Are podiatrists quacks like chiropractors? Thoughts?

yupperz wrote:

Evodevo nailed it.

Even though podiatrists aren't great for runners (I personally prefer to see an orthopedist [he runs as well so that's a plus]), they do base their work off of rigorous science. Chiros probably WOULD base their work off of rigorous studies but unfortunately alternative treatment methods are poorly and infrequently studied.

Chiros may help, but they do base their work off of individual, anecdotal evidence.

Actually, evodevo failed it. He made brash assertions without backing anything up that he said. It's easy to talk about evidence, but what evidence do you actually know that these medicines treat the actual problems? Pharmaceuticals are notorious for being symptom-treaters, but they never get to the source of the problem. Think about it, did the problem occur because of lack of a drug?

evodevo wrote:

Um.... allopathic doctors treat diseases every day, not only symptoms. The reason they are more respected is because they base their treatments on science and evidence...not anecdotes. Sorry you couldn't get into medical school, dude. It's ok...most people don't.

Ha! My profession is about as far away from medicine as you can get. I'm basing my opinions on personal experience, and on the experiences of people and athletes that I know. Down the line, they/we started with allopathic and graduated to naturopathic/natural therapies. It is cheaper, the medical professionals tend to listen more, seek out the root cause, and come up with a solution that will solve the problem, not kick back more dough to the pharma companies (who in turn kick back to the doctors). Now, if I get shot in the face... then yes... allopathic all the way. But when it comes to the non-life-threatening kinds of illnesses that most of us experience, I'll take the natural route.

They are called quacks because their treatments largely don't work. For a lot of issues that they claim to treat, the same percentage of people get well by doing nothing. Yeah your chiropractic care worked as well as back surgery. But resting for 6 weeks probably would have had the same result as either of them. People tend to get better over time no matter what. Now obviously I have no clue about your particular case. But I do know what studies of 100s of people have shown.And back and neck injuries are the ones that actually have a little evidence to back them up. There are a bunch of chiropractors that claim they can help just about anything And they are right as long as your willing to have about the same results as sugar pills. And the last part is trying to figure out how dangerous chiropractors are. It is pretty easy to get the results of drug studies or surgery. It is lot harder to figure out how often the chiropractor cripples the patient (see the incidence of strokes, spinal fluid leaks, herniated disks and so on).

bootsie wrote:

I love how chiropractors are called quacks, when their method of treatment is to address and correct the problem that is occurring within your body, while allopathic doctors, who pump you full of drugs to merely treat the symptoms of illnesses are the "respected" ones.

A chiropractor has totally saved and restored my mobility twice in my life... once my lower back from a bad snowboarding accident, and once my neck that was injured in a car accident. I didn't have health insurance either time, and the combined cost of all my adjustments was under 1000 dollars.... a very small price to pay to get back on my feet again (literally). The surgery that the original doctor I went to for my neck injury wanted to perform would have cost me about 18k, and wouldn't have been as effective as the 10 chiro sessions I went through.

My 2 cents.....

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?

A: Medicine

The big problem I have with homeopaths, naturopaths, chiros, and what not is that they don't understand science. To understand how the human body works, you have to understand science. To fix a car you have to understand how it works, the same principle applies. "personal experience", "anecdotes" etc. are simply ways of saying "I don't know what I am talking about, so I make stuff up and people believe me". Your saving grace is something called the placebo effect, which incidentally has been proven to be quite powerful. Essentially the only tool in your box of quackery is that you are really good at convincing people to believe in you.

bump

A medical student... wrote:

Q: What do you call alternative medicine that has been proven to work?

A: Medicine

The big problem I have with homeopaths, naturopaths, chiros, and what not is that they don't understand science. To understand how the human body works, you have to understand science. To fix a car you have to understand how it works, the same principle applies. "personal experience", "anecdotes" etc. are simply ways of saying "I don't know what I am talking about, so I make stuff up and people believe me". Your saving grace is something called the placebo effect, which incidentally has been proven to be quite powerful. Essentially the only tool in your box of quackery is that you are really good at convincing people to believe in you.

It's so easy to brush away anything that's not mainstream as due to the "placebo effect." You feel better? Placebo effect. You got pharmaceuticals? That must be why you feel better, as opposed to simply getting a drugged high that suppresses your symptoms while doing nothing about the actual problem. Besides, the whole logic behind allopathic medicine is flawed. They don't look for a solution, there's simply a different drug for everything. They don't ask why you have a problem, they just prescribe a drug. Healing does not work in this way. The problem didn't start because you lacked a drug in your system. Nope, it started from something in your life that was out of balance. What naturopathy does is look for the cause. Sometimes, they fail, but there are many who know what they are doing and can treat illnesses. Unfortunately, people like you can spit out "placebo effect" to basically anything, stopping the progress of this medicine in its tracks.

Outside of the context of the chiros who have learned soft tissue techniques for athletes (ART, Graston, etc.) who are arguably good at treating running injuries, there are a lot of chiros who work in the car wreck/workers comp field who are about as slimey as the plaintiff's attorneys that send them clients. I have seen Chiros bill $30 to put an ice pack on someone for 15 min and $100+ to put electrostim on someone for the same amount of time. Chiros can bill up $3-5,000 on anyone who has any aches and pains from a rear-ender car wreck.

You need orthotics wrote:

My experience with podiatrists:

- Patient: "My [insert any anatomical location] is painful."

- Podiatrist: "You need orthotics."

It seems most do not work with runners on finding the true cause of injury or doing any rehab - they just give orthotics and "problem solved..."

Let's expand that a bit by examining the responses of other professionals

-Chiropractor: "You need your back cracked"

-Oncologist: You have a tumor

-Brain Surgeon: "You need brain surgery"

-Auto Mechanic: "You need a new clutch"

etc etc.

When all you have is a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.

Again, the problem is that you don't understand science. "herbology" is simply unregulated pharmacology. The logic behind allopathic medicine is nothing other than doing what works best. Sometimes there is no solution. Some people can't accept that, so they turn to "energy magnets" sun-healing, and excrement bathing in a desperate attempt to fix something that can't be fixed. Cancer almost never has a complete cure. Why? because we have not yet figured out a way to uniformly wipe out every malignant cell in most tumors. most naturopaths don't understand how cancer works, so in their ignorance they make up a lot of stupid stuff. Preventative medicine is not the domain of alternative medicine. Most general practitioners wish their patients would listen to their advice about diet, sleep, exercise, and substance abuse. The problem is not allopathic medicine, its lazy, fat, american's looking for a quick fix.

American's? LOLLOLOLLLLLOL!

Actually, allopathic medicine has a tremendous understanding of how many diseases work. Are there still lots of unsolved mysteries? Of course! But to say that all physicians do is treat symptoms really only serves to highlight your ignorance. I encourage you to pick up any medical journal and learn about some of the research that is going on. Of course...if you don't understand half the words, don't come crying back that modern medicine doesn't know a thing. Don't confuse your own ignorance for someone else's.

A medical student... wrote:

Again, the problem is that you don't understand science. "herbology" is simply unregulated pharmacology.

Dara O'Briain has something funny to say about that...

(at 2:56, but the entire video is related and funny)

podiatrists may be worse than chiropractors!

Unless you need a toenail pulled. They are great at that. Use them for NOTHING else!

Exactly, that is why when I get a bacterial infection I never take the poision they call antibiotics. I mean the problem didn't start because I lacked antibiotics in my system! Same with type 1 diabetes which didn't start because I lacked insulin (oh wait...)

Precisely Watson wrote:

Healing does not work in this way. The problem didn't start because you lacked a drug in your system. Nope, it started from something in your life that was out of balance.

Like many professions, money can get in the way of doing the right thing. Unfortunately I know a colleague who would recommend custom orthotics as a means to prevent ingrown nails. And at every other seminar, there is a speaker (usually sponsored by an orthotic company) telling us we should be able to "get all our patients into orthotics".

I get the same thing going to a dentist. Nearly all of them recommend or won't proceed with filling my cavity unless I get "deep root cleaning". Whereas if I go to a family friend I bypass all the "upselling".

Also 30 years ago, podiatrist were not required to do post graduate residency training in surgery. As result, some of the older docs (like my first boss) just kind of "winged" it and just learned on the job.

However the in the past 20 years most states require post graduate residency training. The only exception are "under-served" states with doctor shortages.

JoMn wrote:

Exactly, that is why when I get a bacterial infection I never take the poision they call antibiotics. I mean the problem didn't start because I lacked antibiotics in my system! Same with type 1 diabetes which didn't start because I lacked insulin (oh wait...)

Precisely Watson wrote:

Healing does not work in this way. The problem didn't start because you lacked a drug in your system. Nope, it started from something in your life that was out of balance.

You're exactly right about antibiotics. And insulin? Yeah, even naturopathists know you need that, how does that prove allopathic medicine?

If you could get someone to pay $400 or more for arch supports that cost him $40 bucks Everyone leaving the office would be given "Custom Orthotics" ie arch supports.

foot pain wrote:

I don't think they are qucks, but under no circumstances should you ever let one cut on you. That's what orthopedic surgeons are for.

Agreed. I would choose an orthopedist who specializes in feet and ankles over a podiatrist any day of the week.

Podiatrists are not quacks, but it's one of those separate medical professions that currently has no reason to exist. A rational system would make podiatry a medical specialty focused on one part of the body, like ENT or opthalmology. But for historic reasons podiatrists have their own schools. It's a similar situation with osteopathic doctors who receive essentially the same training as MDs but have different historical origins, different schools, and different governing bodies.

Some chiropractors can do some helpful things, but really no more than a physical therapist or massage therapist, and their underlying philosophy of spinal manipulation is quackery.

In a rational system, you would combine MDs, podiatrists, and DOs, and eliminate chiropractic and make it part of physical therapy.