Raindrop Therapy?

[sweetness514]

Hi Sweetness...

I don't think anyone would have any problem with someone with scoliosis coming here and saying they had success with a given therapy. However, when one is "selling" a therapy, then I personally believe that one should be able to provide some proof that it works. Do you think it's OK for the chiropractors who use Raindrop Therapy to come here, unchallenged, and make claims that they can cure scoliosis? If there was no debate, we'd probably all be buying every new therapy that came along.

So, you might think about whether you also have a closed mind.

--Linda

Maybe I do have one at times, who knows nobody's perfect.

Linda, in my post I did say that asking questions and having doubts is justified and the right thing to do.

I do feel that there is resentment and with some people anger at times when chiros or other people who have new therapies to offer share what they know, wether they're right or wrong. I don't know if I'm explaining myself well but what I mean is I don't like the arguments that come with it.

But yes, as I have stated before I am very open to read a debate, as long as everybody here has an open mind and if I'm wrong for suspecting otherwise then I'm wrong, but I don't think I have been at all times.

Anyways, just an opinion I wanted to share and I sure have been screwed by chiros before, so I'm the first to not believe much without proof either. Again, just don't like the fighting and like to hear both sides.

Back to the subject...

[gerbo]

I fail to see what Inuit culture has to do with the discussion

you know, i think you are actually right, and on reflection that was actually quite a racist statement, sorry, suppose got carried away a bit, have removed it

[sweetness514]

That's good.

To answer the question wether I think it's OK for chiros to come here and make claims that Raindrop therapy can cure scoliosis I would like to add that I never believed in Raindrop therapy, never said I did and I don't think Structural does too as he says that Kristi was mislead.

Btw, Kristi hope you got some good info and that you will get a good opinion about your back and be offered better treatments.

[LindaRacine]

To answer the question wether I think it's OK for chiros to come here and make claims that Raindrop therapy can cure scoliosis I would like to add that I never believed in Raindrop therapy, never said I did and I don't think Structural does too as he says that Kristi was mislead.

Hi Sweetness...

That's exactly the point. I believe that Gerbo was simply questioning whether it was OK to allow someone to bash one therapy (Raindrop) and yet get enraged when someone questions the effectiveness of a different therapy (SI), when essentially, neither have been shown to improve scoliosis curves.

While I think most of us would agree that there's a better chance that SI would help scoliosis patients than Raindrop, but Gerbo was simply stating a principle. I honestly don't care how many people try either or both therapies, but think it's a good idea to help people understand that they might want to be cautious about accepting claims without any substantive proof of effectiveness.

Regards,
Linda

[structural75]

Hi Everyone,

This debate is quite tiresome... and I much prefer spending quality time with my wife and daughter than have senseless arguements with total strangers. It's obvious we're all here to be of support to others and offer advice when it falls within our domain to do so. So let me close my thoughts on this thread by saying this;

1. To clarify, I'm NOT a chiropractor and do not wish to be affiliated with them. Although I'll stand up in defense of anyone with pure intentions, integrity and honesty, regardless of their title.

2. As sweetness stated again, I'm in agreeance with everyone on the false legitimacy of raindrop therapy as it pertains to scoliosis. (as I said in my first post here)

3. In no way shape or form have I given "false hope" to anyone. Nor am I "selling" anything (what could I possibly have to gain by someone trying S.I. or Classical Osteopathy???) I clearly stated that it is entirely dependent on each individual case, and there have been successes as well as failures. Unlike other treatments, in my line of work you would know this within the first month or two of treatment. We do NOT drag people through the mud for months or years only to find it isn't working. I was also suggesting it for chronic pain relief (to varying degrees, again) and there is simply no debating its efficiacy in that department. You all have internet obviously, look up the profession and read the testimonials and studies yourselves. Most things that I support are firmly rooted in anatomy and physiology, and I don't personally believe in anyhting unless I experience or see it's effects first hand.

4. I believe it's important to keep a healthy perspective on medicine as a whole. Doctors are not dieties with all of the answers, and they never will be. The body is not a machine and understanding 'how' & 'why' it works is infintely more difficult than answering 'what' & 'where'. But despite its inevitable shortcomings, I will always support the advancement and inquiry to the next level in EVERY aspect of allopathic palliative medicine as well as preventative medicine, internal/surgical approaches and external manual approaches alike. All of them have a place, and all of them present valid questions worth the search for some semblance of an answer.

So the next time someone presents with an idea, opinion or "alternative" or complimentary treatment, let's truely attempt to keep an open mind, within reason (it doens't take much to know that oils will not magically move anyones spine to a different position, but a skilled manual approach of the soft tissue body is certainly not far fetched in terms of possibilities). Many people on this forum have 'been there, done that', often several times in regards to surgery. Yet they still sit at the computer in constant, chronic pain. Although it may have been for the best, it seems obvious that nothing is absolute, with or without studies to back it up.

Linda - I know you've tried many things, but you haven't tried it all. So please don't discourage others to try for themselves. Sometimes surgery works well for one person, and others are still in pain despite having had it. The same is true for all other disciplines. You have personal physical characteristics that may prevent one approach from working for you, whereas someone else may get wonderful results. And apologies for the confusion regarding your profession. I assumed a List Broker (as it states in your Bio) was referring to Real Estate.

Celia - Clearly I wasn't trying to "convince" anyone that 'my' method works all the time. I suggested trying it as it "sometimes" can be effective to varying degrees. No deceipt in that statement.

Thanks for the open mind sweetness, and I trust anyone who reads this will follow up anyones advice with their own further research and decide for themselves what works and what doesn't.

Good day to you all.

Structural

[LindaRacine]

Hi Everyone,

This debate is quite tiresome... and I much prefer spending quality time with my wife and daughter than have senseless arguements with total strangers.

I suspect we all agree with that.

Linda - I know you've tried many things, but you haven't tried it all. So please don't discourage others to try for themselves. Sometimes surgery works well for one person, and others are still in pain despite having had it. The same is true for all other disciplines. You have personal physical characteristics that may prevent one approach from working for you, whereas someone else may get wonderful results. And apologies for the confusion regarding your profession. I assumed a List Broker (as it states in your Bio) was referring to Real Estate.

umm... Did you read somewhere in this discussion, that I was discouraging anyone from trying SI? I've reread my comments several times, and I don't see it. In fact, I stated that I thought you could help people. Do you feel that because I warn people about blindly accepting false claims, and state that there is no proof that any alternative therapy can permanently reduce structural scoliosis curves in skeletally mature individuals, that I'm disrespecting you personally? My comments were never meant to do that.

Now, let's see if I can distract everyone...

This discussion reminded me of a big discussion here about a year ago. A chiropractor, Katie Britton, with a revolutionary new treatment method, came here with claims that she could, indeed, reverse structural scoliosis curves. When several of us challenged her, and suggested that she put her $ where her mouth was, she agreed to treat someone for free AND give them $10,000 if she couldn't permanently reduce their curves. After some amount of discussion, she found an eligible patient, and I got an orthopaedist to agree to monitor the patient. Unfortunately, when I tried to contact Katie 3-4 months ago, I got no response. So, Katie, if you're around, I'd love an update.

--Linda

[structural75]

linda,

Yet you keep the comments flowing, don't you.?

1. I never made a single "false" claim to "permanently reduce structural scoliosis".

2. Is your only intent on this forum to play ring leader and antagonize others. What is the point of that last story?

Are you saying it is OK for you to recommend bracing/surgical procedures that are NEVER garaunteed, but for others to suggest something that "might" be helpful is NOT OK? Let's keep in mind that no "alternative", "complimentary" or "conventional" (i.e. - surgery) treatment has ever "permanently" kept a curvature at complete bay without change or further complications. In fact almost every surgery reaches its limit and requires more surgery or creates additional problems. Does that mean they're illegitimate?

Bottom line, STOP bashing everyone else and acknowledge, just for once, that everything has its limitations. I don't think that others are really concerned if any given treatment will "permanently reduce" their curves, we're all aware of the difficulties associated w/ scoliosis. But I do think that many would be grateful if; 1. their pain diminished to some degree 2. their curve slowed its progression 3. their curve stopped its progression 4. their curvature was reduced. How they achieve any of those things is up to them to decide given each scenerio (It's usually the combo of alternative and conventional that proves most effective). You're still in pain (Does that mean your surgeon failed? Probably not, right?), so obviously the means of 'conventional' medicine doesn't always have all of the answers. In fact, many "alternative" approaches (as you so affectionately refer to them) have been around longer than "conventional" methods so let's not forget where we've come from.

I see the same themes arise in this forum... people in pain, procedures with complications, doctors say nothing is wrong, pain "normal", or one of my favorites from you personally - "most back pain is temporary".!! I could care less what the studies say about that, it's as "false" as it gets. And your encouraging people to ignore pain that is real, and is meant to be telling them that something isn't right. Sure, if you ignore it, sometimes it "goes away" only to rear its head down the road with more ferocity than before. Even in different locations, but very much a part of the same problem.

Linda - not all studies are posted on the internet... or info in general for that matter. Nor does it have to be confirmed by your governing body of choice. (Take a look at global warming. Are you in denial of that as well because the studies don't all say the same thing?)

(SI), when essentially, neither have been shown to improve scoliosis curves.

Here's an article that was easily accessible - http://www.massageandbodywork.com/Ar...anagement.html

Also try these sites for anyone interested in the reputation/validity of the work that Linda feels is ineffective at changing the body.

www.rolfdoc.com
www.fascia2007.com
http://rolf.org/press/endorsements.htm
http://rolfguild.org/otherssay.html

structural...

[LindaRacine]

1. I never made a single "false" claim to "permanently reduce structural scoliosis".

Where the heck did I accuse use of making ANY claim?

I have tried everything I can think of to go out of my way to NOT be accusatory, and not be defensive when you've said all sort of negative things about me. I even went so far as to say that I thought you could help scoliosis patients. Why do you keep insisting on putting words in my mouth? I have tried to be civil, and to not be defensive while, while you've continually accused me, with all sort of incorrect statements.

So, since you seem to want me to say something negative about you, here goes. Dilbert once said "Don't argue with idiots. They drag you down to their level, and then beat you with experience." I think I'll take his advice.

--Linda

[structural75]

Linda-
"Gone out of your way not to be accusatory"???? Even others failed to see the truth in that statement. Keep digging yourself out of your hole.
Sweetness514 says:

sweetness514 I don't get it.

Why can't there be different opinions and treatments shared without people having a close mind and listening to what the person has to say.

I understand asking questions, and having doubts, but can't we keep an open mind without jumping on a person who has different approaches to share about.

Linda, you asked;

Where the heck did I accuse use of making ANY claim?

here...

Do you feel that because I warn people about blindly accepting false claims, and state that there is no proof that any alternative therapy can permanently reduce structural scoliosis curves in skeletally mature individuals, that I'm disrespecting you personally?

I believe that Gerbo was simply questioning whether it was OK to allow someone to bash one therapy (Raindrop) and yet get enraged when someone questions the effectiveness of a different therapy (SI), when essentially, neither have been shown to improve scoliosis curves.

...harsh words Linda, "bash", I don't believe it was bashing, just neatly clarifying a false statement. Who's putting words in whos mouth? And Gerbo didn't seem to have problem with the other member discrediting raindrop, but when I make the same statement all heck breaks loose.

but think it's a good idea to help people understand that they might want to be cautious about accepting claims without any substantive proof of effectiveness.

I don't think anyone would have any problem with someone with scoliosis coming here and saying they had success with a given therapy. However, when one is "selling" a therapy, then I personally believe that one should be able to provide some proof that it works

...Please re-read my original posts...Isn't that what I did, share my success with a given therapy? I have nothing to sell and nothing to gain by what I offered.

you stand little chance of turning non-believers into believers.

So, you might think about whether you also have a closed mind. (directed at sweetness)

... this is not mystical stuff... has more to do with educating others in realms they are not familiar with. Being a self-proclaimed "non-believer" clearly shows how opened minded you really are... you said it, not me.

These all have clear "accusatory" and degrading tones to them... Wouldn't you say? Others certainly thought so.

Keep in mind some of my correspondence was directed at Gerbo and her creative display of contextual displacements and negative assault on something she has absolutely no understanding or knowledge of. I'm sure you're both very knowledgable about scoliosis surgical procedures, bracing, hardware, etc., but that does not mean you understand functional human anatomy or the physiologic workings of the human body. Both of you however chose early on to dismiss something you obviously knew nothing about. It's reasonable to expect people to do homework on the matter before dismissing things you're unfamiliar with. That is the scientific method after all, form a hypothesis and get a conclusion, one way or another, based on evidentiary support from clinical experience(of which studies are a small part). In the scientific method you do not conclude negative results without evidence to support it.

Maybe the unknown makes you uncomfortable, but the unknown is what keeps medicine moving forward.

The End!

[gerbo]

shame really Structural, that you get angry so easily. I had another look at the earliest messages in this thread, which started all this of, and I still thought that my request for the nature of the "proof" of your methods, and me pointing out that scientifically speaking, single cases can be interesting, but surely do not constitute proof, were quite reasonable. And again, you did not say anything different with regards to the raindrop treatment. (which i did not need to challenge as others had done that already)

What would go some way towards providing some evidence would be to share the results of your last 10 patients with scoliosis, not so much with regards to painrelief, but more objective improvement in the curve (cobbangles would be nice as good looking photographs from the trunk do not necessarily correlate with improvements in the actual curvature) Ofcourse we would hope you'd include the patiiets where despite treatment the curve has worsened.

Ofcourse, this still would not constitute scientific valid proof, but at least we'd have a bit of an idea what we are talking about.

Please do not be scared to be challenged as the nature of science is to challenge existing beliefs and knowledge but also to challenge the challenges. An open mind is not the same as a non-critical mind.

By the way, I am a He and not a She

Best wishes

[LindaRacine]

Sorry, my mistake, didn't realize that Structural and Sweetness were the same person. And, I could have sworn that Gerbo and I were two different people. ;-)

[sweetness514]

Hi Sweetness...

That's exactly the point. I believe that Gerbo was simply questioning whether it was OK to allow someone to bash one therapy (Raindrop) and yet get enraged when someone questions the effectiveness of a different therapy (SI), when essentially, neither have been shown to improve scoliosis curves.

While I think most of us would agree that there's a better chance that SI would help scoliosis patients than Raindrop, but Gerbo was simply stating a principle. I honestly don't care how many people try either or both therapies, but think it's a good idea to help people understand that they might want to be cautious about accepting claims without any substantive proof of effectiveness.

Regards,
Linda

I understand what you mean. But I also understand a person in Structural's shoes feeling that he's being not just questioned(wich is prefectly fine) but accused of certain things like selling his therapy or being a chiro. I also think he feels a certain resentment from certain posters on the forum. I'm just seeing both sides and how everyone might see it.

Like I said just a feeling I had and something I wanted to say but the point of this thread is Kristi's well being(and others), hopefully she got the point.

I don't mind the debate, you sure know more than me about this.

[structural75]

Linda & Gerbo (two distinct individuals),

Linda - I'm not certain where you're confusion stems from... nor do I see its relevance. Structural and Sweetness are obviously two different people.

Mr. Gerbo - Sorry for the gender mishap.

Despite the friction throughout this thread, it seems as though it may have been necessary to get through the clouds... Time will tell.

Gerbo - I'm not angry... Yet I do get frustrated when people jump the gun on disciplines they know little about. I'm always up to a good challenge, that's what keeps me growing as a practitioner (I've never been "scared" of a challenge Gerbo. I approach everything with a critical and open mind) I clearly understand your request to see solid data on the matter, and I respect that. I'm not certain what you do for a living, but in the health care field there are constant clinical successes and failures alike that are not documented or photographed. There are also instances where they are. This process costs money and time, both of which many doctors/practitioners have little to throw around. I would love to be involved in formal "scientific" studies someday, but for now I'll settle for my humble private practice. At the end of the day it doesn't matter much if every case has been documented in a study. What does matter is that the quality of an individual's life has improved. When it doesn't, I refer out and stop treatment.

It's one thing to throw your studies around this forum. It's another to offer an opinion or advice to others based on a sound 'scientific' understanding and knowledge of human anatomy and physiology. You can present your studies (which I sincerely believe are important, insightful and helpful to those on this forum who are making very important decisions), I'll present my clinical and personal experience working with human beings in the physiologically scientific realm. (And I'm a bit confused by how one's "trunk" can change alignment without the spine/ribcage changing.??? i.e. - the "trunk", or more scientifically the thorax, is in fact the region of the body consisting of the spine/ribcage).

I left some links to a few sights on S.I. work. You may or may not have seen that of Dr. Thomas Findley. An M.D. with extraordinary credentials and co-director of one of the premiere pain centers in the U.S. (Kessler Institute). One of his patients was Christopher Reeves (a.k.a. - superman). As we all know he was paralyzed from the neck down. Dr. Findley used S.I. work to allow him to breath off of a ventilator for 30 - 45 minutes at a time. This alone "prooves" the efficacy of the work in that context (as he could not do it before treatment and most Doctors would probably assume that it was impossible). You may ask, Is there a study that "proves" its effectiveness? No, there is not. Did it really happen? Yes, it did. So I see your point quite clearly... Do you see mine? Studies are helpful, but certainly not necessary to validate positive outcomes. Dr. Findley specializes in conditions that are often undiagnosable. It's hard to establish scientific proof of something that can't be explained. But the fact remains that he has helped many people when other specialists/Doctors have failed. Primarily because he doesn't accept conventional studies as the be all, end all. And yes, he has conducted a vast many of his own. I know this doesn't pertain directly to scoliosis, but hopefully you can see my point.

Also Gerbo, I never denied the reality of failed attempts (in fact I clearly stated otherwise). What I was suggesting to KristyH, who originally asked about non-surgical approaches that might be effective, was to try one of two approaches that have been successful at times. I know that some of you don't consider her degree of curvature to be "serious", but it seems senseless to just sit back and wait until it is. I said its effectiveness will vary depending... .No false hopes. No sugar coating. She was experiencing discomfort and concern, I offered something that, in clinical experience, has shown to reduce that pain and, ocassionally, slow/stop or reduce the curvature. How long are those results effective? It will vary, as it does with surgerical interventions. She may in fact need surgery down the road, none of us are in any position to predict that. She asked a question and I offered an option to try. By the way I'm curious, what would you have suggested to her as an alternative approach prior to surgical intervention?

It's one thing to "challenge the challenges", it's another altogether to silence the minority. I don't think of my work as a "challenge" to other forms of work. It's another facet in the health care paradigm, with its own set of benefits and limitations alike. It makes me wonder... What is the intent of your "challenge"? To learn something or to silence something?

And again, you speak so frequently about "scientific proof". Given that your chosen and supported methods have been scientifically proven, how do you explain the failures that still result from the procedures? And even surgery often has a shelf life. Many of these folks, have had multiple surgeries to correct, fix or replace outdated materials/procedures. So what was once "scientifically valid" is no longer deemed approapriate or effective. (broken fusions, rods, nerve damage, alterations in the mobile portions of the previously healthy spinal segments.) So please tell me, what does a "scientifically proven" method really mean? In the "science" of medicine it shows consistancies, in the "science" of physics it shows absolutes. Be sure not to confuse the two, they are very different. By the way, all "scientifically proven" methods start out as singular cases.

Many of the people that arive at my practice have already tried more conventional approaches with varying degrees of success. They come to me as a 'last resort' primarily because my profession is under the radar of what is commonly "scientifically proven". Some cases don't show improvement of pain or alignment and some do. But what keeps me in business and upholds my reputation is the fact that the majority of people do get positive and lasting results. And I admit, many are surprised to find out that despite the lack of popular notariety of S.I., it helped when more conventional means didn't.

'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.' Surgeons use knives, x-rays, mri, ct scans, etc.... you should expect their opinions/beliefs/studies to reflect that fact. If our tool boxes were more diversely equiped, our patients would only prosper from it. This is not about limiting options, it's about expanding them. Which means that sometimes you have to stop looking down at the ground, and start seeing the horizon for what it can offer to help us on the journey.

KristyH - I hope this has been of help...

Structural75

[Celia]

Structural,

I certainly don't condone personal attacks on anyone and hopefully no one's feelings have been hurt in the process as we are all here to gain a better understanding and get support from one another. This following quote was so well put.... just beautiful! Nonetheless, chosen and supported methods may be less than 100 % perfect but they are not zero.

...And again, you speak so frequently about "scientific proof". Given that your chosen and supported methods have been scientifically proven, how do you explain the failures that still result from the procedures? And even surgery often has a shelf life. Many of these folks, have had multiple surgeries to correct, fix or replace outdated materials/procedures. So what was once "scientifically valid" is no longer deemed approapriate or effective. (broken fusions, rods, nerve damage, alterations in the mobile portions of the previously healthy spinal segments.) So please tell me, what does a "scientifically proven" method really mean? In the "science" of medicine it shows consistancies, in the "science" of physics it shows absolutes. Be sure not to confuse the two, they are very different. By the way, all "scientifically proven" methods start out as singular cases.

'When the only tool you have is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail.' Surgeons use knives, x-rays, mri, ct scans, etc.... you should expect their opinions/beliefs/studies to reflect that fact. If our tool boxes were more diversely equiped, our patients would only prosper from it. This is not about limiting options, it's about expanding them. Which means that sometimes you have to stop looking down at the ground, and start seeing the horizon for what it can offer to help us on the journey.

[structural75]

Celia,

Thank you... I think. It's hard for me tell if that was just sarcasm or if it was a genuine comment. I hope it was the latter, I'm taking it as such because it would be nice to reach some common ground and understanding on all of this. It would be great to think we're having a dialogue rather than a debate. Thanks again.

I also want to be clear to others reading these posts that I'm in no way shape or form opposed to surgical corrections. My point simply being that nothing is perfect, no matter what kind of evidence is used to support it.

I would certainly never enter the surgical forums and discredit any Doctor's work (despite inconsistancies). I trust that folks recognize that this thread is under the Non-Surgical heading.

Best Wishes,
structural