pulpyboy

Your continued use of the word chiropracty after I have corrected you 3 times confirms your ignorance. The use of double negatives doesn't and zilch would make your statement read that spinal modeling does have something to do with the validity of chiropractic. Actually, that would then be a correct statement as you must have an ideal model to test scientifically. If there were no ideal blood pressure and a relationship between non-ideal blood pressure and adverse health, then taking a blood pressure would be a worthless event. The studies that I quoted put forth an ideal model that is predictive of who will experience back pain and where spinal degeneration will take place. I thought that science is putting forth an idea in peer reviewed journals and exposing it to being torn to shreds and investigated to see if it is reproducable. Then what remains, can be considered for the time scientific.

In re-reading the thread, I can only find the link to chirobase mentioned. How are these very relevant? I did mention that this is a very biased website and in another thread I stated that there was unfortunately some truth there also. Most of the content as I stated earlier but will again, is editorial in content or the published research is outdated.

In god we trust......all others bring data. (Attributed to Nikolai Bogduk noted researcher)

As an atheist, I require data.

I am not accusing you of being a liar rather I am accusing you of being ignorant in the truest sense of the word. I am a chiropractor and you are not. I am aware of the shortcomings of my profession and would do a much better job of arguing the other side than you or anyone else here because I have more information. I believe in the scientific method and believe that the continued progress in my profession will be through more and better research. I am aware of the thousands of papers published which lead credence to some not all theories espoused in chiropractic. I read journals and reviews that you do not. There is nothing wrong with this. I do not expect someone who is not involved in health care to be aware of this research or perhaps to even understand some of it. What I do expect, is that someone that has no other data than 1 questionable website, would not come here and post as an expert spouting off about the supposed lack of research.

The following are just the research papers published by Chiropractic Biophysics available on Chiropractic Biophysics Online. This is what I believe to be the most scientific technique in chiropractic today. Again, this is just a small drop of the research available. The ice while thin in some areas, seems mighty fine from where I am standing.
Respectfully,
Michael

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: pulpyboy ]</p>

MortalWombat

I don't think most skeptics would have a problem with the use of chiropractic to treat joint and muscle pains. Even <a href="http://www.chirobase.com," target="_blank">www.chirobase.com,</a> which bills itself as:

A Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Current Practices, Operated by Stephen Barrett, MD, William T. Jarvis, PhD, and Samuel Homola, DC.

has an article on what chiropractors are good for:

<a href="http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html" target="_blank">http://www.chirobase.org/07Strategy/goodchiro.html</a>

The problem skeptics have with chiropractic is its use to treat ALL diseases, which it historically has been done because of the belief that "subluxations" cause disease.

Viti

I agree with this. I have visited and spoken to many chiroprators over the years to find the ones that don't yammer on about treating asthma, colds, sexual dysfunction...yada yada yada.

I have found that most have a sort of side focus which they use as a complementary treatment. For some it is stretching, for others massage therapy, for some accupressure/acupuncture. I was lucky in that my Mom worked for a chiropractor when I was in high school so I got free treatments. His side focus was nutrition and supplements.

My new chiropractor is also a neurologist so I feel quite confident in his abilities.

pulpyboy

Thomas McPhee

Actually, this article below states that some studies show that journal ads are doctors major source of info on new drugs.

I am glad that you are so conscientious about your education about all things medical. I hope that you will continue to be when you get out in practice when it becomes more difficult. It appears that you will be a caring, intelligent and dedicated doctor. Again, I wish you all the best in school and career.

Respectfully
Michael

Viti

I believe Thomas IS a doctor

Valmorian

</strong>

On the contrary, I am pointing out the hypocricy of your statements.

</strong>

So what about "patients" of faith healers who claim the same reduction in pain?

</strong>

So why mock faith healing? If anecdotal evidence is that important to you, why are you denouncing faith healing, which is full of anecdotes?

Well for one, we're not making the claim. The claim here is about acupuncture and chiropractic.

Francois Tremblay

Then it's too bad for you that all your data is completely irrelevant. As I said, spinal modeling may be great for back treatment, but it has zilch to do with chiropracty and its absurd claims that non-existant "subluxations" can cure any disease, let alone the existence of these "subluxations".

And yes, Chirobase is a great resource, and your ad hominems are unsubstancial. If we were going to play this game, I would say that your own papers come from pro-chiropracty publications, and are therefore irrelevant. Learn some basic logic.

Corwin

Looks like Franc can't make an argument here without attributing a position to the rest of us that we do not, in fact, take.

Again... read back over the post. A chiropracter is good for back problems. I have specifically posted that these chiropracters that claim to be able to heal everything in the body by jerking your spine around are quacks. You prefer to ignore this eminently rational position and act as tho we are giving wholesale endorsement to chiropractic medicine at the expense of traditional medicine where it happens to be more effective.

pulpyboy

You- chiropractic is unscientific and has no data to support it

Me- Here is just some of the data to support chiropractic.

You- nuh uhhh

Again your ignorant usage of a word that does not exist is quite telling of your education. If I came here as a theist and was referring to atheisty, would I be corrected? If I continued to use the word improperly, would it not be deemed a matter of disrespect? Also, did you look at the publications that those research articles were printed in? You do not even know whether these are medical journals or not. I can't believe you are being so childish and just repeating the same unsubstantiated malarkey.


My apologies to Thomas then. I thought I had read somewhere that he was still in med school.

Respectfully,
Michael

Francois Tremblay

Learn to read. None of the studies that he gave had anything to do with subluxations or the effect of subluxations. Therefore it has nothing to do with this discussion.


"Although it has existed for nearly 100 years, the chiropractic health-care system has failed to meet the most fundamental standards applied to medical practices: to clearly define itself and to establish a science-based scope of practice. More disturbing is the fact that chiropractic has made no contribution to the worldwide body of knowledge shared by the health sciences and continues to isolate itself from the mainstream of the health-care community."

"Chiropractors claim that subluxations, or partial displacements, of the vertebrae cause a perturbation of the distribution of nervous impulses to tissues and cells. Neurophysiologists have developed methods of recording the passage of impulses in nerves. Exceptionally sensitive apparatus is available to anyone wishing to use it. No scientific study has ever been published on the subject by a chiropractor. No chiropractor ever defined, either quantitatively or qualitatively, what chiropractic means by perturbation of nervous impulses. Is it their number, their amplitude, their frequency, or their wave patterns which are affected? All of these qualities can be identified, recorded, and studied. It is no longer permissible to accept empirical statements. Proof should have preceded practical application. With the first point untenable, the rest crumbles" College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Quebec. The scientific brief against chiropractic. The New Physician, Sept 1966.


Go inform yourself. There are dozens of serious studies done on chiropracty. None of them show that it brings anything new to the medical profession.

<a href="http://www.chirobase.org/" target="_blank">http://www.chirobase.org/</a>

Once again I reiterate that chiropracty and acupuncture are not based on objective evidence but anecdotes and partisan studies. Whining about the way I say something won't change that fact.

[ February 28, 2002: Message edited by: Franc28 ]</p>