And a note to “nobs” – you complain that there is no DC among the SBM crew even though 25% of the conference was devoted to chiroquactic. Do you think they should recruit some homeopaths, naturopaths, energy healers, Tijuana cancer “curers”, reflexologists, iridologists and other SCAM practitioners to cover the other 75%?

I did a three-day course to become a Reiki master once. Perhaps I could be SBM’s expert on remote attunement over the telephone.

I have seen this sort of thing happen before. Indeed, it has happened to me and colleagues (in spades). A troll comes on with the purpose of changing the subject, and once succeeding in that, keeping the discussion from ever getting back to the original. It is not possible to satisfy the troll, or “get the last word”. And, as we’ve seen here, the discussion just keeps getting further and further afield.

The purpose of the trolls (they often come in packs, or different guises for the same individual) invariably is either to sabotage the subject/site, or to make every discussion address the trolls’ pet peeves, or both. It’s a trap.

In my experience, the only way to deal with the trap effectively is to moderate the discussions, and for the moderator to have zero-tolerance for irrelevancy (deflection). Of course, the accusation will come back that this is “censorship”, but that accusation is itself a non-sequitur.

I suppose I could be accused of committing a non sequitur myself with this comment. But after 59 comments, only a handful of which have been reactions or supplements to the original blog, I’ll have to take my chances there.

Meantime, is there anyone willing to add their impressions to Dr. Novella’s about the conference itself? Was there anything left out (of either the conference or Dr. Novella’s account) that should have been there?

One of the commenters above said this…”If Dr. Novella ever manages to find a completely woo-free, chiropractor using scientifically supported methods willing to contribute to this site, I am sure he will welcome them with open arms.”

I think that they are called physical therapists. My apologies to physical therapists.

On the plus side, the problematic definition of “integrative medicine” allows for some shift in its meaning over time.

There’s presently an opportunity to change the very generous Osher legacy into something of lasting value to future doctors and patients. As it stands however, the Osher name is in danger of becoming associated with an anti-science wrong-turn in the history of medicine.

This is not a slight against chiropractors. There are far more doctors who might come across this site and want to/be able to contribute than there are chiropractors who might do the same; thus, demanding a science-based chiropractor as a contributor to discuss subluxations is like demanding they MUST have a proctologist to discuss coffee enemas, or they MUST have a heptologist to discuss Hulda Clark’s liver flukes.

-Ben

http://jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf

I have been an advocate of science-based manipulation and a critic of chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory since publication of my 1963 book Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism, which can be seen in its entirety online at

http://www.chirobase.org/05RB/BCC/00c.html

Samuel Homola

>>I like how nobs believes that if you cold-call random chiropractors– or any practitioner– and say to them, “We have a website devoted to SBM and we’d like you to make posts about how to get all the crazy woo out of your profession” they’d jump to.”<>…” it’s likely none of them have heard of this site, they aren’t particularly passionate about fighting woo in their profession, they are worried about making professional enemies, they are not particularly good writers, they don’t have a subject in mind, or they do not have the time to post. “<>”Why don’t you send each a link to this site, and chirobase so they know what the site is looking for in a SB-Chiropractor, and ask them to look into it and contribute if interested? “<>”I doubt any will respond, but at least then you could know it was not for lack of harassing them.”<<

Quite frankly, I do not know how to respond to this intentionally inflammatory declaration. I will just leave it as is, as I do not care to engage in meaningless assumptions or unsubstanitated accusations

>>”# Basioranaon 16 Jul 2009 at 6:39 am
I like how nobs believes that if you cold-call random chiropractors– or any practitioner– and say to them, “We have a website devoted to SBM and we’d like you to make posts about how to get all the crazy woo out of your profession” they’d jump to.”<>…” it’s likely none of them have heard of this site, they aren’t particularly passionate about fighting woo in their profession, they are worried about making professional enemies, they are not particularly good writers, they don’t have a subject in mind, or they do not have the time to post. “<>”Why don’t you send each a link to this site, and chirobase so they know what the site is looking for in a SB-Chiropractor, and ask them to look into it and contribute if interested? “<>”I doubt any will respond, but at least then you could know it was not for lack of harassing them.”<<

Quite frankly, I do not know how to respond to this intentionally inflammatory declaration. I will just leave it as is, as I do not care to engage in meaningless assumptions or unsubstanitated accusations

Oh Really? How do you know that? Quite frankly, I do not know how to respond to this intentionally inflammatory, arrogant, declaration. I will just leave it as is, as I do not care to engage in meaningless assumptions or unsubstantiated accusations.

“Considering Harriet, that you have no scientific credibility, you just “read a lot”, those comments are a bit anachronistic.”

I have plenty of scientific credibility in most circles, although perhaps not among those who don’t want to believe what science says. The textbook was published in 2001 and the BCA response to Simon Singh just happened, so I don’t understand what is “anachronistic” about my comments.

Most commenters try to contribute to a rational, courteous discussion rather than insulting the commenter. Next time, please try to respond to the content of the comments.

One more suggestion for speaking venue — the American Public Health Association annual meeting. APHA now has a Chiropractic Section and an Alt Med interest group. I happened to be at another conference in San Diego last year at the same time as the APHA annual meeting was going on, so I joined the APHA and attended the chiro section meeting. There were a few young DCs with MPHs who seemed science-based, some who limited themselves to musculoskeletal conditions (but were not necessarily science-based) and also lots of woo. One DC told me that the influenza virus doesn’t cause death, pneumonia does. (Go figure.) Others go on chiro “mission trips” to India and other countries where vaccine preventable diseases are prevalent without getting vaccinated.

@ nobs and nwtk2007: If you and others are interested in promoting science-based chiropractic, I suggest you go to your respective state legislatures and urge them to change the chiropractic practice acts to do away with subluxation-based chiropractic and define what DCs are allowed to do in science-based terms.

@ Tim Kreider: Great idea, but with requirement that arguments must be supported with citations.

Sounds interesting. I’ve wiki’d “origins of chiropractic” and read a bit about its start. I’m guessing that there are other more dire anecdotes of its origin?

Dr Ben

Of your list, nobs, even assuming all of them are, in fact, practitioners of science-based chiropracty, it’s likely none of them have heard of this site, they aren’t particularly passionate about fighting woo in their profession, they are worried about making professional enemies, they are not particularly good writers, they don’t have a subject in mind, or they do not have the time to post.

Why don’t you send each a link to this site, and chirobase so they know what the site is looking for in a SB-Chiropractor, and ask them to look into it and contribute if interested? I doubt any will respond, but at least then you could know it was not for lack of harassing them.

For example the course structure contains subjects such as:

Diagnosis and Chiropractic Skills
Processes in Human Disease
Primary Practice I: Clinical Science and Diagnosis
Clinical Orthopaedics and Neurology
Immunology, Genetics and Microbiology
Chiropractic Skills and Principles II
Evidence-based Practice

which would be similar in some respects to other science-based medicine 3rd year programs (minus the specialty areas), however the entire program is prefaced by this:

“Chiropractors, also known as Chiropractic Physicians, diagnose and treat patients whose health problems are associated with the body’s muscular, nervous, and skeletal systems, especially the spine. Chiropractors believe that interference with these systems impairs the bodys normal functions and lowers its resistance to disease. They also hold that spinal or vertebral dysfunction alters many important body functions by affecting the nervous system and that skeletal imbalance through joint or articular dysfunction, especially in the spine, can cause pain.”

‘believe’ and ‘they hold that’ are critical points in that paragraph as they point to an acknowledged (in an honest institution) lack of evidence for the ‘belief’ parts.

Hawk: abstracts on PubMed suggest that she supports chiros as ‘primary care practitioners,’ but worries a bit that they need to be more pro-active about some recommendations, such as advising patients to stop smoking.

Murphy: seems to limit his practice to back and neck pain. Good, but ‘neural mobilization’ looks a little fishy.

I didn’t look closely at the rest, but if similar to Kawchuk they seem to be interested primarily in back pain. Also good, but what do all of them think about ’subluxations’, ‘applied kinesiology’, and immunizations, for example? For SBM blogging purposes it isn’t enough to call yourself a ’science-based’ chiropractor merely because you are a physical therapist by another name. You gotta be willing and able to take on the overwhelming woo of the field as a whole.