Corwin

Musta struck a nerve huh? Still claiming 'it doesn't work' based entirely on the parts we don't make any particular claims DO work?

Viti

If people are relieved of pain via their belief in faith healing (via placebo effect or positive thinking or whatever) great. If they claim to have been healed of broken bones, cancer, blindness etc. I would expect hard evidence.

Again, I do not agree with the claims of chiropractors about healing or aiding with anything other than tension headache, back and neck pain NOT DUE TO SOME SORT OF DIAGNOSABLE CONDITION. I do not think acupuncture can heal anything in and of itself, but think the available information indicates it is helpful as a treatment for pain. In cases where the pain is caused by some virus, tumor, bacteria, broken bones or whatever these treatments are not appropriate, but may be complementary to standard medicine. The same goes for faith healing or prayer...it certainly cannot hurt a cancer patient to pray as long as they are also receiving proper medical treatment.

Because these types of pain (caused by strains, stress, tension, etc) cannot be objectivly measured and neither can the degree of relief, than anecdotal evidence is acceptable IMO. If claims are made of cancer healing, broken bones mending etc....again, then I would require more convincing evidence and hard data.

What is so difficult for you to understand here?

Someone with chronic tension headaches, with no treatable underlying cause such as tumors or migraine has choices
1) drugs
2) something other than drugs

If they receive relief from alternatives...who does it hurt?

Francois Tremblay

What do you mean, no particular claim ? You are the ones who claim chiropracty works, not me.

Viti

Nobody in this debate used the word subluxations except you franc28...we said chiropractic works for neck back and head pain caused by muscuoskeletal problems...do you understand yet?

BTW....here is a summary of an Australian study on the effectivness of acupuncture for morning sickness. Obviously the women saying they felt better is anecdotal because we cannot objectivly measure things like pain and nausea, but the science seems sound.

<a href="http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/news/fullstory_6369.html" target="_blank">Acupuncture</a>

Francois Tremblay

What did you think we were discussing chiropracty for, back massages ? The doubtful claim which is at the heart of chiropracty is subluxations, not whenever moving the spinal cord is good for one's posture or not. That is not proper to chiropracty and has nothing to do with its distinctive claim to fame.

pulpyboy

[quote] The scientific brief against chiropractic. The New Physician, Sept 1966. /QUOTE]

Franc28
Did you stop reading in 1966? I haven't laughed so hard in a while. Thank you.
I post over 60 research articles all done within the past 10 years and you respond with a citation from chirobase dated 36 years ago. All I can say is wow. And yet somehow, you state that I am the one who needs to read and inform myself. I hope that your posts in other threads reflect stronger reasoning, research and logic than what you have shown here. As I inferred earlier, it is not wise to debate when you know very little about the subject being debated.

Respectfully,
Michael

Francois Tremblay

I give up. If you don't understand, as I've told you twice before, that the studies you presented had nothing to do with the subject, you'll never get it.

Keep believing, maybe they'll find a way to eradicate the subluxation that is making you illiterate.

PS "newer is more true" is a logical fallacy, but I guess that'll go over your head.

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

Viti

Franc28, maybe some of us missed it. Could you point out exactly which post in this thread defines the narrow scope of topic you are yammering about.

pulpyboy

Humility becomes you. Below is your first post on this topic.

As you can see, you state that chiropractic is a scam and infer that there are no benefits.
You later posted the following.

The only citation you use in a 1966 article. Later, you posted this inferring that there again is no evidence to support chiropractic.

And now you change your last post to the following.

So let me get this straight. You who are not a chiropractor and who seems to know absolutely nothing about chiropractic, are telling me, a chiropractor for 16 years what constitutes chiropractic research. What field are you in? Maybe I could tell you all about your field all the while using words that don't exist. And then, to top it all off, you call me illiterate. Everytime I think I can't be amazed anymore, you top yourself and amaze me even more.

Michael

Corwin

And the 'doubtful claim' at the heart of Gravity is undetectable waves. Does this mean apples just hang in the air waiting for us to resolve the theory?