Yossarian54

I have a question regarding how you view the general effectiveness of manipulation therapy in relation to other available therapies.

I'll preface this by saying I wish all chiropractors showed the same attitude that you do - in being happy with being musculo-skeletal 'specialists' and not primary care (or something approaching that) physicians.

You mention the Cochrane reviews and their subsequent updates as a positive proof of the effectiveness of chiropractic therapy. I wonder about this when they generally conclude that there is not a major difference in pain and function improvement for SMT alone versus other treatments, or for SMT and other interventions versus other interventions alone. While there are significant effects in some cases (read: studies), there are non-significant effects in others. Moreover, there is a great deal of debate about the clinical significance of these relatively small effects, and problems with inadequate blinding in nearly all RCTs (even though one or two have shown some blinding can be done effectively).

From my perspective, it doesn't really seem to reach the level of conclusive proof that you imply in your posts.

Now, this is not necessarily a criticism of your practices, as my impression is that you utilise practices that a physiotherapist or physical therapist (or whatever) would, with manipulation as an additional component of this therapy. But this is where I find things get really murky; if we don't have strong positive proof behind a particular therapy, can we justify its used based on the thought that it might be effective?

My true biggest fear is my future kids inheriting it. Thats why i decided not to have children.

Fair enough. Do you know the particular mutation you have?

Theoretically you could look at genetic testing in the future - if you have one of the known mutations it might be possible to use IVF screening to ensure that any potential children are not affected. That is, assuming your particular mutation doesn't preclude that option. I imagine that would be expensive in the states though. Still, could be worth a shot if you ever change your mind.

That's shit mate, some level of dental really should be medicare based, it would make so much sense.

Do you not get a certain level of dental work covered? I imagine you would exceed the maximum rebates pretty quickly but still, it should be something?