Paralyzed woman sues chiropractic for half billion III

123 posts / 0 new

Topic locked

Fri, 2008-06-20 11:06

Trevormkidd

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 ]

Fri, 2008-06-20 11:12

#103

farnival

quote:

Originally posted by Trevormkidd:
[b]
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 ][/b]

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 11:18

#104

TemporalHominid TemporalHominid's picture

quote:

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

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 12:32

#105

Boom Boom

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 12:47

#106

M. Spector M. Spector's picture

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 13:06

#107

farnival

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

[img]http://www.fmft.net/Doctors%20smoking%20Camel%20cigarettes.jpg[/img]

Fri, 2008-06-20 14:41

#108

It's Me D

"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]

Fri, 2008-06-20 15:21

#109

Wayne MacPhail

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 20:22

#110

retiredguy

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.

Fri, 2008-06-20 22:35

#111

Trevormkidd

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 03:35

#112

It's Me D

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!

Sat, 2008-06-21 03:58

#113

Trevormkidd

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 ]

Sat, 2008-06-21 05:08

#114

jas

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 ]

Sat, 2008-06-21 05:15

#115

It's Me D

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

Now thats a persuasive argument!

Sat, 2008-06-21 05:23

#116

Unionist

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 08:07

#117

N.R.KISSED

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:04

#118

Unionist

quote:

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

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:29

#119

N.R.KISSED

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:33

#120

N.R.KISSED

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:36

#121

Unionist

quote:

Originally posted by N.R.KISSED:
[b]
As long as you realize that as an act of faith rather than a position that is empirically validated.[/b]

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:49

#122

N.R.KISSED

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.

Sat, 2008-06-21 09:59

#123

oldgoat

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

[ 21 June 2008: Message edited by: oldgoat ]

Pages

Topic locked