BS: Chiropractic

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 01:45 PM

misophist, you're right. There's no point in arguing with someone who's mind is made up. Take two aspirin and don't call me in the morning.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 02:15 PM

No, rethinking the matter, misophist, I'm curious. It's real easy for someone to hit-and-run; to pop on and say that something is a "stunt" or that "this story is nonsense" and then vanish. So here's a challenge for you—if you are up to it:

Case 1:   Describe how Dr. Bell did it. How is what my father did a "stunt?" And exactly how did he do it? Explain.

Case 2:   What is there about looking at a thoracic X-ray that indicates to you that the story (which is a matter of court record, by the way) is nonsense? Explain.

If I don't hear back from you with a good, solid, detailed, point-by-point explanation of why you have said what you have said, I will assume that

a) you were blowing smoke;
b) the challenge is too great for you;
          and
c) I will accept your tacit apology.

Waiting to hear back from you,

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 12 Apr 03 - 09:14 PM

See my PM for your answers.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 02:19 PM

Misophist chooses not to answer me in open forum, but I chose to respond to the PM here, so that those following the debate won't be left in the dark.

Misophist, Dr. Bell's (and the fictional Sherlock Holmes's) observations can give clues in various situations, but I wonder how often Dr. Bell drew wrong conclusions from his acute observations. History doesn't seem to record that. My father was quite capable of such observations and did indeed make use of them, but in the case of the MD, there was little to indicate what his condition was. He was not sitting there with his hand on his stomach and grimacing, nor was he popping antacids while talking to my father or anything as obvious as that. If he'd had a longer time with the MD or had, say, had lunch with him, he definitely would have picked up clues as any observant person can. But the indication was the badly subluxated twelfth thoracic vertebra. Between my father's knowledge of where nerves go (analogous to a wiring diagram) and his long experience as a health professional, he could feel pretty certain that the MD had some kind of stomach trouble.

Regarding the reading of the X-ray in court, yes, indeed, misophist, think about it: The two sides of an X-ray are virtually identical, that is true. And the same information can be derived from either side. But as I said, an MD is accustomed to viewing his or her patients from the front, in which case, the right side of the patient is to the MD's left and vice versa. A chiropractor is accustomed to viewing his or her patients from the back, in which case, the left side of the patient is to the chiropractor's left, etc. It should be obvious that were you looking at, say, a blueprint, you would orient it in a way to which it makes the most sense to you. Again, think about it.

Going back over the thread, it appears that Joe Offer, NicoleC, and I have responded to your points. The problem, it would appear, is that we have not agreed with you.

If you chose to regard chiropractic as quackery, then be my guest. A lot of people do. But a lot of people don't, and again I say, there has not yet been an unbiased evaluation of chiropractic, and I sincerely wish one would be done, once and for all. But as long as funding for such evaluations comes from the traditional health services and the drug companies, I won't hold my breath. In the meantime, there are multitudes of satisfied chiropractic patients running around out there—many of whom were not able to get relief from medical doctors for whatever conditions they may have had, but did from chiropractors. They are the people who get the most upset when others with no first-hand knowledge blithely bad-mouth chiropractic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Deckman
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 03:10 PM

This tendancy to label all Chiropractors as "quacks" kinda reminds me of that great story about Lincoln and Grant, during the American civil war. After Grant had won some major battle, Lincoln received complaints about Grant's drinking. As the story goes, Lincoln was supposed to have said somethging like: "find out what he drinks and have some sent to my other generals." My point is: if my Chiropractor is such a "quack", why do I always feel so better after treatments? CHEERS, Bob

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 03:25 PM

Since you insist, Mr Firth,

Dr Joe Bell, according to his biography (as mentioned in the PM) did his trick several times a week over a period of many years and was seldom wrong.

You may have a point about the reversed image.

My point, all along, has been that chiropractic is not a science; not that chiropractors are bad people or stupid. Since it isn't a science, the resources wasted on it ;talent, training, and cash; are lost to society. In the world of 'real' reasearch and 'real' science the are some iron clad rules of procedure; one of which is "you made the claim, you demonstrate the proof'. In a century, chiropractic has failed to do so. How many chiropractors are members of the NIH? How many chiropractic institutes are associated with regular medical schools? (I can answer than one for you - ONE). As for chiropractic being cheaper than allopathic medicine, I pointed out that in the western US it isn't. Visits are cheaper but there are many more of them. A number of health plans have dropped chiropractic because of this.

I repeat, the AMA and allopathic medicine are NOT obligated to prove chiropractic either right or wrong. That's the chiropractor's responsibility. That's the case with every new claim and has been for a long, long time. It's that way in physics, in chemistry. It's that way in biology, too.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 05:44 PM

Science, schmiance. Science told us smoking was good for you. Science told us black people were inferior to white people. Science told us the the earth was flat. Science told us that people got better when you bled them, or caused huge blisters with hot needles. Science told us those Indians were awfully stupid to treat malaria with willow bark tea. Science told us that nutrition pioneers like Weston Price were ignorant to believe that what we ate might have anything to do with our health. Science told us the atom was the smallest possible thing in the universe. Science told us birth defects were caused by mixing the races.

At one point, science also told us that music and art were a primitive waste of time, and had no place in a modern society.

"Science" is a fancy way of saying guesswork based on observation. It is not irrefutable, it is not truth and it is not unchangable -- it is a faulty process littered with the inaccurate "truths" of yesterday by which we attempt to understand the world. Weakly whining over and over again that chiropratic doesn't fit a narrow definition of "real science" does not in the least dimish it's ability to heal.

As one of so many whom "science" would have condemned to dangerous and hugely expensive surgery, addictive pain killing drugs, and a lifetime of immobility, I say phooey on science if that's the best it can do.

Personally, I'm thankfully my childhood chiropractor "wasted" his resources becoming a healer.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:10 PM

". . . the resources wasted on it ;talent, training, and cash; are lost to society."

misophist, I know a lot of people who have undergone medical treatment for years without improvement and who eventually went to a chiropractor out of desperation and finally got well who would give you a pretty sharp word in your ear about wasted talent, training, and cash, not to mention a whole lot of needless suffering.

Just as a general observation on the human condition, it's a tremendous strain on one's spine to have one's head up one's ass, but that condition does not fall under the purview of chiropractic.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:24 PM

Dear NicoleC,

The majority of the things you mention are from the 1800s or even earlier, before what we know as science was off to a good start yet. BTW, willow bark tea is asperine (sp?), good for fever but you need chincona for malaria. As mentioned above, ethnopharmacology is a going concern.

I should mention that American medical science is too political. As a result, it has made a number of sad blunders, none of them have been mentioned here.

As I have said over and over, the scientific method is a process. It's ultimate worth can be assessed by the fact that your computer works and airplanes can fly; among other things. All of the whining I hear comes from pseudo-science enthusiasts complaining their pet quacks aren't accepted at face value.

Correct and incorrect are the wrong terms. Science is a process, for making more and more accurate predictions. Get it?

If this is offensive, try this. Try to imagine that I am entirely correct. Then imagine how frustrating you have been.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:40 PM

misophist, I know what science is. And I know that chiropractic has proven itself scientifically over and over again. Among other things, principles that can be verified by anyone who cares to examine them and an established procedure producing a predictable result. But the Powers That Be refuse to recognize that fact and continue spouting anti-chiropractic propaganda in the face of overwhelming evidence otherwise. The Big Lie is not always used for what one normally thinks of as political purposes, but obviously there is a "politics" of health care when one school regards another school as competitive rather than complementary. That's what this whole stupid argument is all about.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 09:41 PM

That last remark was excessive. I apologize for losing my patience. But for that, only.

The sad blunders I mentioned were: the Sister Kenny Method (Canadian really), the entire eugenics movement of the 1920s (based primarily on two transparent frauds), absolute salt free diets for all hypertension, and much of clinical psychology.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: NicoleC
Date: 13 Apr 03 - 10:08 PM

Your comments are really sad and uninformed. I suspect that you haven't a clue of what chiropractic medicine is, what is does, and are merely prattling what you've read elsewhere. Yes, chiropractic outcomes can be predicted by cause and effect.

Science only started in the 1800's? Your description of science gets narrower and narrower, and less relevant.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 12:51 AM

Modern science started with Aristotle (his essay on the placental shark). It didn't really get to full gallop till about 1880 or so.

Now, if Mr Firth will let me go, I will leave this. Arguments with true believers are time wasted.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: katlaughing
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 02:07 AM

FWIW, the NIH seems to be more open that it used to be. I found this listing of new members of the advisory board of the NIH's National Center for Complimentary and Alternative Medicine. This fellow sounds esp. interesting:

Dr. Goldstein is Medical Director of the United Cerebral Palsy Research and Educational Foundation in Washington, D.C., and is a leader among doctors of osteopathic medicine. He wrote A Challenge to the Profession: Initiate Evidence-Based Osteopathic Medicine Now and was selected to serve on a committee developing a National Center of Excellence for Osteopathic Manipulation Research. He served on the Commission on Alternative Health Care, U.S. Olympic Committee on Sports Medicine, and produced The Scientific Status of the Fundamentals of Chiropractic: A Report to Congress, and The Research Status of Spinal Manipulative Therapy. He is a former director of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, NIH, and a former Assistant Surgeon General, United States Public Health Service.

Don, thanks for all that you've posted about your dad and chiropracty.

kat

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 03:08 AM

You're welcome, kat. This is just the tip of the iceberg and I could go on and on (including things learned during ten months that I spent at the Spears Chiropractic Hospital in Denver in the mid-Fities), but I grow weary of the fruitlessness of arguing with someone who's mind is locked in concrete. I've been through this same discussion many times before, and one would think that by now I would have learned. But I can't help trying.

Yes, misophist, you may go. Since you are determined not to learn anything, there is no point in you wasting your time and mine. Blessings on you, and may we meet again in friendly discussion of topics that are more felicitous to us both.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Amos
Date: 14 Apr 03 - 08:59 PM

Misoph,

Given the number of variables involved -- and they are many -- I would say that chiropractic works just about as well as allopathic medicine for the situations to which it is best suited. Both disciplines are a balance between science, engineering, art and hairy wild-ass guesses, and any MD who asserts he is strictly scientific in all his procedures is either kidding both of you or is not seeing many patients.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 06:29 AM

Misophist - could you elaborate on what you mean when you talk about "most of clinical psychology"? From what I have seen of the doctorate courses in clinical psychology, they seem to have a fairly strong scientific bent. Trainees are expected to be scientifically literate, be able to evaluate evidence with regards to theories and treatments and be able to conduct their own research. The practice of clinical psychology includes standarised assessment of mental state, the use of therapeutic techniques which have been evaluated and shown to be effective - eg CBT for depression, systematic desensitisation for phobias etc. Whilst other therapies are used which have less evidence for their theories, it has been shown that most talking therapies are equally effective. regardless of their theoretical history. This is because there are commonalities to the therapeutic process which is the bit that actually does the good - not the differences in the mode of the therapy.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 07:17 AM

Forgot to say this in my last post. I also wanted to point out the increasing drive within conventional (allopathic) medicine towards evidence based medicine. Whilst it is true that in the past medical practice has been governed on similar lines to complementary medicine - hit and miss, going by personal experience of what works, building up into a body of evidence - there is now a stronger drive to find out which treatments are most effective, and doing so in a scientific manner. Hence we have the systematic reviews of research in the Cochrane Library , journals of evidence based practice and the National Institute of Clinical Effectiveness (NICE). Now that many complementary therapies are becoming more used within the NHS, I hope the same rigour will be be applied to examining their effectiveness from a neutral standpoint. Then we can look at the different therapies from a level playing field.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: GUEST
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 09:45 AM

BMJ - The manipulative therapies: osteopathy and chiropractic

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:17 AM

Perhaps because it is UK based, but it is unfortuate, imo, that the article cited in the link fails to mention that osteopaths, in the US, at least, are the equivalent of an MD, with all of that training and ability to prescribe medicines and treatments of all kinds, plus osteopathic manipulation therapy.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: GUEST,Bagpuss
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:28 AM

I think one of the letters linked to at the bottom of the article mentions that same thing kat. I presume its because its a UK journal as you said, but it does have an international readership, so should perhaps be a little more precise about these things.

Bagpuss

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:19 PM

Most interesting web site, GUEST. Thank you.

I think it gives a fair, if not totally accurate description of chiropractic (too superficial), but considering that there are several schools of thought and a number of different techniques, it would be difficult to give an adequate description of them all. For example, my current chiropractor uses adjusting techniques quite similar to those my father used, but not exactly. Before making the adjusting thrust, he relaxes the muscles surrounding a subluxated vertebra with something akin to acupressure, whereas my father used more standard massage. Apart from what might be thought of as a difference in "style" rather than in actual technique, the adjusting thrust itself is essentially the same. Both approaches work. Within recent years, a few chiropractors have adopted some osteopathic techniques. One is the "lumbar roll" (the first photograph on the web site). My father didn't use it, because he said that, as a method of adjusting a vertebra, there was not enough control over which vertebra was being adjusted and what direction it would move. He felt that, in certain circumstances, it could be dangerous. Chiropractors concentrate primarily on the spinal subluxations, whereas many osteopaths don't even attempt to adjust the spine (contrary to popular belief).   Since I'm not that familiar with osteopathy, I won't comment one way or another. Osteopaths may not apply that move the same way and/or for the same purpose. In any case, as far as I could tell, the web site at least attempts to be unbiased.

I notice that they brought up the matter of the incidence of stroke or blood-clot following a cervical adjustment, but there didn't seem to be any agreement on the statistics. I have never heard of that actually happening, certainly not to any of my father's patients.   If it ever had happened, we would have known about it. In the absence of any verifiable statistics or citation of actual occurrences, I tend to believe this is just another of the canards that have been circulated about chiropractic—like all those ribs that chiropractors are supposed to have broken. Even if one assumed it's true, considering the long list of potentially dangerous side-effects of many standard pharmaceuticals that millions of people take every day—and the statistics regarding their incidence—it's obvious that having a cervical adjustment is certainly no more dangerous than taking an aspirin.

Reading some of the letters was pretty interesting, if old stuff to me—and, by now, to those who have thoroughly read this thread. I am always amazed at the intensity of the vitriol that some people opposed to chiropractic seem to pour forth. Why so adamant? I find it curious how often those who condemn chiropractic most strongly turn out not to have had any experience with it, and often don't even know anyone who did. Strange.

And the beat goes on. . . .

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: katlaughing
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 05:24 PM

Kind of like a few homophobes I've met, Don.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 10:57 PM

Since this thread is not being allowed to die a natural death, here are a couple of reference sites:

One and Two

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: mack/misophist
Date: 15 Apr 03 - 11:00 PM

I guess I blew that one.

http://www.chirowatch.com

http://www.ndir.com/chiro/

I find it interesting that scientists from all disciplines oppose chiropractic, not only physicians.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: DADGBE
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 01:53 PM

It would be instructive to find out who funds the organizations which produce anti-Chiropractic web sites. The charge of 'It's not scientificly valid' is less damning than the scientific establishment would have you believe. Honest scientists are the first to point out that all the sciences suffer from a political bias. Take a look at the study of the effects and possible medical uses of Cannabis.

That study has been hampered and controled by the political climate which maintains a belief (based on no scientific basis) that Cannabis has no valid uses. Numerous clinical trials have suggested that there are valid reasons for further testing to try to 'scientifically' understand what the clinical results suggest. At every turn, there has been pressure brought to bear on the medical research community through denial of funding for further study.

Chiropractic has suffered from the same well organized political animosity which has prevented its scientific study while its detractors loudly repeat the charge of its 'unscientific' nature.

At the same time, the officially accepted medical establishment daily uses treatments which are not 'scientifically' established. Just leaf through the Physician's Desk Reference. You will find "mode of action unknown" applied to thousands of medicines which are prescribed with impunity. That doesn't mean that they don't work, it means that no one knows how they work.

That's the same charge leveled against Chiropractic. The difference is that the medical establishment enjoys political support so its practioners are free to go on using 'unscientifically proven' treatments.

Subject: RE: BS: Chiropractic
From: Don Firth
Date: 16 Apr 03 - 01:55 PM

As I say, the beat goes on. . . .

Don Firth