Articles

Quantum Neurology

As the resident neurologist on SBM, my ears always prick up when I come across a new neurology-based scam, and my colleagues often send such items my way. In addition the word “quantum” has become a standard marketing term of alt. med quackery. So how could I resist taking a bite out of “quantum neurology”?

One might think (if one were a completely naïve rube) that those claiming to practice quantum neurology have, through diligent research, discovered how certain quantum principles apply to nervous system function and disease, leading to new treatment modalities. On the other hand, a more savvy consumer of such health claims (such as regular readers of SBM) would likely suspect that quantum neurology will turn out to be the same-old mix of nonsense and snake oil in a shiny new package.

Let’s have a look.

According to the Hayden Institute, which appears to be a typical vanity institute of one Chase Hayden, DC:

Quantum Neurology focuses on allowing nerves that may be associated with painful or debilitating injuries, illnesses, or conditions to stabilize so that the body can heal itself. This safe non-invasive technique that allows the doctor to evaluate, strengthen, and rehabilitate every major nerve in the body. This is accomplished with a specific series of upper and lower body muscle strength tests designed to evaluate the entire spinal cord, as well as strengthening the nerves with light therapy, and gentle joint mobilization.

We are also informed that:

Nerves control every function in your body, and when they become dysfunctional, a symptom develops. In order to wiggle your toes, walk, identify temperature changes, breathe, have your heart beat, or any other function in your body, a nerve has to send a message.

In other words, quantum neurology is just straight-chiropractic vitalism by a new name. Straight chiropractic, as imagined by D.D. Palmer, is based on the pre-scientific vitalistic notion that life energy flows through the nerves to the entire body and is essential for health. All illness is caused by blockages to the flow of this life energy, and therefore all illness can be treated by restoring this flow. What blocks this flow are subtle (meaning non-existent) subluxations or misalignments of the spine, which some chiropractors still claim they can correct with manipulations, restoring flow, and allowing the body to heal itself.

This is why straight chiropractors believe they can treat things like asthma, a disease of the lungs.

Above we have the absolute claim that “nerves control every function in your body.” This is demonstrably not true. Not all organs and functions are regulated by nervous control. The liver, for example, functions quite nicely on its own. You could make the strained argument that the autonomic nervous system regulates blood flow, and blood flow is critical to all functions of the body, but that still does not mean that the nerves control liver function. One might as well say that the thyroid “controls” every function in the body.

They also claim that in order for the heart to beat a nerve has to send a message – also not true. The heart has its own internal electrical system and beats all on its own. It is regulated partly by autonomic nerves, but it does not need them to beat. Transplanted hearts, for example, have no nerve supply, and work just fine.

The notion that nerves control everything is chiropractic philosophy, not science.

Under their “services” tab they list applied kinesiology – we have discussed this on SBM before as well. Applied kinesiology is more chiropractic magic, nothing more than self-deception and the ideomotor effect. Practitioners claim they can diagnose illness through muscle strength testing, but it only seems to work when the tester knows the results they want to get (just like dowsing). Applied kinesiology is essentially dowsing with muscles.

They also offer “detoxification” and “functional endocrinology.” Two other topics we have already thoroughly exposed as nonsense on SBM.

They don’t exactly claim they can cure specific diseases, but their website proclaims that, “Patients have reported improvements with the following symptoms and conditions.” That’s a nice dodge. They then provide a long list of conditions and serious diseases, such as epilepsy, multiple sclerosis, high blood pressure, skin rashes, and many more.

Another chiropractor offering “quantum neurology” is George Gonzalez, author of the book Holographic Healing. Gonzalez informs us:

We now understand that the Nervous System is inclusive of every aspect of action and communication available to our body. It includes our physical body and our all aspects of our nonphysical body: also known as our energetic body, Bio-Energetic Field, Aura or LightBody. It includes our mind, our thoughts, our emotions and our Spiritual connection.

He offers something called the GRT LITE (trademarked), which is just light therapy. This is pure snake oil without any scientific plausibility or credible evidence that it does anything. It is a virtual magic wand.

On such websites I always look for references to research to support the amazing claims being made for medical innovations. New medical technology does not just come out of nowhere – there has to be a paper trail of research supporting it. Gonzalez says that research is important, and he requires research of his quantum neurology (trademarked) training seminars. What he considers “research,” however, are case studies. Case reports are useful in medicine – but they are not considered “research.”

He presents, for example, a case study of a patient who suffered a brain aneurysm. The case report is so poorly written, if a medical student handed this in I would seriously question their competency. We are not given any specific details. The report was actually painful for me to read. For example, we are told that the patient had an aneurysm, but we are not told its size and location. We are told he had surgery, but not told which procedure, exactly. Nowhere in the write up of the case is it mentioned that the aneurysm hemorrhaged – it’s as if Gonzalez thinks “aneurysm” means bleed, rather than a defect in an artery that can rupture and bleed. He also states that the “baseball sized” aneurysm was removed “from the patient’s skull.” Aneurysms are not in the skull – from the one image provided the aneurysm was clearly intracranial.

It’s almost as if the case study was written by someone without any medical knowledge at all, let alone specialist neurological knowledge.

Gonzalez is apparently impressed that the patient recovered following the aneurysm bleed, the impressiveness supported by the claim that, “The family was told” that he would be neurologically impaired and need a caregiver. Second-hand information through an emotional family is not exactly a credible source of prognostic information.

In fact, most people who suffer such a bleed will improve significantly. The imaging provided shows only a moderate-sized bleed. Once the swelling goes down and the blood is reabsorbed the patient should recover nicely.

Conclusion

Quantum Neurology displays all the features of pseudoscience – its practitioners use jargon to dress up superstitious pre-scientific beliefs, they make claims not supported by plausibility or evidence, they go through the motions of something they can present as science without any of the substance, and they surround themselves with the trappings of legitimacy.

They lack the true substance of science, however. There is no research to support their claims. They cannot explain their claims in terms that are compatible with existing science. They have not conducted research capable of exploring whether or not their core claims are true, let alone their alleged clinical applications.

Their claims are vacuous but they ride on a magic carpet of slick marketing. “Quantum Neurology” and “Holographic Healing” are just that – marketing terms meant to give the false impression of modernity to crusty pre-scientific nonsense.

Posted in: Chiropractic, Neuroscience/Mental Health

Leave a Comment (39) ↓

39 thoughts on “Quantum Neurology

  1. Jann Bellamy says:

    Here’s an infomercial for “Dr. Chase Hayden” and quantum neurology on youtube:

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dI-6usCfuFk

    Notice the patient has a self-limiting condition that would likely have gotten better on its own without her three visits to Hayden for adjustments and quantum neurology.

  2. cphickie says:

    Was Deeply-packed Chopra the first quack to given “quantum” the spotlight in the world of quackery?

  3. Nick Theodorakis says:

    cpchickie, if you ever get a hankerin’ for a Chopra-inspired quote, the internet has obliged with a random (fictional) Deepak Chopra quote generator:

    http://www.wisdomofchopra.com/

    Proving that a jumbled collection of words from Chopra’s twitter stream is indistinguishable from Chopra himself. Which I guess is some kind of anti-Turing test.

    1. Carolyn says:

      Thank you, NIck. “Good health is an ingredient of an expression of space time events”

      Ha ha ha ha!

  4. cphickie I don’t think Chopra was the first but he has been the most successful financially with his use of “quantum” in everything. I love how these quacks who throw around the word quantum. I really think they don’t understand its meaning.

    Hayden/Gonzalez/Chopra: “It’s quantum!”
    Inigo Montoya: “You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means.”

  5. Harriet Hall says:

    The chiropractor believed the patient’s recovery was due to his ministrations. He couldn’t imagine that a similar recovery might have happened without any treatment. Since he couldn’t imagine that, he saw no need to do controlled tests. This reminded me of a patient in a book I read a long time ago. Sorry, but I can’t remember the title. It was a first-person account of a sailing voyage back in the days when sailors endured a harsh, unsanitary life and did not eat a nourishing diet. The writer developed a severe abscess in the jaw, with high fever, delirium, debility, and severe pain. He was completely incapacitated and bed-ridden for a period of weeks and was unconscious for some of that time. It was long before antibiotics, there was no doctor on board, and he had no pain-killers. Yet after weeks of agony, he recovered. Anyone would have predicted he would die; he himself believed he would. If any quack had treated him during those weeks, the quack treatment would have gotten the credit.

    1. erikttr says:

      I like this story, HH. That is the same reason that vitamin C, herbal tea & honey, and such “work” to cure the common cold. I can never seem to explain this concept to people very well.

      1. Nick Theodorakis says:

        Well, if you don’t treat a cold with anything it could drag on for a week, but if you treat it as described it should be gone by 7 days

      2. Victor says:

        Easy explanation is as follows:

        If you do nothing for a cold it lasts 1 week.

        If you treat it with everything at your dispoal such as: chemotherapy, radiation, antibiotics, OTC Rx it lasts 7 days

  6. “Quantum neurology”… that is funny. I’m a neurobiologist and I took quantum chemistry, but I don’t remember learning about quantum neurology. Maybe I slept through that class?

    BTW, “control” is a strong word, but the brain does regulate a variety of liver functions, e.g. glucose production and VLDL secretion, via the vagus nerve. The liver is semi-autonomous, so it can function OK without brain input, but the brain does modulate it substantially, as it modulates most large-scale physiological processes of the body.

  7. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    The biggest indication of lack of importance of central control of organs – quadriplegia.

    1. Quadriplegia only severs some of the nerve inputs to organs. The vagus nerve should be intact. Usually peripheral organs are semi-autonomous but receive modulatory input from the brain, which explains why losing spinal innervation isn’t catastrophic. But if your vagus nerve gets cut at the level of the neck you do get a dysregulation of digestive function.

      1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

        Did not know that, thanks!

  8. TBruce says:

    There was no “baseball-sized” aneurysm. The image on CT is an accumulation of blood, mostly in the subarachnoid space. It would displace brain structures but cause much less tissue damage than the scan seems to indicate. The aneurysm is not even seen in the scan, it is implied in the clinical findings.
    And I can confirm that recovery from strokes caused by ruptured aneurysms can be remarkable compared with those caused by ischaemic strokes.

    I would love to meet one of these clowns and say “Please define ‘quantum’”.

  9. windriven says:

    I’ve decided to abandon the medical device industry and will fund my dotage with Windriven’s Quantum Double Espresso Colonic Lavage and Chelation Detox Center.

    Corporate motto: You’ve Got to Be Shittin’

  10. Christofoo says:

    There is a little more info on QN that deserves criticism at http://quantumneurology.com/faq/. Some portions are just good for a laugh, from a skeptic’s perspective. For instance, Gonzalez discusses why he prefers case studies instead of double-blind clinical research, also the GRT LITE apparently works just fine through clothing. But more importantly for the meat of skeptical criticism, there is a red-herring appeal to outside research on ‘light therapy’ using LEDs (e.g. NASA on wound healing). You can also sign up for free access to Gonzalez’ QN journal, though I’ve misplaced the link.

    I’m familiar with QN due to my relations. On that note, if only Dr Novella had written this criticism last year…

    (I also wish someone would write a collective on effective strategies on offering information to your relations who you care about when they fall prey to woo. Conventional wisdom may be that it’s futile, but conscience dictates that it be attempted… and it isn’t easy.)

    1. pmoran2013 says:

      “(I also wish someone would write a collective on effective strategies on offering information to your relations who you care about when they fall prey to woo. Conventional wisdom may be that it’s futile, but conscience dictates that it be attempted… and it isn’t easy.)”

      It’s not. In the typical case you are in effect asking people to put up with troublesome symptoms that the mainstream has been unable to completely resolve rather than try out something that other, often equally well-meaning voices are telling them could help. It can be no contest. Science hardly comes into it when the medical need is strong. .

      The situation is often complicated further by the possibility that under favourable conditions the person may derive various psychogenic and other non-specific medical benefits from ANY program of hands-on, or empathic, “medical care” (with subjective, stress-related or psychosomatic complaints).

      So these situations are much more complex than their content of pseudoscience or even the amount of seemingly frank fraud might suggest. The medical dimension should be sympathetically taken into account if we are to have influence at all. Every case will be different.

  11. Christofoo “(I also wish someone would write a collective on effective strategies on offering information to your relations who you care about when they fall prey to woo. Conventional wisdom may be that it’s futile, but conscience dictates that it be attempted… and it isn’t easy.)”

    In my experience with friends or family, I’ve noticed that it helps to keep your concern about their health first and formost. People get defensive if you attack their ideology directly, it comes across as a battle over who’s smarter or “right” and that’s not what this is about, it about you caring for them.

    “I’m concerned because I’ve heard these things about this therapy and I don’t want that to happen to you. I could show you the information I saw, will you think about it?” Then, if needed give them some understandable information that is tone neutral and shows the negative consequences of the therapy.”

    Don’t expect people to have an instant revelation AND make it clear that you respect their autonomy, but many people generally don’t want to worry their loved ones and they are not offended that you are worried about them. This keep the door open for further discussion, which may sway them eventually.

    Also being willing to help them with the health problem that led them to this therapy. See if they are confused dealing with their regular doctors or understanding the process. Help em out a little when they seem to be struggling. Give a little positive encouragement when they are doing something good for their health. (you are probably doing all that stuff, but the world has become so disconnected, maybe it’s worth saying.)

    Also, I had at least one person talking about some great supplement program to me, that It turned out really wanted to be talked out of it. Sometimes you get that. People get guilted into trying some CAM thing. The seller suggests, “If you want to get better, you will try this.” The friend just needs a caring nudge to say “No, it okay NOT to try that.”

    Sorry if this is kinda obvious, You maybe wanted something more evidence based, this is mostly based on observations of what people in my life seemed to respond to.

    And I’m not any kind of expert, mostly I focus on my own health choices.

  12. David D says:

    Stephan; you are correct, of course. However, chiropractic emphasizes adjustment of spinal segments in order to relieve pressure on spinal nerves. When quadriplegia results from spinal transection, it is usually only spinal enervation that is disrupted, so nothing that a chiropractor (or anyone else, unfortunately) can do will restore the spinal enervations that chiropractors claim to treat; yet the body lives on. Hmmm.

  13. davdoodles says:

    The Chopra phrase genetrator gave me:

    “The future transforms positive farts”

    Which is truer than anything Deepak himself has uttered in many, many years.

    Turing-point has officially been reached, and exceeded. A computer version of Chopra is more likely to sound human than the actual meat Chopra.

  14. Matt says:

    I came across your site and appreciate the level of knowledge and insight. Full disclosure, I’m a chiropractor, as well as the son of a very successful MD, who was forced in to retirement by MS. It led me to seek out answers for him as best I could. He saw the best neurologists who had nothing to offer but medications that made him feel terrible as well as telling him things like “MS won’t kill you but you’ll wish it did”. There is a lot to offer in the “alternative” health care paradigm. So with that said, I was curious about Quantum Nuerology and yes, his description and blog may leave something to be desired. My question is have you actually spoken with Dr. Gonzalez, do you know any of the science behind what he is actually doing? Do I throw this out simply because of his description. In health care new discoveries are made all the time. a decade or so ago the appendix was a useless bit of evolutionary baggage, now we know it actually serves a function. DC after my name does not make me a quack, I seek out work that actually helps my patients, and I look to both people in my field and others such as yourself for answers.
    Sincerely,
    Matt

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      @Matt,

      Speaking to a doctor who advocates a treatment is NOT a way to learn scientific truths. He will try to impress you and will cite background science that logically seems like it would support what he is doing. But neither he nor we can know whether it actually works before it is subjected to controlled studies. Yes new discoveries are being made all the time, but new quackery is being discovered too. Any new discovery must be tested and proven valid and safe before we subject patients to it. Science-based medicine doesn’t rely on the personal experience of people like Dr. Gonzalez. It relies on evidence published in peer-reviewed journals. It’s like hearsay vs. direct evidence in the courtroom; hearsay is not admissible, DNA is.

    2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      My question is have you actually spoken with Dr. Gonzalez, do you know any of the science behind what he is actually doing?

      The rather serious point is – there is none. It’s a hypothetical exercise that is quite unlikely in terms of basic biology. In this case, we don’t even have to defer to basic biology because an actual test of the protoco showed that it didn’t work. Further, patients died faster, and in greater agony, than conventionally treated counterparts.

      Did Dr. Gonzalez mention that study to you?

      If you think chiropractic can help people with mechanical muscle and joint pain, I have relatively little issue with what you do (aside from “you shouldn’t be adjusting the cervical spine”). If you think you can cure colds, cancer, coughs, allergies, asthma or anything else, you’re wrong and a threat to your patients. And you shhouldn’t be adjusting the cervical spine.

      1. Woo Fighter says:

        WLU,

        It’s a different Gonzalez mentioned above in Dr. Novella’s article. He’s talking about George Gonzalez, who wrote a book about quantum neurology. Dr. Nick (“Hey everybody!”) is the coffee enema cancer guy from the study you cited.

        At first I thought the commenter was referring to Dr. Nick as well.

        1. Woo Fighter says:

          And George Gonzalez is a chiropractor, hence not a “doctor.”

        2. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

          Oops! My bad. Though my totally irrelevant comment still stands :)

          I will instead point out that:

          1) No evidence exists for a “light body”
          2) Very, very little evidence exists for light therapy working beyond producing vitamin D, reducing jaundice and depression (and possibly a few other indications I don’t know about – but not enough to say it’s medically indicated in general)
          3) Adding “quantum” to the name of something is just a smokescreen to cover up a complete lack of evidence (unless you are talking about the interactions of single particles in a vacuum)

  15. Jen Reed says:

    I was checking out the information on quantum neurology, and I noticed that you said it can’t help asthma. That is interesting, because after suffering from asthma for over 20 years, I went to a chiropractor and within a year, viola! no more asthma symptoms. Haven’t refilled a inhaler prescription in two years. I didn’t even go there to have my asthma cured, it just happened. Then I referred two other asthma sufferers and the same result. Not saying we don’t still have asthma, just no symptoms. Perhaps you will say it is the power of suggestion, though no one suggested it to me. I say: so what? NO MORE embarrassing inhalers. Now I don’t trust your site at all. Everything except traditional medical stuff is bad to you guys! There is nothing balanced here at all. God bless you though, for trying. Your type has had a purpose forever. You know, the people who said we will never fly in planes, no science to prove we can. If you saw someone use a cell phone before 60 scientific papers came out, you would say it was some kind of trick. Well keep on keeping on. and be sure to keep checking up on all the things you said were scams. Once they do have 60 papers proving they exist, you don’t want to look like idiots.

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      The thing is, asthma varies in its course. You should read this article, because failing to refill a prescription could mean you choking to death in your kitchen one day. The NIH notes “Asthma has no cure. Even when you feel fine, you still have the disease and it can flare up at any time.” So even if you feel fine now – get an inhaler and keep it handy, just in case. Hopefully you never have to use it – but please get and keep one nearby anyway. Subjective improvements in symptoms are totally uncorrelated with objective improvements in actual lung function. You may feel better – but that doesn’t mean you are better.

      How are inhalers embarassing? Who has ever made fun of you for having an inhaler that wasn’t in grade school?

      It’s not that people dislike “nontraditional medicine”, it’s the recognition that medicine should be tested and shown to work before it is widely adopted. If chiropractic had a sizeable body of evidence showing its risk-benefit profile was reasonable, we would endorse it. Unfortunately, upon testing chiropractic care turns out to be useless for pretty much everything but low back pain – and is often accompanied by vaccine-rejection, claims about the ability to treat dangerous conditions (like asthma) and the manipulation of infants which can have rather serious consequences. In some cases the practices are seen as harmless wastes of time and money (homeopathy). In other cases there is a small but significant risk of harm that is not commensurate with the benefits (acupuncture). And there are some interventions which are outright dangerous (chiropractic is one of them, look up “cervical artery dissection chiropractor” on google some day). Not to mention, in an effort to capture a larger market share (because there is nothing charitable about CAM, the practitioners are trying to get your money) practitioners will often criticize and discourage safe and necessary medical interventions like vaccination or surgery for solid tumors. You should look into http://whatstheharm.net/ for examples of this.

      Your comparison to cell phones and planes is simply wrong. Cell phones and planes work. You can hear someone from a cell phone, you can see a plane fly. The evidence for CAM is either lacking (i.e. claims are made without any research to show it works), or shoddy (i.e. there are no control groups, or they are not blinded, so all you can say is “people changed but we don’t know why”) or equivocal (the benefits are statistically significant but clinically meaningless – or as with the asthma and acupuncture study, show placebo improvements that are not matched by actual improvements, which places patients in the risky state of abandoning their medicines under the false belief that they are cured).

      I fail to see what is unreasonable about asking for proof of benefit before handing one’s life and money to another.

  16. Alan Smith says:

    Lack of evidence is not evidence of lack. The debunkers need to be investigated.

  17. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

    Lack of evidence means lack of ethics.

  18. megan mckillip says:

    I am very confused. What is “your” view on the combination of western and, shall we say, eastern medicine?

  19. john b. says:

    There is a lot of fraud out there and there are also a lot honest mistakes in the alternative world. In general I have not much use for anything starting with “quantum” unless it is linked to a mathematical expression. When not so linked I get really suspicious. Some musings:

    A few points about controlled experiments. Most alternative guys lack the financial resources to do them properly. Most alternative folks of my acquaintance–but not all–lack any vestige of mathematical ability that would enable such an experiment to be conducted. More important, perhaps, the honest alternative folks etc. are nowhere near ruthless enough to systematically and randomly deny a treatment they believe, however erroneously, to be effective to someone during the course of such an experiment. Don’t hold your breath waiting for them to get past anecdotes. Also, I’d suggest that anecdotes be seriously considered. I also really like the dissection of some of the anecdotes mentioned so far. Good shooting.

    I sometimes wonder if the half baked training some alternative–but not all– folks have leads them to ascribe a preposterous explanation to a real effect, discrediting the effect.

    Light therapy–most of the laser stuff I have encountered is preposterous. That said, I also thought that when the Letterman folks were investigating wound tear strength of irradiated cuts it was preposterous, but they found a decided effect. Please pass the crow.

    Some Israelis also found some photochemistry associated with arthritic pain. This was back in the day, about late 80s or so. I have no idea what has been done since, but the vet uses gallium arsenide lasers on Smiley, so does my occupational therapist daughter on her patients, and my sweetie and I use near IR LEDs to help muscle and joint pain. Maybe there is a pony in there somewhere. But, interactions by low energy lasers with some undescribed and un-measurable body field is silly. If light interacted that way I don’t think stars would exist. I would need a lot of evidence to buy that. If something is really happening, that supposed interaction isn’t the reason.

    Straight “scientific” research, especially peer reviewed stuff, is a logical extrapolation of what is known. The problem is some wild cards like glucosamine, which was justified originally in terms reminiscent of sympathetic magic, seems to actually work. Left to themselves the sciencey medicos would never, in all likelihood, have looked at it. General use seems to have led to acceptance: my arthritis MD told me to use it as it is effective about half the time. At that time he had no idea why.

    I read once that, when properly done (which assumes the universe is Gaussian and data sets are complete), PCA leads to an estimate of about 30% of medical effects being due to placebo effect.

    Full disclosure: old, motheaten PhD in physics.

    Regards,
    john b.

    1. Harriet Hall says:

      I’m not convinced that glucosamine works. Neither is the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons. See http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/knee-osteoarthritis-thumbs-down-for-acupuncture-and-glucosamine/ Sure, some doctors think it does, but how can they differentiate between a real effect and a placebo effect? Arthritis symptoms fluctuate over time, and I would guess a sugar pill might be reported by patients as “working” up to half the time. Rheumatology drugs have a lot of side effects, so some doctors are happy to use a harmless supplement even though it may only work as a placebo. Patients who were on Glucosamine and were convinced it worked for them couldn’t tell any difference when they were switched to a placebo in a double-blinded Canadian study.

  20. charles s. says:

    You are another one of those idiot “doctors” that think you know everything. why dont you try it first. i have been to the best of the best for very serious injuries from a car crash that crippled me since 2001, including, but not limited to concussion, severe whiplash, broken ribs, and a severely dislocated pelvis that caused innumerable bladder and prostate problems as well as severe sciatica and other issues. After my pro auto racing crash (head on at 110 mph into a wall at watkins glen in 2001) i went to : cedars sinai, tower urology, usc and ucla neurology, cooper clinic, methodist and presbyterian in dallas, the Maverick’s orthopedic, acupuncturist, chiropractors etc for 2 years and the best anyone could do was offer me Detrol and Flomax for the rest of my life at 38 years of age. then i found someone who was really good at NMT (neuromodulation Technique) and he fixed about 85% of that and got me off the meds. He also ended my asthma from childhood and food allergies. Then for the next 9 years ive had to go to physical therapists once a week to try to get rid of the persistent pelvic dislocation issues (severe sciatica and achilles pain). Recently someone told me about Quantum Neurology. After an extremely short time period my sciatica pain is gone, i dont limp anymore and the constant groin/bladder/achilles pain is gone. Have you not learned anything from how Dr Joseph Lister was laughed at by the leading physicians of his time in a lecture he gave about antiseptic theories and germs?? yeah the earth is flat, guy. people like you keep us in the dark ages. You only know what you read in medical books. news flash: medicine evolves continually, so why dont you do some research of your own

    1. WilliamLawrenceUtridge says:

      Doctors may not know everything, but they do know a lot. For instance, they know that asthma and allergies can often come and go unpredictably. They know that what a lot of people call “allergies”, aren’t. They know that 9 years is a long time, and that the body heals on its own over time.

      Do you know how medicine evolves continually? Through testing. Do you know who doesn’t test their methods before implementing them? Chiropractors. If chiropractors bothered to test their methods, and publish the results, then they would be adopted by real doctors and become part of regular care. Thus chiropractors are inherently unethical – they are either using you as a guinea pig without informed consent, or they are restricting the use of a method that is successful to only their patients, presumably due to greed. Possibly ignorance.

      Doctors have no problem adopting new methods of treatment, they just need to be proven to work first. Chiropractors on the other hand, don’t give a crap about proof. As long as they have a gut feeling that it works, they’ll keep charging for it. Do you know who had a gut feeling that their treatments worked? Bloodletters. Did you know that chiropractors question the germ theory of disease that Joseph Lister was so instrumental in demonstrating the importance of? Do you know why Lister is now heralded as a genius? Because testing proved him to be right. Before you leap to the idea that because someone is criticized, they are a paradigm-breaking innovator, consider that many people who have been criticized have turned out to be wrong. Like so many situations, you are remembering the few hits, and forgetting the many, many misses.

    2. windriven says:

      “You are another one of those idiot “doctors” that think you know everything. why dont you try it first. i have been to the best of the best for very serious injuries from a car crash that crippled me since 2001″

      Man are you ever right! It takes the razor-sharp insight and judgment of a guy who feeds his adrenalin high by racing around a track for the amusement of paying customers, many of whom sit vulture-like in the stands just waiting for the kind of spectacular crash you apparently delivered for them! Several hundred years of medical science wasted when all we had to do was ask Charley S.

      Now you roll out the Joseph Lister story. Let me translate your semi-coherent rant for the literate among the readership: Medical science is cautious in adopting new paradigms, always insisting on good evidence that something is effective and safe. This sometimes means that new techniques aren’t adopted as quickly as we might have liked. But it also means that a Texas sh*tload of worthless, dangerous, idiotic therapies never get visited upon a vulnerable patient population. But ole Chuck here would hold that science was slow in accepting Lister’s thesis – and Lister proved to be right. Therefore, we should automatically accept any half-brained mumbo-jumbo that claims to be the best thing since the polio vaccine. Could be the next John of God. Could be the next Lister. Who are we to judge?

Comments are closed.