[ProZackMI]

What the hell is this: http://www.naprapathicmedicine.edu/?

Wow, some kinda weird massage-chiro-naturopathy thing. Check out the admissions requirements.

 

[611]

What the hell is this: http://www.naprapathicmedicine.edu/?

Wow, some kinda weird massage-chiro-naturopathy thing. Check out the admissions requirements.

Pretty funny. Finallly a health care discipline Chiropractors can pick on! No relation to National University of Health Sciences in Lombard outside of Chicago.

 

[seanjohn]

Here's an article with which the sharks can have a feeding frenzy...enjoy! (This info. has got to be way off base)
www.drgrisanti.com/mddc.htm

Here is the chart from gristani's site:

Chiropractic College Medical School
456 Anatomy/Embryology. 215
243 Physiology 174
296 Pathology 507
161 Chemistry/Biochemistry 100
145 Microbiology 145
408 Diagnosis 113
149 Neurology 171
56 Psychology/Psychiatry 323
66 Obstetrics & Gynecology 284
271 X-ray 13
168 Orthopedics 2
2,419 Total Hours for Degree 2,047
--------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the amount of classroom hours listed per subject is complete nonsense. According to that chart, it seems that medical doctors i.e. REAL doctors are absolutely inferior to chiroquackters. There is absolutely no way that chiropractors get three times as much hours in diagnosis, over twice the amount of anatomy, more physiology, more biochem, 20 times more hours of radiology, and almost 100 times more hours of orthopedics. It just makes no sense, these numbers are obviously skewed, without any question.

If these numbers were true, which I sincerely doubt, then the most likely reason for that is that since MD's are more intelligent and talented, they learn all the material that chiroquackters learn and MORE, in less hours of classtime. In other words, MD's cover more material in a shorter amount of time and are expected to know it, whereas DC's, being slower, need more hours of classtime to understand the material. Let's not forget that chiroquackters are wannabe doctors, not the other way around.

 

[russellb]

Here is the chart from gristani's site:

Chiropractic College Medical School
456 Anatomy/Embryology. 215
243 Physiology 174
296 Pathology 507
161 Chemistry/Biochemistry 100
145 Microbiology 145
408 Diagnosis 113
149 Neurology 171
56 Psychology/Psychiatry 323
66 Obstetrics & Gynecology 284
271 X-ray 13
168 Orthopedics 2
2,419 Total Hours for Degree 2,047
--------------------------------------------------------------

I believe the amount of classroom hours listed per subject is complete nonsense. According to that chart, it seems that medical doctors i.e. REAL doctors are absolutely inferior to chiroquackters. There is absolutely no way that chiropractors get three times as much hours in diagnosis, over twice the amount of anatomy, more physiology, more biochem, 20 times more hours of radiology, and almost 100 times more hours of orthopedics. It just makes no sense, these numbers are obviously skewed, without any question.

If these numbers were true, which I sincerely doubt, then the most likely reason for that is that since MD's are more intelligent and talented, they learn all the material that chiroquackters learn and MORE, in less hours of classtime. In other words, MD's cover more material in a shorter amount of time and are expected to know it, whereas DC's, being slower, need more hours of classtime to understand the material. Let's not forget that chiroquackters are wannabe doctors, not the other way around.

I'm pretty sure that the chart provided above is based purely on classroom hours (and I'm still not sure if it's accurate). I've seen it a number of times and it conveniently excludes clerkship hours. The number of hours spent by MD/DO's learning diagnosis might be just a little bit higher if clerkship is included

 

[Lugnut]

Have any of you actually been to chiro school or practiced as a chiro? Well, I have. I dont know why this is such a hot topic on these forums. Some of you people need to get a life. Anyway, the problem lies in the schools. There is too much variety in the education and too much of a philosophical divide. I went to National and I feel they prepared me well. They have an excellent basic science curriculum taught mostly by Phd's and MD's. There a few other schools with good reputations, but after them, it is touch and go. Some schools have DC's teaching basic sciences which to me is a problem. The other issue I have is the clinical education and lack of patient contact. I felt like the teaching of examination and diagnosis was adequate, however there was lack of patient contact to hoan these skills. This is where I feel you learn the most, and was lacking when I went in the mid 90's. The internship portion is truly a joke and this is where everyone starts to doubt what they are getting into. I made the best of it and surrounded myself by people interested in a more medical and research approach. I read journals all the time and shadowed MD's while in school. I attained so much knowledge, but in due time I realized it was like having ferrari in the garage and not having the keys. As a chiro, you rarely ever apply 99% of the info you learned.

I am considering going back to med school and have been in contact with several DC's that went back to MD and DO school. They were all suprised how close the MD education was in comparison to the DC education in the basic sciences. They have all excelled in med school(top 10% of the class). Once again, the clinical years are the problem. I run an evience based ortho and rehab practice with PT's and orthos, and I have hundreds of hours of post-grad work in ortho and rehab. Manipulation is effective on a selective basis in my opinion. I put more stock in rehab than I do manipulation. There needs to be integration of the schools, curriculums and philosophies in order for this profession to remain viable. I do not think it is possible, and that's why I want out. I struggle with this issue and with my collegues every day. OH! and this is coming from someone who has done extremely well and has complete financial freedom as a result.

My issue now is how will med schools look at my success(3.4 UG GPA, 3.6 chiro GPA from top chiro school, post-grad work, leadership, 9 years clinical experience, great LOR's from MD's worked with closely, hundreds of shadowing hours with Orthos, trauma surgeons, neuros, etc).

Lastly, I think the schools are guilty of falsely leading the students and not adequately preparing them for the battles that lie ahead. Most practicing chiros say if they knew what it was like out there, they would have never went to chiro school. That is not a ringing endorsement for the profession.

Thats my take for what its worth.

 

[jesse14]

I know you posted that as a joke, and it worked: I laughed hard when I read that quack's article. Thanks for the daily chuckle.

Check out that chiropractor's bio: http://www.yourmedicaldetective.com/public/department49.cfm

Now, in all seriousness, while some medical schools/osteo schools may admit students with 90 credit hours of college sans degree, this is not the norm and those students would have to walk on water.

ALL (and I mean ALL) medical schools (allo and osteo) in the US and Canada require the MCAT. There is no exception to this. All accredited schools that is. No DC school requires any form of entrance exam.

Here's the thing to remember about education. Among MD and DO programs, there is little significant difference between the programs. An MD is an MD no matter if you went to Harvard or the Medical College of Ohio. A DO is a DO whether you went to Kirksville, NOVA, or Michigan State. The core and substance of the MD program is the same no matter you go; it's mandated by the AMA.

An MD is very similar to the DDS, DVM, DPM, PharmD, and admittantly, to some extent, the OD in form, structure, length of study, etc. Of course an MD and a DDS or DVM are not the same and differ significantly, but all things considered, they share a lot of similarities including admission standards, academic rigor, clinical skills, etc.

It is a common misperception that all medical students must be exceptional students and all medical students must be super intelligent. I've known osteo med students who have 2.5 GPAs in college, 2.5 GPAs in DO school, and still made it through and are now physicians. I've met some incredibly dull MDs and DOs. The degree does not make you better; it's what you do with it and who you are.

Also, there are other health professionals out there who have more education and training than some physicians.

Some examples:

1) An Oral-Maxillofacial Surgeon (OMFS) - This is a dentist (DDS) who went on to do a dental residency of 4-6 years post DDS. OMFS have full hospital privis and perform complex surgery that goes beyond oral surgery. Your average OMFS has more years of residency training than your typical internist and even some general surgeons.

2) A clinical pharmacist friend of mine is another example. She has a BS in biology from U Washington. She went on for a 4 year PharmD at Purdue. After her PharmD, she did a 2 year residency in internal medicine and a 2 year residency in drug information/toxicology and then a post doc fellowship in medical informatics. Compared to most GPs, FPs, peds, psych, and IM physicians, she the same years of formal education and more years of residency/fellowship.

3) Many attorneys, psychologists, and other professionals actually have more formal years of schooling coupled with clerkships, internships, etc. than some general physicians.

MDs and DOs are not necessarily the top of the food chain in health care, even though we like to think we are. HOWEVER, going back to DC education, there is no comparison. To get into chiro school and graduate with your DC degree, you need little intelligence and very little scruples. It's an unscientific based field of study. You cannot compare the DC degree to an MD, DO, DVM, PharmD, PhD, DDS, OD, or DPM. It's substandard to all professional degrees.

By all i think you mean most (and i mean most) MD schools require the MCAT:
http://www.ouac.on.ca/omsas/pdf/rc_omsas_e.pdf
Thats a link that has all the admission requirments for every med school in Ontario, Canada. Mcmaster, Northern Ontario School of Medicine and Ottawa don't ask for, or look at the MCAT when making their admission decions and they are ALL accredited. It's a shame... you seemed so sure didn't ya.

In all honesty, i only replied because i KNEW you were wrong when you said every canadaian and US school requires the MCAT but who knows how many other schoosl don't? I sure don't know...those 3 were from memory. I guess you use this false sense of knowledge about DC education as well....

 

[ProZackMI]

By all i think you mean most (and i mean most) MD schools require the MCAT:
http://www.ouac.on.ca/omsas/pdf/rc_omsas_e.pdf
Thats a link that has all the admission requirments for every med school in Ontario, Canada. Mcmaster, Northern Ontario School of Medicine and Ottawa don't ask for, or look at the MCAT when making their admission decions and they are ALL accredited. It's a shame... you seemed so sure didn't ya.

In all honesty, i only replied because i KNEW you were wrong when you said every canadaian and US school requires the MCAT but who knows how many other schoosl don't? I sure don't know...those 3 were from memory. I guess you use this false sense of knowledge about DC education as well....

Okay, ALL US medical schools and most Canadian med schools. Still, NO chiro school requires any sort of admission exam. Many Canadian PhD programs don't require the GRE either. Not sure what this says about Canadian education, but...

 

[beastmaster]

In college, I had a physiology instructor who had only a B.S. degree -- completed 3 years of medical school but had to leave due to serious illness. Was more clinically engaging than the PhD faculty, and weaved anecdotes and cases from his med school years into every lecture. I think lecturers need to be evaluated on their merits rather that degrees and politics. Can a pharmacist part-time teach Chemistry at a public high school?? I bet they cannot, and they would probably do a better job than many chemistry teachers.

As far as DOs teaching, I've noticed they tend to teach (if they so desire) at their alma mater or, if they move, another DO school. MDs often do the same. I don't know too many DOs in straight-up academia, whereas with MDs this is far more common.

One quick note/question about chiro basic sciences. It's one thing to compare calendar and lecture hours, but most medical students I know would laugh when you bring up lecture hours as a unit of learning. The moment class ends is when it's time to hit the books and study into the night. And that's not mentioning the amount of content that our national board exams cover, and the intensity of the clinical years.

I feel it's important for chiros to learn as much pathophysiology and medicine as possible to recognize when their own services are indicated (after all, it's unreasonable to have every chiro patient screened by a physician). If they have a high index of suspicion for an ophthalmic manifestation of a disease they should be trained to whip out the scopes and at least take a look, so they can make a phone call to a physician and describe what they see.

 

[jesse14]

In college, I had a physiology instructor who had only a B.S. degree -- completed 3 years of medical school but had to leave due to serious illness. Was more clinically engaging than the PhD faculty, and weaved anecdotes and cases from his med school years into every lecture. I think lecturers need to be evaluated on their merits rather that degrees and politics. Can a pharmacist part-time teach Chemistry at a public high school?? I bet they cannot, and they would probably do a better job than many chemistry teachers.

As far as DOs teaching, I've noticed they tend to teach (if they so desire) at their alma mater or, if they move, another DO school. MDs often do the same. I don't know too many DOs in straight-up academia, whereas with MDs this is far more common.

One quick note/question about chiro basic sciences. It's one thing to compare calendar and lecture hours, but most medical students I know would laugh when you bring up lecture hours as a unit of learning. The moment class ends is when it's time to hit the books and study into the night. And that's not mentioning the amount of content that our national board exams cover, and the intensity of the clinical years.

I feel it's important for chiros to learn as much pathophysiology and medicine as possible to recognize when their own services are indicated (after all, it's unreasonable to have every chiro patient screened by a physician). If they have a high index of suspicion for an ophthalmic manifestation of a disease they should be trained to whip out the scopes and at least take a look, so they can make a phone call to a physician and describe what they see.

just like i said. DC's should be trained to recognize pathology so they can know it's even there in the first place.

WEll said beastmaster!

 

[Squad51]

I feel it's important for chiros to learn as much pathophysiology and medicine as possible to recognize when their own services are indicated (after all, it's unreasonable to have every chiro patient screened by a physician). If they have a high index of suspicion for an ophthalmic manifestation of a disease they should be trained to whip out the scopes and at least take a look, so they can make a phone call to a physician and describe what they see.

Two questions. One, doesn't this create a false sense of security in the chiropractors' patients that they have been "checked out" by a qualified doctor when they have not? Two, why is it "unreasonable to have every chiro patient screened by a physician"? In lots of states that is true of every PT patient. Why not chiropractic patients too?

 

[beastmaster]

One, doesn't this create a false sense of security in the chiropractors' patients that they have been "checked out" by a qualified doctor when they have not? Two, why is it "unreasonable to have every chiro patient screened by a physician"? In lots of states that is true of every PT patient. Why not chiropractic patients too?

You're interested in a scope-of-practice debate. I'm not biting. What I said was self-explanatory -- so if you feel that chiros should receive less education instead of more, state your reasons and we can take it from there.

 

[chirodoc]

Your wives or girlfriends ought to kick your cans out of the house for spending so much time on this forum (not mentioning any names...FoughtFyr...dinners ready...gooooo!)

The bottom line. Any of you who AREN'T chiro's are just speaking from ignorance as well as any D.C. who claims chiro's are just as educated as M.D.'s. Unless there is a reply on here from a D.C./M.D. I don't suggest the original poster of this thread should give any credibility to any of OUR replies.

Having said that I DON'T claim our education is equal to an M.D.'s. How many freaking philosophy classes do you have in medical school? I hope NONE. Unfortunately, mixed in with good science are classes on stupid philosophy so chiro's end up on a 3 year date with a hot chick with bad breath. You can only imagine what it would be like to be with her (Real Medicine and traditional healthcare) but alas, you will never get close enough to find out!

For any potential student thinking about chiro...the usual reason is it's easier to get in, have a profession and be a 'type' of doctor. Some have real belief in chiropractic philosophy and truely believe they are helping people...go ahead it's a free country and it's legal. However, be honest and don't try to hide a philosophical diagnosis in a physical one. They are not the same and chiropractic, in it's best application, should be limited to a specialty service under physicians orders IMHO. And this is coming from somone who's practiced for 3 years, sees enough of patients to matter and works with physicians who screen them before and directs their treatment. Works for me.

Although I plan on changing professions b/c who the heck wants to put in 4500 hours seat time, $100K+ in student loans and be called "Dr" when you're paid like Mickey D's shift manager. Remember, as a D.C. you have 1 tool to try to fix something, everything or nothing, joint manipulation. Sorry Charlie, most times it just feels good and that's it. Lot's of classes, education, debt, indifference, indignation, humiliation, depression and regret to just learn how make joints gooooooo......pop. Not the best return on investment.

As far as "quality" of education. I'm so sick of hearing this crap. Like Biochemistry/Anatomy, whatever is taught with a "subluxation" twist in chiro school. If it is it wasn't in mine. I earned my credits just like you arrogant !@#$ did. My teachers were quality on those subjects...Phd's not D.C.'s. They used the same washed up old exams they used at UT Southwestern and UNTHSC. Same books, same lectures, blah, blah, blah. The main difference is it was a lot harder for D.C. students b/c most were not of the caliber of MD/DO students. That's not intelligence but discipline.

It takes hard work to get INTO Med/DO school and you arrive better prepared. That doesn't mean EVERY chiro student is a flunkie, think it through. Most DC students CAN get in with C's but most are B students. That's not bad just not the caliber of medical school. Not everybody goes to Harvard...some went to Meharry...anybody care to comment on those entrance standards?

Bottom line is even though I think most of these opinions degrading chiro education is pure crap, just investigate it in detail yourself and you will find all the FACTS you need, I have to agree with their basic premise that it is not a wise choice to become a chiropractor for many reasons. One of which is that you will learn good basic science and won't be able to apply it b/c your particular diagnosis and treatment method is not based on science!!! So why bother climbing up an ice mountain just to slide to the bottom when it's over? You'll never be able to enjoy the view from the top like the medics.

Now, everybody go and do something that doesn't involve typing!

 

[seanjohn]

Your wives or girlfriends ought to kick your cans out of the house for spending so much time on this forum (not mentioning any names...FoughtFyr...dinners ready...gooooo!)

The bottom line. Any of you who AREN'T chiro's are just speaking from ignorance as well as any D.C. who claims chiro's are just as educated as M.D.'s. Unless there is a reply on here from a D.C./M.D. I don't suggest the original poster of this thread should give any credibility to any of OUR replies.

Having said that I DON'T claim our education is equal to an M.D.'s. How many freaking philosophy classes do you have in medical school? I hope NONE. Unfortunately, mixed in with good science are classes on stupid philosophy so chiro's end up on a 3 year date with a hot chick with bad breath. You can only imagine what it would be like to be with her (Real Medicine and traditional healthcare) but alas, you will never get close enough to find out!

For any potential student thinking about chiro...the usual reason is it's easier to get in, have a profession and be a 'type' of doctor. Some have real belief in chiropractic philosophy and truely believe they are helping people...go ahead it's a free country and it's legal. However, be honest and don't try to hide a philosophical diagnosis in a physical one. They are not the same and chiropractic, in it's best application, should be limited to a specialty service under physicians orders IMHO. And this is coming from somone who's practiced for 3 years, sees enough of patients to matter and works with physicians who screen them before and directs their treatment. Works for me.

Although I plan on changing professions b/c who the heck wants to put in 4500 hours seat time, $100K+ in student loans and be called "Dr" when you're paid like Mickey D's shift manager. Remember, as a D.C. you have 1 tool to try to fix something, everything or nothing, joint manipulation. Sorry Charlie, most times it just feels good and that's it. Lot's of classes, education, debt, indifference, indignation, humiliation, depression and regret to just learn how make joints gooooooo......pop. Not the best return on investment.

As far as "quality" of education. I'm so sick of hearing this crap. Like Biochemistry/Anatomy, whatever is taught with a "subluxation" twist in chiro school. If it is it wasn't in mine. I earned my credits just like you arrogant !@#$ did. My teachers were quality on those subjects...Phd's not D.C.'s. They used the same washed up old exams they used at UT Southwestern and UNTHSC. Same books, same lectures, blah, blah, blah. The main difference is it was a lot harder for D.C. students b/c most were not of the caliber of MD/DO students. That's not intelligence but discipline.

It takes hard work to get INTO Med/DO school and you arrive better prepared. That doesn't mean EVERY chiro student is a flunkie, think it through. Most DC students CAN get in with C's but most are B students. That's not bad just not the caliber of medical school. Not everybody goes to Harvard...some went to Meharry...anybody care to comment on those entrance standards?

Bottom line is even though I think most of these opinions degrading chiro education is pure crap, just investigate it in detail yourself and you will find all the FACTS you need, I have to agree with their basic premise that it is not a wise choice to become a chiropractor for many reasons. One of which is that you will learn good basic science and won't be able to apply it b/c your particular diagnosis and treatment method is not based on science!!! So why bother climbing up an ice mountain just to slide to the bottom when it's over? You'll never be able to enjoy the view from the top like the medics.

Now, everybody go and do something that doesn't involve typing!

Wow, that was an interesting post, I enjoyed reading that.

 

[wayttk]

>>> Remember, as a D.C. you have 1 tool to try to fix something, everything or nothing, joint manipulation. Sorry Charlie, most times it just feels good and that's it. Lot's of classes, education, debt, indifference, indignation, humiliation, depression and regret to just learn how make joints gooooooo......pop. Not the best return on investment. <<<




I must disagree on this. I cannot comment on how you practice, but as for myself, manipulation is only *1* tool in my box. With any patient that presents to me, the very first, and most important, is a careful history and consultation. Is their problem stricly NMS, multifactoral, or neither? Do I accept them as a patient, refer them, or co-treat? Many have been to MDs, PTs, unsucessfully. Has something been missed? I have had more than what I feel is prudent, that I have had to refer back to the meds because they have missed critical DXs(eg. a pt with low back pain that was given a narcotic pain patch. His history/consultation "red flagged" possible/probable metastatic prostate cancer. I insisted he go back to his MD.........and sent him back there with a brief letter: Mr. XXX presented today c/o LBP. I am sending him back to you to rule out possible XXX. I look forward to your reply". Unfortunately, for many patients, I was correct. Bottom line- My office was not the one for their back problem.) Or on the other end of the spectrum..............after seeking help, they have been dismissed as it is "all in their head". Or more commonly encountered,------"I was told I have to have surgery on my back".


So, if, after the HX/consultation/exams/any imaging studies/other tests, I determine they will most likely will benefit from conservative NMS care, my treatment plan may consist of many things, not just manipulation. Depending on the patient, it may include: exercise, rehab, ergonomics, kinesio taping, various soft tissue treatments, physiotherapeutic modalities, nutritional/dietary advice, individualized ADL advice/recommendations, orthotics, braces, supports, etc.

And even if I choose "manipulation" as one of the treatments for a particular patient, my next decision is: WHAT type of manipulation will most benefit this patient. HVLA? Flexion/distraction? Thompson drop? low force? etc.? "One Size" does NOT fit all.




So in short, I cannot relate to, or seriously consider, anyone that claims that "manipulation is the only tool" in the DC tool box. In fact, I submit that in this area, the the med"s tool box is the one that is limited: 1. write a RX or 2. refer (to PT, ortho, psychiatrist, surgeon).

How many MDs really KNOW when to, or prudently refer to a DC? I suspect, very few. However, I am optomistic, on many fronts, that this is gradually changing, inspite of the misinformation/agenda/intentional distortions, by some, that I have witnessed on this forum.

 

[Squad51]

How many MDs really KNOW when to, or prudently refer to a DC? I suspect, very few. However, I am optomistic, on many fronts, that this is gradually changing, inspite of the misinformation/agenda/intentional distortions, by some, that I have witnessed on this forum.

I do. The answer is "never". Show me (as others have asked on the forum) a paper that shows chiropractic is a valid modality and I'll consider using it when I'm done with school. And show us the finished study, not some lame a$$ answer that "studies have just begun". If they've begun good! Like anything else, when the studies are done they show chiro is effective, I'll consider it. But as of this moment I know of very few MD who are convinced and none can provide a scientific basis.

 

[DeLaughterDO]

They used the same washed up old exams they used at UT Southwestern and UNTHSC.

I don't know about Southwestern, but here at UNTHSC we have a closed testing system - noone gets to keep their exams and it is an offense worthy of dismissal from school to "reproduce examination questions" for later use. With that said, I don't know how your school would have access to the "same washed up old exams" as we use...

What school did you attend, anyway? Is there a chiro school in the metroplex?. Last I looked there is only one in Texas and that is near Houston. Maybe I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm a MSIV at UNTHSC

 

[wayttk]

I do. The answer is "never". Show me (as others have asked on the forum) a paper that shows chiropractic is a valid modality and I'll consider using it when I'm done with school. And show us the finished study, not some lame a$$ answer that "studies have just begun". If they've begun good! Like anything else, when the studies are done they show chiro is effective, I'll consider it. But as of this moment I know of very few MD who are convinced and none can provide a scientific basis.

What Study would you like provided? There are hundreds. You could go to JMPT on your own, spend some time there, and read abundant studies to satisfy your challenge. Many others have been published in Spine and others. ---- All readily available at PubMed. To assert there are no studies is just plain ignorant, misinformed, or worse.

 

[Squad51]

What Study would you like provided? There are hundreds. You could go to JMPT on your own, spend some time there, and read abundant studies to satisfy your challenge. Many others have been published in Spine and others. ---- All readily available at PubMed. To assert there are no studies is just plain ignorant, misinformed, or worse.

Post one that shows that chiropractic is a more effective treatment modality than traditional medicine for any condition. The caveat is that it must be a well designed study that directly compares the two head to head and offers the full completement of treatment in both arms (not just chiro versus NSAIDs or some such nonsense). When you find that study, please call the NCCAM at the National Institutes of Health, because they say
"For this report, the results of individual clinical trials and reviews of groups of clinical trials were examined. Sources were drawn from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database; were published in English; and studied chiropractic techniques that were identified as such (e.g., "chiropractic manipulation") rather than some other forms of "manipulation" or "spinal manipulation therapy"--which, as noted above, may be delivered by certain other health care providers.c

Clinical Trials

A clinical trial is a research study in which a treatment or therapy is tested in people to see whether it is safe and effective. Clinical trials are a key part of the process in finding out which treatments work, which do not, and why. Clinical trial results also contribute new knowledge about diseases and medical conditions. To find out more, see NCCAM's fact sheet "About Clinical Trials and Complementary and Alternative Medicine."


So far, the scientific research on chiropractic and low-back pain has focused on if, and how well, chiropractic care helps in relieving pain and other symptoms that people have with low-back pain. This research often compares chiropractic to other treatments.

Research studies
Appendix I gives detailed findings from seven controlled clinical trials and one prospective observational study of chiropractic treatment for low-back pain published between January 1994 and June 2003.

Summary of the research findings
The studies all found at least some benefit to the participants from chiropractic treatment. However, in six of the eight studies, chiropractic and conventional treatments were found to be similar in effectiveness.22,25-29 One trial found greater improvement in the chiropractic group than in groups receiving either sham manipulation or back school.30. Another trial found treatment at a chiropractic clinic to be more effective than outpatient hospital treatment.31

General reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses
Appendix II lists three reviews of clinical trials on chiropractic treatment for back pain, published between October 1996 and June 2003.

Summary of the research findings
Overall, the evidence was seen as weak and less than convincing for the effectiveness of chiropractic for back pain. Specifically, the 1996 systematic review reported that there were major quality problems in the studies analyzed; for example, statistics could not be effectively combined because of missing and poor-quality data. The review concludes that the data "did not provide convincing evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic."32 The 2003 general review states that since the 1996 systematic review, emerging trial data "have not tended to be encouraging…. The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain is thus at best uncertain."33 The 2003 meta-analysis found spinal manipulation to be more effective than sham therapy but no more or no less effective than other treatments.10

Several other points are helpful to keep in mind about the research findings. Many clinical trials of chiropractic analyze the effects of chiropractic manipulation alone, but chiropractic practice includes more than manipulation (see Question 5).34 Results of a trial performed in one setting (such as a managed care organization or a chiropractic college) may not completely apply in other settings.29,35 And, researchers have observed that the placebo effect may be at work in chiropractic care,34 as in other forms of health care.

cThis fact sheet often uses the term "adjustment" to refer to chiropractic manipulation. In Question 9 and Appendices I and II, "manipulation" is used where it is used in the source(s) on chiropractic being discussed."

If they can't find the study, I doubt you can. But, oh yeah, chiropractors don't really need science anyway so it doesn't matter!

 

[611]

I don't know about Southwestern, but here at UNTHSC we have a closed testing system - noone gets to keep their exams and it is an offense worthy of dismissal from school to "reproduce examination questions" for later use. With that said, I don't know how your school would have access to the "same washed up old exams" as we use...

What school did you attend, anyway? Is there a chiro school in the metroplex?. Last I looked there is only one in Texas and that is near Houston. Maybe I'm wrong.

BTW, I'm a MSIV at UNTHSC

2

 

[beastmaster]

His history/consultation "red flagged" possible/probable metastatic prostate cancer. I insisted he go back to his MD.........and sent him back there with a brief letter: Mr. XXX presented today c/o LBP. I am sending him back to you to rule out possible XXX.

Back pain from metastatic prostate is pretty advanced and palpable. To think, if chiros could just stick their finger up the rectum and confirm, they could send the patient straight to a specialist instead of back to the idiot who misdiagnosed in the first place

 

[611]

Back pain from metastatic prostate is pretty advanced and palpable. To think, if chiros could just stick their finger up the rectum and confirm, they could send the patient straight to a specialist instead of back to the idiot who misdiagnosed in the first place

Pretty good, diagnosing prostatic metastatic CA just by sticking your finger up someone's ass

 

[wayttk]

Post one that shows that chiropractic is a more effective treatment modality than traditional medicine for any condition. The caveat is that it must be a well designed study that directly compares the two head to head and offers the full completement of treatment in both arms (not just chiro versus NSAIDs or some such nonsense). When you find that study, please call the NCCAM at the National Institutes of Health, because they say
"For this report, the results of individual clinical trials and reviews of groups of clinical trials were examined. Sources were drawn from the National Library of Medicine's PubMed database; were published in English; and studied chiropractic techniques that were identified as such (e.g., "chiropractic manipulation") rather than some other forms of "manipulation" or "spinal manipulation therapy"--which, as noted above, may be delivered by certain other health care providers.c

Clinical Trials

A clinical trial is a research study in which a treatment or therapy is tested in people to see whether it is safe and effective. Clinical trials are a key part of the process in finding out which treatments work, which do not, and why. Clinical trial results also contribute new knowledge about diseases and medical conditions. To find out more, see NCCAM's fact sheet "About Clinical Trials and Complementary and Alternative Medicine."


So far, the scientific research on chiropractic and low-back pain has focused on if, and how well, chiropractic care helps in relieving pain and other symptoms that people have with low-back pain. This research often compares chiropractic to other treatments.

Research studies
Appendix I gives detailed findings from seven controlled clinical trials and one prospective observational study of chiropractic treatment for low-back pain published between January 1994 and June 2003.

Summary of the research findings
The studies all found at least some benefit to the participants from chiropractic treatment. However, in six of the eight studies, chiropractic and conventional treatments were found to be similar in effectiveness.22,25-29 One trial found greater improvement in the chiropractic group than in groups receiving either sham manipulation or back school.30. Another trial found treatment at a chiropractic clinic to be more effective than outpatient hospital treatment.31

General reviews, systematic reviews, and meta-analyses
Appendix II lists three reviews of clinical trials on chiropractic treatment for back pain, published between October 1996 and June 2003.

Summary of the research findings
Overall, the evidence was seen as weak and less than convincing for the effectiveness of chiropractic for back pain. Specifically, the 1996 systematic review reported that there were major quality problems in the studies analyzed; for example, statistics could not be effectively combined because of missing and poor-quality data. The review concludes that the data "did not provide convincing evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic."32 The 2003 general review states that since the 1996 systematic review, emerging trial data "have not tended to be encouraging…. The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain is thus at best uncertain."33 The 2003 meta-analysis found spinal manipulation to be more effective than sham therapy but no more or no less effective than other treatments.10

Several other points are helpful to keep in mind about the research findings. Many clinical trials of chiropractic analyze the effects of chiropractic manipulation alone, but chiropractic practice includes more than manipulation (see Question 5).34 Results of a trial performed in one setting (such as a managed care organization or a chiropractic college) may not completely apply in other settings.29,35 And, researchers have observed that the placebo effect may be at work in chiropractic care,34 as in other forms of health care.

cThis fact sheet often uses the term "adjustment" to refer to chiropractic manipulation. In Question 9 and Appendices I and II, "manipulation" is used where it is used in the source(s) on chiropractic being discussed."

If they can't find the study, I doubt you can. But, oh yeah, chiropractors don't really need science anyway so it doesn't matter!

Can you please provide me with the link to your copy/paste?


>>>If they can't find the study, I doubt you can. But, oh yeah, chiropractors don't really need science anyway so it doesn't matter!<<<

Sounds like a comment from someone who is misinformed, ignorant to the data, or has a dogma to promote. None of which is supportable by the evidence.

 

[Squad51]

Can you please provide me with the link to your copy/paste?


>>>If they can't find the study, I doubt you can. But, oh yeah, chiropractors don't really need science anyway so it doesn't matter!<<<

Sounds like a comment from someone who is misinformed, ignorant to the data, or has a dogma to promote. None of which is supportable by the evidence.

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/#9a

Oops, hate it when the evidence doesn't go your way. I am hardly ignorant of the data. Good data supporting chiropractic don't exist! Even NCCAM can't find a good study. If you seem to think you have it - post it here! Or, if you'd rather, simply do a search for chiropractic in this forum. Most every study done has already been reviewed. I'm sorry but you are simply misinformed and have an obvious dogma to promote. I am a medical student who chooses not to refer to chiropractors. And I doubt that will change when I graduate. That is not having anything to promote except evidence based medicine. You on the other hand, as a chiropractor have an obvious bias.

 

[wayttk]

http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/#9a

Oops, hate it when the evidence doesn't go your way. I am hardly ignorant of the data. Good data supporting chiropractic don't exist! Even NCCAM can't find a good study. If you seem to think you have it - post it here! Or, if you'd rather, simply do a search for chiropractic in this forum. Most every study done has already been reviewed. I'm sorry but you are simply misinformed and have an obvious dogma to promote. I am a medical student who chooses not to refer to chiropractors. And I doubt that will change when I graduate. That is not having anything to promote except evidence based medicine. You on the other hand, as a chiropractor have an obvious bias.

You are certainly privledged to your personal 1950's dogma. My presence/posts here is/are not to place import on, or to be construed as, any attempt on changing your small mind. Just to correct blatent errors, misrepresentations, and other gross mistatements. I think most here really want to know the facts. The evidence is well documented. You just refuse to acknowledge it. You are seriously out of step with the current evidence-------but do have a few years to graduation, to get in step with your future collegues in NMS care. Good Luck Grasshopper

 

[Squad51]

You are certainly privledged to your personal 1950's dogma. My presence/posts here is/are not to place import on, or to be construed as, any attempt on changing your small mind. Just to correct blatent errors, misrepresentations, and other gross mistatements. I think most here really want to know the facts. The evidence is well documented. You just refuse to acknowledge it. You are seriously out of step with the current evidence-------but do have a few years to graduation, to get in step with your future collegues in NMS care. Good Luck Grasshopper

Given the chiropractic produced study presented at the beginning of this thread, I'll do just fine with NMS care. Especially the N, chiropractors according to their own study, aren't too good at that.

I hope no one failed to notice that wayttk has yet to put his money where his mouth is and produce this data he seems so proud of...

 

[victor14]

come on people. stop bashing DCs.
just like any other profession there are very good DCs. now on the other hand, there are alot of bad ones too. but you guys cant hold this to DC only. its the same with any profession including MDs. MD, DC, OD have to work together to take care of the patient. they are in the health care profession! if i were a DC (maybe i might become one) and i get a patient that has problems i cant take care of, i will diffentely contact the MD i work with and send him a referral. i expect the MD to do the same. how do you think this bashing of MD, DC, OD look in front of patients? not very well! come on guys, DC is just another alternative to a MD. one thing i dont agree on is a DC being called a doctor of chiropractic medicine. chiros have nothing to do with medicine.

just my two cents lol