Chiro on a Baby
Users browsing this topic:0 Registered, 0 Hidden and 0 Guests
Registered Users: None |
 |
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Dave The Man 
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: Chiro on a Baby |  |
|
We seen this Video on the News:
https://youtu.be/EBWF9X__CWI
I been to this Guy and he Does a Fantastic Job.
As you can see the Huge Difference it made to the Baby after the Adjustment. Cried when done but stopped pretty much straight away and went to Sleep because of the Pressure taken off.
GP's don't like it because it takes money away from them.
Just see Jurno's Just Guessing and not looking at the Whole Story and just watching a Video.
You see in the Other Video's how great a Job Ian has done on his Video's he has Put Up.
I put some of the Amazing One's Here to Watch(To Prove who Good of a Job he Does):
https://youtu.be/2IU9emzBDRA
https://youtu.be/Ch1aMLx7v-E
https://youtu.be/CNY0vFmTf2Y
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
 |
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
GPs also don't like chiropractic because it's quack science and potentially quite dangerous.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | | GPs also don't like chiropractic because it's quack science and potentially quite dangerous. |
Going to the Doctor can also be Dangerous.
They don't get everything Correct Diagnosis
How do you know it's Quack Science?
I been to them and it works very well
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Doing that to a baby IMO is dangerous and fkn stupid.
I prefer an osteopath to a physiotherapist, but Chiropractors I don't have a lot of time for. I got made to go to one when I fkd my knee as a 15 year old. Bastard hurt worse than the injury and did no good.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| stui magpie wrote: | Doing that to a baby IMO is dangerous and fkn stupid.
I prefer an osteopath to a physiotherapist, but Chiropractors I don't have a lot of time for. I got made to go to one when I fkd my knee as a 15 year old. Bastard hurt worse than the injury and did no good. |
Did you watch the Video?
He did a great job fixing the Poor Kids Cholic
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Dave The Man wrote: | | David wrote: | | GPs also don't like chiropractic because it's quack science and potentially quite dangerous. |
Going to the Doctor can also be Dangerous.
They don't get everything Correct Diagnosis
How do you know it's Quack Science?
I been to them and it works very well |
It's not quack science Dave.
you need a Uni degree to practice it for a start.
I personally don't like it, the crunching makes me squirm, I prefer physio or osteo but I know a few who swear by their physio.
Not to keen on the baby one, there is easier ways to cure colic!
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
You can get a uni degree in homeopathy at some places. Doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chiropractic
| Quote: | Chiropractic is the theory and practice of correction of "vertebral subluxation processes" to treat and cure a supposedly vast array of diseases with no scientifically verified connection to vertebral anatomy. Basically, this means cracking the spine in several places because the spine, being the centre of all nerves in the body, is connected to everything; this somehow enables the body to magically heal itself. It was developed in the late 19th century by D.D. Palmer, just before the development of modern medical education in the United States and the shift towards evidence-based medical practice.
Chiropractic is analogous to osteopathy, but where osteopathy chose to join the mainstream, following the scientific consensus on theories of disease, human physiology and so on, to the point that there is little functional difference between a DO and an MD in everyday practice, chiropractic chose instead to cling to outdated and wrong theories. Some chiropractors have now started to step back from these, but the majority still appear to support the nonsensical "chiropractic subluxation," the empirically unverifiable misalignment of the back that Palmer claimed caused disease and which medical science knows does not.
The scientific consensus is that chiropractic manipulation may be as effective as other forms of manual therapy for lower back pain, but that there is a known and documented risk of death due to chiropractic manipulation of the neck.
As well as occasionally killing or disabling its patients (something about which it is in complete denial), the chiropractic profession is notorious for recommending, often with dire warnings, indefinite courses of treatment — where a physiotherapist will try to restore function and discharge a fit patient, a chiropractor will tend to try to keep the patient coming back indefinitely. Much chiropractic continuing education is focused on "practice building" — i.e., sales technique.
So, chiropractic works about as well as mainstream physiotherapy for some conditions, claims to treat conditions it can't, has a tendency to try to bleed you dry, and might kill you. The phrase "not recommended" sums this up nicely. |
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | You can get a uni degree in homeopathy at some places. Doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chiropractic
| Quote: | Chiropractic is the theory and practice of correction of "vertebral subluxation processes" to treat and cure a supposedly vast array of diseases with no scientifically verified connection to vertebral anatomy. Basically, this means cracking the spine in several places because the spine, being the centre of all nerves in the body, is connected to everything; this somehow enables the body to magically heal itself. It was developed in the late 19th century by D.D. Palmer, just before the development of modern medical education in the United States and the shift towards evidence-based medical practice.
Chiropractic is analogous to osteopathy, but where osteopathy chose to join the mainstream, following the scientific consensus on theories of disease, human physiology and so on, to the point that there is little functional difference between a DO and an MD in everyday practice, chiropractic chose instead to cling to outdated and wrong theories. Some chiropractors have now started to step back from these, but the majority still appear to support the nonsensical "chiropractic subluxation," the empirically unverifiable misalignment of the back that Palmer claimed caused disease and which medical science knows does not.
The scientific consensus is that chiropractic manipulation may be as effective as other forms of manual therapy for lower back pain, but that there is a known and documented risk of death due to chiropractic manipulation of the neck.
As well as occasionally killing or disabling its patients (something about which it is in complete denial), the chiropractic profession is notorious for recommending, often with dire warnings, indefinite courses of treatment — where a physiotherapist will try to restore function and discharge a fit patient, a chiropractor will tend to try to keep the patient coming back indefinitely. Much chiropractic continuing education is focused on "practice building" — i.e., sales technique.
So, chiropractic works about as well as mainstream physiotherapy for some conditions, claims to treat conditions it can't, has a tendency to try to bleed you dry, and might kill you. The phrase "not recommended" sums this up nicely. |
|
Have you ever Tried a Chiro?
I have and I find it made a Big Difference
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| think positive wrote: | | Dave The Man wrote: | | David wrote: | | GPs also don't like chiropractic because it's quack science and potentially quite dangerous. |
Going to the Doctor can also be Dangerous.
They don't get everything Correct Diagnosis
How do you know it's Quack Science?
I been to them and it works very well |
It's not quack science Dave.
you need a Uni degree to practice it for a start.
I personally don't like it, the crunching makes me squirm, I prefer physio or osteo but I know a few who swear by their physio.
Not to keen on the baby one, there is easier ways to cure colic! |
Well it worked on the Chile - What way would you Treat Colic?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
Wokko 
Come and take it.
Joined: 04 Oct 2005
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| I tried a chiro a while ago, ended up with a bad back that slowly healed itself when I stopped going. Never again. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Wokko wrote: | | I tried a chiro a while ago, ended up with a bad back that slowly healed itself when I stopped going. Never again. |
Normal Chiro or Gonstad?
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | You can get a uni degree in homeopathy at some places. Doesn't make it any less of a pseudoscience.
http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Chiropractic
| Quote: | Chiropractic is the theory and practice of correction of "vertebral subluxation processes" to treat and cure a supposedly vast array of diseases with no scientifically verified connection to vertebral anatomy. Basically, this means cracking the spine in several places because the spine, being the centre of all nerves in the body, is connected to everything; this somehow enables the body to magically heal itself. It was developed in the late 19th century by D.D. Palmer, just before the development of modern medical education in the United States and the shift towards evidence-based medical practice.
Chiropractic is analogous to osteopathy, but where osteopathy chose to join the mainstream, following the scientific consensus on theories of disease, human physiology and so on, to the point that there is little functional difference between a DO and an MD in everyday practice, chiropractic chose instead to cling to outdated and wrong theories. Some chiropractors have now started to step back from these, but the majority still appear to support the nonsensical "chiropractic subluxation," the empirically unverifiable misalignment of the back that Palmer claimed caused disease and which medical science knows does not.
The scientific consensus is that chiropractic manipulation may be as effective as other forms of manual therapy for lower back pain, but that there is a known and documented risk of death due to chiropractic manipulation of the neck.
As well as occasionally killing or disabling its patients (something about which it is in complete denial), the chiropractic profession is notorious for recommending, often with dire warnings, indefinite courses of treatment — where a physiotherapist will try to restore function and discharge a fit patient, a chiropractor will tend to try to keep the patient coming back indefinitely. Much chiropractic continuing education is focused on "practice building" — i.e., sales technique.
So, chiropractic works about as well as mainstream physiotherapy for some conditions, claims to treat conditions it can't, has a tendency to try to bleed you dry, and might kill you. The phrase "not recommended" sums this up nicely. |
|
Some good stuff in homeopathy, why are you so dismissive of either? Didn't know you had a doctors degree
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
A radiologist once told me : don't ever go to a chiropractor, I X-ray their mistakes.
I notice that among my friends who frequent chiropractors, they never seem to get permanently better and are always needing to return for more treatment.
I would see a physio or osteo, depending on the issue.
The manipulation of a small baby is completely irresponsible. |
|
|
|
|
Dave The Man
Joined: 01 Apr 2005
Location: Someville, Victoria, Australia
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| partypie wrote: | A radiologist once told me : don't ever go to a chiropractor, I X-ray their mistakes.
I notice that among my friends who frequent chiropractors, they never seem to get permanently better and are always needing to return for more treatment.
I would see a physio or osteo, depending on the issue.
The manipulation of a small baby is completely irresponsible. |
I do Know that you have to go more then Once. But is there anything than can 100% Fix your Back?
That was 1 Radiologist
Why would you go to a Physio or or Osteo(What is That?)
Hey IAN is a very good Chiro. I would trust him with Kids/Babies. But it is Personal Choice.
I go to a Gonstead Chiro and I find it very Beneficial
_________________
I am Da Man |
|
|
|
|
partypie
Joined: 01 Oct 2010
|
| Post subject: | |
|
The radiologist I mentioned was top of his year in medicine at Melbourne Uni and one of the best in the business. Many years of study and hard slog. I'd take his word any day Dave.
An Osteo is an osteopath, they do many years of training at uni. They are very good at working out complex issues such as back problems. If you have problems that require constant visits to a chiropractor I suggest you find an osteopath in your area and give it a go. I've heard of people getting good results with osteos that are also physios. What have you got to lose?
I really can't understand anyone who would let someone manipulate a four day old premature baby due to colic, or anyone who would agree to doing so. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
