Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion III

123 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Thu, 2008-06-19 12:38

triciamarie

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 14:36

#53

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
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.[/b]

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 [b]provisionally[/b] 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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 15:40

#54

Wayne MacPhail

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 15:50

#55

jas

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 16:41

#56

Wayne MacPhail

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 ]

Thu, 2008-06-19 17:38

#57

retiredguy

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 17:49

#58

Wayne MacPhail

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 ]

Thu, 2008-06-19 17:55

#59

Michelle

quote:

Originally posted by retiredguy:
[b]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.[/b]

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

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:04

#60

jas

oops, double-posted.

[ 19 June 2008: Message edited by: jas ]

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:23

#61

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

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]

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:35

#62

jas

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 [i]neck manipulations cause stroke in enough instances to warrant discontinuing the practice[/i], 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 ]

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:43

#63

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:46

#64

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

One instance is too many.

Thu, 2008-06-19 18:52

#65

jas

quote:

Originally posted by M. Spector:
[b]One instance is too many.[/b]

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 19:03

#66

jas

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 [i]book[/i] 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?

Thu, 2008-06-19 19:18

#67

RevolutionPlease RevolutionPlease's picture

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 19:43

#68

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by jas:
[b]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.[/b]

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:11

#69

jas

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:12

#70

N.R.KISSED

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:14

#71

jas

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:19

#72

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

quote:

Originally posted by jas:
[b]I've noticed that in Wayne's World, repetition makes a thing real.[/b]

And repeating bullshit arguments makes them [b]real[/b] bullshit.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:22

#73

jas

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

Could it have something to do with your

quote:

hopes, emotion

quote:

beliefs

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:29

#74

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by retiredguy:
[b]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. [/b]

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:33

#75

jas

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:56

#76

Unionist

I don't need compelling evidence from Wayne.

I simply [i]believe[/i], 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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 20:57

#77

jas

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.

Thu, 2008-06-19 21:16

#78

Sven

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 [b][i]every time[/b][/i].

Unless, of course, it's [i]Western[/i] 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").

Fri, 2008-06-20 01:43

#79

triciamarie

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 03:16

#80

Wayne MacPhail

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 04:59

#81

jas

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 05:40

#82

Wayne MacPhail

Hey folks good overview of stroke and neck manipulation [url=http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=94]here[/url].

Fri, 2008-06-20 05:47

#83

Wayne MacPhail

Also, interesting pdf about a course to teach chiropractors how to adjust the spines of [url=http://www.colchiro.org.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/AAA%20Event%20flyers/CHIR....

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 05:48

#84

Boom Boom

quote:

Originally posted by unionist:
I simply [i]believe[/i], 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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 06:07

#85

Unionist

quote:

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

Declining market share.

Fri, 2008-06-20 06:19

#86

farnival

quote:

Originally posted by Michelle:
[b]
Which one was that? Please be specific. Why wasn't his opinion supported from it?[/b]

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. [b]For cervical manipulation, the estimated risk for serious complications is 6.39 per 10 million manipulations.[/b]...
...The risk from manipulation is low and compares favorably to other forms of therapy for the same conditions (e.g., [b]15.6 complications per 1000 cervical spine surgeries, 3.2 per 1000 subjects for nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs)[/b].

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.

[url=http://preview.tinyurl.com/685hlj]link[/url]

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 07:46

#87

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
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.[/b]

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 07:57

#88

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by Wayne MacPhail:
[b]
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.
[/b]

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 [url=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZcVN2dFiunM]minute and a half [/url] old

the overview and interview start at 6 minutes into the video

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 09:34

#89

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?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: farnival ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 09:44

#90

martin dufresne

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:00

#91

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by farnival:
[b]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.
[/b]

Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit [url=http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm]Scientific American Frontiers'[/url] 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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:11

#92

farnival

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?

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:11

#93

Wayne MacPhail

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:15

#94

Trevormkidd

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 [i]serious complications[/i], whereas the numbers for cervical spine surgeries and NSAIDS are for [i] complications[/i]. 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 [i]same conditions[/i]. 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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:22

#95

Trevormkidd

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:26

#96

farnival

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:26

#97

Trevormkidd

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:33

#98

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

Originally posted by farnival:
[b]
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.
.[/b]

not at all, because that is not the scope of the [url=http://albertachiroclassaction.ca/index.html]class action suit[/url] .

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:
[b]aren't penn and teller magicians? that's a pretty credible source.
[/b]

back to this question I posed to you:

Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit [url=http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm]Scientific American Frontiers'[/url] interviewees?

[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:43

#99

Trevormkidd

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:54

#100

farnival

quote:

Originally posted by TemporalHominid:
[b]
back to this question I posed to you:
Alan Alda is not a real MASH doctor, he's an entertainer. Does that discredit [url=http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm]Scientific American Frontiers'[/url] interviewees?
[ 20 June 2008: Message edited by: TemporalHominid ][/b]

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 10:59

#101

Trevormkidd

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.

Pages

Topic locked