“Systematic reviews of controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have found no evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.[8] A 2011 critical evaluation of 45 systematic reviews concluded that the data included in the study “fail[ed] to demonstrate convincingly that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition.”[10] Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain, but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.[11] No compelling evidence exists to indicate that maintenance chiropractic care adequately prevents symptoms or diseases.[12]”
Osteopathy was originally pseudoscientific quackery, but has long abandoned the woo crap that was not supported by medical evidence. Osteopathic medicine today is grounded firmly and exclusively in actual science.
Physical therapy is, and always has been, medical science based therapy.
Chiropractic therapy is founded upon disproven theories and requires no actual medical training. The industry regulates its own certifications, and chiropractors are taught a perverted concept of physiology.
…from a north american perspective.
Those definitions are just not true in a lot of countries outside of the us.
Considering osteopathy was invented in the United States by an American, who was basically just making shit up, and all of the underlying theories and mechanisms of action have been thoroughly debunked, I’d say that a lie is a lie anywhere in the world, regardless of legal status.
Psychoanalysis was invented almost at the same time in Vienna and a lot of freudian concepts have since been critiqued due to his biases. Does it mean Austria forever owns psychoanalysis and anything that could be discovered since? There is a difference between a field of research, a scientific discipline and a paradigm. Debunking a theory that was invented more than a century ago doesn’t disqualify every research done after that. Also, paradigm change often comes from opposing theories from the same field they oppose. If we did like that, there wouldn’t be a lot of research field left standing.
You accept yourself that osteopathy was able to go beyond its suspicious origin, but refuse to imagine that chiropractice could do the same. Which is why I reiterate: chiropractice requiring no medical training is a north american thing.
It means anyone anywhere practicing Freudian therapy is peddling debunked medicine.
Chiros anywhere still crack your joints, even though it’s an imaginary benefit and a very real risk. Patients of chiros would be better served in physical therapy or massage therapy. There’s nowhere on earth that this isn’t true.
You’re just presenting nuanced conclusions as overwhelming truths to put weight on your opinion, while taking a few shortcuts. You’re entitled to your opinion of course, but that doesn’t mean you get to dismiss any contradicting ones by deciding unilaterally what the words mean.
Chiropractice in the US might be just “cracking joints”, but it’s not true everywhere. If you can’t accept that, then I don’t know what to tell you.
Are you saying that Chiropractors don’t crack joints in other countries?