Depersonalization Support Forum banner
1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
Anyone with DPDR have experience with visiting a chiropractor? Did it help with your symptoms? This disorder seems to be related to an overstimulated nervous system and ive read that an adjustment can help treat the nervous system. When I feel into my body there seems to be a nonstop pounding sensation which I'm assuming is related to my nervous system because I don't know what else it could be. I'd like to hear some experiences here with chiros.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
I've seen a chiropractor about my condition. I could feel better during the very moment that he was "doing his thing", but it was just fleeting. Similar to how I feel better when I sneeze. There's a brief moment of "aliveness", but it doesn't last.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2 Posts
Not sure if it counts as chiropractic, but I've seen people say their brain fog improved immediately during cervical traction, but I think it reverts back to normal without further treatment. These were people with ME/CFS who were being investigated for spinal issues like CCI/AAI/chiari.

It would be interesting to see if there is any crossover with DP/DR sufferers, but the testing is expensive and I'm not sure how to find a physiotherapist familiar with these sorts of issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I'm about to Google, but I just wondered if you knew anything more about DPDR being a reaction to an overactive nervous system, it sounds interesting.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,402 Posts
I saw a chiropractor for my symptoms. He helped quite a bit. I do have dp/dr, but I also have occasional ower back pain and weakness. Spinal manipulation has no effect on my dp/dr.

It does help with the lower back issues.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
Chiropractic is not quackery. Some chiropractors are not very good, a few even dangerous. But the same can be said for most other doctors. Many people have been enormously helped by chiropractic, including myself. To see Wikipedia basically spout the 50-year+ old AMA line about Chiropractic being pseudoscience is almost beyond belief.

Talk to people who've gone to chiripractors. Ask which ones are good. I would recommend a person go to one whose approach is upper cervical, or utilizes some other gentle techniques. Upper cervical chiropractic changed my life, and vastly improved my mood and disposition. I would highly recommend people at least look into it to see whether it might be helpful.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
There is a difference between symptoms and diseases, and I think that is where a lot of this debate about what is "quackery" is really about.

Chiropractic techniques have not been demonstrated to treat any known diseases, and have been known to exacerbate some. In as much as chiropractors theorize how their treatments "work", that could be rightly classified as pseudoscience or quackery.

On the other hand, countless individuals can attest to how chiropractors are the only ones who have helped their various discomforts, and in the end, isn't that what matters when you are suffering?

In other words, I would place chiropractors in the same category as I place psychiatry, or religion for that matter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
On the other hand, countless individuals can attest to how chiropractors are the only ones who have helped their various discomforts, and in the end, isn't that what matters when you are suffering?
So if I hear you correctly, you're essentially saying that sometimes "pseudoscience" medical treatment is superior to medical treatment that's supposedly--and widely accepted--as being based on so-called "science". Wouldn't that go against the prevailing notion that "pseudoscience" is inferior to "science"?

In the end, always look closely at the myriad of conflicts surrounding the financial and political forces that are making the case for either one. Wikipedia gets a catastrophic failing grade in this department, as it's rife with these conflicts.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
So if I hear you correctly, you're essentially saying that sometimes "pseudoscience" medical treatment is superior to medical treatment that's supposedly--and widely accepted--as being based on so-called "science". Wouldn't that go against the prevailing notion that "pseudoscience" is inferior to "science"?

In the end, always look closely at the myriad of conflicts surrounding the financial and political forces that are making the case for either one. Wikipedia gets a catastrophic failing grade in this department, as it's rife with these conflicts.
What i am saying is that medical treatments fall into two categories: treating diseases (objective) and alleviating discomforts (subjective). Chiropractic treatments fall into the latter category. And, at the individual level (I.e. anecdotally), yes, sometimes they can be superior to more scientifically demonstrated treatments.

I wholeheartedly agree with your second paragraph. In the abstract, at least.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
I mean, like i said, I view chiropractors and psychiatrists similarly, and they are in a similar position with respect to science and how their preferred treatments work (theories), yet the AMA considers psychiatry real science and chiropractors quackery. Doesn’t make sense rationally, but I’m sure it would make sense if I understood more about how the AMA works, it’s history, etc.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15 Posts
I'm sure it would make sense if I understood more about how the AMA works, it's history, etc.
Unfortunately, the history of the AMA and how it works is pretty disheartening. If you're interested in some of that history, check out the following linked article. I consider it a classic. If you're not interested in the whole 10-min. read, below the link is part of the introduction to the article. -- Best...

How the Flexner Report Hijacked Natural Medicine

If you've ever wondered how modern-day medicine got to where it is today, you should begin by learning about Abraham Flexner. He's probably one of the most influential men no one has ever heard of.

In 1910 he published the book-length report Medical Education in the United States and Canada which is now known as the Flexner Report. And, the rest, as they say, is history.

Abraham Flexner was not a doctor, but this school teacher and educational theorist from Louisville, Kentucky, has had a more significant impact on modern medicine than just about anyone else.

Though institutions such as Johns Hopkins were already implementing "modern principles" into their work, most medical schools had yet to subscribe to these paradigms.

So what Flexner did was to attempt to align medical education under a set of norms that emphasized laboratory research and the patenting of medicine - both of which would serve to further enrich the estates of the entrepreneurs who funded Flexner's 1910 report: John Rockefeller, Andrew Carnegie, and others.

Sounds like a win-win, right? … Well, not exactly.

In fact, chances are that if Flexner had not submitted his report that audited medical schools in the United States and Canada, we would not have a society heavily biased in favor of many inhumane and unnatural medical practices that we have today.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Psychiatric treatments are based on real, observable cause and effect, whether we approve of their existence and application or not. Chiropractic is based on pseudoscience and isn't a licensed medical profession. There's no need to overcomplicate it.
Your first sentence can be both true and false. In as much as psychiatric treatments are observed to change behavior (including speech), then yes, it is a science. In as much as it claims that its treatments change internal experiences, well, that's far less measurable. To be able to claim that a med works better than placebo by having the patients fill in an arbitrary "depression level" on a scale of one to ten before and after treatment is a fairly dubious scientific practice. And what does the patient and researcher mean by "depression"? Is it the lack of positive thoughts and experiences, or a presence of negative thoughts and experiences? That may seem like a trite distinction, but it's a crucial one in gauging whether anti-depressants are effective in treating it. As an example, if depression is defined in positive terms, as the presence of negative emotions, then a result that numbs the patient out will be viewed as a successful response, whereas if depression is defined in negative terms (as a lack of positive experiences), such a response would be viewed as a failure. And finally, inasmuch as psychiatry claims that a person's internal experiences or life problems are "caused" by "mental diseases, analogous to physical diseases", and that the treatments they use work just like medicines to treat physical illnesses like diabetes, well, that's pure pseudoscientific nonsense. I also don't disapprove of the use of their treatments, just recommend caution and skepticism with them, as I do pretty much everything.

I'm not that schooled on chiropractic medicine to know whether their claims can or have been measured scientifically or not. I do know that they have not been demonstrated to treat any known diseases. I don't know what scientific studies have been done to gauge whether or not chiropractic work has a measured and sustained effect at reducing discomforts, or improving mobility, for example. Maybe it does and maybe it doesn't.

Your final point though, that it is not a licensed medical profession, is irrelevant.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
Layne pointed out that many common medical practices are damaging. The reason for that is that people suck and, as the article he linked put it, are often inhumane. The underlying problem isn't exclusive to the medical field, nor is it all the fault of a single man. People identify with their beliefs and cling to them. Many professionals prefer the feeling of being smart and effective more than examining whether or not their treatment is actually helping patients, so they live in a delusional world where what they're doing is always noble and praiseworthy.
I agree with this.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
631 Posts
I'm only here to point out to OP and anyone interested that chiropractic is generally regarded as pseudoscientific, since their fake MD front tricks so many people. That's about as far as I'm interested in this thread. Talking chiropractic up or mainstream medicine down doesn't change the core of the issue, and I'm sorry if I offended anyone who felt helped by chiropractic.
No problem, and I'm by no means a champion if chiropractors. My main point was actually not to bring chiropractors up, nor to tear mainstream medicine down. Well, maybe bring mainstream medicine back to Earth. Too often do I hear the people defer even their inner experiences and childhoods to the "expertise" of their doctors, just because they have degrees, when they couldn't possibly know these things better than you do. We live in the golden age of information, such that we only really need doctors for their technical skills, having biological tests performed, and getting prescriptions filled.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top