What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

A skeptical look at medical practices
Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Tue May 19, 2009 10:44 am

Ok, so let's see, providing the web page so you can look at the article i was looking is vague ........Hmmmm that makes sense

The one article was mearly a discussion on why doing research on manipulation is not as straight forward as it sounds

And by your standards - either I let my back pain self resolve or I do surgery.

Glad you are not my doctor.

If you really are one that is.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Gord » Tue May 19, 2009 10:50 am

the honorable opposition wrote:mearly


"merely"
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby brauneyz » Tue May 19, 2009 12:14 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:Ok, so let's see, providing the web page so you can look at the article i was looking is vague ........Hmmmm that makes sense

The one article was mearly a discussion on why doing research on manipulation is not as straight forward as it sounds

That's the whole point. Doing research is difficult and sometimes, (oftentimes actually), it fails to produce the desired outcome. Sometimes the answer is no.

You admit research on manipulation is not straight forward, yet you advocate for it and worse, believe you are citing credible sources. That is not science, but religion.
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby landrew » Tue May 19, 2009 12:53 pm

brauneyz wrote:
the honorable opposition wrote:Ok, so let's see, providing the web page so you can look at the article i was looking is vague ........Hmmmm that makes sense

The one article was mearly a discussion on why doing research on manipulation is not as straight forward as it sounds

That's the whole point. Doing research is difficult and sometimes, (oftentimes actually), it fails to produce the desired outcome. Sometimes the answer is no.

You admit research on manipulation is not straight forward, yet you advocate for it and worse, believe you are citing credible sources. That is not science, but religion.

OOPS! Did someone say "desired outcome?"

If you conduct science to achieve a "desired outcome," it's not "science" at all. Peer review will tear it to shreds (if it's doing its job).
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Tue May 19, 2009 2:05 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:{snip} I have included web pages with the quotes or the quotes have the source information in the quote. ...
Okay, I see your reference claiming that manipulation is better than massage, it is a review in an inferior publication (eCAM). It cites four articles for which I only can see abstracts.

1) Hoehler, FK et al JAMA 1981 v.245 pp. 1835-8. It is a pilot study (97 subj.) suggesting that manipulation (not chiro) gave immediate results; but massage and manipulation were the same in the long run.

2) Hsieh, CY et al JMPT 1992 v.15 pp. 4-9. This is an even tinier study (63 subj. divided among 4(!) treatments) which the authors try to puff up by emphasizing that they began with 83 subj. Apparently they don't know that high a drop-out rate condemns a study. One cannot draw any firm conclusions from such a study.

3) Pope, MH et al Spine 1994 v.19 2571-7. This is another four-arm study, number of subj. not specified.
RESULTS. After 3 weeks, the manipulation group scored the greatest improvements in flexion and pain while the massage group had the best extension effort and fatigue time, and the muscle stimulation group the best extension. CONCLUSION. None of the changes in physical outcome measures (range of motion, fatigue, strength or pain) were significantly different between any of the groups.
That does not amount to an endorsement of manipulation.

4) Godfrey, CM Spine 1984 v.9 301-4. This is another small study (81 subj.) over 2-3 weeks. Manipulation compared to massage-plus-TENS, no difference noted.

Overall, the review you cited does not support its claim.


Evaluation and Treatment of Acute Low Back Pain
SCOTT KINKADE, M.D., M.S.P.H., University of Texas Southwestern Medical School, Dallas, Texas
American Family Physician Vol. 75/No. 8 (April 15, 2007)
http://www.aafp.org/afp/20070415/1181.html
Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain may offer some short-term benefits but probably is no more effective than usual medical care.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby brauneyz » Tue May 19, 2009 2:36 pm

landrew wrote:OOPS! Did someone say "desired outcome?"

If you conduct science to achieve a "desired outcome," it's not "science" at all. Peer review will tear it to shreds (if it's doing its job).

Not one of my clearer statements, obviously. :wink:

However, if I am conducting research (looking for cures, etc.) of course I hope for a desirable outcome. Obviously, falsifying data or presenting misleading results to promote that 'desire' is unethical. That's why I said the answer is sometimes no.

(You don't think scientists are capable of desire? :? )
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Tue May 19, 2009 4:37 pm

brauneyz wrote:
landrew wrote:{snip} If you conduct science to achieve a "desired outcome," it's not "science" at all. Peer review will tear it to shreds (if it's doing its job).
{snip} However, if I am conducting research (looking for cures, etc.) of course I hope for a desirable outcome. {snip}
Brauneyz, you are right and it was clear. In this case. landrew is confused by the distinction between research designed to observe a result vs. studies that are designed to push a result.

In clinical research, quacks push for results by using small groups and examining many results. The small groups (e.g., 40 subjects) allow randomly-assigned treatment/control groups to be significantly different (e.g., older, sicker, less likely to follow the protocol, ...) so you have a 50% chance that the difference will go your way. Then, if you look at myriad outcomes (fever, hospital visits, amount of drugs used, duration of illness, ...) you can probably find at least one that goes your way (that's just statistics).

Landrew is also confused about peer-review. Any major research program needs funding, and applications for funding are subject to peer-review. There are many aspects to the grant proposal, and one is convincing one's peers that there are compelling reasons to believe a desirable outcome will be achieved. I emphasized "desirable" because one can amass evidence that something should happen; but, if it is not important, it won't be funded.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby brauneyz » Tue May 19, 2009 5:32 pm

JJM wrote:
brauneyz wrote:
landrew wrote:{snip} If you conduct science to achieve a "desired outcome," it's not "science" at all. Peer review will tear it to shreds (if it's doing its job).
{snip} However, if I am conducting research (looking for cures, etc.) of course I hope for a desirable outcome. {snip}
Brauneyz, you are right and it was clear. In this case. landrew is confused by the distinction between research designed to observe a result vs. studies that are designed to push a result.

In clinical research, quacks push for results by using small groups and examining many results. The small groups (e.g., 40 subjects) allow randomly-assigned treatment/control groups to be significantly different (e.g., older, sicker, less likely to follow the protocol, ...) so you have a 50% chance that the difference will go your way. Then, if you look at myriad outcomes (fever, hospital visits, amount of drugs used, duration of illness, ...) you can probably find at least one that goes your way (that's just statistics).

Landrew is also confused about peer-review. Any major research program needs funding, and applications for funding are subject to peer-review. There are many aspects to the grant proposal, and one is convincing one's peers that there are compelling reasons to believe a desirable outcome will be achieved. I emphasized "desirable" because one can amass evidence that something should happen; but, if it is not important, it won't be funded.

JJ, thanks for clearing up what I was trying to say (poorly :D ) about desirable outcomes. All research (even fooling around in a basement) has some objective that is driven by emotion. Coming in with a front-loaded conclusion and working backwards, using poorly designed experiments and cherry picking data to support it is bad science. Definitely not what I was implying.

As a statistician, I'm well aware of how my field can be used and abused, so I am especially thankful for discussions like this that shed light on the complexities of research. And I'm really thankful I'm not involved in the politics of grant proposals - a necessary evil that others are better suited for.
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby landrew » Tue May 19, 2009 9:11 pm

I'm once again reminded why I have JJM on ignore. He seems to have a penchant for putting an aggressive spin on everything, creating an aire of speciousness which is difficult or impossible to debate within. He really missed his calling as a lawyer.

Brauneyz
Of course developmental research has an objective, but this is not to be confused with having a preconceived conclusion for a scientific test. The actual science occurs when an idea, theory, model or formula is tested, which to be useful, can't be contaminated by bias.

Those things which don't fail such testing are collected and assembled towards the goals of the development program. This assemblage of "things that work," isn't actual science, but it was partly derived from the filterings of the scientific method. My error perhaps for not making the distinction more clearly in my response to your post.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

User avatar
brauneyz
Persistent Poster
Posts: 3767
Joined: Sun Jan 20, 2008 3:13 pm
Location: Everywhere, USA

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby brauneyz » Tue May 19, 2009 10:17 pm

landrew wrote:I'm once again reminded why I have JJM on ignore. He seems to have a penchant for putting an aggressive spin on everything, creating an aire of speciousness which is difficult or impossible to debate within. He really missed his calling as a lawyer.
Jeez, I must have misunderstood you awhile back cuz I thought you said you never put anyone on ignore - even if you do find them irritating or whatever. If you put him on ignore, how will you know what he says? Doesn't that kind of kill your participation? I'm way more irritating than JJ and you can clearly hear me. :D
Brauneyz
Of course developmental research has an objective, but this is not to be confused with having a preconceived conclusion for a scientific test. The actual science occurs when an idea, theory, model or formula is tested, which to be useful, can't be contaminated by bias.
I agree, because I don't think that's what I said. Certainly not what I intended. I was responding to you jumping on me, gleefully, for using the term 'desired'. I admit it was probably not the clearest choice and hope I have cleared up my position. If not, let me know and I'll take another whack at it.
"A society of sheep must in time beget a government of wolves." ~ Bertrand de Jouvenel

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Tue May 19, 2009 11:11 pm

"merely"
i f"d up, sorry for my late night typing errors

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Tue May 19, 2009 11:16 pm

at landrew is making sense

nobody has answered my question by the way with any thought behind it

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby landrew » Wed May 20, 2009 1:04 am

brauneyz wrote:
landrew wrote:I'm once again reminded why I have JJM on ignore. He seems to have a penchant for putting an aggressive spin on everything, creating an aire of speciousness which is difficult or impossible to debate within. He really missed his calling as a lawyer.
Jeez, I must have misunderstood you awhile back cuz I thought you said you never put anyone on ignore - even if you do find them irritating or whatever. If you put him on ignore, how will you know what he says? Doesn't that kind of kill your participation? I'm way more irritating than JJ and you can clearly hear me. :D
True, and then I announced one day that JJM had earned the honor of being the first.

brauneyz wrote:Brauneyz
Of course developmental research has an objective, but this is not to be confused with having a preconceived conclusion for a scientific test. The actual science occurs when an idea, theory, model or formula is tested, which to be useful, can't be contaminated by bias.
I agree, because I don't think that's what I said. Certainly not what I intended. I was responding to you jumping on me, gleefully, for using the term 'desired'. I admit it was probably not the clearest choice and hope I have cleared up my position. If not, let me know and I'll take another whack at it.

I accept that. I think I probably took it wrong, assuming you misstated the scientific method, which was apparently not the case.

By the way, you're quite wrong about being more irritating than JJM. You don't ask me loaded questions that are impossible to answer.
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 1:29 am

[quote]By the way, you're quite wrong about being more irritating than JJM. You don't ask me loaded questions that are impossible to answer.[quote]

true dat

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Gord » Wed May 20, 2009 3:02 am

the honorable opposition wrote:
"merely"
i f"d up, sorry for my late night typing errors

:lol: Sorry, I'm a compulsive spelling corrector. I usually keep it in check, but that one slipped by when I was sleepy.
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Wed May 20, 2009 5:37 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:{snip} nobody has answered my question by the way with any thought behind it
Sorry, what was that question?

Have you answered my questions concerning research supporting chiro?

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Wed May 20, 2009 5:43 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:{snip} You don't ask me loaded questions that are impossible to answer.
Why are my questions impossible to answer? All you need is reliable data. How much simpler can I make it? If it is impossible to supply it, your position is simply bogus.

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 5:58 pm

i was just agreeing with the other poster, why don't you ask him/her first

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Wed May 20, 2009 6:04 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:i was just agreeing with the other poster, why don't you ask him/her first
Why can't you speak for yourself?

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 6:25 pm

you know that has been a real problem for me, much to introverted

thanks for the encouragement, i will try to do better

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Wed May 20, 2009 7:14 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:you know that has been a real problem for me, much to introverted thanks for the encouragement, i will try to do better
Mr. Gefaller, I wish you luck; but I think your time has passed. You, and your sock-puppets, have had way more than enough time to make the case for chiropracty.

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 8:56 pm

Why JJM, it is so nice to know who is in charge around here.
I am glad that you can decided what I can say and who I can say it too.
to paraphrase Monty Python " I did not vote for you to be king"

I am still waiting for a good answer to the question that I have posed to you multiple times.

Maybe I should ignore answering your questions like you ignore answering mine.

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 10:29 pm

[quote][Recent rulings in Amsterdam, Pennsylvania and the Supreme Court of California are heavy blows to the Quackwatch anti-chiropractic and anti-alternative medicine organizations.

After years of being labeled a"quack," and defamed and ridiculed professionally, Dr. Maria Sickesz won a great victory in Amsterdam, Holland early June 2007.

The Netherlands Appeals Court ordered the "Vereniging tegen de Kwalzalverij" (Association Against Quackery, which is the Dutch version of the so- called "Quackbusters" ) to cease and desist from using the demeaning, subjective and pejorative term "quack." This group is linked extensively on their website with the American "quackwatch" headed by Stephen Barrett, who also has suffered several legal defeats recently.

The Justices recognized that this group's affinity for giving demeaning labels to doctors with whose practices they disagreed was a way of shutting down emerging science. They were also ordered to publish a public retraction in two widely circulated newspapers. It has been estimated this will cost them around thirty thousand euros (~US$40,350) and has been written that this will bankrupt this highly controversial association whose work is attempting to destroy alternative practioners in Holland.

Dr. Sickesz developed a kind of healing called orthomanual therapy which integrates chiropractic practices. For several decades the quackbuster organizations around the world have waged legal and public relations wars against chiropractors and other non traditional practitioners, demonizing them with their biased campaigns.

In June, for the second time, Barrett lost a case in a Pennsylvania Appeals Court against a local and respected chiropractor in his hometown of Allentown, PA.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/2844... /quote]

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 10:29 pm

Because of losing Barrett Vs Rosenthal, Barrett and Polevoy have been required to put up bonds of over $433,000 for Ilena Rosenthal's attorneys fees in this classic Industry Vs Activist SLAPP suit.
http://www.foundationforhealthchoice.com/barr...

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 10:30 pm

Commissioned by the New Zealand Government in 1978, The New Zealand Report developed into the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination, at that time, of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country.The Commission interviewed the American Medical Association, American Chiropractic Association, Council on Chiropractic Education, Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, Blue Cross & Blue Shield, and various individuals...IT CONCLUDED
13. We have considered material published over Barrett's name. The chapter on chiropractic in The Health Robbers (entitled "The Spine Salesmen") was written by him. It is plainly propaganda. What we have seen of the rest of his writings on chiropractic has the same tone. Nothing he has written on chiropractic that we have considered can be relied on as balanced.
18. It is clear that the enthusiasm of the Lehigh Valley Committee Against Health Fraud(AKA QUACKWATCH) is greater than its respect for accuracy, at least in regards to facts concerning chiropractic. We are not prepared to place any reliance on material emanating from the Lehigh Valley Committee.
http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/New_Zealand_Report...

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 10:31 pm

At trial, under a heated cross-examination by Negrete, Barrett conceded that he was not a Medical Board Certified psychiatrist because he had failed the certification exam.

This was a major revelation since Barrett had provided supposed expert testimony as a psychiatrist and had testified in numerous court cases. Barrett also had said that he was a legal expert even though he had no formal legal training.

The most damning testimony before the jury, under the intense cross-examination by Negrete, was that Barrett had filed similar defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and had not won one single one at trial.

During the course of his examination, Barrett also had to concede his ties to the AMA, Federal Trade Commission (FTC) and Food & Drug Administration (FDA). http://www.canlyme.com/quackwatch.html

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Wed May 20, 2009 10:34 pm

Stephen Barrett MD, who the Pennsylvania licensing board officially classifies as "Not in Good Standing," operates the dubious website "quackwatch.com " out of his basement in Allentown, Pennsylvania.Keep in mind that Barrett, although claiming to be a retired Psychiatrist, was never able to become "Board Certified." He failed his test. Also, Barrett gave up his MD license in 1993. His employment record shows he NEVER was able to hold a full-time job - and his claim to "Psychiatric fame" was his part-time (4 to 8 hours a week) employment at a Pennsylvania Mental Hospital - from 1978 through 1993. From 1976 through 1978 he COULD NOT GET a paying job.



And everyone wonders why I don't hold Stephen Barret in high regard or bother with the websites he runs out of his basement.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Wed May 20, 2009 11:09 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:Stephen Barrett MD, who the Pennsylvania licensing board officially classifies as "Not in Good Standing," {snip}
Of course, none of your postings support the validity of chiropracty, and none of it supports any misgivings about Dr. Barrett's writings. Nonetheless, Dr. Barrett's license is officially listed as "active-retired" http://www.licensepa.state.pa.us/Search ... r_zipcode=

So, on Dr. Barrett's license, you fail. I am sure you are used to that.

User avatar
vanderpoel
Perpetual Poster
Posts: 4572
Joined: Sun Feb 15, 2009 3:01 am
Location: Honolulu
Contact:

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby vanderpoel » Wed May 20, 2009 11:47 pm

the honorable opposition wrote:The Netherlands Appeals Court ordered the "Vereniging tegen de Kwalzalverij" (Association Against Quackery, which is the Dutch version of the so- called "Quackbusters" ) to cease and desist from using the demeaning, subjective and pejorative term "quack."

The organization is properly called: "Vereniging tegen de Kwakzalverij" .
The article is from June 26, 2007 and blindly copied from a misspelled article in any one of a number of dubious publication on the net:

nl.wordpress.com/tag/vereniging-tegen-kwalzalverij/ -
http://www.medicalfacts.nl/2009/03/01/s ... ing-tegen- kwalzalverij-op-artikel-volkskrant/ -
http://www.medicalfacts.nl/2005/11/13/n ... akzalverij -tendentieus-clubje-betweters-met-kokervisie/ -
ccgforum.wordpress.com/2009/04/22/vereniging-tegen-kwalzalverij-krijgt- nul-op-request/ -
retecool.com/tags/kwalzalverij -
en.wordpress.com/tag/skeptisism/ - 17k - Cached - Similar pages -
Anti-alternative "Quackbusters" Have Giant Court Losses on Two ...
Jun 26, 2007 ... The Netherlands Appeals Court ordered the "Vereniging tegen de Kwalzalverij" ( Association Against Quackery, which is the Dutch version of ...
http://www.associatedcontent.com/articl ... ckbusters_ have_giant.html -

All have the same spelling mistakes and the wrong translation of the word "kwakzalverij" as "quack", where in fact it is "quackery".

This quote fails to mention that the Dutch courtʻs opinion is much contested and bizarre. Essentially it comes down to this:

Nobody, and certainly not a doctor, could be accused of quackery, as long as there is a publication out there somewhere, no matter how poor, which describes the usefulness of a treatment.

According to that court, the promotion of aspirin against depression is OK, because aspirin helps against headache. Everything, supported by just one positive article, is therefore free to be promoted.

But you cannot call a quack a quack, no matter how many articles support that notion, as long as there is one article saying that a quack is not a quack.

Gives a whole new meaning to the term "going Dutch".
And it gives a dubious reputation to anyone quoting the decisions from courts in other countries as support for American issues.
"When you put a toucan on a monkey’s ass, don’t be fooled by the brightly colored plumage, beware of the enormous bill!"

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Thu May 21, 2009 1:58 am

So the skeptics that are so rooted in fact will gladly ignore the problems and dubious reputation of a person as long as it is one of it's own

I see now..... It really doesn't who states the opinion as long as it is an opinion that agrees with your own

Good job refuting all the information that I presented point by point. How are you going to justify that one of the main sources that you get your information from is run by a dubious and discredited (in the court of law on multiple occassions) person?

How are we going to trust a skeptic source when the person running it is so scandalous and harmful to the cause?

This sounds like the complaint against chiropractic on this board.

ie: a dubious zeolat who with religious fever promotes his cause despite all odds against him, he will not give up until the whole world thinks the way that he does even though the world thinks he is a crackpot

is it D.D. Palmer or Stephan Barrett - sound like the same guy to me - different subject though

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Thu May 21, 2009 2:22 am

For it is in lesions of fixation and immobilization that the general treatment is of greatest importance, and with this in mind we have found during the past year that we could treat successfully manipulative measures alone conditions which we formerly evaded or treated at best only in a haphazard fashion, such as hay-fever, asthma, various allergic conditions, goiter, and various gynecological conditions.

MacDonald, McCole, Gamble and others have pointed out that lesions of fixation and immobilization far outnumber lesions of subluxation, and that in the aggregate, lesions of subluxation constitute but a very small number of all the lesions that come to an osteopathic physician. And so rather than feeling apologetic for the use of the general treatment as many of us have done because we felt our knowledge of specific treatment was inadequate, we should make much more of general treatment than we have done in the past. We should, however, have always before us a specific aim and objective in the use of the general treatment.

http://www.meridianinstitute.com/eamt/files/articles/artuner.htm

I thought that this was interesting since it was an Osteopathic article

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Thu May 21, 2009 9:18 pm

i was just looking at the stats. Isn't it interesting that for a guy that you claim is barking up the wrong tree, I've helped generate 43000 more views than the next closest forum.
You guys should be loving me that I have brought some reason to look at this site for a change :D

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Gord » Fri May 22, 2009 10:59 am

the honorable opposition wrote:Isn't it interesting that for a guy that you claim is barking up the wrong tree, I've helped generate 43000 more views than the next closest forum.

How many were yours?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10246
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Pyrrho » Fri May 22, 2009 11:13 am

the honorable opposition wrote:i was just looking at the stats. Isn't it interesting that for a guy that you claim is barking up the wrong tree, I've helped generate 43000 more views than the next closest forum.
You guys should be loving me that I have brought some reason to look at this site for a change :D

From Google, the top 20 searches that bring people here:

1 29% skeptic forum 1
2 10% oil pulling side effects 2
3 7% oil pulling 14
4 7% eric pearl 16
5 5% eric pearl fraud 3
6 5% the reconnection 8
7 4% oil of oregano 11
8 3% does oil pulling work 4
9 2% dermaphoto 4
10 2% asparagus cures cancer 7
11 2% songs to strip to 7
12 2% gonorrhea without sex 2
13 2% cancer news journal december 1979 5
14 2% non celiac gluten intolerance 8
15 2% brandon corey 9
16 2% polar grizzly hybrid 13
17 1% downshifting vs braking 2
18 1% john kansas salt water fuel 3
19 1% keratosis pilaris oil pulling 4
20 1% oil pulling keratosis pilaris 4

The top 20 searches in which our forum appears in results:

1 19% bubble but 10
2 7% nudists 48
3 7% oil pulling 14
4 6% the reconnection 8
5 6% polar grizzly hybrid 13
6 5% fasinating 9
7 5% songs to strip to 7
8 4% nihlist 8
9 4% skeptic forum 1
10 3% dr bob martin 8
11 3% oracle of bacon 10
12 3% oil of oregano 11
13 3% polar bear population statistics 9
14 3% skeptics society 5
15 3% uk skeptics 7
16 2% brandon corey 9
17 2% the medium tv show 9
18 2% non celiac gluten intolerance 8
19 2% the oracle of bacon 7
20 2% uk skeptics forum 5

BUBBLE BUT? Sigh...
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Gord » Fri May 22, 2009 11:26 am

What the fujebus is "oil pulling?" :?
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
Pyrrho
Administrator
Posts: 10246
Joined: Tue Mar 08, 2005 12:31 am
Contact:

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Pyrrho » Fri May 22, 2009 11:32 am

Gord wrote:What the fujebus is "oil pulling?" :?

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=5098

Not yer daddy's mouthwash.
For any forum questions or concerns please e-mail skepticforum@gmail.com or send a PM.

The flash of light you saw in the sky was not a UFO. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and reflected the light from Venus.

User avatar
Gord
Real Skeptic
Posts: 29080
Joined: Wed Apr 29, 2009 2:44 am
Custom Title: Silent Ork
Location: Transcona

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Gord » Fri May 22, 2009 11:42 am

...Damn, you're too fast, Pyrrho. I came back after a quick google to retract the question. :sr:
"Knowledge grows through infinite timelessness" -- the random fictional Deepak Chopra quote site
"You are also taking my words out of context." -- Justin
"Nullius in verba" -- The Royal Society ["take nobody's word for it"]
#ANDAMOVIE

User avatar
landrew
Has More Than 7K Posts
Posts: 7018
Joined: Sat Jul 14, 2007 5:51 am

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby landrew » Fri May 22, 2009 2:54 pm

Pyrrho wrote:
Gord wrote:What the fujebus is "oil pulling?" :?

viewtopic.php?f=54&t=5098

Not yer daddy's mouthwash.

http://www.pbase.com/darby2/image/85658307
The job of a skeptic is to investigate the unexplained; not to explain the uninvestigated.

JJM
Veteran Poster
Posts: 2131
Joined: Sun Jul 31, 2005 6:48 pm
Location: Taxachusetts

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby JJM » Fri May 22, 2009 5:45 pm

This is an interesting take on chiro in the UK http://www.layscience.net/node/566 it has information that pertains to chiro in the USA.

Guest

Re: What's Wrong With Chiropractors?

Postby Guest » Sat May 23, 2009 2:21 am

so what exactly so interesting about the UK article - same old stuff - referencing dubious websites as information sources

I'm surprised that no-one has come to the defense of Dr. Barrett?

I'm surprised that all the great minds here have not really answered the question I posed?


Return to “Healthcare”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests