Wow man. Holy hell. What is your problem with this hostility? I got one have found great use in chiropractic. Terrible back issues. Traditional docs won’t do anything for me beyond give me drugs I won’t use. Because you don’t like “spine crushers” you think that’s a big reason to attack those who do. Obviously there are controversies regarding fats and oils. Olive oil is extremely beneficial. As is avocado, ghee, grass fed butter, coconut oil etc.. Many saturated fats are good for you. Not processed like canola oil. That’ll kill you. But yes, it is a controversial subject. Traditional medicine is still conservative here. But there is science behind more recent discoveries. I don’t know why in the hell you are in such a hostile attack mode. My diet has actually saved my life. My cholesterol was way in the upper levels of panic territory but after adjusting and yes to some fatty, GOOD necessary fats my levels came down into well normal range quickly and has remained so for four years. I did nothing else. No drugs, statins or anything beyond diet. Yes and good fats. Lost weight easily. Vitamins and diet. I ding even exercise to my doctors chagrin. Not everyone has to agree in everything. The verdict is not in yet. So I’d suggest just lower the hostility, please? I just don’t get it. Sorry. Try not to do hostile. Peace.

The fact you think of a chiropractor as a "cruncher of spines" is very basic and tells a lot of your understanding of the human body or the lack of. Turns out such folk who work with that, fascia etc tend to understand the human condition and human health as a context a lot better than your average white coat wearing GP.

Hostility? Rich. Shout into the valley and it comes back the same. And I already did.

chiropractor=Good. I could barely walk a few months back, 3 weeks of adjustments (3 times a week) I'm better than I have been in years.

About the C-19 stuff; I don't feel all around the same.
So this could be a factor for the OP.

The reason chiropractors are bad are because its f-ing dangerous to treat the spine the way they do. So normal, well educated, doctors wont go near it if they possibly can avoid it. I know.

I used to go to a chiropractor (one of the top in sweden…) for many years. Until they screwed up and something went wrong in my back. Now my spine crunches when i do certain movements and the daily pain is sometimes almost unbareble. Medicine doctors told me i had to stretch and work out every day in a certain way to keep my muscles strong to contradict the spine issues, or else i need surgery. So i did and it actually got managable. But a few days of lazyness sends me right back down to hell… i had to give up my professional career as a orchestra musician, and some days i got migranes and nerve pain so bad i cant get out of bed. But its managable, We’ll see in 20 years when i’m 50 what the status is, but i can almost live a normal life. I HATE those chiropractors for ruining me. All because someone told me they were great and could fix my back pain (from playing music for 8-10 hours a day 7 days a week…) that probably would have been fine with some better playing habits, exercice and stretching in the first place. That is what a medicine doctor told me to do. But i didnt listen. I looked for a quick solution. There is no quick solutions. Especially no chiropractors.

Chiropractic is mostly quackery
Sometimes dangerous quackery - like that baby who died from a vertebral artery dissection after some chiropractor thought they needed a spinal adjustment

Go see a physiotherapist - physio is evidence based

I'm sorry to hear of your experience and where it has Ieft you. But to from there go to 'aII chiropractors are bad' is akin to having a bad experience with aIIopathic doctors (which I for one have had many, some directIy Iife threatening) and then saying those are aII bad, too. Doesn't make any sense.

There are risks with aII of it and hence one shouId be very picky about who one Iets mess with ones bits. Where I think gut feeIing shouId be both very activeIy empIoyed and Iistened to. I have heaviIy regretted severaI times overruIing it as 'probabIy siIIy, wiII be ok' which Ianded me in serious troubIe.

Are you aware of how many peopIe die from aIIopathic medicine? A word peopIe need to Iearn is iatrogenic.

Messing with bodies is inherentIy risky.

Another concept people need to learn about is evidence based medicine.

People are free to see who they please - but some professions make dedicated and ongoing efforts to base their practise on the best available evidence - and some are just winging it

Yeah, and yet another is 'who created the "evidence" used as basis'. As very often it is the same peopIe seIIing the medicines. "Evidence based" sounds great. "ConfIict of interest" sounds a IittIe Iess great.

Many angIes abound. In the end it comes down to personaI responsibiIity and making choices. And then owning the resuIts one ends up with. RegardIess who one chooses to enIist to heIp.

Which is why trials have to publish their methodology and data and conflicts of interest, then anyone is free to repeat it to confirm or refute the hypothesis themselves.

You can have qualms about how well particular human beings adhere to the principles of scientific method and basic honesty - but a properly scientific approach to healthcare is the only way to reliably improve it

I am merely looking at what is and working with it. But if today's science makes you overly comfortable you are in disagreement with all the major scientific journal editors who have by now all stated separately how they think that today not even peer reviewed science is safe. Their words, not mine so please don't start arguing with me about it. And they have watched its progression close up over decades.

Of course I’m not naive about the fact that some of the science currently in peer reviewed journals is wrong - but the only way it will be proven wrong is by the scientific method.

Peer reviewed science was never totally “safe” because it is performed by humans - but the approach itself has had undeniable results - people don’t now have to die of diseases and conditions that were once universally fatal because of the advances made by taking a scientific approach to improving things

I am not arguing 'against science'. Science is basicaIIy the method itseIf and of course is very usefuI. Not sure you'd find anyone questioning that. I am passing on the evaIuation by peopIe sitting right in that pond, that today peer reviewed science is a bit of a corrupted puddIe of muck.

It's basicaIIy standard that corrupted wrongness sits unchaIIenged in broad dayIight, posing as correct, peer reviewed science. And doesn't get 'proven wrong', doesn't even get questioned. Because, the actuaI power mechanisms in science are not to be assumed to be of a benevoIent nature. Or, as Kary MuIIis worded it "There are no oId, wise men at the top of science."

Of course anyone , no matter how brilliant, can be wrong - for instance: Kary mullis re: hiv amongst other issues

In order to correct or even recognise what ever may currently be “corrupted” is going to require people who have dedicated themselves to understanding in depth what is currently known, how it came to be known, and to refute it with an alternative hypothesis established by evidence obtained with scientific rigor

Ie - not chiropractors, homeopaths or crystal healers

I shaII Ieave you here as you are bending and not somewhere I wouId Iike to go with you, so have a nice Sunday.

My other option would have been possible surgery; I'll end there.

We’ve drifted a bit off topic here.