Thoughts on Chiropractors?

This forum made possible through the generous support of SDN members, donors, and sponsors. Thank you.
>>>Look into Southern California University of Health Sciences in LA or National University of Health Sciences in Chicago.<<<


DITTO!!
Members don't see this ad.
 
611 said:
D.c.
Click to expand...


how do you like it? how long have you been doing it for? how is the income potential?
 
victor14 said:
for example, harvard med school has a DC as a faculty member
Click to expand...


This is another for you. He is a professor at Brown University Medical school.


http://research.brown.edu/research/profile.php?id=1100924820


Dr. Murphy is a chiropractic physician with postgraduate training in neurology and holds a Diplomate from the American Chiropractic Academy of Neurology. He is the Clinical Director of the Rhode Island Spine Center, Providence, RI, and is Clinical Assistant Professor in the Department of Community Health of the Brown University School of Medicine.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
victor14 said:
how do you like it? how long have you been doing it for? how is the income potential?
Click to expand...



answer my question lol. i want to know what a DC has to say. i spoke to many health professionals including DCs and MDs. they all said health care right now is not as good as it used to be. insurance companies are difficult to deal with.
 
That goes for all healthcare. Dentistry might be the best way to go at the moment.
 
ok since your not answering my question....lol

do you currently have your own practice right now?
 
victor14 said:
. i closely resemble it to OD.

also, chiro education is just about the same as med school. there are more lecture hours in some courses in chiro school than there are at med school. also, there are a few DCs that teach in med schools and there are a few MDs that teach in chiro school. for example, harvard med school has a DC as a faculty member
Click to expand...

OD? Resemble it? Maybe you meant to say you compare it closely to a DO, but even then, it's vastly different from a DO.

You actually believe chiro education is "about the same as med school"? Wow, you really are...misguided. I don't know what you've been smoking, but if that were true, this issue of chiropractic education would never come up, now would it? Also, I doubt Harvard Medical School has any DC on its faculty (at least, anyone who has a DC degree without an MD or PhD). I've seen some PhDs and MDs who made the mistake of getting a DC first, but their primary credential was the MD or PhD, not the DC, which is hardly on par with an MS degree. So, unless you have direct evidence that there is a DC on the faculty (teaching or tenured track academic) at any reputable university, your comments are speculative and very unpersuasive.

Furthermore, the link wayttk posted listed a research associate, not a tenured professor. I doubt any school like Brown would hire a chiropractor to do anything of any substance unless he/she had a PhD or MD or DO or some other real degree in addition to the DC. At MSU, there was a DC/PhD in the osteo med school, but he had a PhD in biomechanics and that was his area; he scoffed at chiropractic practice.
 
those are your thoughts. im sure there are alot of people out there that have alot to say about MD/DO. DC is an alternative form of health care. dont get the wrong idea, i love MD/DO. i just speak the truth.
I have a print out of a paper i recieved comparing med school courses to chrio school courses...

chiropractic education compared to med education:

anatomy: MD has 508 hrs, DC has 520
physiology: MD has 326 hrs, DC has 420
pathology: MD has 401 hrs, DC has 205
chem: 325 hrs, 300 hrs
bacteriology: 114 hrs, 130 hours
diagnosis: 324 hrs, 420 hrs
neurology: 112 hrs, 320 hrs
x-ray: 148 hrs, 217 hrs
psychiatry: 144 hrs, 65 hrs
ob-gyn: 198 hrs, 65 hrs
orthopedics: 156 hrs, 225 hrs

total hours: MD has 2756 hours and a DC has 2887
grand total of classroom hours: MD has 4485 and a DC has 4248.

the hours listed are comparing med school to chiro school. now if you go into speciality those hours are goign to be significantly higher for both MD and DC
 
You'll never win this arguement here. It's like tell Rush Limbaugh to vote Democrat
 
You must be a fool if you believe that victor.

It isnt the QUANTITY its the QUALITY. Moreover, a physician is nothing until post residency. I would suggest if you reviewed what is done in each course and the depth you would find it the difference between high school and university level.

Again, chiro is quackery. No science, no buy in by REAL medicine and no evidence based medicine independantly confirmed. THAT is science.



victor14 said:
those are your thoughts. im sure there are alot of people out there that have alot to say about MD/DO. DC is an alternative form of health care. dont get the wrong idea, i love MD/DO. i just speak the truth.
I have a print out of a paper i recieved comparing med school courses to chrio school courses...

chiropractic education compared to med education:

anatomy: MD has 508 hrs, DC has 520
physiology: MD has 326 hrs, DC has 420
pathology: MD has 401 hrs, DC has 205
chem: 325 hrs, 300 hrs
bacteriology: 114 hrs, 130 hours
diagnosis: 324 hrs, 420 hrs
neurology: 112 hrs, 320 hrs
x-ray: 148 hrs, 217 hrs
psychiatry: 144 hrs, 65 hrs
ob-gyn: 198 hrs, 65 hrs
orthopedics: 156 hrs, 225 hrs

total hours: MD has 2756 hours and a DC has 2887
grand total of classroom hours: MD has 4485 and a DC has 4248.

the hours listed are comparing med school to chiro school. now if you go into speciality those hours are goign to be significantly higher for both MD and DC
Click to expand...
 
victor14 said:
those are your thoughts. im sure there are alot of people out there that have alot to say about MD/DO. DC is an alternative form of health care. dont get the wrong idea, i love MD/DO. i just speak the truth.
I have a print out of a paper i recieved comparing med school courses to chrio school courses...

chiropractic education compared to med education:

anatomy: MD has 508 hrs, DC has 520
physiology: MD has 326 hrs, DC has 420
pathology: MD has 401 hrs, DC has 205
chem: 325 hrs, 300 hrs
bacteriology: 114 hrs, 130 hours
diagnosis: 324 hrs, 420 hrs
neurology: 112 hrs, 320 hrs
x-ray: 148 hrs, 217 hrs
psychiatry: 144 hrs, 65 hrs
ob-gyn: 198 hrs, 65 hrs
orthopedics: 156 hrs, 225 hrs

total hours: MD has 2756 hours and a DC has 2887
grand total of classroom hours: MD has 4485 and a DC has 4248.

the hours listed are comparing med school to chiro school. now if you go into speciality those hours are goign to be significantly higher for both MD and DC
Click to expand...

Since a DC is legally forbidden (per most medical practice statutes) to draw blood, perform GYN exams, order labs, advise patients on pharmacolgical treatment, diagnose any MEDICAL condition outside the scope of chiro tx, and perform any form of psychological counseling, I find this highly unlikely. Furthermore, this is typical DC propaganda. Why would a DC have any training in GYN? Why would a DC have more physiology, bacteriology, or diagnosis than an MD? Think about that for a minute. Where is your source material?

Medical school is 4, intense years of didactic and clinical study. Chiro is not. You do not have more hours than an MD or DO. This statement is not only insulting to physicians, it's patently false and misleading, but it's something that unfornuately is consistent among your kind. What you're exhibiting here is classic DEGREE envy. If you really believe a DC had more medical training than an MD, call my office and make an appt. with my secretary. I've had great success in treating psychotics in the past. I might be able to do something for you. If that doesn't work, I can refer you to a DC who can put his 65 hours of "Psychiatry" to good use.

In actuality, most chiro schools do not have an MD or DO OB-GYN/PSYCH/PATH on their faculty. If an MD or DO actually does teach at a DC school, you'll find he's probably a FMG with a GP residency, or if a USMG, an internist, radiologist, or orthopod. So, that DC isn't getting an intense instruction in GYN, PSY, PATH, DX, etc. Very few PhD psychologists seem to be on the faculty of DC schools. I see many DCs, some PhD biologists/anatomists, chemists, some master's level scientists, and some master's level social workers, but few psychologists, no psychiatrists, no GYN, no path, etc. Check Nat'l, Life, Palmer, LA, etc.

IF, and I mean, IF, a DC does receive more classroom hours in instruction in any subject, what is the quality of that subject matter? If it's taught by some MS or MA in bio who couldn't obtain a PhD, or worse, by a DC, it's axiomatic that the level of instruction is subpar to what you'd receive in allo or osteo school, where the profs are ALL PhDs, MD-PhDs, DO-PhDs, PharmDs, MD-MS, MD-MPH, etc. We have very few FMGs teaching on our faculty. We have highly respected scientists, clinicians, and medical-scientists on our faculty.

Furthermore, it's also possible that some DCs receive more official classroom hours because DC students are intellectually and academically underprepared and require more classroom instruction in something basic like anatomy. Everyone knows that your typical MD/DO student is light years ahead of your typical DC student academically. So, while it may take you DC students 300 hours to grasp basic cardiac anatomy, or neuroanatomy, or something else rudimentary, med students can easily absorb the knowledge in 100 hours. QUALITY vs. QUANTITY is key.
 
Note to SDNer's: While reading threads regarding Chiropractic be aware that for the most part what you are reading represents opinion and is "generally" not based on first hand information.
 
Members don't see this ad :)
611

yes, reality is new to you i suppose isnt it?

This "opinion" is prevelant in the medical world, of which DCs are NOT apart
 
With attitudes like some here...thank goodness.
 
611

Obviously you are looking for acceptance from the mainstream of medicine or you wouldnt be posting on the Student Doctors Network to defend your pretend profession.

You as seethrough as Cellophane
 
No, just enjoy giving some of you a hard time. I would never want to join your club.
 
ProZackMI said:
Since a DC is legally forbidden (per most medical practice statutes) to draw blood, perform GYN exams, order labs, advise patients on pharmacolgical treatment, diagnose any MEDICAL condition outside the scope of chiro tx, and perform any form of psychological counseling, I find this highly unlikely. Furthermore, this is typical DC propaganda. Why would a DC have any training in GYN? Why would a DC have more physiology, bacteriology, or diagnosis than an MD? Think about that for a minute. Where is your source material?

Medical school is 4, intense years of didactic and clinical study. Chiro is not. You do not have more hours than an MD or DO. This statement is not only insulting to physicians, it's patently false and misleading, but it's something that unfornuately is consistent among your kind. What you're exhibiting here is classic DEGREE envy. If you really believe a DC had more medical training than an MD, call my office and make an appt. with my secretary. I've had great success in treating psychotics in the past. I might be able to do something for you. If that doesn't work, I can refer you to a DC who can put his 65 hours of "Psychiatry" to good use.

In actuality, most chiro schools do not have an MD or DO OB-GYN/PSYCH/PATH on their faculty. If an MD or DO actually does teach at a DC school, you'll find he's probably a FMG with a GP residency, or if a USMG, an internist, radiologist, or orthopod. So, that DC isn't getting an intense instruction in GYN, PSY, PATH, DX, etc. Very few PhD psychologists seem to be on the faculty of DC schools. I see many DCs, some PhD biologists/anatomists, chemists, some master's level scientists, and some master's level social workers, but few psychologists, no psychiatrists, no GYN, no path, etc. Check Nat'l, Life, Palmer, LA, etc.

IF, and I mean, IF, a DC does receive more classroom hours in instruction in any subject, what is the quality of that subject matter? If it's taught by some MS or MA in bio who couldn't obtain a PhD, or worse, by a DC, it's axiomatic that the level of instruction is subpar to what you'd receive in allo or osteo school, where the profs are ALL PhDs, MD-PhDs, DO-PhDs, PharmDs, MD-MS, MD-MPH, etc. We have very few FMGs teaching on our faculty. We have highly respected scientists, clinicians, and medical-scientists on our faculty.

Furthermore, it's also possible that some DCs receive more official classroom hours because DC students are intellectually and academically underprepared and require more classroom instruction in something basic like anatomy. Everyone knows that your typical MD/DO student is light years ahead of your typical DC student academically. So, while it may take you DC students 300 hours to grasp basic cardiac anatomy, or neuroanatomy, or something else rudimentary, med students can easily absorb the knowledge in 100 hours. QUALITY vs. QUANTITY is key.
Click to expand...

Lets just commission a study. have 1000 DC grads and 1000 MD/DO grads take an anatomy and physiology test and see what happens. Add chemistry, physics, etc . . . and see who does better.
 
Great...set it up.
 
Once again, Prozac and Mike demonstrate their complete and utter ignorance and dishonesty on the subject, and wouldn't recognize a reality check if it poked them in the eye.



Here's a little reality
P-Since a DC is legally forbidden (per most medical practice statutes) to draw blood, perform GYN exams, order labs, advise patients on pharmacolgical treatment, diagnose any MEDICAL condition outside the scope of chiro tx,......

I am legally able to draw blood, order labs, and diagnose any medical condition, within, OR outside my scope of practice. And I have. There is a big difference, however, between eg. Diagnosing a osteosarcoma, and treating an osteosarcoma. I am obligated to question the credibility of someone "claiming" to be an MD that does not know the difference. While it is considered out my scope to prescribe(tx) chemotherapy, it is NOT outside of my scope to diagnose it.
I also, regularly advise my patients on pharmcological treatment. Why? Many have many specialty docs, each giving them drugs separately. I advise them to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc. Whenever I suspect a possible drug induced symptom/problem, I advise them to appoint with the rx'ing doc, take their personal file to the appointment, and get it checked out.



P-Why would a DC have any training in GYN?

Why would a cardiologist or opthomologist "have any training in GYN"?




P-....in allo or osteo school, where the profs are ALL PhDs, MD-PhDs, DO-PhDs, PharmDs, MD-MS, MD-MPH, etc.

WHAT?----An MD alone isn't adequate? BTW- you forgot the DC at Brown medical school. Apparently his stand-alone DC was adequate. You sure contradict yourself a lot. .....That is common though, of those who don't know what they are talking about.



P- If an MD or DO actually does teach at a DC school, you'll find he's probably a FMG with a GP residency, or if a USMG, an internist, radiologist, or orthopod

Now this assertion just proves how little you know about what you are claiming. You might just want to take a look at faculty lists before making such "patently false and misleading" claims again.



Geesh!! We have Teedle Dee and Tweedle Dumb nesting here.
Tweedle Dee can't write, Tweedle Dumb can't read, and all the while, they both have their fingers in their ears while screaming "NA NA NA we can't hear you!!" :laugh: :laugh: :laugh:
 
wayttk said:
Once again, Prozac and Mike demonstrate their complete and utter ignorance and dishonesty on the subject, and wouldn't recognize a reality check if it poked them in the eye.

Here's a little reality

I am legally able to draw blood, order labs, and diagnose any medical condition, within, OR outside my scope of practice. And I have. There is a big difference, however, between eg. Diagnosing a osteosarcoma, and treating an osteosarcoma. I am obligated to question the credibility of someone "claiming" to be an MD that does not know the difference. While it is considered out my scope to prescribe(tx) chemotherapy, it is NOT outside of my scope to diagnose it.
I also, regularly advise my patients on pharmcological treatment. Why? Many have many specialty docs, each giving them drugs separately. I advise them to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc. Whenever I suspect a possible drug induced symptom/problem, I advise them to appoint with the rx'ing doc, take their personal file to the appointment, and get it checked out.
Why would a cardiologist or opthomologist "have any training in GYN"?
Click to expand...

First, I am an MD with an MS in biomedical sciences. My MD is from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. In order to get into medical school, I needed a BS/BA degree from a four-year accredited institution, not an associate's degree or 60 credits of college from any school. To even be considered for admission, MSU CHM requires a 3.5+ GPA (usually 3.75-4.00) in all undergraduate coursework, not just science courses. Acceptable scores on the MCAT, usually around 10+, are also required.

Second, I am a licensed physician in Michigan with board certification in internal medicine and psychiatry. I also successfully passed (on the first try) my USMLEX I and II. After I completed my MD degree, I underwent five years of residency training at the University of Michigan Medical Center and William Beaumont Hospital in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry. After residency, I successfully completed board certification in IM and PSYCH.

Typically, IM is 4 years and PSYCH is 4 years post graduate, but I combined the two to maximize my career options after residency. As a physician, I am able to (although I restrict myself to practicing within the scope of my speciality training) practice medicine on an unlimited basis in Michigan. I can Rx from all drug schedules. I, however, stay within the scope of my knowledge and skill level, although based on my intense training, I am able to treat and diagnose a wide range of medical conditions safely and effectively.

That is to say, even though I practice exclusively as a psychiatrist, my training equips me to treat a full range of general medical conditions. As an intern and later as a resident, I rotated through IM, Peds, FM/FP, path, OB-GYN, ophth, emergency, uro, and even radiology. I've treated patients for such diverse things as epididymitis, conjunctivitis, MS, macular degeneration, IRDM, MVR, lymphoma, comminuted fxs, DDD, DJD, radiculopathy, HTN, UTIs, URIs, COPD, paranoid schiz, DID, MDD, BAD, and constipation.

Unlike you, I've had my hands inside a living human being. I've ordered labs and interpreted them. I understand what SGPT and SGOT are. I know how to read a BUN. I know what FBS is. I've examined MRIs, IVPs, CTs, and XRs and can spot more than just fractures, misalignments, and malunions -- I can spot renal calculi, cholelithiasis, ureteral stents, stents from PTCAs in the CAs, and can differentiate between types of tumors. Can you?

Unlike chiropractors, to enter the profession of medicine, students have to prove themselves to be intellectually, morally, and academically superior to other students. It takes a great deal of academic achievement to enter medical school, and it requires a great deal of academic achievement to graduate from medical school. It requires a great deal of work and effort to match into and then complete a residency and then pass separate boards in a speciality. To get into DC school, you need to be living and have attended community college or trade school. You need Cs in your science classes, but you can have an overall GPA of 2.0. You need no admission tests.

Each state regulates the practice of specific professions. Here, in MI, the broadest scope of practice in health care is found within allo and osteo med. Chiropractors are restricted to specific treatments. A chiro cannot perform any invasive procedures, such as drawing blood. A DC cannot order labs because they are neither trained to read them, nor are they able to perform any procedure that would require bloodwork. Why would a DC order labs anyway? You neither have the training or need for such things? You adjust and possibly do some quasi-OMT type stuff, maybe therapeutic massage, but why would you need to draw blood? You don't Rx meds. You have no reason. That's why DCs have no authority to order labs in MI and in most states. If you're in Canada, this may be diff, but in the US, the practice of medicine is highly regulated. No DC has any business ordering labs.

X-rays are NOT labs. You are qualified to take x-rays and possibly read them, but then again, so is an x-ray tech.

Now, having said that, you are right, there is a differece between being able to diagnose a condition and being able to treat a condition. You mentioned an osteosarcoma. Since this type of cancer effects the musculoskeletal system, it might be something a DC would encounter and be able to detect per MRI or XR. Would you be able to actually make a definitive dx, however? NO! Why? You could make a speculative dx, but you'd need bloodwork and a bx and cytopath report to make a complete and definitive dx. You're not qualified to do this. Even I am legally able to do this, I'm not qualified to do this and would never dream of doing so.

So, if you, while doing a routine XR to bilk your patient out of more money while treating his recalcitrant LBP secondary to HNP/DDD/spinal stenosis with radiculopathy (which you can't effectively treat since he'd probably need a lami with fusion) spot a suspicious mass that may possibly be an osteosarc, all you can do is speculate, you would not be diagnosing. So, who lacks credibility now? Would you really tell your patient he has bone cancer because you spotted something looking like an osteosarc on scan or film without having a path report or bx in front of you? Would you be able to recognize mets to the nodes, brain, lungs, kidneys? Most competent DCs would say "you have a mass, get it checked SOON!" This is not a dx, but speculation. Surely, you know the difference.

A DC might be able to dx stenosis, DDD, disc herniation, nerve impingement, post traumatic DJD, an ACL tear, medial meniscus tear, rotator cuff tear, etc. Those things are within your diagnostic training, but can you treat them? I guess that would be left up to your state boards to determine whether you can do such things. However, it's unlikely that a DC who is not a PA, NP, or MD/DO can draw blood or even order labs. Why would you need to? It's not part of your training nor is it part of your tx protocols.

Advising patients "to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc." is not advising them ABOUT their medications. That is general advice that anyone would give a patient who may not be organized about such things. Since you have no training in pharmacology, what the hell business do you have advising patients ABOUT their medications? You have about as much training in pharm as your average x-ray tech, lawyer, or school teacher. Would any of those folks tell someone to stop taking their ACE inhibitor or SSRI? A DC would.

I won't even "touch" the GYN comment. Let me just say this, go ahead, use a speculum, do a PAP or vag swab, and see how long you'll be retaining your license and/or staying out of jail. That would be sexual battery in MI. Sorry to tell you that, buddy. I don't care if you took a crash course called "this is a vagina, that is a penis" in chiro school, you put a gloved or ungloved hand on anyone's genital region for "tx purposes", and you will be in some hot water! If you have done this, what state permits you to do this? Why would a cardio or PSYCH have any training in GYN? You see, UNLIKE you quacks, we went to med school. We did an internship. We did clerkships and rotations. We rotated in residency. Like I said above, I may be a psychiatrist, but I've had experience in other areas of med. Would a backcracker have any rotations in peds or GYN? NO!

As for the DC who works at Brown, I don't have an answer for you. Some people talk a good talk and use their charm to move up. He may also know someone. He's not treating patients and he's not teaching any real classes. If you look at what he's actually doing, it's almost PT type research. You do not find DCs teaching at real schools. That DC is an isolated anomoly. These things happen.
 
ProZackMI said:
First, I am an MD with an MS in biomedical sciences. My MD is from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. In order to get into medical school, I needed a BS/BA degree from a four-year accredited institution, not an associate's degree or 60 credits of college from any school. To even be considered for admission, MSU CHM requires a 3.5+ GPA (usually 3.75-4.00) in all undergraduate coursework, not just science courses. Acceptable scores on the MCAT, usually around 10+, are also required.

Second, I am a licensed physician in Michigan with board certification in internal medicine and psychiatry. I also successfully passed (on the first try) my USMLEX I and II. After I completed my MD degree, I underwent five years of residency training at the University of Michigan Medical Center and William Beaumont Hospital in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry. After residency, I successfully completed board certification in IM and PSYCH.

Typically, IM is 4 years and PSYCH is 4 years post graduate, but I combined the two to maximize my career options after residency. As a physician, I am able to (although I restrict myself to practicing within the scope of my speciality training) practice medicine on an unlimited basis in Michigan. I can Rx from all drug schedules. I, however, stay within the scope of my knowledge and skill level, although based on my intense training, I am able to treat and diagnose a wide range of medical conditions safely and effectively.

That is to say, even though I practice exclusively as a psychiatrist, my training equips me to treat a full range of general medical conditions. As an intern and later as a resident, I rotated through IM, Peds, FM/FP, path, OB-GYN, ophth, emergency, uro, and even radiology. I've treated patients for such diverse things as epididymitis, conjunctivitis, MS, macular degeneration, IRDM, MVR, lymphoma, comminuted fxs, DDD, DJD, radiculopathy, HTN, UTIs, URIs, COPD, paranoid schiz, DID, MDD, BAD, and constipation.

Unlike you, I've had my hands inside a living human being. I've ordered labs and interpreted them. I understand what SGPT and SGOT are. I know how to read a BUN. I know what FBS is. I've examined MRIs, IVPs, CTs, and XRs and can spot more than just fractures, misalignments, and malunions -- I can spot renal calculi, cholelithiasis, ureteral stents, stents from PTCAs in the CAs, and can differentiate between types of tumors. Can you?

Unlike chiropractors, to enter the profession of medicine, students have to prove themselves to be intellectually, morally, and academically superior to other students. It takes a great deal of academic achievement to enter medical school, and it requires a great deal of academic achievement to graduate from medical school. It requires a great deal of work and effort to match into and then complete a residency and then pass separate boards in a speciality. To get into DC school, you need to be living and have attended community college or trade school. You need Cs in your science classes, but you can have an overall GPA of 2.0. You need no admission tests.

Each state regulates the practice of specific professions. Here, in MI, the broadest scope of practice in health care is found within allo and osteo med. Chiropractors are restricted to specific treatments. A chiro cannot perform any invasive procedures, such as drawing blood. A DC cannot order labs because they are neither trained to read them, nor are they able to perform any procedure that would require bloodwork. Why would a DC order labs anyway? You neither have the training or need for such things? You adjust and possibly do some quasi-OMT type stuff, maybe therapeutic massage, but why would you need to draw blood? You don't Rx meds. You have no reason. That's why DCs have no authority to order labs in MI and in most states. If you're in Canada, this may be diff, but in the US, the practice of medicine is highly regulated. No DC has any business ordering labs.

X-rays are NOT labs. You are qualified to take x-rays and possibly read them, but then again, so is an x-ray tech.

Now, having said that, you are right, there is a differece between being able to diagnose a condition and being able to treat a condition. You mentioned an osteosarcoma. Since this type of cancer effects the musculoskeletal system, it might be something a DC would encounter and be able to detect per MRI or XR. Would you be able to actually make a definitive dx, however? NO! Why? You could make a speculative dx, but you'd need bloodwork and a bx and cytopath report to make a complete and definitive dx. You're not qualified to do this. Even I am legally able to do this, I'm not qualified to do this and would never dream of doing so.

So, if you, while doing a routine XR to bilk your patient out of more money while treating his recalcitrant LBP secondary to HNP/DDD/spinal stenosis with radiculopathy (which you can't effectively treat since he'd probably need a lami with fusion) spot a suspicious mass that may possibly be an osteosarc, all you can do is speculate, you would not be diagnosing. So, who lacks credibility now? Would you really tell your patient he has bone cancer because you spotted something looking like an osteosarc on scan or film without having a path report or bx in front of you? Would you be able to recognize mets to the nodes, brain, lungs, kidneys? Most competent DCs would say "you have a mass, get it checked SOON!" This is not a dx, but speculation. Surely, you know the difference.

A DC might be able to dx stenosis, DDD, disc herniation, nerve impingement, post traumatic DJD, an ACL tear, medial meniscus tear, rotator cuff tear, etc. Those things are within your diagnostic training, but can you treat them? I guess that would be left up to your state boards to determine whether you can do such things. However, it's unlikely that a DC who is not a PA, NP, or MD/DO can draw blood or even order labs. Why would you need to? It's not part of your training nor is it part of your tx protocols.

Advising patients "to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc." is not advising them ABOUT their medications. That is general advice that anyone would give a patient who may not be organized about such things. Since you have no training in pharmacology, what the hell business do you have advising patients ABOUT their medications? You have about as much training in pharm as your average x-ray tech, lawyer, or school teacher. Would any of those folks tell someone to stop taking their ACE inhibitor or SSRI? A DC would.

I won't even "touch" the GYN comment. Let me just this, go ahead, use a speculum, do a PAP or vag swab, and see how long you'll be retaining your license and/or staying out of jail. That would be sexual battery in MI. Sorry to tell you that, buddy. I don't care if you took a crash course called "this is a vagina, that is a penis" in chiro school, you put a gloved or ungloved hand on anyone's genital region for "tx purposes", and you will be in some hot water! If you have done this, what state permits you to do this? Why would a cardio or PSYCH have any training in GYN? You see, UNLIKE you quacks, we went to med school. We did an internship. We did clerkships and rotations. We rotated in residency. Like I said above, I may be a psychiatrist, but I've had experience in other areas of med. Would a backcracker have any rotations in peds or GYN? NO!

As for the DC who works at Brown, I don't have an answer for you. Some people talk a good talk and use their charm to move up. He may also know someone. He's not treating patients and he's not teaching any real classes. If you look at what he's actually doing, it's almost PT type research. You do not find DCs teaching at real schools. That DC is an isolated anomoly. These things happen.
Click to expand...
MSU has MD and DO programs? What is the difference? Is the quality of the education the same? Are the admission criteria the same? Just curious. Thanks
 
611 said:
MSU has MD and DO programs? What is the difference? Is the quality of the education the same? Are the admission criteria the same? Just curious. Thanks
Click to expand...

Yep, we have an MD (www.chm.msu.edu) and DO (www.com.msu.edu) and DVM (www.cvm.msu.edu) program at one campus. All three are currently on the main campus in East Lansing, MI, but the MD program will soon be offered at a campus in Grand Rapids.

In the first two years, MD/DO students take the same classes (or many of the same classes, but it differentiates more in the last two years). I believe the admission standards for the DO program were slightly less than that of the MD program historically, but are now about the same. The education is about the same. I think the DO grads from MSUs COM are among the best docs I've ever encountered. My own PCP is a DO! If I had to do it over, I would have gone the DO route, but when I started med school, I really didn't know that much about DOs.
 
ProZackMI said:
First, I am an MD with an MS in biomedical sciences. My MD is from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. In order to
-
-
-
>snip<
-
-
-
X-rays are NOT labs. You are qualified to take x-rays and possibly read them, but then again, so is an x-ray tech.

Now, having said that, you are right, there is a differece between being able to diagnose a condition and being able to treat a condition. You mentioned an osteosarcoma. Since this type of cancer effects the musculoskeletal system, it might be something a DC would encounter and be able to detect per MRI or XR. Would you be able to actually make a definitive dx, however? NO! Why? You could make a speculative dx, but you'd need bloodwork and a bx and cytopath report to make a complete and definitive dx. You're not qualified to do this. Even I am legally able to do this, I'm not qualified to do this and would never dream of doing so.

So, if you, while doing a routine XR to bilk your patient out of more money while treating his recalcitrant LBP secondary to HNP/DDD/spinal stenosis with radiculopathy (which you can't effectively treat since he'd probably need a lami with fusion) spot a suspicious mass that may possibly be an osteosarc, all you can do is speculate, you would not be diagnosing. So, who lacks credibility now? Would you really tell your patient he has bone cancer because you spotted something looking like an osteosarc on scan or film without having a path report or bx in front of you? Would you be able to recognize mets to the nodes, brain, lungs, kidneys? Most competent DCs would say "you have a mass, get it checked SOON!" This is not a dx, but speculation. Surely, you know the difference.

A DC might be able to dx stenosis, DDD, disc herniation, nerve impingement, post traumatic DJD, an ACL tear, medial meniscus tear, rotator cuff tear, etc. Those things are within your diagnostic training, but can you treat them? I guess that would be left up to your state boards to determine whether you can do such things. However, it's unlikely that a DC who is not a PA, NP, or MD/DO can draw blood or even order labs. Why would you need to? It's not part of your training nor is it part of your tx protocols.



I won't even "touch" the GYN comment.

As for the DC who works at Brown, I don't have an answer for you. Some people talk a good talk and use their charm to move up. He may also know someone. He's not treating patients and he's not teaching any real classes. If you look at what he's actually doing, it's almost PT type research. You do not find DCs teaching at real schools. That DC is an isolated anomoly. These things happen.
Click to expand...


Get your fingers out of your ears and learn to read. And stop spreading rumors about that which you know nothing about. I have seen you post nothing but your very arrogant, ignorant, biased OPINION. I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between fact and opinion.


BTW-
->>>I won't even "touch" the GYN comment.<<< --- It wasn't a comment. It was a *question*.

- How many psychiatrists in MI do paps and pelvics? :laugh:

-As for the DC at Brown, -a look at his CV would tell you why he is there. Why does this bother you so much?

- If the facts I have presented here so far, bother you so much, the following is going to spoil your entire week. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you.


Spine. 2002 Sep 1;27(17):1926-33; discussion 1933.

Reliability and validity of lumbosacral spine radiograph reading by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists.

de Zoete A, Assendelft WJ, Algra PR, Oberman WR, Vanderschueren GM, Bezemer PD.

Department of Radiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in two sessions. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the reliability and validity of contraindications to chiropractic treatment (infections, malignancies, inflammatory spondylitis, and spondylolysis-listhesis) detected by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists on plain lumbosacral radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plain radiography of the spine is an established part of chiropractic practice. Few studies have assessed the ability of chiropractors to read plain radiographs. METHODS: Five chiropractors, three chiropractic radiologists and five medical radiologists read a set of 300 blinded lumbosacral radiographs, 50 of which showed an abnormality (prevalence, 16.7%), in two sessions. The results were expressed in terms of reliability (percentage and kappa) and validity (sensitivity and specificity). RESULTS: The interobserver agreement in the first session showed generalized kappas of 0.44 for the chiropractors, 0.55 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.60 for the medical radiologists. The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the first round, respectively was 0.86 and 0.88 for the chiropractors, 0.90 and 0.84 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.84 and 0.92 for the medical radiologists. No differences in the sensitivities were found between the professional groups. The medical radiologists were more specific than the others. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences with little clinical relevance were found. All the professional groups could adequately detect contraindications to chiropractic treatment on radiographs. For this indication, there is no reason to restrict interpretation of radiographs to medical radiologists. Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors



Spine. 1995 May 15;20(10):1147-53; discussion 1154.


Interpretation of abnormal lumbosacral spine radiographs. A test comparing students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists in medicine and chiropractic.

Taylor JA, Clopton P, Bosch E, Miller KA, Marcelis S.

Department of Radiology, University of California, Medical Center, San Diego, USA.

STUDY DESIGN. Controlled comparison of radiographic interpretive performance based on training and experience. OBJECTIVES. This study compared each of these groups in medicine and chiropractic by testing abilities to interpret abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Low back pain is a common and costly problem that is evaluated and treated primarily by medical physicians, orthopedists, and chiropractors. Although radiology is used extensively in patients with low back pain, the radiographic interpretations of students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists have never been compared. METHODS. Four hundred ninety-six eligible volunteers from nine target groups completed a test of radiographic interpretation consisting of nineteen cases with clinically important radiographic findings. The nine groups included 22 medical students, 183 chiropractic students, 27 medical radiology residents, 13 chiropractic radiology residents, 66 medical clinicians (including 12 general practice physicians, 25 orthopedic surgeons, 21 orthopedic residents, and 8 rheumatologists), 46 chiropractic clinicians, 48 general medical radiologists, 55 chiropractic radiologists, and 36 skeletal radiologists and fellows. RESULTS. The test established a high level of internal consistency reliability (0.880) and revealed that, in the interpretation of abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis, significant differences were found among professional groups (P < 0.0001). Post hoc tests (P < 0.05) revealed that skeletal radiologists achieved significantly higher test results than did all other medical groups; that the test results of general medical radiologists and medical radiology residents was significantly higher than those of medical clinicians; that test results of medical students was significantly poorer than that of all other medical groups; that the performance of chiropractic radiologists and chiropractic radiology residents was significantly higher than that of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that no significant differences was revealed in the mean values of performance of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that the test results of chiropractic radiologists, chiropractic radiology residents, and chiropractic students was significantly higher than that of the corresponding medical categories (general medical radiologists, medical radiology residents, and medical students, respectively); that no significant difference in test results was identified between chiropractic radiologists and skeletal radiologists or between chiropractic and medical clinicians; and that the length of time in practice for clinicians and radiologists was not a significant factor in the test results. CONCLUSIONS. These data demonstrate a substantial increase in test results of all radiologists and radiology residents when compared to students and clinicians in both medicine and chiropractic related to the interpretation of abnormal radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. Furthermore, the study reinforces the need for radiologic specialists to reduce missed diagnoses, misdiagnoses, and medicolegal complications
 
wayttk said:
Get your fingers out of your ears and learn to read. And stop spreading rumors about that which you know nothing about. I have seen you post nothing but your very arrogant, ignorant, biased OPINION. I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between fact and opinion.


BTW-
- How many psychiatrists in MI do paps and pelvics? :laugh:

-As for the DC at Brown, -a look at his CV would tell you why he is there. Why does this bother you so much?
Click to expand...

I'll extricate my fingers from my ears once you remove your head from your ass. I'm not ignorant. I speaking fact when it comes to medical practice acts and scope of practice issues in chiropractic as well as your grossly inadequate training.

While I don't give pelvics, I can if I wanted to. I'm also an internist.
 
ProZackMI said:
I'll extricate my fingers from my ears once you remove your head from your ass. I'm not ignorant. I speaking fact when it comes to medical practice acts and scope of practice issues in chiropractic as well as your grossly inadequate training.

While I don't give pelvics, I can if I wanted to. I'm also an internist.
Click to expand...

Damn that was funny.
 
Squad51 said:
Actually, someone already did, and the paper has been quoted here many times.

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3263784&postcount=5

Don't you just hate it when opinions are supported by facts?
Click to expand...
Don't buy it. What I do know for a fact is that the anatomy professor at National University of Health Sciences (Chiropractic) was at the same time an anatomy professor at Loyola (medical). This professor gave identical tests to both classes and in every test the students at NUHS had better grades. Just two schools, just one instance but true. Believe it or not. Who cares.
 
wayttk said:
Here's a little reality
P-Since a DC is legally forbidden (per most medical practice statutes) to draw blood, perform GYN exams, order labs, advise patients on pharmacolgical treatment, diagnose any MEDICAL condition outside the scope of chiro tx,......

I am legally able to draw blood, order labs, and diagnose any medical condition, within, OR outside my scope of practice. And I have. There is a big difference, however, between eg. Diagnosing a osteosarcoma, and treating an osteosarcoma. I am obligated to question the credibility of someone "claiming" to be an MD that does not know the difference. While it is considered out my scope to prescribe(tx) chemotherapy, it is NOT outside of my scope to diagnose it.
I also, regularly advise my patients on pharmcological treatment. Why? Many have many specialty docs, each giving them drugs separately. I advise them to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc. Whenever I suspect a possible drug induced symptom/problem, I advise them to appoint with the rx'ing doc, take their personal file to the appointment, and get it checked out.
Click to expand...

And there are states where you would be jailed for doing so. It would be practicing medicine without a license.

wayttk said:
P-Why would a DC have any training in GYN?

Why would a cardiologist or opthomologist "have any training in GYN"?
Click to expand...

All licensed MD/DOs have to compete both a clerkship in OB/GYN in medical school as well as a rotation during their intern year of training. Chiropractors do not. Also, in every state but Oregon, DCs are forbidden from practicing any OB/GYN care. MDs are not.

Perhaps it it you who should do a search on these forums and understand the facts behind the bull$hit you are shoveling
 
611 said:
Don't buy it. What I do know for a fact is that the anatomy professor at National University of Health Sciences (Chiropractic) was at the same time an anatomy professor at Loyola (medical). This professor gave identical tests to both classes and in every test the students at NUHS had better grades. Just two schools, just one instance but true. Believe it or not. Who cares.
Click to expand...

You don't believe the study posted in JMPT? The one run by chiropractors, validated by chiropractors, published by chiropractors? Why? Their standards not high enough for you?

Fine, then FoughtFyr (who seems to have left the forums) did a somewhat complete lit review on chiropractic. What is your answer for all of these studies?:

http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=2691854&postcount=62

Let me guess. You don't buy them either?
 
Squad51 said:
And there are states where you would be jailed for doing so. It would be practicing medicine without a license.



All licensed MD/DOs have to compete both a clerkship in OB/GYN in medical school as well as a rotation during their intern year of training. Chiropractors do not. Also, in every state but Oregon, DCs are forbidden from practicing any OB/GYN care. MDs are not.

Perhaps it it you who should do a search on these forums and understand the facts behind the bull$hit you are shoveling
Click to expand...
These forums are not the place to do research. Most of the posts here are OPINIONS. The so called "facts" are usually not from reputable sources.
 
611 said:
These forums are not the place to do research. Most of the posts here are OPINIONS. The so called "facts" are usually not from reputable sources.
Click to expand...

Lets see, someone posted a study from JMPT, you don't "buy it", someone else posted a link to the standards of practice as defined on chiroweb, that is only "opinion" as well. Geez, what counts as "fact" to you? Realize of course that is a loaded question to ask a chiropractor...
 
Squad51 said:
Lets see, someone posted a study from JMPT, you don't "buy it", someone else posted a link to the standards of practice as defined on chiroweb, that is only "opinion" as well. Geez, what counts as "fact" to you? Realize of course that is a loaded question to ask a chiropractor...
Click to expand...
You hit the nail on the head...most every post on this forum is "loaded" depending upon which side of the fence you sit on. Students need to make up their minds for themselves what is right for them.
 
victor14 said:
those are your thoughts. im sure there are alot of people out there that have alot to say about MD/DO. DC is an alternative form of health care. dont get the wrong idea, i love MD/DO. i just speak the truth.
I have a print out of a paper i recieved comparing med school courses to chrio school courses...

chiropractic education compared to med education:

anatomy: MD has 508 hrs, DC has 520
physiology: MD has 326 hrs, DC has 420
pathology: MD has 401 hrs, DC has 205
chem: 325 hrs, 300 hrs
bacteriology: 114 hrs, 130 hours
diagnosis: 324 hrs, 420 hrs
neurology: 112 hrs, 320 hrs
x-ray: 148 hrs, 217 hrs
psychiatry: 144 hrs, 65 hrs
ob-gyn: 198 hrs, 65 hrs
orthopedics: 156 hrs, 225 hrs

total hours: MD has 2756 hours and a DC has 2887
grand total of classroom hours: MD has 4485 and a DC has 4248.

the hours listed are comparing med school to chiro school. now if you go into speciality those hours are goign to be significantly higher for both MD and DC
Click to expand...

That study was already picked apart on this thread: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=167735&page=2&pp=47 starting at post #47. But the gist is this
FoughtFyr said:
BTW - I have finally "found" what I think is the source for the often repeated claim from chiropractic colleges that chiropractors have "more training" than MDs. You do!

Allow me to explain. According to the CCE USA's website, as well as those of several state chiropractic associations, chiropractors are required to have 4200 "instructional hours" of training. This includes classroom time as well as clinical time. It is a sizable load for three calendar years. MDs do not have a specific requirement, but according to an article (see: http://jama.ama-assn.org/cgi/content/full/292/9/1025 ) we spend, on average 1600 so so classroom hours in the first two years. Since that is the only published number - chiropractic students are "better trained".

Except for the pesky problem of the 3rd and 4th year. While there are no nationally published numbers, there are growing complaints that 3rd year medical students should not be exempt from the 80 hour work week rules that govern residents. The implication being that 3rd year clerks work more than 80 hours weekly. But without data, I can't address that, except through personal experience. So let's look at my third year:

48 week program
Family practice - longitudinal across the year, one day per week, 8 hours a day, four weeks off, no call - total time: 352 hours
Surgery - 12 week clerkship, 5 days a week (plus FP), average work day 12 hours, 6 overnight calls, 1 weekend call - total time: 720 hours (plus 96 hours of call)
Internal Medicine - 12 week clerkship, 5 days per week (plus FP), average work day 11 hours, 14 call nights until midnight, 2 weekend call - total time: 660 hours (plus ~ 136 hours of call)
Psychiatry - 8 week clerkship, 4.5 days per week (plus FP), average work day 8 hours, call from home so I won't even count it - total time: 288 hours
Pediatrics - 8 week clerkship, 4 days per week (plus FP), average work day 10 hours, 5 call nights until midnight, 2 17 hour weekend calls - total time: 320 hours (plus 74 hours of call)
OB/GYN - 8 week clerkship, 4.5 days per week (plus FP), average work day 10 hours, 5 overnight calls, 2 weekend calls - total time: 360 hours (plus 118 hours of call)

All told, my third year was roughly 2700 hours plus ~425 hours of call in 48 weeks (or ~65 hrs/wk) and I spent most of that year being in the hospital or clinic 6 (sometimes 7) days per week, between my FP day and the wards. The schedule for fourth years vary by individual student, because of electives. Call volume is far reduced as is ward time. My best guesstimate is roughly 1800 hours plus 200 of call. So, the third and fourth years together (~5125 hours) are more than the hours needed for a DC (at least in my alma mater's cirriculum). This is to say nothing of the ~1600 classroom hours in years one and two. And, of course, leaving out residency entirely.

I will now agree with you however, that chiropractic college may be roughly equal to years one and two of medical school (but I would still like to see the breakdown of the 4200 hours)
Click to expand...

and
FoughtFyr said:
BackTalk said:
What do you think of this study?

Coulter I, Adams A, Coggan P, Wilkes M, Gonyea M.
A Comparative Study of Chiropractic and Medical Education.
Altern Ther Health Med. 1998; 4 (5): 64–75

"The results suggest that, while medical students spend more time gaining clinical experience (1405 hours for chiropractic vs. 5227 hours for medicine, which includes a 3–year residency), chiropractic students spend more time in lectures and laboratories learning basic and clinical sciences (3790 hours for chiropractic vs. 2648 hours for medicine). Other comparisons showed that some subjects such as microbiology were equally represented in both curricula, while others, such as anatomy, physiology and pathology, were emphasized more in the chiropractic colleges."
Click to expand...
I'd have to see the methodology. Without the phrase "which includes a three year residency" I would agree. My calculations above show roughly 5000 hours of clinical experience in medical school. I think the lecture and lab hours could be right, they seem to jibe with the JAMA numbers. I also have a difficult time with the implication of the last sentence, that being chiropractic curricula are more extensive than medical. I firmly believe you have more training in anatomy and physiology. But mircobiology and pathology? To say nothing of other courses (e.g., pharmacology, histology, immunology, genetics, embryology, and behavioral sciences).

Lastly, as a means of "proof" to my questions above, the ACGME has instituted a 80 average work week limit for residents. Now trust me when I tell you that, in reality, the average resident works to the limit. (There are many popular media sources to support this, especially since Johns Hopkins and Yale have both had programs go "on probation" for work hour rules violations). But for the sake of argument, lets dial it down a notch and assume a 70 hour work week. Given three weeks of vacation (the industry standard), the average resident works 3430 hours per year, and thus 10,290 hours in a three year residency. Roughly double what the article suggests from just residency alone.
Click to expand...

again, references and everything. But hey, that is just my opinion. I'm not a chiropractor. I can't know any facts.
 
611 said:
You hit the nail on the head...most every post on this forum is "loaded" depending upon which side of the fence you sit on. Students need to make up their minds for themselves what is right for them.
Click to expand...

Yes but this is the JMPT study I am talking about: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15965408&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

and in the text it basically says that medical students outperformed chiropractic students at every turn. That is the study you wanted "set up", a test comparing MD and chiros directly. It was done, BY CHIROPRACTORS, "loaded" TO THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE, and the MD students still did better. How plain is that?

From this post: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3263784&postcount=5
 
Has anyone else PM'd FF to no avail? Is he/she really "gone". Anyone know him IRL?
 
Squad51 said:
Yes but this is the JMPT study I am talking about: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15965408&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum

and in the text it basically says that medical students outperformed chiropractic students at every turn. That is the study you wanted "set up", a test comparing MD and chiros directly. It was done, BY CHIROPRACTORS, "loaded" TO THEIR SIDE OF THE FENCE, and the MD students still did better. How plain is that?

From this post: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showpost.php?p=3263784&postcount=5
Click to expand...

CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, chiropractic students performed almost as well as medical students on a test that was designed to measure knowledge of primary care tasks. If the premise is accepted that medical school is the gold standard of primary care instruction, that chiropractic students fared almost as well as medical students is noteworthy.
 
611 said:
CONCLUSIONS: In this sample, chiropractic students performed almost as well as medical students on a test that was designed to measure knowledge of primary care tasks. If the premise is accepted that medical school is the gold standard of primary care instruction, that chiropractic students fared almost as well as medical students is noteworthy.
Click to expand...

Actually, get the text. This is a very poorly written conclusion. The authors really stretch the definition of "almost as well". The relevant text portions were in the post I linked but I like this quote (which I will grant you IS opinion):

"Lastly, the conclusions (from the abstract) do not match the data. It is not "noteworthy", in a positive sense, that chiropractic students about to enter the workforce score abyssmally low on a test of basic primary care skills. Comparing them to MD graduates with at least three years of training remaining is comparing apples and oranges. And even given the disparity in time remaining in training, the MD students quite significantly outperformed the chiropractors. This paper completely demonstrates what I have been saying since I started coming to this forum. Chiropractors are not equipped to act as primary care physicians."
 
Squad51 said:
Actually, get the text. This is a very poorly written conclusion. The authors really stretch the definition of "almost as well". The relevant text portions were in the post I linked but I like this quote (which I will grant you IS opinion):

"Lastly, the conclusions (from the abstract) do not match the data. It is not "noteworthy", in a positive sense, that chiropractic students about to enter the workforce score abyssmally low on a test of basic primary care skills. Comparing them to MD graduates with at least three years of training remaining is comparing apples and oranges. And even given the disparity in time remaining in training, the MD students quite significantly outperformed the chiropractors. This paper completely demonstrates what I have been saying since I started coming to this forum. Chiropractors are not equipped to act as primary care physicians."
Click to expand...
Again, you hit the nail on the head...OPINION. And everyone is entitled to theirs and they should be respected.
 
611 said:
Again, you hit the nail on the head...OPINION. And everyone is entitled to theirs and they should be respected.
Click to expand...

As long as they are not sold to the public as "fact", which is the case in every chiropractors office.
 
Squad51 said:
As long as they are not sold to the public as "fact", which is the case in every chiropractors office.
Click to expand...
And I am sure you have been in EVERY one of them. You must be busy or you are just giving your opinion that is not based on fact. You certainly have not done your research on this one. I don't remember seeing you ;)
I think it would be interesting if you told us what your visit to your Chiropractors office was like. :thumbup: :thumbdown: ?
 
RE-post- While I was editing the original, both of the Tweedles went into a frenzy, with flood of posts.



Get your fingers out of your ears and learn to read. And stop spreading rumors about that which you know nothing about. I have seen you post nothing but your very arrogant, ignorant, biased OPINION. I hope I don't have to explain to you the difference between fact and opinion.


BTW-
->>>I won't even "touch" the GYN comment.<<< --- It wasn't a comment. It was a *question*. Do you know the difference?

- How many psychiatrists in MI do paps and pelvics?

-As for the DC at Brown, -a look at his CV would tell you why he is there. Why does this bother you so much?

- If the facts I have presented here so far, bother you so much, the following is going to spoil your entire week. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you.


Spine. 2002 Sep 1;27(17):1926-33; discussion 1933.

Reliability and validity of lumbosacral spine radiograph reading by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists.

de Zoete A, Assendelft WJ, Algra PR, Oberman WR, Vanderschueren GM, Bezemer PD.

Department of Radiology, Medical Center Alkmaar, Alkmaar, The Netherlands.

STUDY DESIGN: A cross-sectional diagnostic study was conducted in two sessions. OBJECTIVE: To determine and compare the reliability and validity of contraindications to chiropractic treatment (infections, malignancies, inflammatory spondylitis, and spondylolysis-listhesis) detected by chiropractors, chiropractic radiologists, and medical radiologists on plain lumbosacral radiographs. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA: Plain radiography of the spine is an established part of chiropractic practice. Few studies have assessed the ability of chiropractors to read plain radiographs. METHODS: Five chiropractors, three chiropractic radiologists and five medical radiologists read a set of 300 blinded lumbosacral radiographs, 50 of which showed an abnormality (prevalence, 16.7%), in two sessions. The results were expressed in terms of reliability (percentage and kappa) and validity (sensitivity and specificity). RESULTS: The interobserver agreement in the first session showed generalized kappas of 0.44 for the chiropractors, 0.55 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.60 for the medical radiologists. The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. The mean sensitivity and specificity of the first round, respectively was 0.86 and 0.88 for the chiropractors, 0.90 and 0.84 for the chiropractic radiologists, and 0.84 and 0.92 for the medical radiologists. No differences in the sensitivities were found between the professional groups. The medical radiologists were more specific than the others. CONCLUSIONS: Small differences with little clinical relevance were found. All the professional groups could adequately detect contraindications to chiropractic treatment on radiographs. For this indication, there is no reason to restrict interpretation of radiographs to medical radiologists. Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors



Spine. 1995 May 15;20(10):1147-53; discussion 1154.


Interpretation of abnormal lumbosacral spine radiographs. A test comparing students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists in medicine and chiropractic.

Taylor JA, Clopton P, Bosch E, Miller KA, Marcelis S.

Department of Radiology, University of California, Medical Center, San Diego, USA.

STUDY DESIGN. Controlled comparison of radiographic interpretive performance based on training and experience. OBJECTIVES. This study compared each of these groups in medicine and chiropractic by testing abilities to interpret abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. SUMMARY OF BACKGROUND DATA. Low back pain is a common and costly problem that is evaluated and treated primarily by medical physicians, orthopedists, and chiropractors. Although radiology is used extensively in patients with low back pain, the radiographic interpretations of students, clinicians, radiology residents, and radiologists have never been compared. METHODS. Four hundred ninety-six eligible volunteers from nine target groups completed a test of radiographic interpretation consisting of nineteen cases with clinically important radiographic findings. The nine groups included 22 medical students, 183 chiropractic students, 27 medical radiology residents, 13 chiropractic radiology residents, 66 medical clinicians (including 12 general practice physicians, 25 orthopedic surgeons, 21 orthopedic residents, and 8 rheumatologists), 46 chiropractic clinicians, 48 general medical radiologists, 55 chiropractic radiologists, and 36 skeletal radiologists and fellows. RESULTS. The test established a high level of internal consistency reliability (0.880) and revealed that, in the interpretation of abnormal plain film radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis, significant differences were found among professional groups (P < 0.0001). Post hoc tests (P < 0.05) revealed that skeletal radiologists achieved significantly higher test results than did all other medical groups; that the test results of general medical radiologists and medical radiology residents was significantly higher than those of medical clinicians; that test results of medical students was significantly poorer than that of all other medical groups; that the performance of chiropractic radiologists and chiropractic radiology residents was significantly higher than that of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that no significant differences was revealed in the mean values of performance of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that the test results of chiropractic radiologists, chiropractic radiology residents, and chiropractic students was significantly higher than that of the corresponding medical categories (general medical radiologists, medical radiology residents, and medical students, respectively); that no significant difference in test results was identified between chiropractic radiologists and skeletal radiologists or between chiropractic and medical clinicians; and that the length of time in practice for clinicians and radiologists was not a significant factor in the test results. CONCLUSIONS. These data demonstrate a substantial increase in test results of all radiologists and radiology residents when compared to students and clinicians in both medicine and chiropractic related to the interpretation of abnormal radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. Furthermore, the study reinforces the need for radiologic specialists to reduce missed diagnoses, misdiagnoses, and medicolegal complications
 
P

Nice spanking. He cant recover from that one.

ProZackMI said:
First, I am an MD with an MS in biomedical sciences. My MD is from Michigan State University College of Human Medicine. In order to get into medical school, I needed a BS/BA degree from a four-year accredited institution, not an associate's degree or 60 credits of college from any school. To even be considered for admission, MSU CHM requires a 3.5+ GPA (usually 3.75-4.00) in all undergraduate coursework, not just science courses. Acceptable scores on the MCAT, usually around 10+, are also required.

Second, I am a licensed physician in Michigan with board certification in internal medicine and psychiatry. I also successfully passed (on the first try) my USMLEX I and II. After I completed my MD degree, I underwent five years of residency training at the University of Michigan Medical Center and William Beaumont Hospital in Internal Medicine and Psychiatry. After residency, I successfully completed board certification in IM and PSYCH.

Typically, IM is 4 years and PSYCH is 4 years post graduate, but I combined the two to maximize my career options after residency. As a physician, I am able to (although I restrict myself to practicing within the scope of my speciality training) practice medicine on an unlimited basis in Michigan. I can Rx from all drug schedules. I, however, stay within the scope of my knowledge and skill level, although based on my intense training, I am able to treat and diagnose a wide range of medical conditions safely and effectively.

That is to say, even though I practice exclusively as a psychiatrist, my training equips me to treat a full range of general medical conditions. As an intern and later as a resident, I rotated through IM, Peds, FM/FP, path, OB-GYN, ophth, emergency, uro, and even radiology. I've treated patients for such diverse things as epididymitis, conjunctivitis, MS, macular degeneration, IRDM, MVR, lymphoma, comminuted fxs, DDD, DJD, radiculopathy, HTN, UTIs, URIs, COPD, paranoid schiz, DID, MDD, BAD, and constipation.

Unlike you, I've had my hands inside a living human being. I've ordered labs and interpreted them. I understand what SGPT and SGOT are. I know how to read a BUN. I know what FBS is. I've examined MRIs, IVPs, CTs, and XRs and can spot more than just fractures, misalignments, and malunions -- I can spot renal calculi, cholelithiasis, ureteral stents, stents from PTCAs in the CAs, and can differentiate between types of tumors. Can you?

Unlike chiropractors, to enter the profession of medicine, students have to prove themselves to be intellectually, morally, and academically superior to other students. It takes a great deal of academic achievement to enter medical school, and it requires a great deal of academic achievement to graduate from medical school. It requires a great deal of work and effort to match into and then complete a residency and then pass separate boards in a speciality. To get into DC school, you need to be living and have attended community college or trade school. You need Cs in your science classes, but you can have an overall GPA of 2.0. You need no admission tests.

Each state regulates the practice of specific professions. Here, in MI, the broadest scope of practice in health care is found within allo and osteo med. Chiropractors are restricted to specific treatments. A chiro cannot perform any invasive procedures, such as drawing blood. A DC cannot order labs because they are neither trained to read them, nor are they able to perform any procedure that would require bloodwork. Why would a DC order labs anyway? You neither have the training or need for such things? You adjust and possibly do some quasi-OMT type stuff, maybe therapeutic massage, but why would you need to draw blood? You don't Rx meds. You have no reason. That's why DCs have no authority to order labs in MI and in most states. If you're in Canada, this may be diff, but in the US, the practice of medicine is highly regulated. No DC has any business ordering labs.

X-rays are NOT labs. You are qualified to take x-rays and possibly read them, but then again, so is an x-ray tech.

Now, having said that, you are right, there is a differece between being able to diagnose a condition and being able to treat a condition. You mentioned an osteosarcoma. Since this type of cancer effects the musculoskeletal system, it might be something a DC would encounter and be able to detect per MRI or XR. Would you be able to actually make a definitive dx, however? NO! Why? You could make a speculative dx, but you'd need bloodwork and a bx and cytopath report to make a complete and definitive dx. You're not qualified to do this. Even I am legally able to do this, I'm not qualified to do this and would never dream of doing so.

So, if you, while doing a routine XR to bilk your patient out of more money while treating his recalcitrant LBP secondary to HNP/DDD/spinal stenosis with radiculopathy (which you can't effectively treat since he'd probably need a lami with fusion) spot a suspicious mass that may possibly be an osteosarc, all you can do is speculate, you would not be diagnosing. So, who lacks credibility now? Would you really tell your patient he has bone cancer because you spotted something looking like an osteosarc on scan or film without having a path report or bx in front of you? Would you be able to recognize mets to the nodes, brain, lungs, kidneys? Most competent DCs would say "you have a mass, get it checked SOON!" This is not a dx, but speculation. Surely, you know the difference.

A DC might be able to dx stenosis, DDD, disc herniation, nerve impingement, post traumatic DJD, an ACL tear, medial meniscus tear, rotator cuff tear, etc. Those things are within your diagnostic training, but can you treat them? I guess that would be left up to your state boards to determine whether you can do such things. However, it's unlikely that a DC who is not a PA, NP, or MD/DO can draw blood or even order labs. Why would you need to? It's not part of your training nor is it part of your tx protocols.

Advising patients "to maintain a personal medical file, that contains copies of all their test results, docs names and phone #, drugs prescribed etc." is not advising them ABOUT their medications. That is general advice that anyone would give a patient who may not be organized about such things. Since you have no training in pharmacology, what the hell business do you have advising patients ABOUT their medications? You have about as much training in pharm as your average x-ray tech, lawyer, or school teacher. Would any of those folks tell someone to stop taking their ACE inhibitor or SSRI? A DC would.

I won't even "touch" the GYN comment. Let me just say this, go ahead, use a speculum, do a PAP or vag swab, and see how long you'll be retaining your license and/or staying out of jail. That would be sexual battery in MI. Sorry to tell you that, buddy. I don't care if you took a crash course called "this is a vagina, that is a penis" in chiro school, you put a gloved or ungloved hand on anyone's genital region for "tx purposes", and you will be in some hot water! If you have done this, what state permits you to do this? Why would a cardio or PSYCH have any training in GYN? You see, UNLIKE you quacks, we went to med school. We did an internship. We did clerkships and rotations. We rotated in residency. Like I said above, I may be a psychiatrist, but I've had experience in other areas of med. Would a backcracker have any rotations in peds or GYN? NO!

As for the DC who works at Brown, I don't have an answer for you. Some people talk a good talk and use their charm to move up. He may also know someone. He's not treating patients and he's not teaching any real classes. If you look at what he's actually doing, it's almost PT type research. You do not find DCs teaching at real schools. That DC is an isolated anomoly. These things happen.
Click to expand...
 
wayttk said:
- If the facts I have presented here so far, bother you so much, the following is going to spoil your entire week. Maybe you can find someone to read it to you.
Click to expand...

Now I'm starting to get why FoughtFyr apparently left. Nothing is new around here. These studies have also been critiqued / analyzed here.

Foughtfyr said:
Regarding: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...t=Abstract&list_uids=12221360&itool=iconabstr

"It shows that of thirteen people, five MDs and 8 DCs, interrater agreement was a low as 0.44 (among the five chiropractors not identified as chiropractic radiologists). Now a kappa of 1.0 means complete agreement, and they scored a 0.44 (meaning they agreed on the findings in only 44% of the films). Second, look at the study design itself, 13 people looked at 300 x-rays to detect an abnormality (present in 50 films). So what! I have said that I do not doubt, necessarily, a DCs skill in NMS, but in non-NMS conditions. Besides, with thirteen participants, I really question the power of the study.

And lastly, lets look at some conclusions here. "The intraobserver agreement showed mean kappas of 0.58, 0.68, and 0.72, respectively. The difference between the chiropractic radiologists and medical radiologists was not significant. However, there was a difference between the chiropractors and the other professional groups. {emphasis added}. "The medical radiologists were more specific than the others." "Good professional relationships between the professions are recommended to facilitate interprofessional consultation in case of doubt by the chiropractors." {emphasis added}."
Click to expand...

and
Foughtfyr said:
Regarding: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=7638657

"Post hoc tests (P < 0.05) revealed that skeletal radiologists achieved significantly higher test results than did all other medical groups; that the test results of general medical radiologists and medical radiology residents was significantly higher than those of medical clinicians; that test results of medical students was significantly poorer than that of all other medical groups; that the performance of chiropractic radiologists and chiropractic radiology residents was significantly higher than that of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students; that no significant differences was revealed in the mean values of performance of chiropractic clinicians and chiropractic students"

and concluded

"These data demonstrate a substantial increase in test results of all radiologists and radiology residents when compared to students and clinicians in both medicine and chiropractic related to the interpretation of abnormal radiographs of the lumbosacral spine and pelvis. Furthermore, the study reinforces the need for radiologic specialists to reduce missed diagnoses, misdiagnoses, and medicolegal complications."

I will grant that chiropractic students did do better than medical students, and that chiropractic radiology residents (who are by definition already practicing chiropractors) did better than radiology residents (not yet licensed). But this study was limited to the reading of lumbar and sacral spine films, hardly the first and last line of diagnostics. "
Click to expand...

Ouch. Hmm, you are calling people tweedle dee and tweedle dum yet you can't even run simple searches? Here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=171540&page=1&pp=25 and here: http://forums.studentdoctor.net/showthread.php?t=171540&page=1&pp=25. Maybe now you'll stop trotting out the same old arguments that have been made on this forum ad nauseam.
 
611 said:
And I am sure you have been in EVERY one of them. You must be busy or you are just giving your opinion that is not based on fact. You certainly have not done your research on this one. I don't remember seeing you ;)
I think it would be interesting if you told us what your visit to your Chiropractors office was like. :thumbup: :thumbdown: ?
Click to expand...

Are you telling your patients that chiropractic is a scientifically based, therefore factual, method of treatment or are you tellingthem it is the opinion of DD and BJ Palmer? If you are telling them it is opinion, then you are right, and I am sorry. But if you are selling your wares as "facts", then please post the factual basis here.
 
Squad51 said:
Are you telling your patients that chiropractic is a scientifically based, therefore factual, method of treatment or are you tellingthem it is the opinion of DD and BJ Palmer? If you are telling them it is opinion, then you are right, and I am sorry. But if you are selling your wares as "facts", then please post the factual basis here.
Click to expand...

Since when did you become concerned about "facts"? --Sure haven't seen any evidence of that here. Oh yeah- I forget----In addition to Kwapwatch, and 20/20, SDN is your other source of reliable, objective, indexed "facts".
 
Squad51 said:
Are you telling your patients that chiropractic is a scientifically based, therefore factual, method of treatment or are you tellingthem it is the opinion of DD and BJ Palmer? If you are telling them it is opinion, then you are right, and I am sorry. But if you are selling your wares as "facts", then please post the factual basis here.
Click to expand...

OBVIOUSLY chiropractic subluxations are the factual, scientific basis for disease...it's just that current research isn't sophisticated enough for it to be proven!

"The spinal subluxation, though we have been correcting it with spinal adjustment for 100 years, is not fully understood. Scientific research presently is not sophisticated enough to determine the neurophysiological impact that spinal subluxation has on our patients. Does that mean that we do not adjust our patients because it has not been proven? Absolutely not. I treat my patients as if each spinal adjustment has a virtually unlimited potential in improving their health..."
(J Amer Chiropr Assoc. 1995;32:5–6.)

It's almost too funny to be true.
 
wayttk said:
Since when did you become concerned about "facts"? --Sure haven't seen any evidence of that here. Oh yeah- I forget----In addition to Kwapwatch, and 20/20, SDN is your other source of reliable, objective, indexed "facts".
Click to expand...

Given that I haven't posted regarding "Kwapwatch" or "20/20" and have only reposted previous discussions from SDN that include links to indexed journals, where do you come off? Listen pal, I'm sorry that your chosen profession is based on the pseudo-scientific ramblings of a delusional freemason, but that is the reality. There are NO studies that have ever proven chiropractic to effective AT ALL for anything besides LBP. In the setting of LBP chiropractic might be as effective as medical treatment. However, the even CHIROPRACTIC literature:
http://www.jcca-online.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/V49-1-46/$file/jcca-v49-1-046.pdf
and
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/...ve&db=pubmed&dopt=Abstract&list_uids=12466778
questions the safety of chiropractic manipulation. That, plus studies (again from the chiropractic literature):
Sikorski DM, Grod JP. The unsubstantiated Web site claims of chiropractic colleges in Canada and the United States. Journal of Chiropractic Education 17:113-119, 2003
and here:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/..._uids=15965408&query_hl=1&itool=pubmed_docsum questioning chiropractic education lead me to believe that the reason you are so frustrated by this discussion is that we can all see that Emperor Palmer is wearing no clothes.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Next unread thread

Similar threads

J
Second thoughts about Occupational Therapy...
Replies
21
Views
3K
Dai93
D
L
Thoughts on Radiation Therapy
Replies
3
Views
2K
LoadingMe
L
M
Experience/Thoughts on Western PA Program in CA ?
Replies
0
Views
1K
MSJC
M
K
Chiropractors .. BA Degree?
Replies
5
Views
2K
BreathDeep
B
G
thoughts on the pa/mph joint program?
Replies
2
Views
3K
pamac
P
Top