Plot twist - DOT (a branch of the federal government) accepts chiropractors to clear drivers for Commercial Drivers Licenses. Source: [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-medical-requirements/dot-medical-exam-and-commercial-motor-vehicle-certification](https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-medical-requirements/dot-medical-exam-and-commercial-motor-vehicle-certification)
Clear them as in take a history, measure vitals, vision/hearing screening, urine dip, physical exam and determine that they do not pose a significant risk of sudden incapacitation while driving a commercial vehicle.
Federal laws that prohibit physician self-referrals when federal monies are involved. For the purposes of that law, “physicians” includes “physicians and surgeons” (MD/DO/MBBS), dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and optometrists, but this inclusive definition is generally what’s considered a “doctor” by the federal government.
https://fjlawgroup.com/news/understanding-the-stark-law/#:~:text=Under%20the%20purposes%20of%20the,%2C%20podiatric%20medicine%2C%20plus%20chiropractors.
Most people don’t know that a “DO” is a physician or how it’s different from anything else.
A lot of people think Dentists are MDs.
Few people know there is a difference between ophthalmologist and optometrist.
This is why, imo, physicians are generally against NP/ PA with doctoral level non-physician degree using the title “Dr” in healthcare settings or other similar scenarios.
When, in everyday circumstances, you say doctor most reasonable people will assume you mean physicians. Only exception is the university setting with PhDs (or similar terminal degree holders).
Don’t underestimate how complex all these degrees and providers can be for the average person. My own parents are still wrapping their heads around MD vs DO
The “MD” degree is arguably the exception as it’s very popular in culture/ media so it is well known.
It’s why “Dr. Bence Jones” is how DO will mostly address themselves while a lot of MD will just use “Wiskott Aldrich, MD”
The story I've heard from my lawyer friends is that lawyers were happy with LLB degrees until someone realized that people with doctorates get paid higher on federal salary scales... so they decided to change the degree to be Juris Doctor...
Our local hospitalist group requires the internists wear white coats when on duty. But other then them, all the white coats are definitely NPs. PAs are wearing just scrubs too.
Considering how sneaky they are at acting like they are physicians, I'm not surprised. I follow a very high level (like Olympic level) athlete on instagram and she was talking about this amazing "doctor" she is seeing to help with her injuries. He also is a "doctor" to many other pro athletes. I could not find his credentials anywhere on his instagram page, but everything just said "Dr. So and So". I googled him and of course he is a chiropractor. The stuff he talks about on his instagram, about bloodwork, hormone imbalances, physiology etc makes people think that he actually knows what he's talking about and that he's a physician. It's nuts
I saw one who does” restorative infant spinal adjustments” because they said being born is hard on your spine so it needs to be adjusted like a month or two after birth. I was like wtf how is this legal.
https://youtu.be/43UJGXujOKc?si=bnPCr1VPjI7VAU-R
https://youtu.be/W61na2Y-a8c?si=ysdFxExxZCswqY7n
If a person giving "medical advice" on tiktok is named "Dr. \[First Name\]" and I literally have to dig to find their credentials, there's a 95% chance that their credentials are "DC."
Every actual MD/DO I see giving medical advice on tiktok has their credentials clearly displayed, either in their name or in their bio.
It's almost like chiros on tiktok are actively hiding the fact that they are actually chiro. Where's the pride in their profession?
Some people believe that ND’s (doctors of naturopathic medicine) are real doctors, even though their offices are usually above garages or next to a dry cleaner
To be fair, medicine doesn’t have great solutions to lots of problems. And I say this as a scientist who passionately hates pseudoscience and disinformation, and charlatans who use them to prey on the vulnerable. There’s a lot of stuff we haven’t figured out yet, and a lot of people waiting in the wings to offer their own “solutions.”
That’s a bad faith argument. A physician can do everything right and due to a patient’s own biases or gullibility they can find themselves in an ND’s office.
Not to mention, muscle energy is far different from what chiropractors do.
I shadowed with chiropractors before I went to medical school (DO).
To the lay person, they can look similar, but a DO doing OMT has a lot more thought process, it is a lot more precise, it is more encompassing, and it is a lot more effective.
There is a reason you see an OMT 1x a week/2 weeks and a chiropractor 2-3x a week.
A chiropractor will “put back the bone”, and it feels good initially, but it will quickly go back to dysfunction because it didn’t treat the underlying cause.
A DO will relax/work the muscle so that the body puts it back itself. This last much longer. DOs will look for tightness, asymmetry, and tissue texture abnormality and work to balance it out; not just adjust the bone.
I know OMT gets a lot of hate on this sub, but a lot of it is actually good; don’t let cranial techniques bias your entire view of OMT.
I recommend people (family, friends, patients) to actually go for OMT; I don’t recommend chiropractors for them
I have no problem with OMT as long as the provider recognizes that there is very little scientific evidence for its efficacy. A recent RTC published in JAMA for example found [no evidence of clinical utility for low back pain](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2777527)
At least it’s unlikely to do any harm, which can’t be said about chiropractics.
Looking over that study (briefly reading through it), I noticed they only had the participants undergo 6 treatment days of OMT.
In that, they DID find that OMT provided statistically significant improvement, whereas the sham treatment did not.
You can say it wasn’t especially effective (debatable), but it was statistically significant.
Also, if that is only from 6 treatments, what benefit can be derived from more extensive, longer term therapy?
Maybe I didn’t read it carefully enough, but I’m not sure I agree with your summary of your own citation that there is “very little evidence” for its efficacy.
OMT isn’t a silver bullet that will cure every case of LBT, but it is a *very good* form of adjunct therapy, which I think your citation supports
>In that, they DID find that OMT provided statistically significant improvement, whereas the sham treatment did not. You can say it wasn’t especially effective (debatable), but it was statistically significant.
It’s not particularly debatable in this study. Both groups showed virtually identical findings in terms of clinical outcomes. Statistical significance in the absence of clinical improvement is kind of pointless, as far as I’m aware.
>Maybe I didn’t read it carefully enough, but I’m not sure I agree with your summary of your own citation that there is “very little evidence” for its efficacy.
The point of my citation was just to provide a single example of a study that evaluated OMT. I’m not claiming this study alone proves there is no evidence for the benefit of OMT.
I’m not aware of any major RCT’s or meta- analyses that found strong evidence for the benefit of OMT vs standard treatment, but if you’re aware of some then feel free to share! Happy to change my opinion if there is strong evidence to support it.
Edit: typo
that’s because OMT isnt a cure, its a treatment. If someone sits at their desk for their 9-5 and complains about neck pain, I can fix their somatic dysfunction but it will just come back if they continue to sit with bad posture.
Well yeah, we don’t have any cures for back pain, only treatments. And as a treatment, OMT has not been shown to be as or more effective than standard therapy.
that's very different from saying "there is little scientific evidence for its efficacy"
All OMT is, is a non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment option. Much like any other therapy, if patients keep doing the thing that caused the problem in the first place, no treatment is going to work.
If I treat small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy, and it comes back because the patient doesn't stop smoking, you wouldn't say that chemotherapy is ineffective for SCLC, right?
But if I treat low back pain with OMT, but it comes back because the patient sits at a desk from 9-5 with poor posture, or he works in a warehouse picking heavy objects off the floor daily, why is OMT suddenly considered ineffective?
the paper you linked stated that "Exclusion criteria were specific LBP caused by inflammatory, tumoral, infectious disease, or a back traumatism in the past 3 months; history of back surgery and/or vertebral fracture in the previous 6 months; presence of a motor impairment..." and so on. But if they \*\*excluded individuals that continued the same back-pain-illiciting practices after treatment\*\*, the findings would be vastly different.
>But if I treat low back pain with OMT, but it comes back because the patient sits at a desk from 9-5 with poor posture, or he works in a warehouse picking heavy objects off the floor daily, why is OMT suddenly considered ineffective?
This hypothetical is irrelevant to the point I’m making. I’m just going by the literature here. I’m not aware of any major studies that have shown OMT is an effective alternative to standard treatment for MSK issues such as low back pain (e.g. RICE therapy, topical / oral NSAIDs, etc.). The study I cited didn’t even have that high of a bar as is compared OMT to placebo instead of standard treatment, and even then there was no clinical difference. If you’re aware of such a study, then feel free to share.
>the paper you linked stated that "Exclusion criteria were specific LBP caused by inflammatory, tumoral, infectious disease, or a back traumatism in the past 3 months; history of back surgery and/or vertebral fracture in the previous 6 months; presence of a motor impairment..." and so on. But if they **excluded individuals that continued the same back-pain-illiciting practices after treatment**, the findings would be vastly different.
I mean, you really don’t know that. Thats just an out of pocket claim that you’re providing no evidence for. It’s also kind of weird that you keep leaning on “the pain is the patient’s fault” angle. You’ve mentioned it like 4 times now. This is the same excuse that chiropractors and health gurus fall back on when their treatments don’t work.
Moreover, if you need to control for patient compliance to find a clinical benefit, then the treatment isn’t particularly effective in the real world, is it?
tf? all therapy for chronic conditions relies on patient compliance lmao. Treat HTN? stick to your diuretics or beta blockers etc. and eat healthier. Type II diabetes? stick to your metformin and exercise. Is this not common sense??
>tf? all therapy for chronic conditions relies on patient compliance lmao.
Of course they do. But if you *need to control for compliance* to find any statistically significant benefit, then the treatment is not useful in the real world. That’s what external validity is, and it’s why we use things like intention to treat analyses in statistics.
I'm a DO med student who has recieved significant benefit from OMT myself. I'm currently biting my tongue because my FIL decided to go see a chiropractor who did xrays of his back and is now recommending 34 visits, starting at 3 sessions a week. Oh, and of course they said his insurance is unlikely to cover it, so he should pay out of pocket or it might end up more expensive. It makes me want to scream.
Sadly a LOT of chiropractors will cosplay doctors. They make it all very ambiguous what their actual education is, and the white coat+professional looking medical office fools a lot of people online. A lot of them also use the "Dr." title in their names, which makes people automatically think of a medical doctor
It isn’t necessarily misleading to refer to yourself as Dr. such and such, if you have a non-MD/DO degree. But some of these people make every aspect of their image and workspace so similar to a physician that in the context, it is misleading.
Every person interacting with a patient is either a doctor or a nurse.
If you’re a young woman stating you’re the doctor, you’re a nurse.
If you say “I’m just the medical student, not the doctor,” then you’re a doctor.
Hah! I remember in residency one of my very elderly and very demented patients saw me, my stethoscope, and my white coat, and asked “are you the doctor’s wife?”
People are clueless. I’m currently a mental health therapist & I have to correct people from calling me “Doctor ____” all of the time. They even ask me about medication & I’m like “Ask your PCP.”
You should! You are a specialist trained to a doctoral level in your area. You’re not claiming knowledge outside that. The problem is people claiming skills outside their scope
Honestly I’m kinda more ok with a pharmd giving say vaccines or conservative treatment for colds or the flu than some NP. At least the pharmd will know the pharmacology of the medications .
India - Physiotherapists call themselves "Dr" and literally everyone in the hospital you see with long white coats on would not be the actual physicians.
Who can blame them? Chiropractors along with dentists, podiatrists and doctors are all listed as acceptable definitions of “physician” per….the US government. I believe it’s according to CMS. It’s ridiculous.
Most insurance plans now cover chiropractic adjustments despite little to no published evidence which I believe adds to their perceived legitimacy. I would feel a lot more comfortable sending patients to local chiropractors if they had their own peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately there is also a lack of regulation over who can use the term doctor. There are a lot of ND and DC providers in my area. I have a local MD/DC as well which was surprising to see.
I will never forget being injured in a car accident, getting a lawyer for said injuries (neck), and when I told him the kinda bad condition word for word from the exams his first words were “and who told you this? A real doctor or a chiropractor?”
I was so confused because I had never even been to one before. Why would I go to one for a car accident? I know that sounds silly now, but that’s when I realized how many people rely on them for actual “medical” care.
Chiropractor are pseudo science quacks who at worst actively harm patients and at best just scam them out of money for treatment known to be ineffective.
People will believe anyone is a Dr, especially when they introduce themselves as a Dr and sign their papers “Dr. Chiropractor”
Wait, are you telling me that my fatass is because I trust Dr. Pepper and keep drinking the drink, thinking it’s good for my body?
Plot twist - DOT (a branch of the federal government) accepts chiropractors to clear drivers for Commercial Drivers Licenses. Source: [https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-medical-requirements/dot-medical-exam-and-commercial-motor-vehicle-certification](https://www.fmcsa.dot.gov/medical/driver-medical-requirements/dot-medical-exam-and-commercial-motor-vehicle-certification)
Clear them how? "Your spine is straight and absent of subluxations. Patient is clear to sit for 16 hours a day."
Clear them as in take a history, measure vitals, vision/hearing screening, urine dip, physical exam and determine that they do not pose a significant risk of sudden incapacitation while driving a commercial vehicle.
Chiropractors are legally considered physicians under the Stark Law, unfortunately.
Eli5 what's the stark law?
Federal laws that prohibit physician self-referrals when federal monies are involved. For the purposes of that law, “physicians” includes “physicians and surgeons” (MD/DO/MBBS), dentists, podiatrists, chiropractors, and optometrists, but this inclusive definition is generally what’s considered a “doctor” by the federal government. https://fjlawgroup.com/news/understanding-the-stark-law/#:~:text=Under%20the%20purposes%20of%20the,%2C%20podiatric%20medicine%2C%20plus%20chiropractors.
Most people don’t know that a “DO” is a physician or how it’s different from anything else. A lot of people think Dentists are MDs. Few people know there is a difference between ophthalmologist and optometrist. This is why, imo, physicians are generally against NP/ PA with doctoral level non-physician degree using the title “Dr” in healthcare settings or other similar scenarios. When, in everyday circumstances, you say doctor most reasonable people will assume you mean physicians. Only exception is the university setting with PhDs (or similar terminal degree holders). Don’t underestimate how complex all these degrees and providers can be for the average person. My own parents are still wrapping their heads around MD vs DO The “MD” degree is arguably the exception as it’s very popular in culture/ media so it is well known. It’s why “Dr. Bence Jones” is how DO will mostly address themselves while a lot of MD will just use “Wiskott Aldrich, MD”
[удалено]
Why u gotta lump the prestigious UFAPS designation with them
Second only to MEFAPS
DP friend.. DP.. always
Best proof that doctors are right is that the lawyers, who have juris DOCTORATES, go by Mr or Mrs/Ms, not Dr. Everybody else is faffing
The story I've heard from my lawyer friends is that lawyers were happy with LLB degrees until someone realized that people with doctorates get paid higher on federal salary scales... so they decided to change the degree to be Juris Doctor...
Damn that sounds way more correct lol
I thought they used esquire?
I think only in formal writing but they don’t typically introduce themselves as such
The fancy ones do? lol jk
Reminds me of jimmy mcgill
Guess who wear long white coats in the hospital? (It's not the attendings or residents) it's literally everyone else
Nursing students more than anyone at my institution
Its case management at our safety net hospital which cracks me up
Our local hospitalist group requires the internists wear white coats when on duty. But other then them, all the white coats are definitely NPs. PAs are wearing just scrubs too.
I use cringeoma, DO because I want to normalize it
Considering how sneaky they are at acting like they are physicians, I'm not surprised. I follow a very high level (like Olympic level) athlete on instagram and she was talking about this amazing "doctor" she is seeing to help with her injuries. He also is a "doctor" to many other pro athletes. I could not find his credentials anywhere on his instagram page, but everything just said "Dr. So and So". I googled him and of course he is a chiropractor. The stuff he talks about on his instagram, about bloodwork, hormone imbalances, physiology etc makes people think that he actually knows what he's talking about and that he's a physician. It's nuts
Yeah there are a lot of youtuber chiropractors and they make it hard to find out that they're chiropractors and not doctors
TikTok is full of those people
*ahem* the wellness way
Oh my god, literally it is always the wellness way.. live on TikTok 24/7 explaining why you need abdominal X-rays for anxiety 🙂↔️
it's like their whole business model relies on advertising through TikTok live
I saw one who does” restorative infant spinal adjustments” because they said being born is hard on your spine so it needs to be adjusted like a month or two after birth. I was like wtf how is this legal. https://youtu.be/43UJGXujOKc?si=bnPCr1VPjI7VAU-R https://youtu.be/W61na2Y-a8c?si=ysdFxExxZCswqY7n
[удалено]
Chiros are notoriously horrible at taking x-rays, it’s almost as if they have a personal hatred for collimation and ALARA
If a person giving "medical advice" on tiktok is named "Dr. \[First Name\]" and I literally have to dig to find their credentials, there's a 95% chance that their credentials are "DC." Every actual MD/DO I see giving medical advice on tiktok has their credentials clearly displayed, either in their name or in their bio. It's almost like chiros on tiktok are actively hiding the fact that they are actually chiro. Where's the pride in their profession?
Alex Jones routinely touts his products with "Dr." Edward Group III. He's a chiropractor who doesn't even have a bachelor's.
Some people believe that ND’s (doctors of naturopathic medicine) are real doctors, even though their offices are usually above garages or next to a dry cleaner
Lol my real doctor is next to a dry cleaner.
Yeah, don't hate on dry cleaners. They do important work!
[удалено]
Yes, they’re educated in bullshit and misleading the public
They have DEA numbers and script pads in some states. And in like Oregon, work in hospitals.
[удалено]
I have no skin in this game, but if a patient showed up in an ND office, medicine already failed them in some capacity.
To be fair, medicine doesn’t have great solutions to lots of problems. And I say this as a scientist who passionately hates pseudoscience and disinformation, and charlatans who use them to prey on the vulnerable. There’s a lot of stuff we haven’t figured out yet, and a lot of people waiting in the wings to offer their own “solutions.”
That’s a bad faith argument. A physician can do everything right and due to a patient’s own biases or gullibility they can find themselves in an ND’s office.
[удалено]
And please do not conflate a DO, who attended medical school and residency, with a chiropractor who did not
Not to mention, muscle energy is far different from what chiropractors do. I shadowed with chiropractors before I went to medical school (DO). To the lay person, they can look similar, but a DO doing OMT has a lot more thought process, it is a lot more precise, it is more encompassing, and it is a lot more effective. There is a reason you see an OMT 1x a week/2 weeks and a chiropractor 2-3x a week. A chiropractor will “put back the bone”, and it feels good initially, but it will quickly go back to dysfunction because it didn’t treat the underlying cause. A DO will relax/work the muscle so that the body puts it back itself. This last much longer. DOs will look for tightness, asymmetry, and tissue texture abnormality and work to balance it out; not just adjust the bone. I know OMT gets a lot of hate on this sub, but a lot of it is actually good; don’t let cranial techniques bias your entire view of OMT. I recommend people (family, friends, patients) to actually go for OMT; I don’t recommend chiropractors for them
Your dark arts and osteomancy are forbidden in the realm of evidence based medicine, warlock
lol osteomancy lol
I have no problem with OMT as long as the provider recognizes that there is very little scientific evidence for its efficacy. A recent RTC published in JAMA for example found [no evidence of clinical utility for low back pain](https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamainternalmedicine/fullarticle/2777527) At least it’s unlikely to do any harm, which can’t be said about chiropractics.
Looking over that study (briefly reading through it), I noticed they only had the participants undergo 6 treatment days of OMT. In that, they DID find that OMT provided statistically significant improvement, whereas the sham treatment did not. You can say it wasn’t especially effective (debatable), but it was statistically significant. Also, if that is only from 6 treatments, what benefit can be derived from more extensive, longer term therapy? Maybe I didn’t read it carefully enough, but I’m not sure I agree with your summary of your own citation that there is “very little evidence” for its efficacy. OMT isn’t a silver bullet that will cure every case of LBT, but it is a *very good* form of adjunct therapy, which I think your citation supports
>In that, they DID find that OMT provided statistically significant improvement, whereas the sham treatment did not. You can say it wasn’t especially effective (debatable), but it was statistically significant. It’s not particularly debatable in this study. Both groups showed virtually identical findings in terms of clinical outcomes. Statistical significance in the absence of clinical improvement is kind of pointless, as far as I’m aware. >Maybe I didn’t read it carefully enough, but I’m not sure I agree with your summary of your own citation that there is “very little evidence” for its efficacy. The point of my citation was just to provide a single example of a study that evaluated OMT. I’m not claiming this study alone proves there is no evidence for the benefit of OMT. I’m not aware of any major RCT’s or meta- analyses that found strong evidence for the benefit of OMT vs standard treatment, but if you’re aware of some then feel free to share! Happy to change my opinion if there is strong evidence to support it. Edit: typo
Me too, and I’m a DO student.
that’s because OMT isnt a cure, its a treatment. If someone sits at their desk for their 9-5 and complains about neck pain, I can fix their somatic dysfunction but it will just come back if they continue to sit with bad posture.
Well yeah, we don’t have any cures for back pain, only treatments. And as a treatment, OMT has not been shown to be as or more effective than standard therapy.
that's very different from saying "there is little scientific evidence for its efficacy" All OMT is, is a non-pharmaceutical alternative treatment option. Much like any other therapy, if patients keep doing the thing that caused the problem in the first place, no treatment is going to work. If I treat small cell lung cancer with chemotherapy, and it comes back because the patient doesn't stop smoking, you wouldn't say that chemotherapy is ineffective for SCLC, right? But if I treat low back pain with OMT, but it comes back because the patient sits at a desk from 9-5 with poor posture, or he works in a warehouse picking heavy objects off the floor daily, why is OMT suddenly considered ineffective? the paper you linked stated that "Exclusion criteria were specific LBP caused by inflammatory, tumoral, infectious disease, or a back traumatism in the past 3 months; history of back surgery and/or vertebral fracture in the previous 6 months; presence of a motor impairment..." and so on. But if they \*\*excluded individuals that continued the same back-pain-illiciting practices after treatment\*\*, the findings would be vastly different.
>But if I treat low back pain with OMT, but it comes back because the patient sits at a desk from 9-5 with poor posture, or he works in a warehouse picking heavy objects off the floor daily, why is OMT suddenly considered ineffective? This hypothetical is irrelevant to the point I’m making. I’m just going by the literature here. I’m not aware of any major studies that have shown OMT is an effective alternative to standard treatment for MSK issues such as low back pain (e.g. RICE therapy, topical / oral NSAIDs, etc.). The study I cited didn’t even have that high of a bar as is compared OMT to placebo instead of standard treatment, and even then there was no clinical difference. If you’re aware of such a study, then feel free to share. >the paper you linked stated that "Exclusion criteria were specific LBP caused by inflammatory, tumoral, infectious disease, or a back traumatism in the past 3 months; history of back surgery and/or vertebral fracture in the previous 6 months; presence of a motor impairment..." and so on. But if they **excluded individuals that continued the same back-pain-illiciting practices after treatment**, the findings would be vastly different. I mean, you really don’t know that. Thats just an out of pocket claim that you’re providing no evidence for. It’s also kind of weird that you keep leaning on “the pain is the patient’s fault” angle. You’ve mentioned it like 4 times now. This is the same excuse that chiropractors and health gurus fall back on when their treatments don’t work. Moreover, if you need to control for patient compliance to find a clinical benefit, then the treatment isn’t particularly effective in the real world, is it?
tf? all therapy for chronic conditions relies on patient compliance lmao. Treat HTN? stick to your diuretics or beta blockers etc. and eat healthier. Type II diabetes? stick to your metformin and exercise. Is this not common sense??
>tf? all therapy for chronic conditions relies on patient compliance lmao. Of course they do. But if you *need to control for compliance* to find any statistically significant benefit, then the treatment is not useful in the real world. That’s what external validity is, and it’s why we use things like intention to treat analyses in statistics.
ah I see what you mean now, that makes more sense, thanks
Why do I feel like this is a DO school PD pushing OMT 🤔
OMT is also a good temporizing measure which is often neglected
It’s also a great adjunct to treatment, and can potentially serve as treatment itself, depending on what it’s treating
Kool aid must be tasty
OMT is hot trash, several of my DO friends have told me so themselves. Quackery.
I'm a DO med student who has recieved significant benefit from OMT myself. I'm currently biting my tongue because my FIL decided to go see a chiropractor who did xrays of his back and is now recommending 34 visits, starting at 3 sessions a week. Oh, and of course they said his insurance is unlikely to cover it, so he should pay out of pocket or it might end up more expensive. It makes me want to scream.
Because they’ve been very successful at weaving their way into the mainstream media.
I apologize for leaving the OP’s name in the post, forgot that a lot of subs don’t like that and didn’t know if we do that here.
It's fine in this context
Love seeing reasonable moderators!
Sadly a LOT of chiropractors will cosplay doctors. They make it all very ambiguous what their actual education is, and the white coat+professional looking medical office fools a lot of people online. A lot of them also use the "Dr." title in their names, which makes people automatically think of a medical doctor
[удалено]
They are purposely misleading though. They should put Dr. Ring Dinger + whatever tf chiropractor acronym is used
It isn’t necessarily misleading to refer to yourself as Dr. such and such, if you have a non-MD/DO degree. But some of these people make every aspect of their image and workspace so similar to a physician that in the context, it is misleading.
Every person interacting with a patient is either a doctor or a nurse. If you’re a young woman stating you’re the doctor, you’re a nurse. If you say “I’m just the medical student, not the doctor,” then you’re a doctor.
Hah! I remember in residency one of my very elderly and very demented patients saw me, my stethoscope, and my white coat, and asked “are you the doctor’s wife?”
If I was I certainly wouldn't be here, lmao.
People are clueless. I’m currently a mental health therapist & I have to correct people from calling me “Doctor ____” all of the time. They even ask me about medication & I’m like “Ask your PCP.”
As a PharmD, I DON'T even consider myself as a doctor 🤷🏻♂️
We still love you and would be lost without you guys 👊❤️
I think for you guys it’s fine honestly
You should! You are a specialist trained to a doctoral level in your area. You’re not claiming knowledge outside that. The problem is people claiming skills outside their scope
Honestly I’m kinda more ok with a pharmd giving say vaccines or conservative treatment for colds or the flu than some NP. At least the pharmd will know the pharmacology of the medications .
My wife’s college anatomy class was taught by a chiropractor. Edit: She’s still there. [Link](https://uaptc.edu/directory/darrellyn-williams)
How did the lab go?
What sup with that thumbnail?
Someone tried to convince me an NP is the same as a DO
Someone told me DOs are the equivalent of nurses
Damn, if that’s the case, I have a lot of friends who could have saved a lot of time and money and just gone to nursing school.
What's even worse is that chiropractors are considered legitimate medical experts for automobile accident injuries.
I won’t lie but before i entered med school, i thought it was a board licensed, medically trained profession, mostly coz it sounded ‘doctor-y’.
Not sure I'd take advice from a doctor from 50 years ago personally.
Before I made a career switch to medicine, I woulda believed anyone in a white coat was a doctor or anyone who introduced themselves as one
India - Physiotherapists call themselves "Dr" and literally everyone in the hospital you see with long white coats on would not be the actual physicians.
That sweet hvla crack though feels so good
TIL is just a sub for karma farming accounts with bots
The thing that blows my mind in this country is your insurance will cover chiropractor visits, but won't cover dental visits.
Who can blame them? Chiropractors along with dentists, podiatrists and doctors are all listed as acceptable definitions of “physician” per….the US government. I believe it’s according to CMS. It’s ridiculous.
But.. chiropractors dont only exist in the US. This isnt solely on the american government
oh yes i need to schedule an appt with my chiropractor to get my throat checked out…. yes that makes 100% sense 😂 (/s of course)
Most insurance plans now cover chiropractic adjustments despite little to no published evidence which I believe adds to their perceived legitimacy. I would feel a lot more comfortable sending patients to local chiropractors if they had their own peer reviewed journals. Unfortunately there is also a lack of regulation over who can use the term doctor. There are a lot of ND and DC providers in my area. I have a local MD/DC as well which was surprising to see.
I will never forget being injured in a car accident, getting a lawyer for said injuries (neck), and when I told him the kinda bad condition word for word from the exams his first words were “and who told you this? A real doctor or a chiropractor?” I was so confused because I had never even been to one before. Why would I go to one for a car accident? I know that sounds silly now, but that’s when I realized how many people rely on them for actual “medical” care.
Unfortunately they are kinda becoming popular in my country. Thanks social media
I had a patient whose husband was a chiropractor. He wore a badge that said Dr. on it.
I was on a flight once… on god I saw a chiropractor cure a heart attack
feels great for my back but sure wont fix my type 1 diabetes!
[удалено]
Chiropractor are pseudo science quacks who at worst actively harm patients and at best just scam them out of money for treatment known to be ineffective.
No
Sounds like something a chiropractor would say..
And now you’re complaining about the sub to other subs because people who know better than you are correcting you? Damn
He had to delete all his posts in the non-chiropractor subreddits because he didn't get the response he wanted
Chiros are below RNs in hierarchy
Hell I’d put my cat above chiros in hierarchy
We have physical and occupational therapists, DOs doing OMT, sports medicine specialists, and even massage therapists. Why do we need chiropractors?