|
|
 | | From: | Todd Gastaldo | | Subject: | Chiropractic in pregnancy (Vet to visit a chiro?) | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 02:36:56 GMT |
|
|
 | CHIROPRACTIC IN PREGNANCY:
VET TO VISIT A CHIRO?
Veterinary medical doctor Hillary Israeli may a doctor of chiropractic...
Hillary Israeli, VMD invited people to read her pregnancy journal....
"....http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html has the latest."
http://groups-beta.google.com/group/misc.kids.pregnancy/msg/c2cf50022b7406c0
In her pregnancy journal, Hillary indicates that "Of course" she has "pretty
bad" gut feelings about chiropractors...
http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html
Hillary says her doula says she knows of a chiropractor who "really is not a
quacky sort of person"...
Hillary is thinking about visiting this (possibly "quacky") chiropractor
("we'll see") because of her "gut feeling" that her baby is breech, as in,
"Wednesday, November 3 - 29 w 1 d: met with Ellen [the doula] last
night...One interesting thing we talked about was potentially seeing a
chiropractor for pelvic alignment at about 32 weeks, because of my gut
feeling about having a breech baby..."
http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html
The word "quacky" suggests quackery - which is generally taken to mean
scientifically unproven.
To my knowledge, consulting chiropractors to cause breeches to turn is
scientifically unproven.
If I am right about this, Hillary - who is science-oriented - would likely
consider "quacky" this chiropractor who she may visit if her baby is still
breech.
I am biased being a doctor of chiropractic, but I would encourage women to
visit a chiropractor during pregnancy if they wish for someone to make a
gentle attempt at turning a breech.
There are some great anecdotes.
I would also encourage women to visit a chiropractor if they are
experiencing the following problems described by Hillary:
"Wednesday, October 20 - 27 w, 2 d: ...I have been having terrible lower
back pain and some pelvic joint pain, which at times prevents me from
walking or even driving - I had to pull over twice and stop the car and wait
until such time as I was able to lift my right foot without screaming in
pain....
"Wednesday, 10 November - 30 w 1 d: ...I continue to feel as if I have
pulled my groin muscles and had my lumbar spinal region trampled on by an
angered bovine if I so much as stand up from a seated position, or if I sit
for too long....
"Wednesday, 23 December - 36 weeks: ...I woke up today with REALLY BAD pubic
symphysis pain. Last night I had shooting pains in my left SI joint area,
too. I'm falling apart I tell you. Falling
apart..."http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html
While still in spinal adjusting practice I so enjoyed adjusting pregnant
women.
Pregnant women are SO easy to adjust - and sometimes the results are instant
and spectacular - or rather - I should say - sometimes instant/spectacular
pain relief is associated with gentle spinal adjusting of pregnant women.
I like the idea of asking a doula for a recommendation.
Not all DCs have a lot of experience adjusting pregnant women.
Then again, I had great results with my very first pregnant patient.
Pregnant women are indeed easy to adjust.
Todd
Dr. Gastaldo
todd@chiromotion.com
PS Hillary does not mention seeing a chiropractor in her journal which
brings to mind an important point:
Severe musculoskeletal pain usually goes away on its own. But I'd still see
some health professional.
I think chiropractors can often help pregnant women make pain go away sooner
and stay away longer. No scientific evidence though - not specifically in
regard to pregnant women.
|
|
| | From: | Hillary Israeli | | Subject: | Re: Chiropractic in pregnancy (Vet to visit a chiro?) | | Date: | Fri, 21 Jan 2005 17:27:02 +0000 (UTC) |
|
|
| In ,
Todd Gastaldo wrote:
*CHIROPRACTIC IN PREGNANCY:
*
*VET TO VISIT A CHIRO?
Yes, yes, I visited a chiropractor.
*In her pregnancy journal, Hillary indicates that "Of course" she has "pretty
*bad" gut feelings about chiropractors...
Yes. I said that because generally speaking, the people who read my pg
journal are people who know me to some extent, and they know that I am not
a huge fan of the type of chiropractor who believes, for example, that
they can treat diabetes mellitus by spinal adjustments, and that sort of
thing. On the other hand, I have no problem with the use of chiropractic
adjustments to treat musculoskeletal pain. I did not mean to imply by my
"of course" that everyone on earth also feels the way I do, in case you
were wondering.
*The word "quacky" suggests quackery - which is generally taken to mean
*scientifically unproven.
Yes.
*To my knowledge, consulting chiropractors to cause breeches to turn is
*scientifically unproven.
Yes, I believe you are correct.
*If I am right about this, Hillary - who is science-oriented - would likely
*consider "quacky" this chiropractor who she may visit if her baby is still
*breech.
No. I said I was considering consulting one who was not IMO quacky. And in
fact I did go to a chiropractor for several weeks, and she did provide
some small moderate pain relief for me. I did not expect that she would be
able to turn a breech. I did expect she would be able to do some
spinal/pelvic adjustments, hopefully reducing my pain and associated
muscle spasm, therefore allowing the fetus to turn more easily if
required. As it happens the fetus was never known to be breech and as of
yesterday is vertex so this whole breech thing was probably completely in
my head.
*Pregnant women are SO easy to adjust - and sometimes the results are instant
*and spectacular - or rather - I should say - sometimes instant/spectacular
*pain relief is associated with gentle spinal adjusting of pregnant women.
Well, mine weren't. In fact, after the first two weeks, my chiropractor
suggested I stop coming, because she felt she wasn't really helping me. I
felt that she was helping just a tiny bit, so I kept going, and after the
third week the relief was a little more obvious.
*PS Hillary does not mention seeing a chiropractor in her journal which
*brings to mind an important point:
Yes, Hillary isn't putting absolutely everything into her journal.
-h.
--
Hillary Israeli, VMD
Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
"Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
too dark to read." --Groucho Marx
|
|
| | From: | Todd Gastaldo | | Subject: | Re: Chiropractic in pregnancy (Vet to visit a chiro?) | | Date: | Mon, 24 Jan 2005 03:13:13 GMT |
|
|
| Hillary,
I am sorry your chiropractor only helped you a bit.
Like her, I too had pregnant patients who I only helped a bit - or not at
all.
Todd
Further comment below.
"Hillary Israeli" wrote in message
news:slrncv2er5.cii.hillary@manx.misty.com...
> In ,
> Todd Gastaldo wrote:
>
> *CHIROPRACTIC IN PREGNANCY:
> *
> *VET TO VISIT A CHIRO?
>
> Yes, yes, I visited a chiropractor.
>
> *In her pregnancy journal, Hillary indicates that "Of course" she has
> "pretty
> *bad" gut feelings about chiropractors...
>
> Yes. I said that because generally speaking, the people who read my pg
> journal are people who know me to some extent, and they know that I am not
> a huge fan of the type of chiropractor who believes, for example, that
> they can treat diabetes mellitus by spinal adjustments, and that sort of
> thing.
I am a doctor of chiropractic who believes that chemically adjusting
diabetic patients
with insulin may be reduced and sometimes eliminated if various aspects of
the environment are properly adjusted.
I am a doctor of chiropractic who believes that medicine may be causing some
cases of
diabetes, as in,
"New research conducted by a team of scientists in Australia may have found
a link between the vaccine and another childhood disease. The report, which
appears in the August 2000 issue of Diabetes [Honeyman MC, et al.
Association between rotavirus infection and pancreatic islet autoimmunity in
children at risk of developing type 1 diabetes. Diabetes August
2000;49(8):1319-24] suggests that infection with rotavirus may mimic a type
of protein that could lead to the onset of Type I diabetes in some
children."
http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/18/20/07.html
I am a doctor of chiropractic who believes that spinal adjusting may one day
be scientifically shown to help in
some cases of diabetes mellitus - but until that day comes - there are
important external environmental adjustments - and the internal
environmental adjustment called insulin.
Chiropractic is far more than spinal adjusting.
> On the other hand, I have no problem with the use of chiropractic
> adjustments to treat musculoskeletal pain. I did not mean to imply by my
> "of course" that everyone on earth also feels the way I do, in case you
> were wondering.
>
Thanks for the clarification.
The phrase "of course" does occasionally indicate that the writer means to
imply that most everyone else believes the same thing...
> *The word "quacky" suggests quackery - which is generally taken to mean
> *scientifically unproven.
>
> Yes.
>
> *To my knowledge, consulting chiropractors to cause breeches to turn is
> *scientifically unproven.
>
> Yes, I believe you are correct.
>
> *If I am right about this, Hillary - who is science-oriented - would
> likely
> *consider "quacky" this chiropractor who she may visit if her baby is
> still
> *breech.
>
> No. I said I was considering consulting one who was not IMO quacky.
>
By your own definition ("Yes, I believe you are correct"), you WERE
considering a chiro for a "quacky" reason:
"Wednesday, November 3 - 29 w 1 d: met with Ellen [the doula] last
night...One interesting thing we talked about was potentially seeing a
chiropractor for pelvic alignment at about 32 weeks, because of my gut
feeling about having a breech baby..."
http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html
> And in
> fact I did go to a chiropractor for several weeks, and she did provide
> some small moderate pain relief for me.
Yes, but you went because of your "gut feeling of having a breech baby."
> I did not expect that she would be
> able to turn a breech.
You might not have thought there was any scientific evidence - but it still
seems to me that you suggested an expectation that the chiro could help turn
the breech.
Again that quote from your pregnancy journal: "Wednesday, November 3 - 29 w
1 d: met with Ellen [the doula] last
night...One interesting thing we talked about was potentially seeing a
chiropractor for pelvic alignment at about 32 weeks, because of my gut
feeling about having a breech baby..."
http://www.hillary.net/pregjournal3.html
> I did expect she would be able to do some
> spinal/pelvic adjustments, hopefully reducing my pain and associated
> muscle spasm, therefore allowing the fetus to turn more easily if
> required.
LOL! Cool! I like this thought - but it is "quacky" - there is no
scientific evidence for it (that I know of).
> As it happens the fetus was never known to be breech and as of
> yesterday is vertex so this whole breech thing was probably completely in
> my head.
>
Maybe it was like a conception intuition! : )
>
> *Pregnant women are SO easy to adjust - and sometimes the results are
> instant
> *and spectacular - or rather - I should say - sometimes
> instant/spectacular
> *pain relief is associated with gentle spinal adjusting of pregnant women.
>
> Well, mine weren't.
>
Sorry to hear it.
>In fact, after the first two weeks, my chiropractor
> suggested I stop coming, because she felt she wasn't really helping me.
>
I LIKE this chiro!
> I
> felt that she was helping just a tiny bit, so I kept going, and after the
> third week the relief was a little more obvious.
>
Cool.
> *PS Hillary does not mention seeing a chiropractor in her journal which
> *brings to mind an important point:
>
> Yes, Hillary isn't putting absolutely everything into her journal.
>
Well Hillary better get on the stick then! LOL!
I'm just kidding Hillary!
Hope you have that baby soon.
Todd
> -h.
>
> --
> Hillary Israeli, VMD
> Lafayette Hill/PA/USA/Earth
> "Outside of a dog, a book is a man's best friend. Inside of a dog, it is
> too dark to read." --Groucho Marx
>
>
>
|
|
| | From: | Larry McMahan | | Subject: | Re: Chiropractic in pregnancy (Vet to visit a chiro?) | | Date: | Sun, 23 Jan 2005 22:27:01 -0800 |
|
|
|
"Todd Gastaldo" wrote in message
news:dJZId.3989$YD5.1620@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> but until that day comes - there are
> important external environmental adjustments - and the internal
> environmental adjustment called insulin.
>
I just couldn't let this statement pass without adding a few remarks
about "chemical" (I personally prefer the term pharmaceutical)
treatment of diabetes.
I personally think that of the possible pharmaceutical agents, insulin
is the least desirable, and should only be used in the situation where
all other efforts have failed.
There are two kinds of diabetes, the first is where the pancreas does
not produce enough insulin, this is type 1, and is usually seen in children.
The use of insulin for this situation has the benefit that it increases
insulin levels to where glucose can be metabolized, but by "flooding"
the body with insulin, it further depresses natural production. There are
new drugs that actually work to increase natural body production. I
think these are more effective for long term use. But this is not the
type of diabetes Todd was talking about.
The second type of diabetes is marked by insulin resistance. This
occurs when the insulin receptors in the muscle fiber will not pick up
an adequate amount of insulin from the bloodstream. That means it
takes MORE insulin in the bloodstream to provide enough to overcome
the resistance. Again adding insulin to the bloodstream floods the
muscle fibers to the point that even resistant tissue will absorb insulin,
but there are two disadvantages. First, it depresses natural production
by the same mechanism I pointed about for type 1 diabetes. Second,
it increases insulin levels in the bloodstream above what is normal.
It is much more effective to attack the problem by reducing the
insulin resistance of the muscle fibers. Strenuous exercise is known
to be very effective in reducing insulin resistance. There are also
pharmaceuticals now that specifically act to reduce insulin resistance.
I think both of these routes are far superior to insulin application, and
that it should be used only as a last resort.
My point? Even when you talk about "chemical" solutions, all
solutions are not the same or equally effective. IM(NS)HO,
insulin is the last choice of even the chemical solutions, and that
a thinking person who knows the problem and possible solution,
even if he believes in the value of chemical solutions, will choose
one OTHER than insulin first.
Insulin is for the cases where ALL the other solutions fail.
Larry
|
|
|
