Where is Henry Sullivan? I have very interesting news regarding NUCCA for him

Discussion in 'Your Living Room' started by Perses, Jul 23, 2010.

ATTN: Our forums have moved here! You can still read these forums but if you'd like to participate, mosey on over to the new location.

  1. corona

    corona New Member

    I hope it's worth the wait.

    For what it's worth.....Hank has great pro-NUCCA info and Studio34 (and Nassman) have extremely well written info against NUCCA. Reading their posts will help people make an informed decision in either direction.

    I don't know that I would trust the words of some buzzed guy by a pool but I could be totally wrong.
     
  2. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Why would the news have to be good or bad? It's just news. It's what a drunk guy said in a pool to another drunk guy after he pulled his thumb. To my knowledge, long as everybody had clothes on, which we don't yet know, there's no grand moral statement in any of this, no good or bad, as I said, as long as what goes on in the pool stays in the pool, that is.

    If I might just offer some fatherly advice to Perses, waaay to much personal information here. Waaay too much.
     
  3. Jordan

    Jordan New Member

    I actually don't understand most of the discussions about NUCCA (pro or con) and did not learn a great deal from the previous debates. People have been helped, and I am happy about that. I am, however, interested in knowing what other professionals in the field think about this technique. Perhaps they deal with vestibular issues using different techniques and have specific reasons for recommending one technique over another. I presume the chiropractor will write while he is sober.
     
  4. Perses

    Perses Guest

    Finally. A person with some sense in them.
     
  5. burd

    burd New Member

    What one doctor says about another field of medicine means nothing to me. It is only a personal opinion and they will always be biased towards their line of training. A doc can have his opinion, and I can have mine. They are both valid.

    If some have been helped by NUCCA, so be it, and if others have been helped by JOH"s regimen or gent injections or a VNS, so be it. Put your experiences out there and just because a doctor doesn't agree with another approach is neither here nor there.

    What is important is to keep an open mind and be polite to those with different successes and stories and recommendations even if you don't believe in them. What is good for the goose isn't necessarily effective for the gander.

    Conventional medicine is full of quackery as much as any other field of medicine and is all about profit over health and information is propagated to bias people's opinions against approaches that are unconventional. People are screwed over with conventional medicine as much as anyone with alternative approaches, so that is where we all need to be advocates for our own care and do our own research about any of it. Live and learn. And to quit bashing what others have found helpful.
     
  6. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    In an otherwise very reasonable post, burd, I'm sorry but I have to adderss this issue as it is simply not true. There is a business side to medicine, as there is a business side to NUCCA, acupuncture, vitmains, herbs, etc. The problem -- and this seems to be rampant on this board -- is that there is an idea that is embedded in your message that is very, very anti-medical. And that is a pervasive problem on this board.

    Do I get it? Of course I do. I'm in that group of folks who, at times, feels somewhat "failed" by what conventional medicine has offered thus far. It doesn't mean that there is some vast medical conspiracy out there designed to keep us sick, and to shepherd us away from the ONLY people who can help us (alternative practitioners). What it simly means is that there are limits to human knowledge about what ails us, and medical doctors have those limits to the same extent as chiros and acupuncturists do.

    The question -- the VERY relevant question -- for folks looking to be free from their symptoms is: 1) what works; AND -- and this AND is extremely important -- 2) HOW it works. If you don't know how it works, then how in the world does a person on this board know whether they are even a good candidate for a particular treatment.

    More importantly, there are many folks on this board who are desperate for relief. And desperation makes folks easy targets to be scammed. So I continue to hold that these discussions are not only relevant, but absolutely necessary for folks to make educated decisions.
     
  7. KatiePA

    KatiePA New Member

    I'm curious, is there as much interest on the board in challenging/discrediting other alternative treatment approaches, or even conventional treatment approaches, as there is in discrediting NUCCA? There may be, it's not a rhetorical question. My various life obligations mean I only get to check in once in a while, so I only follow a small fraction of the discussions which go on.

    I don't ask for the purpose of suggesting that NUCCA, or any treatment, should be insulated from critical analysis (and to that end, Perses, please post the info you get from the chiropractor when and if you receive it). I'm just concered that postings are influenced by an irrational anti-NUCCA bias which stems not from real doubts about the validity of the treatment approach, but from somewhere else--dislike of its most vocal proponents, perhaps? If so, it does a disservice to anyone hoping to learn from a fair discussion.

    Perhaps this is a topic already flogged to death and, if so, I apologize for repeating what's already been mulled over. As I said, I'm not able to spend much time on the board.


    Katie
     
  8. burd

    burd New Member

    Wino,
    I am not anti-conventional medicine, I believe there is much good in it, as there is in alternative medicine. It's always been clear that unconventional approaches will always be easy targets while people put on blinders to what is going on with conventional medicine as if it has few failures. People talk about getting ripped off with alternative approaches but seem to forget how badly we all are being ripped off by conventional. I have read too much over the years and seen example after example of what it's all about. And yet I know it is conventional medicine that has done many wonderful things for myself and those I love. I also know how it has hurt just as many. Same can be said for the alternative approaches, that's true. Let a hundred things go wrong in conventional medicine and people don't hear about it or shrug it off. But let one thing go wrong with an alternative method and watch the criticism pour in. I advocate a foot in both worlds while looking out for all possible angles, good and bad.

    "The question -- the VERY relevant question -- for folks looking to be free from their symptoms is: 1) what works; AND -- and this AND is extremely important -- 2) HOW it works. If you don't know how it works, then how in the world does a person on this board know whether they are even a good candidate for a particular treatment."

    I agree entirely. Sadly suspicions come up quick with alternative approaches, the same is rarely true for conventional. Many never question their doctors or pharmacists but go along with whatever is decided upon by their physician. And often they even tell us they don't know if or how something will work and yet people will just go along with it. People are harmed all the time by it. No one should ever give their care over so blindly. There is good and bad in all kinds of medicine. I advocate research and caution in all fields.
     
  9. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    burd,

    There is a good reason that people are more skeptical about alternative treatments than they are about conventional treatments. Very simply, in the vast majority of alternative therapies there is no consequence for being wrong. Sure, a chiropractor that doesn't know what he's doing can cause a disc herniation where one didn't exist before. Or perhaps a poorly educated herbalist can create a concoction that is toxic to the patient, or reacts adversely with some medications the patient is taking. But these things happen far less frequently because, in part: 1) alternative practitioners, as a whole, don't see the same volume of patients that conventional doctors do; 2) most alternative practitioners shy away from treating folks who have major medical problems going on, and 3) many times, the folks who see alternative practiioners are there because eveyrthing else has failed and they therefore have little in the way of expectations.

    When is the last time you heard of an acupuncturist being sued for malpractice because they placed their acupuncture needles in the wrong meridians? In the absence of a major screw-up where a chiro causes a disc herniation (or worse, paralysis or a stroke), when is the last time you heard of a NUCCA practitioner being sued for not aligning the atlas sooner, and thereby letting a patient get sicker and sicker before the chronic condition became uncurable? There's a reason you don't see these claims being brought up, and it's not because of some vast conspiracy on the part of the medical community and big pharma (hell, they'd probably relish such claims).

    I think I have demonstrated myself pretty clearly for this board that every reasonable avenue should be explored -- I am on the JOH regimen currently, I am currently in NUCCA treatment and I tried acupuncture. So I hardly fit the bill of the anti-alternative crowd. But it is also clear as the light of day to me that most alternative therapies have little or no consequences when they are wrong, or even falt-out full of it. And I think people really do need to use their brains to make a detrmination whether what they're being told makes any semblance of sense or not.
     
  10. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    Finally, somebody wrote something worth responding to. OK, with regard to whatever treatments you are talking about, what is being "wrong?" How is a naturopath wrong? A NUCCA chiropractor? How can JOH regimen be "wrong?"
     
  11. corona

    corona New Member

    Yes it has been flogged to death...for the last five years, if not more. Perhaps that's why these threads take on a flippant tone sometimes.

    NUCCA is available for those who want to experience it.

    The best (and most reliable) sources of information are the practitioners themselves.

    My suggestion to anybody would be to make an appointment if you want to try it or hear more about it. Don't rely on anybody's personal experience (one way or the other) anonymously posted on a message board.

    You are wrong. The replies are influenced by a distrust in the source...an intoxicated guy by the pool who had a ten minute conversation with another intoxicated guy who is now awaiting an email that may or may not arrive containing a grand revelation. You do realize how ludicrous this sounds?

    I don't know about you but a lot of us do not choose our doctors or alternative practitioners based on the above given that we also have busy lives, limited resources and plenty of common sense.

    Regarding the validity of the treatment experimental studies would have to be done. If you have any information on experimental studies or tests on NUCCA, please post them. I'd appreciate it.
     
  12. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    Fair question, Hank. I think there are three primary ways they can be "wrong":

    1) Their training, no matter how earnestly undertaken and believed, leads them to believe things that simply have no physiologic basis and they, in turn, pass that information along to the patient and treat the patient accordingly. In this scenario, there is no consequence to being "wrong," in the sense that they may undertake a course of treatment that has no physiologic effect on the patient one way or the other. For example, the acupuncturist I saw -- in addition to the acupuncture and other modalities -- rubbed some lemongrass oil around my ear. Supposedly, this oil would restore bloodflow to my inner ear, despite the fact that it's applied to the outside of my ear and there is the mastoid bone in the way. Is there any physiologic basis to conclude that lemongrass oil would actually have any such effect? No. What consequence is there for being "wrong" in this sense? None. I smelled like lemongrass until I got home, but I wasn't harmed in any way.

    2) They can be "wrong" in the sense that what they believe to be the cause of the problem causing symptoms isn't ACTUALLY the cause of the symptoms. This is the point that gets most debated on this board with respect to NUCCA in treating MM. But since that is a hot-button, I will use a different example to illustrate my point so we don't get derailed. I'll go back to acupuncture for this, as it seems from the threads on this subject most everyone who has undergone it on this board has reported a lack of relief. So, when I saw the acupuncturist, she informed me that the reason I was having problems in my inner ear stemmed from poor kidney function (something that blood tests have shown not to be the case at all). So the placement of needles corresponded to the meridians that governed the kidneys. While kidney failure -- when it actually exists -- can cuase all sorts of other problems, I have yet to ever see a single study showing that otherwise normal kidneys are somehow causing hearing loss. The concept, IMO, is bunk. But again, what was the consequence of being "wrong?" I must say that acupuncture was really quite relaxing, even if ineffective. At worst, I'm out a few bucks.

    3) An alternative practitioner can be wrong by failing to identify those patients who are truly candidates for their therapy from those who are not. That is, they can fail to undertake an investigation to determine whether the underlying pathology for a given patient has any actual relation to the therapy being offered. I'll use JOH as an example here -- and I am NOT attacking him in any way, as I am currently on his regimen. But let's assume, momentarily, that JOH quit his day job and started a clinic devoted to treating MM. Every patient that comes in, he places on the JOH regimen because he treats on the assumption that they have a herpetic infection causing the problems. It's possible that he's right on some of those folks. It's equally possible that the person seeing him doesn't actually have a herpetic-based problem. And if that person doesn't have a herpes virus causing the MM issues, then it follows that the JOH regimen isn't going to work for that person. But at the end of the day, what was the harm or consequence? There is none. It could even be that some of the JOH supplements were good for the patient in other ways. But it wouldn't mean that the mythical Dr. JOH wasn't wrong in that hypothetical scenario. Again, with no consequence.
     
  13. Henrysullivan

    Henrysullivan New Member

    I want to be careful as not to put words in your mouth here. So know that I am really trying not to. But you are placing a rather sizeable blame on folks whom you say are wrong, but the consequence of their being wrong is but a few bucks, as you say. What about the surgeon who is wrong and drills a hole in your head? What is his consequence of being wrong? Which would you rather, be out a few bucks and be back where you were, or be out a few more bucks, have some rearranged tissues in you skull and the scars to prove, only to find out that you can't even starr from scratch again?

    I ask that because that is exactly where we found ourselves a few years ago, with my wife, only to find out that hers was a chiropractic problem to begin with. The surgeon was wrong, no repercussions.

    Notwithstanding the horror stories, at least medicine has an out on being wrong about these things. They just don't even venture a guess. Nothing ventured, nothing lost I suppose. If medicine is just going to sit and dispense drugs, which only work to varying degrees if at all, and never step out on a limb, then it can never be wrong, can it? Well what is the virtue in that?

    Now I am not anti-medicine. What I am is anti-unreasonable. It is reasonable that if someone has certain symptoms, and medical science admits that it does not know why, and therefore can't treat the cause, then if someone else with similar symptoms successfully treated them by changing their shoelaces, then folks ought to really consider some new shoe laces, even if it costs them a few bucks.

    But the more and more I have these conversations with folks, the more I am convinced that different folks just reason differently. That's just the way it seems to be.
     
  14. corona

    corona New Member

    This thread has had 72 replies (73 with mine) and 791 hits but nothing has been said as yet :D

    We're such a creative forum...we can take anything and run with it, argue about it, create subtopics within threads.

    Perses....mission accomplished! I bet you are having a good laugh at our expense ;)
     
  15. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    According to www.violinist.com, American violin soloist Pamela Frank has been unable to play for the last several years because of nerve damage from a freak acupuncture accident: http://www.violinist.com/discussion/response.cfm?ID=13001

    Hey, you asked...
     
  16. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    Hey, you misunderstood the question...

    The question had to do with when was the last time you heard about an acupuncturist being sued for malpractice because they, for example, placed pins in the kidney meridian, when if only they placed the pins in the liver meridian the patient would not have gotten worse/died/delayed correct "treatment," etc.? Do you know why that has never happened?
     
  17. Taximom5

    Taximom5 New Member

    First of all, I don't know that that has never happened, although it seems like a logical assumption.

    In this country, acupuncture is not legally considered a life-saving medical treatment.

    In China, it certainly is, but like Japan, Korea, Malaysia, etc. they are not a litigious society. I have read that for every lawyer in Japan, there are 10 engineers, whereas in the US, for every engineer, there are 10 lawyers.
     
  18. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    You are mixing up the context of the word "consequence." The point being that the reason folks who are alternative practitioners are willing to go out on a limb about their claims is precisely because there is generally very little consequence to being wrong. And conversely, the reason that conventional doctors are so measured in their approach tends to be because there is a very real human toll and consequence to being wrong. The question posed by burd had to do with why it was that most people tend to be more skeptical of the non-traditional practitioners and that was what I was addressing. The reason for being skeptical is because alternative practitioners are neither charged with the burden of proving that their treatment does anything at all beyond merely claiming that it does. Their regimens are not subjected to scientific scrutiny. They can basically claim whatever they wish to claim, and "prove" it with testimonials. With conventional medical treatments, while certainly having a tendency to evolve and change as we gain more knowledge, at least have some level of vetting that they have to pass.

    Because people want true answers, not just answers. When I ask someone a question, I don't want them to guess for an answer. I can guess. You either know the answer or you don't. And precisely for the reason you laid out above. Doctors are human beings like any other. Some are smarter than others. Even brilliant ones can make mistakes or be blinded by their convictions. Just as chiros, acupuncturists and herbalists can be. You don't "venture a guess" in traditional medicine because the consequences can be catastrophic. You don't just start experimenting on patients all willy-nilly because it's dangerous and unethical. And while it is certainly frustrating that the evolution of medical practice is slow and is a "slave to the process," it's only because it demands scientific certainty. This is something that non-traditional practitioners don't need to concern themselves about nearly as much, and therefore why they are met with more skepticism by patients.

    I don't know you from Adam, so i can only tell you how you come across to me based on what you choose to post on this site. I don't know if I would call you anti-medicine (others here do fit that bill), but you do come across as embittered by established medicine. And I'm frankly not judging you for that, as you had what could have been a very bad outcome with your wife. I don't know that I could ever remain unbiased against a person/institution who I felt nearly harmed my wife irreparably. Be that as it may, you come across as a man who views establishment medicine with a level of scrutiny that you do not equally apply to alternative practitioners. If you were cynical across the board, that would be one thing. But it's almost like that saying, "The enemy of my enemy is my friend." You seem to take on faith virtually anything proposed by the chiro/NUCCA field about how the body works without question, simply because it's different than what a traditional doctor says. So when you talk about people reasoning differently, this is an area where I don't frankly understand your reasoning. Just because person A is wrong doesn't by definition mean that person B must be right simply because they are different than A.
     
  19. burd

    burd New Member

    I don't understand how accountability for mistakes is an indicator as to whether a certain method is deemed productive and beneficial. Doctors in all fields of medicine harm patients and never get sued.  Conventional surgeries and procedures go wrong all the time, people are harmed or worse, and not all of it is held accountable.  Patients end up paying for the procedures to correct what was screwed up. Mistakes are swept under the rug. Information and statistics are withheld or manipulated. Treatments like chemotherapy kill people by the thousands.  Prescriptions are handed out like candy, if it doesn't work, oh well we'll try another, while so much money is flushed down the toilet. People go into hospitals for one thing and contract horrid staph infections and then have to pay for the treatments to save their lives. How many of us have spent money on meds that don't work?  How many of us have had totally ineffective appointments with specialists and general physicians, we get no answers, no results, and we still pay the bill?  We don't get compensated for playing guinea pig.

    And yet through all this I don't condemn conventional medicine as ineffective and mythical.  
     
  20. Wino

    Wino Resident Honey Badger

    Neither is hair removal, breast enhancement, botox, liposuction, etc etc etc. But botch any of those up and you're going to be on the business end of a lawsuit and answering to the state medical board.
     

Share This Page