Do not wish to be associated w/ II

I rarely venture forth from my citadel of Seclifort. And when I do I mostly just act like this- promise myself not to get involved in a topic too much, occasionally failing miserably.

Nice to hear from you too! <Hug>

pulpyboy

I thought that I had made it clear in my post that I was copying from a previous thread that I had cited. The comment about chirobase was obviously not intended for you as I had read your post and had noted that you did not mention that website.
Correct me if I am wrong but aren't many medications derived from natural resources and modified or extracted in order to be patented so that a drug company can make money? Don't most medical doctors receive the bulk of their information from drug reps? Aren't there free samples given as well as trips and other inducements given to the doctor for prescribing certain medications. I guess where I get somewhat annoyed is the holier than thou attitude expressed by some not all in health care that they are working in the best interests of the public and that there only concern is the welfare of the patient. Hopefully, in medical school, you will learn that not all the answers are known and that there is more research to be done. You may also learn that it is not an even playing field. You will also hopefully learn not to be sanctimonius condescending practioner when dealing with your patients. Heal them all and there will be none left for us.

[QUOTE] Note to Michael- why don't you apply to a proper medical school if you are so bright?/QUOTE]

I enjoy being a chiropractor working in my little area of health care. I have good relations with the hospitals in my area as well as many physicians. I understand my limitations and express those to my patients. In other words, I will leave medical school to you. Good luck.

Respectfully,
Michael

Valmorian

</strong>

Not at all, but I do see a number of concerning points about the study you cite.

Examples?

1. Needle insertions, whether in TCM or as PSS, evoke peripheral and central neural effects. Sham acupuncture is thus not inert.

Here we have a ready made excuse, just in case the "sham acupuncture" gives the same results as the "real acupuncture". Great. So this is supposed to validate the acupuncture theory how?

2. Eight controlled studies reviewed7 on acupuncture-treated low back pain report between 26% and 70% of patients improved—widely different outcomes that may relate to the proportions of patients in each study whose pain is either nociceptive or non-nociceptive.

Of course, the alternative explanation that the widely different outcomes might be because the acupuncture just isn't reliable to any degree is not considered.

3. Significant pain reduction was obtained with acupuncture, diazepam, and sham acupuncture, but not with the placebo tablet diazepam, in this single-trial protocol. Thus, sham acupuncture cannot reliably be considered an inert placebo.

This suggests to me that the basic concepts behind acupuncture, "meridians, chi and energy flow" are not accurate. If they were, why does sham acupuncture have the same effect?

However, this is at least a start.. DO note, however, that the results of this study are rather mixed. It appears that acupuncture MAY have some effectiveness in SOME instances, and that "sham acupuncture" is also effective.

</strong>

Um, what do you mean by "Ki works"? What's the claim made? That you can break pencils with a dollar bill? I've seen that claimed as Ki.

Please be more specific.

</strong>

Really. Well, lots of people claim the same with "God has changed my life". If you can demonstrate Ki reliably, head on over to <a href="http://www.randi.org" target="_blank">www.randi.org</a> and start working on winning that million!

</strong>

How about physics? Not happy with it? Why not?

</strong>

This, more than anything else, indicates you are not a skeptic. How is the mystical explanation better than saying "Hmm, maybe I should investigate this?"

</strong>

*sigh* No, Einstein modified it. For common use, Newton's theory of gravity is quite reliable. In fact, most of the time, Newton's theory IS "terribly accurate". You should know this if you are even passingly familiar with relativity.

Viti

Thanks Thomas,
The doctor's were aware of the risks, but didn't give him the right blood tests. The drug that destroyed his kidneys was Asacol (for Colitis). Even when his kidneys started failing they didn't test for renal failure.

I don't know how to objectivly diagnose pain...that's what I was trying to ask Franc28 but he's just closing his ears and chanting "quack quack quack". There is no way that I have found to accurately state "These two people are equal in their cause and degree of pain"...did I miss something?

Franc...you did not give me an acceptable answer. How do you objectivly measure pain? How does a researcher know that two people's pain is equal? How do they know the degree of pain relief? You ignored my comments about Lortab...it's addictive and proven harmful, yet prescribed millions of times every year. How is this a better treatment than acupuncture or chiropractic, even if they exhibit placebo effect? No pain, no pain...neither cause liver failure or physical addiction similar to that of heroin.

Franc28...if you hurt yourself badly as I have, you go ahead and take harmful and addictive drugs, you go ahead and have dangerous surgery...I don't give a shit...but don't presume to know what has worked for me. Additionally, when stating your opinion (again, I could care less what your opinion is) try being less of a confrontational asshole. Back your opinions up with facts, reasoning, information; I will respect you; call me an idiot...fuck yourself.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

pulpyboy

Franc28,
Do you not ready any posts besides LadyShea's and your own? Or, do you enjoy using words that do not exist? Chiropracty is not a word. Also, I have posted just a miniscule amount of research that has been published in peer reviewed journals. I guess it must be easier to make sweeping statements that have not been researched at all. Perhaps next time you will do some research of your own before propogating such falsehoods.

Respectfully,
Michael

Valmorian

</strong>

Um, and? As if the "Herbal Medicine Centers" and "Naturopathic Clinics" don't charge money? And this often without the benefit of having some actual scientific study done on the benefits of such practices.

Valmorian

</strong>

Hold on a second! If you're going to claim that anecdotes are as reliable as scientific studies, then why do you discard faith healing out of hand? There are plenty of testimonials to its efficacy as well, you know.

Do not wish to be associated w/ II

If a patient happens to believe that X cures Y when the evidence suggests the opposite then I will tell them. If they choose to interpret that as being sanctimonious and condescending then that is their loss. My day to day conversational manner is one in which I initially demonstrate respect for a patient's beliefs, regardless of how much they might conflict with my own. If however they make claims that are patently not true then I tell them. Many don't like it, but that is my job. We don't spend years at medical school twiddling our thumbs and taking bribes from drug reps. I wish we did, but we don't. We learn all that fiddly stuff- the scientific basis for what we are doing, and then the actual practice of doing it. If you think for a moment doctors actually pay much attention to drug reps then you are mistaken. They are only good for free lunches, pen torches, tendon hammers, mugs, pens and regurgitating the tiny bit of information that they have been taught to recite verbatim. Many haven't a clue what they are on about- often a source of great mirth to myself- ask them anything remotely about the biochemistry of their product for example and they don't have a clue- trained chimps could probably do a similar job.

Don't get me wrong- if I found out tomorrow that a double-blind placebo controlled clinical trial had demonstrated that dancing around cancer patients screaming "hoogabooga" at the top of my lungs cured them then I would use it as a therapy. Likewise if I discovered that jabbering to neurotic patients about Oedipus complexes and penis envy actually provided any concrete benefit to them and not just my wallet then I would engage in that too. As it stands it would only do the latter, for which I have a natural distaste if it does not do the former too, particularly if I sell it on that basis.

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: Thomas McPhee ]</p>

Viti

Now you are being ridiculous. Had I said "Chiropractic grew back my severed arm"...you would have something to bitch about. Had I said "acupuncture cured my diabetes" you would have a point.

What I said was "Chiropractic helped me with severe head, back and neck pain when traditional doctors wanted to dope me up and cut me open". Whether it's a placebo effect, my own attitude or whatever, I am not a drug addled cripple.

I do not throw traditional medicine aside by any means...I take antibiotics when needed, I take painkillers when I have to (broken rib, wisdom teeth pulled etc.), I have had surgery when warranted...I am not some starry eyed theist that believes someone praying over me will cure cancer. Like I said in my previous posts...I don't give a flying fuck what you do for your pain. No pain no pain...however it is acheived.

edited to add

Also, where is the objective scientifc evidence of how and to what extent the most prescribed painkiller in the US works? How is asking for "proof" of traditional medicine's claims ared herring??

[ February 27, 2002: Message edited by: LadyShea ]</p>

Francois Tremblay

Without the abstracts, it is difficult to evaluate them : however, from the titles alone, it seems you have posted nothing relevant to the subject at hand (spinal modeling may be a relevant anatomical subject, but it doesn't seem to me to have zilch to do with the validity of chiropracty or "subluxations"). Furthermore, if they are as partisan as the only study you presented (that is, oriented towards reviewing the literature and opinions from the field instead of actual evidence), they are worthless.

On the other hand, skeptics have posted very relevant research links. You have failed to address them except to say they are biaised, which is an ad hominem argument. What is important is the evidence presented that no causal relationships can explain the fields in question, and that there is no evidence for these relationships.


What statements and falsehoods are you referring to ? Are you accusing me of being a liar ? For a proponent of pseudo-scientific ideas, you sure are skating on thin ice.

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