Hi beckyw,

Interesting post

I will lay may cards down first...
1. There are good and bad in every profession
2. My difference with chiros are with philosophy
3. I refer to chiros if my patients want me to.

In essence, traditionally and from what i gather from Chiropractor association websites are that chiropractors are interested in structure and optimal nerve health. Adjustments tot eh spine help with interferences with optimal neural health...forgive me if i am wrong.

I also am led to believe (and have observed) that chiropractic *tends* to be passive - as in the patient gets adjustments whereas physios tend to be active - the patient has to do exercises etc.

I think the truth is someone in between.

Ultimately, i believe that a good physio will have it over a good chiro because physiotherapists manipulate (adjust) joints and have lots of passive treatments but are ultimately the experts at "beautiful movement" - that is combining the treatment of the following systems...
1. Myofascial system
2. Articular System
3. Neural system including motor control in which physiotherapists are the world leaders in research and practice
4. Visceral system - this is more like classic osteopaths but more and more physios are learning about the visceral system and how their function affects fascial pulls etc
5. cognitive/psych system

That is not to say that a chiropractor can't be great at all of the above as well. I feel that the training i have observed that chiros have had do not lend themselves to biomechanical analysis whereas physios have this training as part of undergraduate studies...

Ultimately, i think good chiros and good physios have a lot to offer. I have a couple of chiros i trust and i love to talk to them and we share knowledge - isn't that how it should be?