I'm afraid I have to say that this is old stuff to me. The usual hatchet job (Don Firth)

Don, since I haven't read all link on the linkpage I have posted above I cannot say for sure that there is no article on that page for which I would consider the expression 'hatchet job' appropriate. But for the whole of the page meant as skeptical information I cannot but disagree with your description.

Several links go to history of chiropractic as written by proponents of chiropratic. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? Several links go to pro-chiropractic pages. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? A link goes just to a page listing all scientific articles on chiropractic, positive and negative. Is that your idea of a hatchet job? All the scientific articles (these are the ones I prefer to read) on that page though mainly skeptical give ample references to original articles with positive and with negative findings and explain in as much matter of fact language why they consider which findings compelling or not (the evaluation has more to do with the methodic qualitx than with the outcome). Is that your idea of a hatchet job?

Old stuff? Some for sure, for the articles printed there for information go as far back as a 1906 pro-chiropratic article. In general, frankly, I don't believe that this is true for you. The articles cited and often linked to (here's a link to a database of articles, another 'hatchet job' on that page of links) are as recent as from 2002 and many of them (pro or con) claim that either the method used for the research or the type of problems treated is completely new. You are not seriously trying to tell us that all this is old stuff to you?

I'm q