I found your blog through google, and i will hav to say i am very impressed!…

This sight seems to help preserve some semblence of sanity. Thanks SBM bloggers!

but I’m glad she’s gone if only for the fact that I won’t have to come back a week later to see what discussion developed in my blissful absence from internet distractions only to sift through 400+ posts containing mostly mind vomit.

i’ve had facebook conversations about facebook conversations with more direction.

If you’re interested in the past, check out Weston Price, in the present, Gary Taubes. If you’re interested in the future, do a search for “The World According to Monsanto” on Youtube.

The dramatic improvement in longevity must, to a great extent, be attributed to improvement in diet, improvement in employment conditions, social benefits and other benefits not related in medical intervention. There is a downside to the changes in food supply. There is an outrageous increase in obesity and other problems that are a product of “modern society” and the modern diet, especially in the US. Mercifully, I live in Europe.

If Ancel Keys has the majority of his work retracted by journals at the behest of the rulers of this blog I might take this blog seriously. Long live saturated and cholesterol – and those who eat them. Now, to get back to my moose liver fried in coconut oil.

Sensationalism, being overly simplistic, relying upon “common sense” over actual evidence, making assertions with no context or recontextualising something so it appears other than it is and making broad generalizations are all the trademarks of tabloid journalism and woo. Blogging can be many things, it can be a personal journal, it can be a soapbox to share opinions with the world or it can be a very credible extension and form of journalism (either editorial or investigative). SBM has established itself as being on the journalism spectrum with both editorial and investigative/analytical aspects. Because science journalists and media, and other researchers, are critiqued here, it’s just a matter of basic integrity to live up to the standards one sets for others. Otherwise you’re back to being just like what you’re critiquing, which makes any soapbox a pretty slippery place to stand when push comes to shove. And, if you’re going to take on ideologues and true believers, and people with commercial interests or a lot to lose if reality is exposed, there is going to be pushing and shoving. (And, let’s be honest, some of the SBM bloggers here aren’t above at least poking – quite deservedly – some of the more ridiculous offenders with a stick…they generally just make sure it’s an evidence stick and not just the pointy end of their ego.)

The other thing worth mentioning is that communication plays a key role in shaping public perception of both CAM and SBM, which is why I personally think it’s a big deal not to use CAM/propaganda/advertising methodology which isn’t about promoting critical or reality-based thinking. If you want to educate people about how to critically read media, how to deconstruct an argument for themselves and how not to get sucked into sensationalist or bogus “common sense” assertions, you can’t use dodgy methods yourself and claim they’re legitimate or critical thinking when you use them but dodgy when others do. It’s entirely possible to be entertaining, provocative and to explain complex ideas in lay terms without resorting to dodgy techniques. A lot of it is about providing context, that’s why the context of who someone is in terms of their actions becomes relevant (and why SBM bloggers bring up things like how someone has spoken at a CAM conference as being relevant to their integrity level, or whether they get funding from drug companies and how they make a living and so on…these things are relevant in medical science in terms of determining integrity and potential biases).

“BillyJoe – I don’t find Singh’s writing or approach to skepticism to be anything like Dr Tuteur’s, are you generally familiar with his work? And had you read the whole article or were you just familiar with the phrase that the libel suit was hung on?”

I wasn’t comparing Dr. Tuteur to Simon Singh and, yes, I have read the whole article.

Simon Singh uses both techniques.
In the article he said “not a jot of evidence”
Elsewhere he has actually evaluated the evidence that chiropractic helps asthma and other non spinal conditions.

“Unqualified assertions wrt chiropractic’s ability to treat childhood asthma are correct and justified. Simon Singh made them. This was good writing both in the sense of being accurate and in the sense of being clear and easy to assimilate.”

Yet there is evidence that chiropractic works for asthma. So it is strictly unjustified to say “there is not a jot” of evidence that chiropractic can treat asthma. What is true is that “given the evidence, a reasonable and informed person would have not a jot of belief that chiropractic is a remedy for asthma”.
(I borrowed that from Tony Lloyd)

“Unqualified assertions wrt chiropractic’s ability to treat back pain are unjustified. Writing about chiropractic and back pain would have to choose between being accurate and being easy to digest. Singh chose not to write about chiropractic and back pain and therefore did not have to make this choice.”

Well, maybe just one small qualifier then: chiropractic, defined as a realignment of subluxed vertebra as opposed to a good massage, is useless for the treatment of back pain.

No.

Unqualified assertions wrt chiropractic’s ability to treat childhood asthma are correct and justified. Simon Singh made them. This was good writing both in the sense of being accurate and in the sense of being clear and easy to assimilate.

Unqualified assertions wrt chiropractic’s ability to treat back pain are unjustified. Writing about chiropractic and back pain would have to choose between being accurate and being easy to digest. Singh chose not to write about chiropractic and back pain and therefore did not have to make this choice.

“BillyJoe – Actually, I’d rather see Singh’s quotes in context since he’s actually not just making non-evidence based assertions and generalizations as you seem to think he is when you see him quoted out of context. ”

I don’t think he is.

And that is exactly what I’m getting at.
The bold assertions: “there is not a jot of evidence” and “bogus treatments” are fine because they are true and there is evidence to back them up, but if you have to stick strictly with what the evidence says, it confines you to making statements that run into a long paragraphs of explanations and qualifications. At the end, few are still listening and fewer still will get the message.

I think it is legitimate to use both the short, snappy and, for all intents and purposes, true three-second grabs AND the long-winded sit-down, read-and-concentrate, considered response.

micheleinmichigan said: “oh, gotta see a source for that claim.”

There are plenty of sources and it’s not hard to find them
(Hint: first define chiropractic)

Has everyone seen the news?

http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-quit-sbm.html

Wow – that is a class act.

And, in many ways Singh is doing the same things as a journalist that some bloggers here complain about when science writers do them regarding things they don’t agree about (using anecdotes, making assertions about evidence without presenting the actual evidence, relying upon an expert rather than analysing the data himself, etc). I don’t have a problem with that but then I don’t have unrealistic expectations of journalism (or science, medicine or doctors for that matter…though I may apparently have unrealistic expectations regarding the integrity of SBM bloggers practicing what they preach and going by the same rules as ethical scientists do).

A link to the actual article…
http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html

To contextualize what Singh wrote and is being sued for…

“You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact they still possess some quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything. And even the more moderate chiropractors have ideas above their station. The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying, even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organisation is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”

The libel is around the “promotes bogus treatments” since it implies that the BCA is being intentionally unethical (I have no doubt they are but we’re talking British libel laws here).

What he said about chiropractic for back pain (from the same article)…

“But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.”

Plonit – It is true that chiropractors use some of the same techniques as physiotherapists but that doesn’t actually make chiropractic methods (which rely upon the concept of subluxations) effective, it just means that chiropractors use non-chiropractic techniques. That said, back pain is still somewhat mysterious even to medicine (hence it being a fertile ground for woo). Of course, the biggest problem with chiropractors isn’t that they’re ineffective, it’s that their neck cracking confidence trick can cause strokes.

http://skepticalob.blogspot.com/2010/02/i-quit-sbm.html

Plonit,

Let’s cut to the chase:
Chiropractic is useless for back pain.

You don’t agree?

oh, gotta see a source for that claim.