Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion III

Continued from here.

quote:Triciamarie, do either of those conditions impinge on a flow of healing energy to the body?

I would think anything that is out of its natural alignment would impede things like circulation, "electricity" flow, neural communication, and probably other things that science knows about that I don't. I don't find this concept particularly kooky.

I know if I'm getting work done on one part of my body, I will feel "energy flow" in other parts, as well. This is a common phenomenon for everyone, except maybe peope who deny, or can't recognize what they're feeling in their own body.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Wayne MacPhail, I would appreciate if you would refrain from levelling personal insults at me everytime you don't agree with something I say.

wayne, have you ever had a chiropractic adjustment or treatment?

The more I read Wayne, the more it seems like he has constructed an inviolable idea of what chiropractic care is, and when others tell him that his research differs from their experience, he points back to his own construction and tells them their experience is wrong. And then he calls others "obtuse."

Most people have agreed that spinal misalignment should not affect things like heartburn. Most people who support chiropractic care point out that doctors often recommend chiropractic for back pain. Yet Wayne repeatedly ignores this information and repeats the word "subluxation." A search for that word on the Canadian Chiropractic Association website, incidentally, comes up with zero hits. In fact, what they do claim is:
quote:Chiropractors are regulated, primary care health providers. In cases such as low back pain, chiropractic care may be the preferred method of treatment. Where other medical conditions exist, chiropractic care may support medical treatment by relieving the musculoskeletal aspects associated with the condition. Chiropractic care may also be palliative, providing symptomatic relief of the musculoskeletal disorders associated with chronic conditions.

Now, in light of Wayne's assertions and the case in question, a skeptic would certainly be worried by certain euphemisms used that may betray a new-age-ism behind some treatments (i.e. "musculoskeletal aspects associated with the condition") but as for back pain, it is my understanding that chiropractic care is good for this, and I have personally been prescribed it by two doctors (I only used it for a short while before abandoning it).

But Wayne's "subluxation" straw man that he seems to know better than chiropractics themselves won't allow him to accept any benefits chiropractic care might offer.

I'm sorry, I missed the "obtuse" comment in the earlier thread - I just noticed it was long and continued to a new thread without reading the last few posts. triciamarie is right - let's keep this conversation free of those kind of remarks, Wayne.

My apologies, I did not mean that the poster was "obtuse" as in "dull or unintelligent" but rather that he/she was being, in my opinion "deliberately obtuse" and complicating a simple metaphor.

well said Catchfire

quote:Since starting my training in neurology in 1993, I have seen virtually all the complications of chiropractic care that one can imagine. These include compressed spinal cords, crushed nerves in the neck and back, torn arteries and muscles in the neck, broken necks, a wide variety of strokes, and at least two deaths. I have also seen patients with huge tumours compressing their spinal cords, which their chiropractors were treating with a lengthy series of manipulations, needlessly delaying the urgent medical treatment that these patients required. My experience, unfortunately, is hardly unique. The vast majority of practicing clinical neurologists have similar stories to tell. The practice of chiropractic provides a steady stream of injured patients for an already grossly overworked medical community.Dr. Brad Stewart, neurologist and assistant professor of neurology, Univ. of Alberta, in the foreword to Wayne MacPhail's and Paul Benedetti's book Spin Doctors

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: M. Spector ]

Catchfire, you say, "but as for back pain, it is my understanding that chiropractic care is good for this, and I have personally been prescribed it by two doctors"

Most people do go to chiropractors for low back pain. Many more get their necks adjusted. Why?

Sandy Nette had no back pain, no neck pain, no headache. Her neck was adjusted. Why?

Wayne you are right. They should not get their necks adjusted. People should not get treatment from chiropractic if there is no pain or complaint. Moreover, if adjusting the neck or even the spine risks stroke or bulging or paralysis, then these risks need to be studied and analyzed, the same way risks of surgery or medication are considered.

But this is not what you have been saying on this thread. Or rather, it is all you have been saying, in an unfortunate attempt to rebut testimony that claims chiropractic treatment improved their physical condition where a GP failed. Again, I mentioned nothing about neck adjustment, but you felt it necessary to pry it into my statement somehow.

Yours is a poor, unscientific argument for abolishing chiropractic treatment, which, again, has made at least a case for its effectiveness against back pain. It is diversionary, and in some cases, rudely dismissive.

quote:..My experience, unfortunately, is hardly unique. The vast majority of practicing clinical neurologists have similar stories to tell. The practice of chiropractic provides a steady stream of injured patients for an already grossly overworked medical community...

a steady stream of "stories". once again, no cited statistics. how steady is this stream? 1 a day? 1 a year? 1 every 50 years? why is this not in the news more? why have neurologists not been raising a hue and cry to have this tragedy continue? is it because they are so grossly overworked making money hand over fist that they don't have time for activism on behalf of these injured patients?

this trial is going to make alot of people look foolish, and it won't be the chiropractors.

quote:Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:

..Sandy Nette had no back pain, no neck pain, no headache. Her neck was adjusted. Why?

that's a great question wayne! why, if she had no symptoms, and no pain, did she get her neck adjusted?

if she signed a waiver, which you said earlier she couldn't remember if she had (which will be on file if she did and easily provable), then that is informed consent, just like if they put you under general anasthetic for surgery, and she was consenting to the legitimate practice of preventative maintainance, knowning the potential risks.

i have yet to see a chiropractor who would touch me without taking x-rays, have them sent out for third party analysis, and then review them with me before even the first adjustment.

i have yet to see a chiropractor, or for that matter read or hear about them, who would adjust any part of you if it was unnecessary.

i have been to a doctor though who, when i saw him for a bad case of poison ivy, and after specifically telling him i didn't want a steroid based prescription, gave me one anyway, completely ignoring me. fortuately, the pharmacist next door, traditionally trained, but subsequently trained as a naturopath and had a dual practice, could read the prescription when i went to have it filled, and honoured my request and gave me a non-steroid herbal alternative that worked perfectly.

so far, heresay and anecdotal "evidence", and just plain dismissal of differing points of view from the anti-chiropractic camp are all i see.

Farnival, in the story I co-wrote for the Globe and Mail Dr. Stewart says he and his colleagues in Edmonton alone see one to two cases of stroke following neck manipulation per month.

And, in fact in 2002 Stewart and 62 other clincal neurologists across Canada issued a warning about this very thing.

Many neurologists and doctors have done lots of volunteer work to raise awareness of this issue. Your statement:

quote:is it because they are so grossly overworked making money hand over fist that they don't have time for activism on behalf of these injured patients?

is groundless.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

Speaking of anecdotal evidence, I work with a nurse who also works in the vascular unit of a big hospital in Toronto. She was telling me today about one of her patients, who injured her shoulder and went to a chiropractor. Turned out there was damage to the major artery going into her arm, and whatever the chiropractor did made it worse. Long story short, the artery developed a clot, the arm died and had to be amputated.

You get enough anecdotes, they add up to data.

Farnival you asked, "why, if she had no symptoms, and no pain, did she get her neck adjusted?"

Because she had been led to believe, and chiropractic literature encourages, chiropractic treatment to maintain health.

Given that many chiropractors believe there is little harm and much value in neck adjustments, informed consent is impossible to give as it is based on misleading information.

Sandy Nette got her neck adjusted because she trusted her chiropractor. That is not her fault.

Watch the Scientific American Frontiers segment on chiropractic on the PBS website (third box from the top).

quote: I have yet to see a chiropractor who would touch me without taking x-rays, have them sent out for third party analysis, and then review them with me before even the first adjustment.

Out of the 4 chiropractors in whose hands I've been, I've had 3 who did precicely that. So, you can either assume I'm lying, seriously inattentive, or accept that at least in the GTA it can happen 3 out of 4 times. (sorry, one of them was in Midland)

quote: if she signed a waiver, which you said earlier she couldn't remember if she had (which will be on file if she did and easily provable), then that is informed consent,

I signed waivers. 2 out of 4 did not discuss them with me and I don't remember what they said. One discussed the possibility of stroke as a very remote possibility, but certainly not the way he did it, and one had me sign in the context of what I can only describe as a sales pitch on the benifits of chiropractic in general, and himself in particular. It was he who I mentioned in the first thread as having a whole family in, toddlers on up, whom he treated purely preventitavely. Actually it was he who contributed the most to turning me off chiropractic, along with talking to my own doctor about it.

The guy I've seen most, and he's a pretty nice guy really, treats his whole family preventitavely. I do not for a minute think he believes himself to be doing other than good. Had I been financially strapped he probably would have given me freebies.

I used to be a fan, and I'll be the first to admit having your neck popped like that feels great. Just speaking for myself though, and with my own little anecdotes, I look forward to a lot more light being shone on this practice.

quote:Originally posted by Sineed:
..Long story short, the artery developed a clot, the arm died and had to be amputated.
Look up Deep Vein Thrombosis if you consider the rare chiropractic induced stroke is an issue. You'll be running around banning people from sitting down.

quote:Originally posted by oldgoat:
...Out of the 4 chiropractors in whose hands I've been, I've had 3 who did precicely that. So, you can either assume I'm lying, seriously inattentive, or accept that at least in the GTA it can happen 3 out of 4 times. (sorry, one of them was in Midland)...

...I signed waivers. 2 out of 4 did not discuss them with me and I don't remember what they said. One discussed the possibility of stroke as a very remote possibility, but certainly not the way he did it, and one had me sign in the context of what I can only describe as a sales pitch on the benifits of chiropractic in general, and himself in particular...

well, i would walk right out of any doctor's office that tried to give me a sales pitch about anything. i would also walk out of a chiropractor i didn't know who did not take or look at existing x-rays of me.

and if you didn't discuss a liability waiver with a chiro who also didn't talk about it, then i'd say both parties are at fault.

there has to be a measure of responsibility and skepticism on the part of the patient, or as the doctors now call us, consumers when you are dealing with health care professionals. if safety steps are not followed or risks not discussed, that is negligent for sure, but both parties bear some responsibility. doctors are not gods to be blindly followed and believed. in any profession.

wayne, i happen to agree with the preventative maintainance theory espoused by chiropractic. that in may make me a fool in your eyes, but it has worked out quite well so far, and makes perfect sense to me. but my chiros don't adjust something that doesn't need it. perhaps this woman's chiro was incompetant. it does sound like this woman was/is a bit naive and is now looking for someone to blame. sorry if that sounds harsh, but so does the witchhunt going on here.

and these neurologists, did they ever call on individual chiros to be barred from practice and be charged with negligence causing harm to these patients they've seen? why have i not read about this except here on this thread?

you still haven't answered my previous questions of charges against chiropractors for causing strokes and death. when/who/where?

and btw, if you are going to link to a warning and claim it's a legitimate source, could you use a published peer reviewed journal or professional news outlet, not an anti-chiropractic conspiracy site run by MD's who clearly have an axe to grind? i googled Brad Stewart, MD, FRCPC, who wrote the warning and the only place it appears or his name comes up is the site you linked to. no news outlets, or anything else. thanks. (someone made a 9/11 reference earlier i think)

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

Farnival said:

quote: it does sound like this woman was/is a bit naive and is now looking for someone to blame.

Watch the videos then repeat that statement.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
Farnival said:

Watch the videos then repeat that statement.

wayne, i'm not and never have said this woman didn't suffer an injury, and is now seeking compensation. that happens every day with botched medical proceedures. i'm quite certain the videos are heartwrenching. anyone that is paralyzed for whatever reason has a heartwrenching story too.

that still doesn't not make the case you are making. you have claimed subluxation is a made up term by chiros that doesn't exist, but it's not made up.

i pointed out for the first 150 posts in this discussion, to the annoyance of many posters here, only used your book, and your opinion stated forcefully as fact as a reference, and still have provided no published statistics on what you and some MD's call an epidemic.

you still have not answered any questions regarding charges or penalties faced by chiropractors for a proceedure you say they know is harmful, other than telling me to watch a video you made, and refer me to a conspiracy site.

you are the author. you are the researcher. the burden of proof falls to your, not me or the other posters here.

and you have yet to do that.

Chiropactic colleges do a really poor job of sanctioning their members. I've seen the proceedings.

And in terms of criminal charges. You want to know the truth? When the victims of chiropractors or their surviving families sue they get worn down and beaten down by chiropractic associations.

They often end up settling out of court with a gag order attached to the settlement because the chiropractic associations throw tons of money, lawyers and experts at them. If that doesn't happen, the stroke victim dies before (because it's been drawn out) the case is settled and the final settlement drops to almost zero because the victim is dead.

So, when all that happens, you know what, those beaten down families have no time, money or will to proceed with any kind of criminal charges.

That's the reality. Show some sympathy.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

can you provide a list of these court cases where the alleged victims were "beaten down" by the system and tons of money?

can you provide specific examples, as in actual cases, where the person died before the trial finished?

i'll show some sympathy when you provide concrete, verifiable information that isn't only in your book, and answer the questions i keep asking with links to published clinical studies that are peer reviewed.

so far, nada.

and i think it wouldn't be too hard to make the same case for victims of medical doctors blowing it and causing tragic outcomes for thier patients, then tying things up in legal proceedings. that i do read about in the papers.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

farnival, I can be of no further assistance to you.

You're welcome to take that as victory, substantiation, validation, vindication, proof of my bias or conclusive evidence that you are right and I lack the evidence to prove my case. Or whatever.

Truth is, you have just exhausted my patience with your lack of sympathy and unwillingness to appreciate the issue at hand. I wish you well.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

that's twice now.

perhaps if you'd like to send me a gratis copy of your book, replete with verifyable references of course, so i can get the real story, since you are unable to provide any help here?

i have absolute sympathy for anyone injured in the pursuit of good health by a medical professional.

what i don't have any sympathy for is witchhunts against a who profession based on annecdotal evidence and statistical insignificance.

now, don't go jumping on that last word. the injured people aren't insignificant or are their problems. what i mean is there is a statistical rate of injury in all the medical disciplines and chiropractic is certainly not exempt.

but this is making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:
i'll show some sympathy when you provide concrete, verifiable information that isn't only in your book,

In the first thread, he listed SOURCES that didn't include his book. He listed tons of them. You ignored them.

He did the research FOR the book, he listed the sources he used for the book, but they're not good enough. He could list 1000 sources and it wouldn't be good enough.

What's the point?

the point is wayne can't prove his point, even with 1000's of so-called references.

and the court case will determine that, i'm sure. but i will absolutely return here and apologise to wayne if he is in fact correct and the result of the court case is that subluxation doesn't exist as he postulates, and the chiropractic profession is barred from performing neck manipulations as they have no benefit.

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:
the point is wayne can't prove his point, even with those 1000's of references you refer too.

and the court case will determine that.

It is good to see that a point can't be proven through sources that you won't bother to look at - while at the same time complaining about no sources. (and even though some of those sources are collected at a "conspiracy site" it is easy to see that they reference countless studies which have appeared in the most prestigious medical journals in the world.)

quote:this trial is going to make alot of people look foolish, and it won't be the chiropractors.

You seem very certain. And what if (and I repeat if) there is a trial and the judge rules that neck manipulations are unsafe based on the evidence provided.

quote: Look up Deep Vein Thrombosis if you consider the rare chiropractic induced stroke is an issue. You'll be running around banning people from sitting down. Look up the difference between arteries and veins.

quote:Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

You seem very certain. And what if (and I repeat if) there is a trial and the judge rules that neck manipulations are unsafe based on the evidence provided.

well, if you read my previous post fully, you will see i said i would return here and say i was wrong.

but i'm pretty confident that i won't have to do that.

and i have gone through the references wayne did post and so far the ones i can find online are inconclusive in thier results. if i have time i'll post the links that wayne could have posted originally, as people do on babble when they are citing sources.

and as for the conspiracy site, so now this is a legit source, but in other forums it's not? interesting.

well, i can see my view is appreciated about as much as i appreciate wayne's, so to paraphrase an author we know,

"i can be of no further use to you". buh-bye.
[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:
and as for the conspiracy site, so now this is a legit source, but in other forums it's not? interesting.

Any site has to be judged by its content. And maybe I wasn't clear, as I wasn't telling you to accept what was at the site, but was pointing out that many of the references were to the most prestigious medical journals in the world, so if you dismiss the original article due to its location (which is fine with me) then it still gives you plenty of articles to reference which are found in very reputable locations.

For example the last example Wayne provided - in which you dismissed Brad Stewart - includes 23 references, most of which come from medical journals such as the first 3 from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association Journal also reported the warning from the 62 neurologists.

There is a difference though between say a 9/11 conspiracy site printing a bunch of crap they make up or feel must true and a 9/11 conspiracy site printing something from or related to a legitimate engineering journal or physics journal.

There is also a difference for example between a neurologist, such as Brad Stewart, talking about strokes and a couple of people from loose change with little to no engineering and physics training talking about everything related to physics and engineering.

The suit names:

-the couple's chiropractor, Gregory John Stiles;
-The Alberta College and Association of Chiropractors
-The Alberta Ministry of Health and Wellness.

Chiropractic treatments should not be patially covered by Alberta health. It's not based on science but rather pseudo-science. As the lawsuit / statement of claim states:

quote: The procedure is an ineffective and dangerous one which chiropractors employ routinely..

Ideological practitioners of chiropractic masquerading in the white smock of science perpetuate its unregulated indiscriminate use with the condonation and protection of their supposed regulator against all reason. It has got to be stopped.

Both the chiropractic association and Alberta Health and Wellness should have known such a procedure has not been scientifically proven and could pose risks to a patient's health...

Members of the association and other health-care groups warned the association the procedure "had its origins in borrowed and mystical and occult practices of a bygone era...

Alberta Health was aware that the province's chiropractic system was confused, poorly regulated and presented a major health risk

Chiropractic treatments are not a harmless placebos, they have potential to cause great consequences.

Are Chiropractic treatments covered by provincial health insurance? I've never been to one, or really heard much about them. I actually thought it was a specialist with a medical degree before reading this. Where do they go to school? I cannot find anything about chiropractory at universities??

I believe that there are only two in Canada:

Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College

and

University of Quebec at Trois Riviиres [37]

Those I know who are Chiropractors went to school in the US.

quote:posted by Kevin Laddle:
Are Chiropractic treatments covered by provincial health insurance?

I can't speak for the rest of the provinces but until recently they were covered in Ontario - if memory serves correctly they were added to the list in the early 70's and were delisted a couple of years ago.

Three and a half years ago, actually.

Some chiropractors are being very revealing in their comments on the Sandy Nette video on You Tube.

quote:For example the last example Wayne provided - in which you dismissed Brad Stewart - includes 23 references, most of which come from medical journals such as the first 3 from the Journal of the American Medical Association. The Canadian Medical Association Journal also reported the warning from the 62 neurologists.

Of course we can always trust what is in medical journals.

or as Richard Smith former editor of the British Medical Journal states

quote: Can you trust medical journals? You might hope that you could - not least because they are one of the main conduits between new research and doctors. News from the journals also features regularly in the mass media, influencing public and political thinking on health, sickness, birth, and death; pretty important things, I'm sure you'll agree. My conclusion after 25 years working for a medical journal, 13 of them as the editor, is that you should be suspicious of journals. Maybe if you're smart you're suspicious of everything.

One problem with medical journals is that much of what they contain is plain wrong. And much of what's not wrong simply doesn't matter. Canadian researchers have for years been combing medical journals to find research articles that matter to patients and are "true" in that their conclusions are supported by their methods and data: they find that it's less than 5% of the article and for most journals less than 1%.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[QB][/QB]

I trust peer reviewed journals that are challenged by the whole medical profession, every day,
medical science is always under scrutiny, always self correcting, always being tested, and new data is always considered. Skepticism should be the default position; inquiry never stops. That is, refuse to believe a claim unless and until the scientific evidence for that claim becomes so great it would be illogical and unreasonable not to believe it.

Chiropractic "medicine" is stagnant, it is going no where fast. Chiropractic has a supernatural focus. The supernatural is not observable, not testable. Faith is required, as scientific evidence is not available to support the supernatural claims of chiropractic

I should note : I am not a qualified medical doctor...

...but I am a qualified chiropractor, a qualified astrologist, a qualified reflexologist, a qualified alchemist, a qualified magnetic therapist, a qualified pet psychic, and a feng shui expert

[ 18 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:I trust peer reviewed journals that are challenged by the whole medical profession, every day,
medical science is always under scrutiny, always self correcting, always being tested, and new data is always considered.

According to Richard Smith from above

quote:One reason that journals publish so much rubbish is because their method of assuring quality - peer review - is hopeless. Broadly, peer review is the process whereby one or more peers of the authors of a study pass a judgment on the study, usually anonymously. It lies at the heart of science and determines which research gets funded, which studies are published, who is promoted, and who wins a Nobel prize.

Despite being central to science it had never been studied until 20 years ago, a paradox for a way of studying the world that depends on experimentation and data. When the studies began they showed that peer review was slow, expensive, largely a lottery, ineffective at detecting error, prone to bias, easily abused, and entirely useless for picking up fraud. In one study of peer review the researchers inserted eight errors in a 600-word article and sent it to 400 reviewers: the median numbers of errors that the reviewers spotted was two; nobody spotted more than five; and one-fifth of the reviewers didn't spot any. As the now famous saying goes: "If peer review was a drug it wouldn't be allowed on the market." Yet it continues to be a sacred belief for an intellectual discipline that scorns faith and demands evidence.

You might wish to check out his book The Trouble with Medical Journals it might make you a little more sceptical about your central assumptions concerning medical science.

N.R.Kissed. There is no doubt that peer review should be open to scrutiny, criticism and correction. So should all of science, medicine and learning in general. The peer review process is not perfect, errors go uncaught, sometimes bad research gets published and goes unpunished.

However, your complaints about medical research journals, I'm afraid, must be levelled, with an order of magnitude greater force, at chiropractic journals which are peppered with unscientific, unproven and dangerous nonsense of the worst kind that goes routinely unchallenged.

Fair is fair.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote: well, i would walk right out of any doctor's office that tried to give me a sales pitch about anything. i would also walk out of a chiropractor i didn't know who did not take or look at existing x-rays of me.

and if you didn't discuss a liability waiver with a chiro who also didn't talk about it, then i'd say both parties are at fault.

Farnival, in my post well above, you miss my point by such a distance that I can only assume intentional evasion. You had made several statements about chiropractors, suggesting you had never heard of or encountered certain behaviour. Well now you have, unless of course you wish to assume that I'm lying, and if that's the rationalisation you need than so be it.

You're right, I wasn't as wise and informed a medical services consumer as I might have been. I'm wiser now.

Your support of a "caveat emptor" approach to medical services may sadly be justified, which is why, like I said above, a lot more light should be shed on chiropractic. For the record, other medical practice as well. It's starting to happen more with psychiatry for instance.

The implication that Sandy Nette is now paralyzed because of gullibility or a lack of rigor in self-education--a lack that led to a misplaced trust in someone who presents themselves as a public health provider--is odious to say the least. Christ.

I agree, Catchfire. The responsibility lies with the chiropractor, with the Chiropractic College and Association that allows subluxation-based nonsense and with the Ministry of Health and Wellness which has had ample proof that the College hasn't been willing or able to govern itself.

Sandy Nette believed chiropractic was safe and effective for maintaining health. Where did she get an idea like that from? From the relentless advertising the association does and from what her chiropractor's website told her. So, the fault lies with her? I'm with you 100%. Christ.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

Of course we can always trust what is in medical journals.

I never said that medical journals always get everything right. But farnival was complaining about the quality of the site that Wayne was linking to, so I pointed to the articles from medical journals. Now if the most prestigious medical journals are not good enough either then what is? Should I instead trust the writings on bathroom stalls? Because I called one of those numbers once and I would say that I had an OK time, but not a "good time." Or should I ask Sylvia Browne what to think?

I know lots of people don't care about scientific evidence - and in fact many hate science and would prefer unscientific means. Fine, they can be treated through whatever mumbo-jumbo they want and if they feel that non-existent energy flows are going to do that then be my guest. But they can't have it both ways, they can't also pretend that something has evidence if it doesn't. They should admit that they haven't achieved the standards required by conventional medicine (they will still get lots of customers). If instead they tell their customers that have achieved such then they are not being honest with their patients (and therefore their patients can not truly consent to treatment).

quote: Should I instead trust the writings on bathroom stalls? Because I called one of those numbers once and I would say that I had an OK time, but not a "good time."

Did you sign a waiver?

No, I was too trusting at the time.

quote:Now if the most prestigious medical journals are not good enough either then what is?

Well if the former editor of one of the most prestigous medical journals writes a book providing detailed evidence of why I should mistrust them then I feel obliged to pay attention.

quote:I know lots of people don't care about scientific evidence - and in fact many hate science and would prefer unscientific means. Fine, they can be treated through whatever mumbo-jumbo they want and if they feel that non-existent energy flows are going to do that then be my guest. But they can't have it both ways, they can't also pretend that something has evidence if it doesn't. They should admit that they haven't achieved the standards required by conventional medicine

I can't really say whether lots of people care about science if you're implying that is my position then you would be wrong.

What I am saying it is wrong to critique an entire discipline on the basis of "standards required by conventional medicine" while at the same time ignoring the fact that medicine frequently fails to meet these same standards. I don't think it is scientific to overstate the knowledge of medicine or ignore obvious short comings that exist in it's practice. I think if there is a criticism of chiropractics it should be precise as possible.

In terms of neck manipulations I believe it is very plausible that they could cause damage and are potentially dangerous and beyond any risk benefit analysis in terms of ethical practice. If there is compelling evidence to support this belief than action should be taken to ensure the practice ceases. I do not think this actually translates into a full scale attack on all chiropractic practice and I actually think this only detracts from the main issue of concern i.e. dangerous practices.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: N.R.KISSED ]

There are huge, gross mistakes made everyday by medical professionals in any field you could care to name. My earlier comments about disagreements in neurology were not specious; I meant this as an illustration of just how far off the mark many doctors are -- esteemed specialists included. We do not have the option of just regulating all these disciplines out of business.

This is not to reject science, but rather, to urge some recognition of the limits of current scientific knowledge.

There is astonishingly little that is actually known for sure about the causes of pain, and what will relieve it. Certainly those with a monopoly in a certain state-sponsored approach will try to make it out to be otherwise but it is a mistake to take their word at face value, without recognizing the vested interests they have at stake along with the real lack of reliable information.

There has been some discussion about peer review. The CMAJ is one of the most highly esteemed medical journals in the world. Two years ago they fired their editors and it became public knowledge the extent to which the publication is beholden to its owner -- the CMA, an advocacy group lobbying for the interests of its members which constitute over three quarters of the licensed physicians in Canada.

This is just one of the sources of bias that so clearly affects the information published in these journals. Other vested interests, all profit-driven, determine not only what is studied but who studies it, how, and whether the information ever sees the light of day much less be subjected to peer review.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

You might wish to check out his book The Trouble with Medical Journals it might make you a little more sceptical about your central assumptions concerning medical science.
right on

and you just proved my point; a medical professional was skeptical, and he's blowing the whistle on loop holes and weaknesses

medical science provisionally accepts theories

these young disciplines have not approached anywhere near perfection and don't deal in absolute truths

there will be thousands more challenges and corrections of current medical knowledge before our lives are over.

Chiropractic, on the other hand, has failed to contribute anything significant to scientific progress, attacks critics as though heretics and clings to outmoded ideas and models with the tenacity of a drowning man clutching a floating log.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
If there is compelling evidence to support this belief

being the operative phrase... to put our fine taskmasters of scientific verifiability to their own test.

You are missing the point.

The evidence for the existence of the subluxation needs to come from the chiropractors since they are making the extraordinary claim.

Plus, not surprisingly, there is no evidence of efficacy for adjusting the nonexistent subluxations in the neck a healthy woman (Sandy Nette), or for adjusting the nonexistent subluxations in the neck of young woman with a sore tailbone (Laurie Jean Mathiason. And, again that proof needs to come from chiropractors and it has not).

No benefit, some examples of serious risk (paralysis, death) = a procedure that should cease.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

I started looking through your list of references Mr. McPhail, and I don't see what you see. So of course I'm going to tell a story.

A number of years ago, the Baptist minister who lived across the street from me had a dispute with me on a particular issue. He asked me to collect biblical quotes to support my case, he said he'd come visit with his quotes and we'd discuss them. I believe the issue was capital punishment. He came over at the appointed time and said "How many quotes do you have?" I said 8. He said I have 13 I win". When later I looked at one of his quotes one was a story about Paul and Silas being in jail" (Had no money for to go to bail). Paul at one point in the discussion referring to capital punishment, says " If I am guilty of this crime I will happily pay the prescribed penalty." I pointed out there was a vast difference between being willing to accept a punishment and being willing to inflict it etc. but to no avail.

Now there are a number of strategies you seem to be using that are quite similar to those employed by my Baptist friend. One, your reading list is 62 articles long. In the one I actually read, your opinion isn't supported, in fact I could argue the opposite opinion from the same reading. Your use of coroners reports and newspaper articles would hardly seem to support your position that your conclusions are supported by science.

One last point. I once had the opportunity as a teen to attend a seminar given by the American economist , Kenneth Boulding. In an hour and a half he was able to break down economics into terms high school students could understand. He kept it simple. Yet you knew he could give you concrete examples of every point he was making, and did when asked.

He didn't need to hand out a reading list of 62 obscure articles to get his points across. SO really, I'm not sure if you are asking us to read this list because you think we'll come to the same conclusions you have, which given the small sample I've undertaken so far seems extremely improbable, or because you are trying to establish for yourself some kind of expert status, which you don't really deserve.

I look at the evidence and it says. "No measurable risk."

You look at that and say "There is a risk but it's too small to measure." I'm thinking, if the two of us are going to look at one key phrase like that and come to such different conclusions then it's very unlikely that the two of us are ever going to see eye to eye on this.

People have asked you repeatedly for scientific evidence that there is some kind of problem with chiropractors that goes beyond the standards that are accepted for medicine or in fact any other field of endeavor be it drug licensing, testing of food preservative, allowable levels of toxic substances released into the atmosphere, whatever.

Now if I was taking your position, I would have two or three good studies on the tip of my tongue that I could toss out there to make my case. To give people a reading list of 62 articles and to expect people will come to the same conclusions you have is simply intellectual dishonesty.

I once saw a study that said more than 60% of studies have conclusions in them that aren't supported by their data. ( You have to ask upon reading that, is that one of the studies that made a conclusion that isn't supported by the data, but that's another issue.)

That study was looking at research and statistical analysis of that research. Your reading list is extremely weak on reliable data forget about reliable analysis. And I refuse to read 62 articles, just so I can come back here and say you've got it all wrong.

I'm a nobody and you don't have to impress me, and I could care less if I impress you, but I have to say, this looks to me like a witch hunt. From a lot of different angles.

Oh by the way, there was a study done a few years ago, on people like my Baptist friend (fundamenalists from various religions.) The one thing that stood out was, fundamentalists of all stripes are lacking in logic skills.

There is a certain element to the left that are a sort of fundamentalist reductionists. If you can't explain it, attack it, if you can't measure it, it's not there. I have a feeling you're pointed straight down that path. Of course the problem with a that is that 200 years ago, we didn't have the equipment to measure electronic fields. Unfortunately that didn't mean they didn't exist. It just means we couldn't measure them. There is simply no argument to be made for denying the possibility of something being true, just because we haven't measured it yet. Or because we can't measure it yet. You would appear to be one of those hoard of "reductionists" who are to this day arguing that if you can't measure something it can' exist. It wasn't wrong 200 years ago, it's not true now. Science is real clear on this, you can't prove a negative.

At this point I feel like I should launch into a discourse on the basic constructs people use to identify with reality and how they effect thinking and how that might be relevant to this particular discussion, but, you'd have to pay me and you'd probably be bored to tears.

Now in this case, I understand your logic. And I'm still ready to entertain any scientific evidence that would suggest chiropractors are worse than any other health professionals. Just, I haven't seen it yet. You think you have it, yet you can't tell me where to find it.

I guess it goes without saying, In My Humble Opinion, your standards of proof fall way below what I would ever accept, and I would never make the kinds of statements you are making based on the evidence you've presented so far.

In any case, there's nothing to see here folks, I have to find a new thread to lurk through.

You guys are something. First you want citations, then when I give them to you, you want less. Then you only bother to look at a couple and draw broad conclusions.

I didn't need to provide all those citations. I was asked for them and was trying to be helpful. So, really, what are you talking about?

Also, the chiropractors have yet to produce one study that shows subluxations exist. Take it up with them. I'm no expert, but that much I get.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by retiredguy:
One, your reading list is 62 articles long. In the one I actually read, your opinion isn't supported, in fact I could argue the opposite opinion from the same reading.

Which one was that? Please be specific. Why wasn't his opinion supported from it?

oops, double-posted.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

I'm no expert on strawmen and such but the calling out of Wayne is circular. As never having seen or known or read about chiropractic, some people seem to doth protest too much.

Wayne has the patience of job. [img]tongue.gif" border="0[/img]

quote: You are missing the point.

Wayne, making it impossible for people to argue with you by constantly changing the parameters of what is being discussed, eg; switching constantly between broad general statements like:

quote:Chiropractic, on the other hand, has failed to contribute anything significant to scientific progress, attacks critics as though heretics and clings to outmoded ideas and models with the tenacity of a drowning man clutching a floating log.

back to challenging posters to verify the existence of subluxation - a point that ABSOLUTELY NOBODY IS ARGUING HERE - does not mean you win the argument.

The quote I used was in reference to the need to verify that neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice, not about the need to verify that subluxation exists. On the latter point, I couldn't care less. As I said, I'll await the outcome of the case. But in the meantime, don't challenge posters with meaningless tasks and fake burdens of proof just to get out of answering for some of your gross generalizations about chiropractic.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

In the simplest terms possible:

If Wayne wants us to believe that

quote:chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice,

he needs to provide

quote:evidence to support this belief

THAT

quote:chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice.

One instance is too many.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
One instance is too many.

Well, yes, but realistically, by that criteria, as you well know, we would be needing to shut down every medical/health practice or intervention that exists.

Except, perhaps, aromatherapy.

And, in any case, I take it by your reply that you acknowledge that Wayne has not yet supplied this evidence in any of these 3 threads.

Maybe in his book he has, but in all the time he's spent arguing here, could he not have just spouted off a few stats from his book that would convince us of his argument? Why can't he do this?

And why do people here, who bark all the time about the need for science-based evidence and proof defend such sloppy argumentation?

Having followed all 3 threads and at first being perturbed by the attention this is getting compared to child poverty, I at least came away with this.

Not to be rude jas, but I only find you guilty of sloppy argumentation. Having never needed, experienced, investigated nor been anecdotally affected, I've learned that it would be wise not to have my neck manipulated and can help to inform significant others. You have not in anyway provided anything to help me inform myself otherwise and in fact led credence to Wayne in my opinion by avoiding his responses.

I guess I'm just sick of it going in circles. There's nothing wrong with warning people having their neck manipulated could be fatal.

quote:Originally posted by jas:
Well, yes, but realistically, by that criteria, as you well know, we would be needing to shut down every medical/health practice or intervention that exists.

Except, perhaps, aromatherapy.Chiropractic neck manipulation is unnecessary. Don't try to put it in the same category as thousands of medically-necessary procedures that carry some degree of risk.

Unnecessary treatments of any kind, by anyone, might be justifiable if they are harmless to everything except the wallet (such as the pseudoscience known as "aromatherapy"). But if they can be shown to cause any physical harm at all, there is an onus on those who advocate for such treatments to demonstrate that the risk is justifiable by the benefits of the treatment. The burden of proof of the necessity and effectiveness of neck manipulation is on the chiropractors. Why are you giving them a free pass and insisting that Wayne "prove" anything to you?

Why don't you go to your public library and borrow his book and read it before you accuse him of shoddy research? Or read large chunks of it online, at the link I posted earlier?

Better yet, why don't you write your own frikkin' book, setting out in great detail the evidence supporting the necessity of chiropractic neck manipulation, and then come back here and criticize Wayne for not paraphrasing his entire book here on babble?

I think we all know the answer to that one.

quote:Originally posted by RevolutionPlease:
You have not in anyway provided anything to help me inform myself otherwise and in fact led credence to Wayne in my opinion by avoiding his responses.

Pardon me? No, I don't think you have read the threads.

News flash: I didn't start the threads. I'm not the one making broad, inaccurate claims against chiropractic, and telling other people their experiences with it are invalid.

quote:I guess I'm just sick of it going in circles.

Here's a thought: stop reading.

quote:
and you just proved my point; a medical professional was skeptical, and he's blowing the whistle on loop holes and weaknesses

So the fact that a former editor of the BMJ writes a book stating that medical academic scholarship is in a state of complete crisis, is a sign of how healthy the discipline is ? On the basis of that logic I guess Wayne’s book is support that chiropractics is a empirically validated practice.

I think what you are demonstrating is a blind adherence to an idealized vision of medical theory and practice one that disregards any evidence of the reality of medicine. It is actually a classic display of confirmatory bias a process that leads people to reach premature conclusions and then only seek information that supports your conclusion while disregarding anything that contradicts it. Such a bias is the hallmark of bad science, dubious practice and questionable logic as well as displaying a lack of critical thought or reflexion. In part it is the basis by which psychiatry cleans to its theories of chemical imbalances and genetic predispositions despite the fact that they have been empirically demonstrated to be false. Since it is clear that your idealized vision is so intransient there really isn't much point in discussing the topic with you.

quote:Originally posted by M. Spector:
Better yet, why don't you write your own frikkin' book, setting out in great detail the evidence supporting the necessity of chiropractic neck manipulation, and then come back here and criticize Wayne for not paraphrasing his entire book here on babble?

I've noticed that in Wayne's World, repetition makes a thing real. So here we go again:

If Wayne wants us to believe that

quote:chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice,

he needs to provide

quote:compelling evidence to support this belief

THAT

quote:chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice.

quote:Originally posted by jas:
I've noticed that in Wayne's World, repetition makes a thing real.And repeating bullshit arguments makes them real bullshit.

Sloppy argumentation, M Spector. Why do you defend it?

Could it have something to do with your
quote: hopes, emotion or quote:beliefs ?

quote:Originally posted by retiredguy:
There is simply no argument to be made for denying the possibility of something being true, just because we haven't measured it yet. Or because we can't measure it yet. You would appear to be one of those hoard of "reductionists" who are to this day arguing that if you can't measure something it can' exist. It wasn't wrong 200 years ago, it's not true now. Science is real clear on this, you can't prove a negative.

Of course I haven't read through all these threads about chiropractic, except to see that Wayne was doing an incredibly thorough and patient and tolerant job in debunking the faith healers. But I couldn't resist excerpting the above from retiredguy. It's the same lame "argument" used to attack atheism and (shudder) science. I had a feeling this was one of those science vs. religion threads, and I'm rather comforted to see that confirmed.

Carry on, Wayne, but remember, you're preaching to the unconvertible. When people support a theory that has no evidence behind it, no amount of evidence will sway that support. Think about it.

quote:Originally posted by unionist:

Of course I haven't read through all these threads about chiropractic, except to see that Wayne was doing an incredibly thorough and patient and tolerant job in debunking the faith healers.

Oh, finally, someone who can clear this up. Unionist, can you PLEASE point me to the post where Wayne provides

quote:compelling evidence to support this belief

THAT

quote:chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice.

I don't need compelling evidence from Wayne.

I simply believe, deep in my heart, that chiropractic is a steaming pile of crap.

Call it my freedom of conscience.

Or call it anything you like.

I find it tiresome when progressive people, who should be nurturing society's advance and rebelling against the chains of mystery and faith, feel called upon to do the opposite.

Yeah, those "hopes, emotions" and "beliefs" are pretty tenacious, aren't they? Makes it hard for some people to recognize where they're failing their own standard.

Hope

Gawd

Emotions

Great Spirit

Belief

Aromatherapy

Faith

Phrenology

Chiropractic

Herbal therapy

Christian "Science"

Or just plain ol' run-o'-the-mill Hocus-Pocus

If I have a choice between a physician or hocus-pocus...well, yeah, I'll go with hocus-pocus every time.

Unless, of course, it's Western hocus-pocus. Western hocus-pocus is, by virtue of its pedigree, automatically suspect by the more virtuous among us who prefer "traditional" and decidedly non-Western hocus-pocus (which is, almost by definition, more "authentic", "natural" and "spiritual").

I find it nothing short of amazing when progressive people take blind refuge in convention and authority, not to mention this aggressive insistence that all others show the same deference.

I've decided it's probably something psychological -- a deep-seated need to be able to depend on some big daddy somewhere, or a defence of hierarchy and privilege.

But that's just my opinion.

Jas, you ask for compelling evidence to support the contention that chiropractic neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice.

Were you serious in that pursuit, you would have found ample clear studies, cases and logic in the citations, videos and articles pointed to during the course of this discussion. I commend them to you.

Truth is, I'm afraid, no amount of evidence will be satisfactory to you as you appear not to base your opinions upon a foundation of evidence or, to be frank, much logic. You believe, and you are welcome to that belief and I hope it gives you comfort.

You are simply baiting me and, in the spirit of trying to be helpful to others, I have provided more than sufficient of what you require.

In the absence of a subluxation, necks are being manipulated for no purpose. Sometimes, we do not know exactly how often, but more than chiropractors claim, and more than is prudent, those necks belong to people who are permanently damaged or are killed.

The evidence of that is staring you in the face.

The lack of evidence for the subluxation is staring you in the face.

The next effort must be yours.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:

Were you serious in that pursuit, you would have found ample clear studies, cases and logic in the citations, videos and articles pointed to during the course of this discussion. I commend them to you.

Wayne, I'm recognizing that you are probably better equipped to provide this evidence - in probably less the amount of time than it took you to make this post - having doen all that research. Not only that, but since YOU made the claim, not I, I ask you to provide the evidence. Support your belief. Shouldn't be too hard for you. Just a few lines here about the many other cases of stroke resulting from chiropractic neck manipulations.

quote:The lack of evidence for the subluxation is staring you in the face.

quote:Originally posted by jas:
On the latter point, I couldn't care less. As I said, I'll await the outcome of the case. But in the meantime, don't challenge posters with meaningless tasks and fake burdens of proof just to get out of answering for some of your gross generalizations about chiropractic.

Hey folks good overview of stroke and neck manipulation here.

Also, interesting pdf about a course to teach chiropractors how to adjust the spines of neonates.

What possible reason could there be for chiropractors to adjust the spine of a newborn? This is a frighteningly clear example of how the profession is mired in nonsense.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by unionist:
I simply believe, deep in my heart, that chiropractic is a steaming pile of crap.

That's my opinion as well, and I wish I was that enlightened before I went to a chiropractic clinic for treatment in the early 1990s.

quote:Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
What possible reason could there be for chiropractors to adjust the spine of a newborn?

Declining market share.

quote:Originally posted by Michelle:

Which one was that? Please be specific. Why wasn't his opinion supported from it?

maybe this one:

quote:20 I. Coulter, “Efficacy and Risks of Chiropractic Manipulation: What Does the Evidence Suggest?” Integrative Medicine, 1, 2, (1998), p. 61-66.

quote:Efficacy and Risks of Chiropractic Manipulation What Does the Evidence Suggest?

Ian D Coulter PHD

...For cervical manipulation, the systematic literature review indicated efficacy for neck pain and for patients with muscle-tension-type headache. For both cervical manipulation and manipulation for low-back pain, the literature reports low levels of complications. For cervical manipulation, the estimated risk for serious complications is 6.39 per 10 million manipulations....

...The risk from manipulation is low and compares favorably to other forms of therapy for the same conditions (e.g., 15.6 complications per 1000 cervical spine surgeries, 3.2 per 1000 subjects for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs).

chiropractic cervical manipulation 6.9 per 10 million ( .00000069 % )

cervical spine surgeries 15.6 per 1000 ( .0156 % )

nonsteroidal anti-inflamitory drugs 3.2 per 1000 ( .0032 % )

i think i'll take my chances with the first one.

link

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

So the fact that a former editor of the BMJ writes a book stating that medical academic scholarship is in a state of complete crisis, is a sign of how healthy the discipline is ? On the basis of that logic I guess Wayne’s book is support that chiropractics is a empirically validated practice.

I think what you are demonstrating is a blind adherence to an idealized vision of medical theory and practice one that disregards any evidence of the reality of medicine. It is actually a classic display of confirmatory bias a process that leads people to reach premature conclusions and then only seek information that supports your conclusion while disregarding anything that contradicts it. Such a bias is the hallmark of bad science, dubious practice and questionable logic as well as displaying a lack of critical thought or reflexion. In part it is the basis by which psychiatry cleans to its theories of chemical imbalances and genetic predispositions despite the fact that they have been empirically demonstrated to be false. Since it is clear that your idealized vision is so intransient there really isn't much point in discussing the topic with you.

you are so good at creating strawmen and at misrepresenting what people state, that you should offer courses on how to create strawmen and how to misrepresent others.

where did I state how healthy the discipline is?

this is what I stated "these young disciplines have not approached anywhere near perfection and don't deal in absolute truths

there will be thousands more challenges and corrections of current medical knowledge before our lives are over."

If you want to make shit up, write fiction.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:

What possible reason could there be for chiropractors to adjust the spine of a newborn? This is a frighteningly clear example of how the profession is mired in nonsense.

why? for preventative measure

Penn and Teller's show interviews a chiropractor who explains why he manipulates a newborn one;

the youngest he has adjusted was a minute and a half old

the overview and interview start at 6 minutes into the video

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

aren't penn and teller magicians? that's a pretty credible source.

any thoughts on wayne's reference that doesn't support his thesis?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:What possible reason could there be for chiropractors to adjust the spine of a newborn? Uh, maybe the fact that the said neonate just spent months in a cramped position and hours straining through what will arguably be the most stressful experience of his/her life?
Doctors used to hang newborns by their feet to stretch the spinal cord back into its natural shape and dislodge mucus from airways; is gentle manipulation by a trained specialist that much worse?
I don't know about chiropractors, but an osteopath helped me recover from a broken leg when my doctor was totally clueless about continuing inflammation from a useless steel plate, so why not hold off on the seat-of-the-pants dismissive assessments until you have experienced the relief their techniques can bring?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: martin dufresne ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:
aren't penn and teller magicians? that's a pretty credible source.

any thoughts on wayne's reference that doesn't support his thesis?

i'm appalled by the amazing ignorance displayed in this thread and am embarassed that it has reared it's ugly head in such a progressive place as babble.

Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit Scientific American Frontiers' interviewees?

All citizens can engage in inquiry, and examine the claims of any practitioner, and challenge the basis of their claims and the evidence used to back those claims.

Citizens are allowed to participate in inquiry, discovery, and dialogue whether they are journalists, T.V. doctors, magicians, illusionists, or they become paralysed after a visit to a practitioner's office.

Just because you label chiropractic 'progressive' doesn't mean that chiropractic practices should not be scrutinised, challenged or questioned.

p.s. please refer me to "Wayne's thesis". I am reading the threads but missing it. So many peripheral issues, in relation to the original post are coming up

Wayne's 62 references still represent a significant concern about manipulation / adjustments in regards to unnecessary risk

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

ok, so you commented on the first point you quoted, and the last, which i said at the very beginning of the first thread, but not on the second, which is actually one of wayne's cited references from the second thread. any thoughts? facts got your tongue?

martin dufresne, I've read the primary neonate chiropractic textbook,"Pediatric Chiropractic" ed. Claudia Anrig and Gregory Plaugher. Unfortunately, it contains nonsense about vaccinations for children and states, in Chapter 12:

"The reduction of the subluxation is the cornerstone of the art, science and philosophy of the chiropractic profession."

Sadly, chiropractors often manipulate neonate spines in a belief they are removing subluxations, not giving the child a spinal unwinding. The foolishness of this is, I hope, apparent.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Wayne MacPhail ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

chiropractic cervical manipulation 6.9 per 10 million ( .00000069 % )

cervical spine surgeries 15.6 per 1000 ( .0156 % )

nonsteroidal anti-inflamitory drugs 3.2 per 1000 ( .0032 % )

i think i'll take my chances with the first one.

Well I would have to see the actual report and not just a summary to make any kind of judgement. But Wayne's point from when he posted those 62 articles still stands - which is that even (Coulter) a former President of the Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College admits that there are serious complications from chiropractic neck manipulationm, and he admits that risk is many times higher than Lumbar manipulation.

As for his comparisons, there are red flags.

For starters the numbers he gives for chiropractic manipulations are for serious complications, whereas the numbers for cervical spine surgeries and NSAIDS are for complications. There is a huge difference between the two. So what is he classifying as a serious complication for chiropractic manipulation? Why isn't he only counting "serious complications" for surgeries and NSAIDS? As they say there are lies, damned lies and statistics.

The other issue is when he says that manipulation compares favorably to other forms of therapy for the same conditions. How so? How many people are having monthly or bi-weekly cervical spine surgery as preventative mantenance? How many people are having cervical spine surgery because they feel that a cold might be coming on? How many people are having cervical spine surgery because they have a sore tailbone? None. Cervical spine surgeries are for serious conditions like severe degenerative disk disorders, spinal stenosis and trauma. It is a major surgery and recovery takes about 5 weeks. Like all major surgery there is a risk of complications, mostly minor - the things that chiropractors don't bother to record. To compare the two is ridiculous and deceitful.

You asked for examples of studies for the numbers of serious complications for neck manipulation. Wayne provided 62 of them ranging from prestigious medical journals to flim-flam ones like "integrative medicine" (interestingly you said about that you checked out only one of them, and it is not surprising that this is the one you decided to check out), and even the flim-flam one says that there is a risk and that risk is 65 times higher than lower back manipulation.

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

any thoughts on wayne's reference that doesn't support his thesis?

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

but not on the second, which is actually one of wayne's cited references from the second thread. any thoughts? facts got your tongue?

Well I will contribute my thoughts, as I did above. You are wrong. The link in question does confirm Wayne's thesis. Neck manipulation is an unneccessary risk with no benefit.

i didn't say i checked out only one of them, retiredguy did and michelle challenged him on it.

i'm assuming that the serious complications/complications wording is just that. any complications are serious, really.

unfortunately the site linked is a membership one, so you can't read the full report online.

nobody here has said there are no risks to chiropractic adjustments of any manner.

what has been said is that even one complication as a result is too many and the practice should be banned and chiros are charlatans.

that is an unsupportable thesis because you would then have to ban any and all medical or health proceedure because they all have risks and you could easily find a number of people who have been harmed by even relatively benign treatments.

i'm going through the citations slowly, and that is one that had actual comparative stats. sorry you don't like them.

quote:Originally posted by martin dufresne:

Doctors used to hang newborns by their feet to stretch the spinal cord back into its natural shape and dislodge mucus from airways; is gentle manipulation by a trained specialist that much worse?

I have never heard of a single doctor placing a newborn upside down to stretch the spinal cord back into its natural shape.

At the time of birth doctors follow the same protocol as they do with any serious patient. Starting with the ABC's. Airway, breathing, circulation. Placing a newborn in a position to help expell mucous, meconium and fluids from their lungs is part of the ABC's - stretching the spine has nothing to do with it.

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

that is an unsupportable thesis because you would then have to ban any and all medical or health proceedure because they all have risks and you could easily find a number of people who have been harmed by even relatively benign treatments.

.

not at all, because that is not the scope of the class action suit .

It's limited by the statements of claim which contain allegations relevant only to Sandra Nette's case et al, not yet proven in a court of law

the class action suit is not speaking to the number of "people who have been harmed by even relatively benign treatments".

quote:Originally posted by farnival:
aren't penn and teller magicians? that's a pretty credible source.

back to this question I posed to you:

Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit Scientific American Frontiers' [99] interviewees?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

i'm assuming that the serious complications/complications wording is just that.

I highly doubt it. At best only serious complications are recorded for chiropractic spinal manipulations. I would need to see evidence as the author only including complications of a similar severity for the other two.

quote:any complications are serious, really.

Complications can be minor - The most common listed in the The Cervical Spine Surgery Atlas are fever, discomfort at the graft site, or a hematoma.

For there to be any validity to his comparison it would have to show that the complications being counted are of the same severity. It would also have to include similar age and health factors between groups. Elderly patients, patients with significant health issues and high risk spinal conditions would have to be taken into consideration before any comparison could be made as all three of those factors increase the risk of serious complications many times over.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:Originally posted by TemporalHominid:

back to this question I posed to you:

Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit Scientific American Frontiers' interviewees?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

fair enough, i didn't answer that. i was teasing because the irony is pretty thick, when chiropractors are being accused of being charlatans, to use actual professional charlatans to discredit them.

alan alda is an actor, hired to read a script. so those interviewed on any investigative show usually have their credentials presented at the same time. mr. alda has no credentials other than his acting cv.

penn and teller are jokesters of the enth degree, and professional magicians, and i would assume anything they did was a joke or designed as a gag or trick. that is what they do for a living. they are not actors in the same vien as Alda, so it's not a very good comparison in my mind, and not a very good way to make a serious point, was my point.

as for the comparative stats, no, we don't know for certain if my assumption was correct about serious/complications, but i would assume that the author is talking about the same levels of risk/complications simply becasue they were presented comparatively. it would be pretty dumb to compare apples to oranges in a comparative example.

unfortunately, that site charges almost $32.00 for the report. want to split the cost? i'd rather use your credit card though. [img]wink.gif" border="0[/img]

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

penn and teller are jokesters of the enth degree, and professional magicians, and i would assume anything they did was a joke or designed as a gag or trick. that is what they do for a living. they are not actors in the same vien as Alda, so it's not a very good comparison in my mind, and not a very good way to make a serious point, was my point.

Penn & Teller's show in question is not a magic show, but a documentary television series. Furthermore, even in their magic shows P&T not only inform the audience that they are being tricked, but very often show exactly how that trick is done. That would make them the opposite of Charlatans.

quote:Originally posted by farnival:

as for the comparative stats, no, we don't know for certain if my assumption was correct about serious/complications, but i would assume that the author is talking about the same levels of risk/complications simply becasue they were presented comparatively. it would be pretty dumb to compare apples to oranges in a comparative example.

Not dumb if the author has an agenda.

quote:unfortunately, that site charges almost $32.00 for the report. want to split the cost? i'd rather use your credit card though.

32 bucks for a ten year old report is not my idea of a wise use of funds. Especially from a journal that ended in 2000 after 6 total issues and only 300 pages total. And even worse considering that most of the good medical journals provide all of their content for free about 6 months after it is originally published.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Not dumb if the author has an agenda....

...32 bucks for a ten year old report is not my idea of a wise use of funds. Especially from a journal that ended in 2000 after 6 total issues and only 300 pages total. And even worse considering that most of the good medical journals provide all of their content for free about 6 months after it is originally published.

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

uh, it's wayne's citation, not mine. i just looked into it as he cited it to back his argument.

and i did watch that video, and they did the same thing that is being done here. make a claim, and say it's fact, and present some "evidence" which in their case was filming an actual adjustment which wasn't scary at all, and then use some flashy cut-edits to sensationalise it, but not actually explain anything.

they didn't do what they do for their magic stuff in any way.

quote:Originally posted by Trevormkidd:

Penn & Teller's show in question is not a magic show, but a documentary television series. Furthermore, even in their magic shows P&T not only inform the audience that they are being tricked, but very often show exactly how that trick is done. That would make them the opposite of Charlatans.

it's for this exact reason that I trust them to investigate extraordinary claims and show us how others can deceive us or how we can deceive ourselves

Penn and Teller could choose to claim they are psychics, or that they can heal with magnets, or bend spoons with their minds, or talk to the dead, but they choose to inform and educate, while they investigate.

No one has a monopoly on applying critical thinking to ideas, beliefs, popular fads, consumer goods and misconceptions. Penn and Teller, Houdini, Wendy Mesley, and Erica Johnson are needed to keep reminding us of this.

Penn and Teller are not progressives. They did a show flogging hybrid cars, and they did a show in defense of nuclear power. Plus, they sometimes have naked women surrounding them, and are really patronizing sometimes. When their show started I liked them, can't stand them now.

This is ridiculous.

Nobody is asking anyone to trust what Penn and Teller think. They interviewed a frakkin' CHIROPRACTOR. The condemnation of chiropractic comes from the CHIROPRACTOR.

Those who believe, without evidence, that chiropractors walk on water suddenly come over all skeptical when one says something that contradicts their unfounded prejudices. Go figure.

you can hire anyone, with any credentials, to say whatever you write for them, if you pay them enough.

"24 hours a day your doctor is "on duty"... guarding health... protecting and prolonging life"

Camels aside, what happened to those days? [img]frown.gif" border="0[/img]

Camels' included, the ad demonstrates that medical science has evolved. A chiropractic ad from back then would fit right in with a chiropractic publication today.

I read Mr. McPhail's quote as provided on neck manipulation and strokes. The problem is the article isn't science it's opinion. So now I've read two of his suggested readings and he's zero for two. Despite the fact that the article is decidedly crusadingly negative with regards to chiropractic manipulation, it rellies on the unsupported anecdotal evidence to make it's point.

"They tell us that the stroke would have happened anyway. Maybe. We don’t have any way of knowing. But when the patient collapses immediately after the neck is twisted, I think we can say the stroke wouldn’t have happened at that time without the manipulation. Given a choice of sooner or later, later is good."

Sorry folks but that is not science, that is an opinionated person on a soapbox. We actually do have a way of knowing. A study was done using Ohip records on patients with the same symptoms (neck pain and headaches) and checking the rates of strokes. The rate of strokes was exactly the same for physicians as it was for chiropractors. What that means, is that both physicians and chiropractors are treating people who have symptoms indicating they are well on their way to a stroke, perhaps irreversibly. Now the fact that chiropractors are trying to find methods to screen these people so they can help them is not an indication that chiropractors cause strokes, it is however a recognition that perhaps something can be done that isn't being done. And the fact that they are doing that, also negates another claim made here, that Chiropractors are contributing nothing to science. IN fact they are supporting research into understanding the relationship the of symptoms of stroke victims as it affects their practices.

As I said, we read the same articles but I see the science, you see the bias of the writer.

As for the guy who claimed I'm some kind of religious freak. lmao. I'm not, you're dead wrong. My basis for supporting chiropractic practice has to do with the the scientific diagnostic tools that I have access to. For some reason reductionists always want their opponents to be some kind of "true believer." I believe data and evidence.

A relevant quotes for y'all.

"The plural of anecdote is not data.' Researcher Frank Kotsonis

In other words you can recite all the anecdotal evidence you want, and it may be very compelling. But, it remains anecdotal evidence. It never becomes science. Same with jury recommendations etc. You only have to look at the hundreds of wrongfully convicted murder suspects to know the scientific usefulness of jury conclusions. Mr. McPhail has stated juries provide facts. Tell Donald Marshall.

Fact is, the wild and unsupported statements here are being provided by those attacking chiropractors, not those supporting them. Tell your family whatever you want about neck manipulation, I'm still going to mine. Nothing I've read here has changed my mind. But then, with a parent who was a qualified researcher, I was taught from an early age how to separate data from anecdote and to pick the facts out of an attack article by separating the two. It is unfortunate that many here haven't had the same kind of training. Hint, ignore the authors opinion, focus on the research, ignore the anecdotes. If anecdotal evidence is to be believed, there must be a way to design a study to clearly demonstrate that it is correct.

That's why I keep asking Mr. McPhail for the "smoking gun" study. And why his inability to provide one makes me very skeptical. If he had one, he would not be quoting pieces like the scientifically useless piece of slander he linked to above. All he's convinced me of so far is that he doesn't know how to interpret data, or distinguish between science and opinion, anecdotal evidence and science. Ditto for those who support him. And another clue people just because someone has a webpage with "science" in it's title doesn't mean it follows any of the principles of science. (doh)

And now of course another story.

An academic goes to a poor rural community where almost all the people are illiterate. he's amazed to see the local mayor reading his speech upside down, and comes to realize that the man can't read, he's just pretending he can.

So at some point he jumps up an says "This man is a fraud, he can't read, he's holding the paper upside down." To which the politician replies "Nonsense, if you can read, it doesn't matter whcih way you hold the page." And of course, all the locals being illiterate, agree with him.

enuf said

The nice thing about being my age is, you have a story for everything.

quote:Originally posted by retiredguy:

As I said, we read the same articles but I see the science, you see the bias of the writer.

-----
I was taught from an early age how to separate data from anecdote and to pick the facts out of an attack article by separating the two. It is unfortunate that many here haven't had the same kind of training.
-----
like the scientifically useless piece of slander he linked to above. All he's convinced me of so far is that he doesn't know how to interpret data, or distinguish between science and opinion, anecdotal evidence and science. Ditto for those who support him. And another clue people just because someone has a webpage with "science" in it's title doesn't mean it follows any of the principles of science. (doh)

You can attack those of us who actually understand science all you want. But the last person I am going to take advice from about the measure of real science is from a psychic healer.

quote: You can attack those of us who actually understand science all you want.

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

Nyah Nyah my science can beat up your science!

quote:Originally posted by It's Me D:
Nyah Nyah my science can beat up your science!

Yeah, I hear the same argument all the time from those who believe that global warming is a hoax, when they claim that the dispute between the two sides is evidence battling it out. It is not. It is an argument between evidence and deniers of evidence. Sorry, but if someone believes that they can heal through psychic ability then their views on science and evidence should be seriously questioned.

And incidently the method that retiredguy uses here is the exact same method that is used by those who dismiss the evidence of HIV causing AIDS. Study after study shows the undeniable link, but they claim that it is all anecdotal evidence and not actualy proof of HIV causing AIDS. It is a sixth grade understanding of scientific method. The same is the case here as study after study shows (even those by chiropractors) that neck manipulation is far more dangerous than lower back manipulation. Study after study shows an increased incidence of stroke (especially in extremely low risk age groups) after neck manipulations. Neurologists have documented a large number of victims whose strokes are consistent with neck manipulation (both due to the location of the clot development and the timing of the incident post neck manipulation). No it isn't the kind of evidence that retiredguy would like to see, but the only way we are going to get that kind of study would be through chiropractors and that is unlikely to happen. Regardless though, it is a large amount of evidence (not anecdotal) which points to an obvious conclusion.

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: Trevormkidd ]

quote:Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
Study after study shows an increased incidence of stroke (especially in extremely low risk age groups) after neck manipulations.

Neurologists have documented a large number of victims whose strokes are consistent with neck manipulation (both due to the location of the clot development and the timing of the incident post neck manipulation).

What studies are you citing here, Trevor?

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Doubting the efficacy of medical science = denying global warming and the AIDS epidemic

Now thats a persuasive argument!

It's a wonder that some people still favour universal health care in this country, based as it is on medical science rather than faith healing.

quote:It's a wonder that some people still favour universal health care in this country, based as it is on medical science rather than faith healing.

What you don't seem able to acknowledge or even consider that there is a great deal of theory and practice in medical science that has not been empirically validated. There seems to be a persistent belief in an unassailable and idealized vision of science that is not reflected in the reality of how medicine is constructed or practiced.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
What you don't seem able to acknowledge or even consider that there is a great deal of theory and practice in medical science that has not been empirically validated.

I absolutely do acknowledge that truth. I just happen to believe that medical science is the only game in town. Call me prejudiced. I admit it.

quote:you are so good at creating strawmen and at misrepresenting what people state, that you should offer courses on how to create strawmen and how to misrepresent others.

where did I state how healthy the discipline is?

this is what I stated "these young disciplines have not approached anywhere near perfection and don't deal in absolute truths

there will be thousands more challenges and corrections of current medical knowledge before our lives are over."

If you want to make shit up, write fiction.

I am merely trying to understand the core assumption that seem to be operating in your beliefs about medicine, core assumptions you yourself seem blithely unaware of.

Lets try again.

You made a claim that something was true because it appeared in prestigous medical journals.

I posted a comment by Richard Smith former editor of the BMJ where he made the claim that:
THE PRODUCTION AND DISSEMINATION OF SCIENTIFIC KNOWLEDGE IS SEVERLEY C0MPROMISED. He did not say that there are a few minor problems within the medical literature which the inherent self correcting mechanism will resolve, he stated that there is a serious crisis in the production and dissemination of medical knowledge that needs to be acknowledged and challenged. This does not mean that what he says will be taken seriously or that change will occur.

Yet somehow to you, you claim this proves your point, I seriously do not know what point of yours it proves on the contrary I think it is a point to consider that perhaps research being published in even the most prestigous of medical journals is questionable. That does not mean all research is bad or that everything about conventional methods need to be rejected but it does mean that accepting research on the basis of faith or appeals to authority is unscientific.

Also your claim that "these young disciplines have not approached anywhere near perfection and don't deal in absolute truths" implies that medical knowledge is at a place of near perfection and deals with absolute truths." Again the claims of Richard Smith and others would dispute this.

Science as an endeavour actually acknowledges that the world we live in and our understanding of it is indeterminate and probablistic, if you are in search of certainty you are in the realm of faith not science.

quote:I absolutely do acknowledge that truth. I just happen to believe that medical science is the only game in town. Call me prejudiced. I admit it.

As long as you realize that as an act of faith rather than a position that is empirically validated.

quote:Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:

As long as you realize that as an act of faith rather than a position that is empirically validated.

Yes, totally, I realize it's an act of faith, similar to my belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. I fully acknowledge that I have no empirical validation of that prediction. Yet my faith is strong and it endureth.

quote:es, totally, I realize it's an act of faith, similar to my belief that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow morning. I fully acknowledge that I have no empirical validation of that prediction. Yet my faith is strong and it endureth.

Actually I don't see the similarity you have had personal experience of the sun for the entirety of your life and either talking to others or reading from people that existed before you they would confirm your experience as valid. That is quite different from believing something is true because Doctor said.

p.s. If I wanted to be really pedantic (which apparently I do) I would point out that speaking of the sun rising in the east is actually a hangover from a geocentric view of the universe and therefore a poor description of the actually observed phenomena.

Long thread. Let's see if there's any appetite for a Part IV.

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]