Tweet
The reader who browses this whole forum will run across some heated exchanges where some regulars insist, without reference to their own direct experience or scientific publications, that nonsurgical treatments for scoliosis are nonsense, paranormal, charlatanry, whatever. The tone is sarcastic or nasty. This is counterproductive for the forum. There would be no non-surgical section of the forum if the NSF founders and managers were certain there was no hope beyond surgery. So what is behind the denials?
Some time ago I got a PM that clearly explains the phenomenon. I will let its author speak for herself.
=======================================
Regarding the immediate criticism, I don't believe that there has been a personal side to your posts. Rather it appears to me that some stakes in censoring, and controlling, a discussion about alternative therapies appear to be irrationally driven by a need to trust the experts who performed or will perform their author's revision or other surgeries.
As a post-fusion (t6-l3, Harrington rod, 1981) subject, I do understand the desperate need to believe in that expertise, and the so-called 'fixes' it claims to provide. I wanted to say, however, that I have benefited enormously from chiropractic treatment, especially network. Physical therapy and supplements have also been crucial to managing my comfort level. Though prior to surgery as a teenager, my mother dragged me around to a variety of unproductive alternative therapies that had a destructive impact (and I very much appreciated surgery when I finally had it), it is clear to me now that even if surgical treatments were appropriate in most cases, they are also very often insufficient by themselves.
The board seems to be comprised of a number of subjects who describe a sort of post-surgical unreality, one that I am familiar with, in which it is very easy to confuse immediate satisfactory results with long-term sufficiency of treatment. Most responsible orthopedists will concur that stabilizing exercises, and a variety of other alternative treatments, are necessary for inhibiting the side effects of spinal fusion. The best surgeons I've met have encouraged me to pursue alternative treatment options (physical therapy, chiropractic and supplements). I would be very skeptical of any surgeon who polarized his technique against less invasive, and specifically non-medical, approaches.
That said, I wanted to state clearly that my lesson from the levels of trauma and denial involved in extreme scoliosis (I was 68 degrees pre-fusion and settled to 45 degrees over the years after fusion) is that all knowledge is good knowledge. I have read all of your posts on alternative treatment as informative, questioning, suggestive statements. I have read some of the more fiery 'anti-alternative' posts as prescriptive and directive - something that I imagine could also be productive and comforting for people who are at ease in being told what to do and think. The negative aspect of that more pejorative style, unfortunately, is that it undermines the value of a public forum by valuating and censoring additional forms of knowledge.
For instance, I think it's very important that the list NOT be required to articulate a consensus. Though the tension and disagreement might be uncomfortable for some who in varying stages of crisis seek to be told what to do (a completely understandable reaction), I strongly believe that people cannot learn from one another without bringing forth their differences of experience and opinion. The issues in this discussion are much bigger than we are, and are, for this reason, absolutely worth talking about since they integrally effect the way we understand our bodies, our practices, and knowledge in general.
Some time ago I got a PM that clearly explains the phenomenon. I will let its author speak for herself.
=======================================
Regarding the immediate criticism, I don't believe that there has been a personal side to your posts. Rather it appears to me that some stakes in censoring, and controlling, a discussion about alternative therapies appear to be irrationally driven by a need to trust the experts who performed or will perform their author's revision or other surgeries.
As a post-fusion (t6-l3, Harrington rod, 1981) subject, I do understand the desperate need to believe in that expertise, and the so-called 'fixes' it claims to provide. I wanted to say, however, that I have benefited enormously from chiropractic treatment, especially network. Physical therapy and supplements have also been crucial to managing my comfort level. Though prior to surgery as a teenager, my mother dragged me around to a variety of unproductive alternative therapies that had a destructive impact (and I very much appreciated surgery when I finally had it), it is clear to me now that even if surgical treatments were appropriate in most cases, they are also very often insufficient by themselves.
The board seems to be comprised of a number of subjects who describe a sort of post-surgical unreality, one that I am familiar with, in which it is very easy to confuse immediate satisfactory results with long-term sufficiency of treatment. Most responsible orthopedists will concur that stabilizing exercises, and a variety of other alternative treatments, are necessary for inhibiting the side effects of spinal fusion. The best surgeons I've met have encouraged me to pursue alternative treatment options (physical therapy, chiropractic and supplements). I would be very skeptical of any surgeon who polarized his technique against less invasive, and specifically non-medical, approaches.
That said, I wanted to state clearly that my lesson from the levels of trauma and denial involved in extreme scoliosis (I was 68 degrees pre-fusion and settled to 45 degrees over the years after fusion) is that all knowledge is good knowledge. I have read all of your posts on alternative treatment as informative, questioning, suggestive statements. I have read some of the more fiery 'anti-alternative' posts as prescriptive and directive - something that I imagine could also be productive and comforting for people who are at ease in being told what to do and think. The negative aspect of that more pejorative style, unfortunately, is that it undermines the value of a public forum by valuating and censoring additional forms of knowledge.
For instance, I think it's very important that the list NOT be required to articulate a consensus. Though the tension and disagreement might be uncomfortable for some who in varying stages of crisis seek to be told what to do (a completely understandable reaction), I strongly believe that people cannot learn from one another without bringing forth their differences of experience and opinion. The issues in this discussion are much bigger than we are, and are, for this reason, absolutely worth talking about since they integrally effect the way we understand our bodies, our practices, and knowledge in general.
but I've also told her a few times that she is coming on too strong or the way she stated something could be taken the wrong way or could be offensive to some. She listened to me, but never told me to mind my own business and we are still friends. 
Comment