May 05 2009
Chiropractic in the News
Three recent news items about chiropractic have particularly irritated me.
(1) U.S. Army Brigadier General Becky Halstead (Retired) Speaks Out for Chiropractic Care
(2) Chiropractic Helps Child with Brain Disorder
(3) Swine Flu Chiropractor’s Handout
(1) General Halstead has become a spokesperson for The Foundation for Chiropractic Progress, a nonprofit organization dedicated to increasing public awareness of chiropractic. Her quoted comments boil down to
- I like the personal attention and caring I get from my chiropractor.
- Chiropractic advice about healthy lifestyle is essential
- Chiropractic care prevents more serious health concerns
- Chiropractic is essential for assisting in recovery from minor injuries.
- Chiropractors don’t mask the problem with drugs and all their side effects.
- Chiropractors are holistic and involve the patient in her own care.
- “Listening appears to be a major tool.”
This is nothing but opinion based on personal experience and scientific ignorance. She offers no evidence that chiropractic theory is true, that chiropractic adjustments are effective, or that a chiropractor has any advantage over a science-based medical doctor who also spends time listening to patients, is interested in the whole patient, advises about healthy lifestyle, and avoids unnecessary use of drugs. Caring clinicians can be found in chiropractic, in homeopathy, in every kind of quackery, and in scientific medicine, with the advantage that the scientific clinician can also provide effective evidence-based treatments.
As a woman and a retired Air Force colonel, I am doubly ashamed that this high-ranking military woman has prostituted herself by becoming a spokesperson for pseudoscience. I hope they are paying her well.
(2) The “research,” reported in the Journal of Pediatric, Maternal & Family Health – Chiropractic, is not really what I would call research. It describes a case of a child with cerebellar ataxia whose problems completely resolved following four chiropractic adjustments. The report speculates that
the increase in the diagnosis of such disorders as ADHD, pervasive developmental disorder, Tourette’s Syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder and other neurodevelopmental disorders, have their root in abnormal spinal development. Children’s nervous systems need the constant stimulation of movement in order to develop and function properly. Abnormal position or movement of the spinal vertebra can develop and this can lead to nerve interference. It is this interference, called vertebral subluxations, that chiropractors correct.
Maybe, but these subluxations have never been shown to exist outside the imagination of chiropractors, and the alleged nerve interference has never been demonstrated.
I couldn’t access the entire article without paying $50, but the abstract raised a lot of questions. A seven year old girl “presented for chiropractic care and cerebellar ataxia was noted.” Was this an incidental observation by the chiropractor, or had the child been previously diagnosed with documented ataxia? The chiropractor’s exam “isolated the location of trans-neuronal dysfunction to the right cerebellum.” How? What does “trans-neuronal dysfunction” even mean? Even the grammar is faulty: “Chiropractic analysis of static and motion palpation were used to examine the spine for subluxations.” The wording makes it unclear what the treatment was: adjustments were given “in either the cervical, thoracic, lumbar and/or pelvic region as needed. Neuro-rehabilitative exercises were given either at home and/or during the office visit.” “Within four visits there was marked improvement of gait patterns and resolution of the ataxia.” Really? Or did the chiropractor and parents simply convince themselves they saw improvement? Was cerebellar ataxia really there in the first place? Did a medical doctor confirm the diagnosis? Was there any long-term followup?
The abstract’s conclusion is propaganda, not a conclusion based on the study. It consists of speculation that is in no way justified by the data.
Understanding and applying foundational neurological principles via a patient specific, individually tailored, chiropractic management plan is essential. Assessing and optimizing asymmetrical neurological indicators should be part of screening and management procedures. In this case, addressing the dysfunction concerning the central integrative state of the cerebellum was necessary for optimum functioning of this seven-year-old female.
This is a case report, little more than a testimonial. I hope the body of the article clarifies some of the questions the abstract raises, but I have seen many, many similar chiropractic case reports that are poorly documented, that mix treatments so it is impossible to determine what caused the improvement, and that are eminently unconvincing. The value of case reports is that they can help guide future research. This seldom happens in chiropractic; there is no progress over time, and reports like this do not build into a coherent body of knowledge.
The author, Nicoleta Borcean, has no articles listed either on PubMed or in the Index to Chiropractic Literature. The journal this article was published in is a brand-new one, and I question both its concept and its editorial board. Why do we need a journal of “Pediatric, Maternal & Family Health- Chiropractic”? There is no evidence that chiropractic has any role in pediatric or maternal health, and the attempt of some chiropractors to become “family doctors” is misguided. The editor in chief is a professor at Life University, a scandal-ridden school that was denied recertification in 2002 because it offered substandard education. One editorial board member is Barbara Loe Fisher, Co-Founder & President of the National Vaccine Information Center – an anti-vaccine organization. Other board members are associated with the Academy of Chiropractic Family Practice and the International Chiropractic Pediatric Association, organizations whose raison d’être is questionable.
I’m not making an ad hominem argument. I’m not saying these individuals couldn’t produce a high-quality journal. But in this case, they haven’t; and their background helps explain why. The abstracts in the current issue are all case reports similar to the ataxia one. “I treated a patient and he got better” is meaningless unless you can show that you’re not making a post hoc ergo propter hoc error. The journal appears to be more interested in finding evidence to support chiropractic claims than in doing good science to test whether chiropractic claims are true. Pseudoscience tries to show “that” a treatment works; real science asks “if” it really works.
(3) Chiropractors were among the first alternative providers to jump on the Swine Flu bandwagon. I already wrote about this for the JREF’s Swift, but I’ll repeat it here. Their handout boils down to 6 recommendations:
- Build your immune system by getting adjusted.
- Limit the amount of sugar in your diet because sugar depresses the immune system.
- Avoid alcohol and white flour products.
- Drink more water
- Wash your hands frequently.
- Disinfect your rooms by spraying them with a solution of essential oils (4 drops to one cup of water).
Hey! One out of six isn’t bad. Handwashing is a good idea. The rest of this advice is useless for preventing infection.
They tell us “Studies show that being adjusted twice a week can increase your immune system function by up to 400%.” No they don’t. I couldn’t find even one such study. I did find a reference to “preliminary research” – apparently not published – that allegedly showed that patients who had received long term chiropractic care had 200% greater immune competence than patients who had not received chiropractic care and 400% greater than those who had cancer. This is uninterpretable because we are not told how the data were collected nor how “immune competence” was measured. Maybe sicker people are already seeing MDs and are less likely to see chiropractors. Besides which, the damage from flu is due to the immune response, and it’s conceivable that increasing immune competence might be harmful.
There is NO credible evidence that chiropractic adjustments decrease the risk of catching ANYTHING. Ditto sugar, white flour and alcohol (unless perhaps indirectly due to secondary effects of overindulgence). Drinking more water? No evidence. And spraying dilute essential oils is probably as effective as having a witch doctor wave a bone and chant.
Chiropractic may help some people with musculoskeletal pain, but reading news items like these doesn’t help my blood pressure!
![[StumbleUpon]](http://www.theskepticsguide.org/sgublog/wp-content/plugins/stumbleupon.jpg){kind=small}
308 Responses to “Chiropractic in the News”
More chiropractic in the news: the preliminary hearing in the British Chiropractic Association’s libel action against Simon Singh is set for this coming Thursday.
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-bcas-case-against-simon-singh.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-putting-chiropractic-on-trial.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/11/on-putting-chiropractic-on-trial.html
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/03/bca-v-singh-date-set-for-first-hearing.html
The chiros simply want to associate the memes “family practice” and “chiropractic.” Frequent association over time becomes social reality.
In marketing a novel idea to the public, there’s a tipping point once most people develop a belief about what most people believe.
A belief about what “most people” think often influences behavior more than anyone’s personal opinion. People are tentative and uncertain about many issues and will defer to the wisdom of the crowd, as they perceive it.
So the goal isn’t, “Yes, I’d see a chiropractor for my primary care,” but rather, “I’m not big on chiropractic myself. But lots of people see chiropractors for their primary care.”
Eisenberg’s claim that 40% of Americans use CAM probably did more for CAM than anything else. I often hear, “I’m not big on CAM myself, but…” as a justification for further Federal funding of CAM pseudo-research, licensure, and professional development.
Beliefs about what everyone else believes are easy to manipulate via marketing campaigns. Civil societies that value free speech haven’t yet figured out a means to check coordinated misinformation strategies.
Once an incorrect “everyone thinks” notion is established, it seems to take a generation or more to undo.
It seems like a form of shifting the overton window.
By having people express the opinion that chiro is normal primary care, or better care, they incrementally shift opinion in that direction.
Even if it’s by virtue of making people who say “chiro might not be completly crazy ” not seem as far out of the mainstream as they really are
I have bit of question. Should I assume the Chrios and DO’s are not completely the same thing? Because as I understand it DOs essentially learn the same things in med school as MDs here in America but they have additional ‘chriopractic’ or really osteopathic methods taught to them.
DOs are allowed to practice medicine and one is my family doctor and I have never got the impression that he believes that merely messing around with spinal adjustments will cure anything and everything under the sun.
In fact you know when he did some adjustments to my back and neck? He did them when I complained that I always had spasms and yatta, yatta, blah, etc, etc… Well, he and other doctors had already scanned the hell out of my body and nothing was out of place. So he adjusted my back a little and it felt a lot better afterwards; he gave me some flexeril to help when my spasms got really bad. They never really did except once or twice every 6 months.
Also my DO was the one to say I needed surgery when another doctor, an MD, thought he could fix me without surgery. Short answer: DO was right; I really needed surgery. He took one look at my cyst and said: “You need surgery now. I’m not going to do anything for you on this. I simply do not have the skill required.”
Well, what I’m asking is are DOs ‘bad’ doctors? (for lack of a better word I use bad)
Osteopathy and Chiropractic had similar origins: They both did the same kind of treatments but osteopaths thought they were restoring blood flow and chiropractors thought they were restoring nerve flow. Osteopathy accepted scientific medicine and grew up; chiropractic remained a pre-scientific cult. Today, DOs pass the same licensing exams as MDs; they take the same internships and residencies. They are equivalent to MDs and also trained in spinal manipulation. In practice, many DOs stop doing manipulation or use it only in selected cases; chiropractors use manipulation for every patient because that is all they do. Note: I am speaking of DOs in the U.S. only; it is my understanding that DOs trained in other countries are not equivalent to MDs.
Dr. Hall: good post, with one small correction. “Chiropractic” does not help with back pain. Spinal manipulation, a manual therapy used by physical therapists, osteopaths, physiatrists and chiropractors to increase range of motion and reduce joint inflammation, is effective for low back pain, but no more effective than other conservative therapies, such as NSAIDs.
“Chiropractic” is, among other things, the use of various forms of spinal manipulation (also called, when used in this manner and for this purpose, the “spinal adjustment”) to reduce the non-existent subluxation. It is very confusing and chiropractors seem to like it that way. Several years ago, when RAND came out with a study showing spinal manipulation was effective for some forms of back pain, chiropractors kept touting the study as an endorsement of chiropractic. One of the study’s authors, Paul Shekelle, MD, had to tell them to stop it. In fact, as I recall, the spinal manipulation in the study was done by physical therapists, not chiropractors. Spinal manipulation for back pain done by chiropractors has not been shown to be more effective than spinal manipulation for that purpose done by other manual therapists. That’s why I cringe when I hear of MDs referring people to chiropractors for back pain — the patients could go to PTs for the same therapy without all of the woo.
Versus,
I agree completely and have said the same myself. The only thing about chiropractic that works is SMT, and when you get relief from a chiropractor it is not because of anything “chiropractic” but because they have used the same effective treatments that physical therapists and others also use. My language was imprecise; I should have said “Chiropractors may help some patients with musculoskeletal pain.” Thanks for the clarification.
@ fergie34711 Well, what I’m asking is are DOs ‘bad’ doctors?
DOs are not bad doctors. At least I hope not, as I am a first year DO student right now. Our course work is almost identical to the MD’s, except we have a 1 hour lecture on Osteopathic Manipulation and a 2 hour lab where we practice manipulation on each other. Other than that, we do all the ‘allopathic’ medical course work as the MDs.
@ Harriet Hall Note: I am speaking of DOs in the U.S. only; it is my understanding that DOs trained in other countries are not equivalent to MDs.
Dr. Hall, you are correct. The DO schools in the US trains Osteopathic Physicians whereas outside of the US DO schools train Osteopaths. Osteopaths are similar to Chiropractors in scope of practice.
Thanks guys for the info. My back pain was exactly low back pain and that’s the only time my DO used any spinal manipulation on me. I could have gone to a physical therapy session too but I got the same results for cheaper with my family doctor. (At least with my insurance that is…) Maybe that’s why MDs send patients to chrios for spinal manipulation for minor low back issues? Perhaps its cheaper than physical therapy? I don’t know if it is. I’m just wondering if that’s why.
Not one of my doctors, DO or MD ever, ever suggested to use any alt med things. Although one MD (a neurologist) did suggest some B-12 vitamins to help with some unexplained nerve pain issues but vitamin supplements are not completely altie craziness. Anyway another doctor found a much better solution: Lyrica.
I pretty well stopped listening to anything connected to chiropracty. When my sister was born, my mother took her to her chiropractor for adjustment.
The chiropractor claimed her could ‘fix’ my sister’s Down’s Syndrome. So, yeah. Hard to take it seriously.
“the alleged nerve interference has never been demonstrated.”
Subluxations are real, and the basic theory behind chiropractic is valid. It happens to be similar to the theory behind hatha yoga — but of course you will say that’s nothing but coincidence. It doesn’t matter how many people have experienced something directly, you will deny it if it hasn’t been recognized by a majority of the mainstream medical authorities.
Just because the mainstream has not yet focused intently on subluxations (mostly for political reasons), you reject the idea completely.
R Fern and P J Harrison. “The effects of compression upon conduction in myelinated axons of the isolated frog sciatic nerve.” J Physiol. 1991 January; 432: 111–122.
“”Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements and putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves.”
Bolton P (2000). “Reflex effects of vertebral subluxations: the peripheral nervous system. An update.”. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 23 (2): 101–3. doi:10.1016/S0161-4754(00)90075-7. PMID 10714535.
“Researchers at the Department of Physiology, University College London studied the effects of compression upon conduction in myelinated axons. Using pneumatic pressure of varying degrees on the sciatic nerves of frog specimens, the study supported the idea of nerve conduction failure as a result of compression.”
In a family practice setting what is nice about a DO vs an MD is that the DO (should) know how to do the Osteopathic Manipulative Therapy (OMT) which I think overlaps with physical therapy. So whereas an MD may have to refer a patient out for physical therapy a DO can do it in house.
This of course presumes that OMT is efficacious… We are taught some stuff that is outright bullshit like “Osteopathy in the Cranial Field” but we are also taught some muscle energy treatments that I think /could/ work. I wish I had some better resources that would help me to understand what manipulative treatments have evidence and which do not. I usually just assume that most of what I learn isn’t valid while at the same time having my back popped from time to time helps if I have mild acute back pain. Like right now I’m hunched over my computer in a lecture hall and my back is a little sore in the lower thoracic vertebra. If I can talk a professor into popping my back, the pain disappears immediately and I feel better. There is just so little creditable research on OMT and it’s hidden within giant piles of bad research. The best research usually says that manipulation isn’t valid, but what about physical therapy techniques that we use but just don’t know it? Wow, I’m rambling…. sorry.
Pec,
No one is contesting that it sucks to have a pinched nerve, so Fern and Harrison paper doesn’t matter.
There is also a difference in the meaning of the word “Subluxation”. Copypasta from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_subluxationWikipediaOfficially, the WHO definition of the chiropractic vertebral subluxation is: “A lesion or dysfunction in a joint or motion segment in which alignment, movement integrity and/or physiological function are altered, although contact between joint surfaces remains intact. It is essentially a functional entity, which may influence biomechanical and neural integrity.” The degree of structural displacement is not necessarily “visible on static imaging studies.”[1] This is in contrast to the medical definition of spinal subluxation which, according to the WHO, is a “significant structural displacement, and therefore visible on static imaging studies.”
Medical spinal subluxation, like spondylothesis, covers all the ‘real’ subluxations that are visible. Chiropractors take subluxation further to include subluxations that can’t be seen or measures but can be paplated. How can something be felt but not visualized on MRI or CT?
I don’t have access to the Bolton paper but the conclusion from the abstract says CONCLUSION: Animal models suggest that vertebral displacements and putative vertebral subluxations may modulate activity in group I to IV afferent nerves. However, it is not clear whether these afferent nerves are modulated during normal day-to-day activities of living and, if so, what segmental or whole-body reflex effects they may have.
So again, they are saying that having a pinched nerve sucks.
I recently went to a physician who was a DO and I have been wondering how much quack is behind osteopathy. I noticed a few big differences between osteopathy and chiropractic (which I have used in the past). First, osteopathic adjustment isn’t about popping bones, but more like stretching muscles. It’s probably similar to physical therapy but more convenient. I wouldn’t know to compare because I’ve never had physical therapy.
What impressed me is that the doctor used the osteopathic adjustment almost as an afterthought, and didn’t claim or believe that it would cure all my symptoms. He ordered standard urine and blood tests, and we talked about my medication without him telling me I don’t really need them. Then I said that my neck was sore, and he stretched it and showed me how to do the stretches myself. He only used it to treat the neck pain and nothing else. I feel much more comfortable having a physician touch my neck than a chiropractor. And he didn’t try to talk me into coming back twice a week for adjustments.
Ever since then I have been debating with myself whether I should continue seeing this doctor. I read up on osteopathy and there is a lot of woo, but this doctor doesn’t seem to buy into the woo parts of it. He didn’t tell me to change my diet or that the adjustments will strengthen my immune system.
I welcome any input about this, especially from other physicians.
Regarding whether a DO is a good doctor or not, it’s kind of the same question as whether an MD is a good doctor or not. They come in all kinds, and the process doesn’t weed out all the bad ones. But they can get all the same qualifications, which is the important part for this question.
My husband’s PCP is a DO. I was seen by a DO opthamologist once (though as he lacked surgical qualifications, he was unable to do the procedure that I needed, and referred me to one of his MD partners). And most recently, my second child was delivered by a c-section performed by a DO obstetrician-gynecologist. She did an excellent job, particularly considering that there were a few complications not known before the procedure began, forcing her to do a vertical incision on the uterus rather than the preferred transverse incision.
As with any medical professional, you might run into one that’s not very good. Keep your critical thinking hat on, and make sure to ask questions if you feel uncomfortable about anything. But otherwise, DOs in America are generally as good as comparably-qualified MDs.
@Harry:
Or perhaps not:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=165
@ megancatgirl
Where or not you want to continue seeing a physician is your decision alone. There are plenty of quacks with D.O. after their name just as there are plenty of quacks with M.D. after their name. After all, Dr. Atwood has been writing about Harvard’s own issues.
I am not a physician, but I am a student physician… You want to have a good professional relationship with your physician and you should ‘interview’ your doctor to see if that’s possible. If you want, you can ask him directly what he thinks about alternative medicine and include things like Osteopathy in the Cranial Field, Homeopathy and Acupuncture. My own experience has been that the majority of the DO quacks are either OMT specialists or in Family Practice. I have found DO’s who use homeopathy, another who was big on herbs and supplements, another who said that DO’s are a bridge between Eastern and Western Medicine. By far, most have been on the good and level and have rejected the Osteopathic Quackery.
My free advice, and you get what you paid for!
-Harry
@ Mojoon,
I have the hardest time in Osteopathic Practices and Principles class is when professors talk about palpating the rhythmic motion of the cranial suture’s moving. It’s so bad it makes baby jesus cry.
The chiropractor “isolated the location of trans-neuronal dysfunction to the right cerebellum”.
Wow. I would like to see that demonstrated on functional MRI. Surely that shouldn’t be a problem, no?
pec,
THERE ARE NO vertebral displacements with chiropractic subluxations. Real subluxations are vertebral displacements and they show up on x-ray, as in spondylolisthesis. Chiropractors thought they were fixing real displacements until x-rays proved them wrong. Then they changed their definition of subluxation to a vague wishy-washy statement that essentially allows them to call anything they want to manipulate a subluxation.
Sure, real subluxations and real nerve interference can cause symptoms. The problem is, chiropractors can’t show that what they are treating involves real subluxations or real nerve interference. Rational chiropractors like those in the NACM have rejected the whole subluxation concept.
Chiropractic subluxations are real. Of course you think millions of people are hallucinating — that’s your explanation for everything the mainstream authorities don’t acknowledge. Mainstream medicine has fought a political war against chiropractic for many decades, and that would explain it if you don’t see a lot of research on chiropractic subluxations in mainstream journals. The nerve interference is related to the myelin coverings, not the actual nerve fiber. Displacements don’t have to be severe to cause this.
“The problem is, chiropractors can’t show that what they are treating involves real subluxations or real nerve interference.”
I bet there are tons of research, just not in mainstream journals. I will see what I can find.
And I know from extensive personal experience with hatha yoga that the chiropractic concept of subluxations is very real, and very important, and fighting against it is a terrible disservice to the public.
pec “knows from personal experience” that something that doesn’t show up on x-ray is real. She trusts subjective experience above objective scientific evidence. What is she doing reading this blog?
” She trusts subjective experience above objective scientific evidence.”
No Harriet. I explained that millions of people experience this, not just me, and also that there are tons of scientific evidence for chiropractic subluxations. Also, I said that if there is a lack of evidence in mainstream journals it could be because of the political war MDs have waged against chiropractors.
Vertebrae do not have to be obviously dislocated to cause disruptions in nerves, since even slight stretching of a nerve will have some effect on its functioning. Subtle differences in posture can make large differences in health.
It’s just too bad you, as well as most MDs, refuse to look at the evidence, or to experience it for yourself.
@pec:
References please. Just to a few (say half a dozen) good papers – you needn’t provide “tons”.
Most American DOs don’t subscribe to the residual woo in osteopathy. Nevertheless, DOs are considerably more likely to be sCAMsters than are MDs. Overall, MDs outnumber DOs by about 15-fold. Yet look, for example, at the membership of the American College for Advancement in Medicine, the Mother of all PPOs. (Search by state or country to get a big list; many members don’t have a ‘credential’ entry, but it’s still clear that DOs are represented way out of proportion to their overall numbers). BTW: an easy way to disqualify an MD or DO is by finding out that he or she is a member of a Pseudomedical Pseudoprofessional Organization.
Steve Barrett has a good article about modern DOs and their relation to the dubious history and residual woo of the field. Pay special attention to the responses from osteopaths and osteopathic students.
Pec, to save you some research time, here is an excerpt from research I did on the subluxation. The sources are chiropractic journals, a chiropractor writing in a mainstream journal, and chiropractic textbooks :
Keating, et al.,[13] reviewed the evidence and concluded:
“. . . the sum of all the evidence that we are aware of does not permit a conclusion about the clinical meaningfulness of subluxation. To the best of our knowledge, the available literature does not point to any preferred method of subluxation detection and correction, nor to any clinically practical method of quantifying compromised ‘neural integrity,’ nor to any health benefit likely to result from subluxation correction. ”
Keating and his co-authors are not the only ones within the profession to take chiropractors to task for their continued belief in chiropractic ideology, “some aspects of [which] are now known to be at odds with scientific facts.” [14] Nelson, Lawrence, Triano, Bronfort, Perle, Metz, Hegetschweiler, and LaBrot,[14] warned: “To date, the chiropractic profession has failed to develop the legitimacy necessary to defend its autonomy and cultural authority. It has not shown the will or ability to define for itself a coherent and consistent identity. . . . If the profession fails to do so its future will be imperiled.”
More recently, the push to legitimacy again inspired Murphy, Schneider, Seaman, Perle and Nelson,[15] to join in blunt criticism of loyalty to the subluxation:
“One of the problems that we encounter frequently in our interaction with chiropractic educational institutions is the perpetuation of dogma and unfounded claims. Examples include the concept of spinal subluxation as the cause of a variety of internal diseases and the metaphysical, pseudo-religious idea of ‘innate intelligence’ flowing through spinal nerves, with spinal subluxations impeding this flow. These concepts are lacking in a scientific foundation and should not be permitted to be taught . . . Much of what is passed off as ‘chiropractic philosophy’ is simply dogma, or untested (and, in some cases, untestable) theories . . . . (footnotes omitted)
Homola [16] concurs: “Scientific consensus does not support the theory that nerve interference caused by vertebral misalignment or subluxation is a cause of organic disease. . . . a subluxation has never been proved to exist.
Perhaps surprisingly, the conjectural nature of the subluxation is admitted in several chiropractic textbooks.[6, 17,18,19] Yet, these same texts go on to describe the diagnosis and treatment of subluxations and the many conditions for which such treatment is or “may” be beneficial.
Notes cited:
6. Peterson DH, Bergmann TF: Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. 2nd edition. St. Louis: Mosby; 2002.
13. Keating JC Jr., Charlton KH, Grod JP, Perle SM, Dikorski, Winterstein JF: Subluxation: dogma or science? Chiropr Osteopat 2005, 13 no. 17, doi:10.1186/1746-1340-13-17, http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/17.
14. Nelson CF, Lawrence DJ, Triano JJ, Bronfort G, Perle SM, Metz RD, Hegetschweiler K, LaBrot T: Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession. Chiropr Osteopat 2005, 13, no. 9, doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-13-9, http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/13/1/9.
15. Murphy DR, Schneider MJ, Seaman DR, Perle SM, Nelson CF: How can chiropractic become a respected mainstream profession? The example of podiatry. Chiropr Osteopat 2008, 16, no. 10. doi: 10.1186/1746-1340-16-10, http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/16/1/10.
16. Homola S: Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods. Clin Orthop Relat Res 2006, 444 doi:10.1097/01.blo.0000200258.95865.87, http://ovidsp.tx.ovid.com/spb/ovidweb.cgi.
17. Callender AK, Plaugher G, Anrig CA: Introduction to Chiropractic Pediatrics. In Pediatric Chiropractic. Edited by Anrig CA, Plaugher G. Philadelphia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1998: 1-13.
18. Cleveland CS III: Vertebral Subluxation. In Fundamentals of Chiropractic. Edited by Redwood D, Cleveland CS III. St. Louis: Mosby; 2003): 129-153.
19. Keating JC Jr., Plaugher G, Lopes MA, and Cremata EE: Introduction to Clinical Chiropractic. In Textbook of Clinical Chiropractic: A Specific Biomechanical Approach. Edited by Plaugher G, Lopes MA. Philadephia: Lippincott Williams & Wilkins; 1993:1-11.
Says pec:
“It doesn’t matter how many people have experienced something directly, you will deny it if it hasn’t been recognized by a majority of the mainstream medical authorities.”
“Of course you think millions of people are hallucinating — that’s your explanation for everything the mainstream authorities don’t acknowledge.”
“[M]illions of people experience this, not just me …”
Well, then, pec, I’m assuming you believe in all of the following things: a handful of disparate deities, alien abductions, ghosts, bigfoot, the loch ness monster, sixth sense(s), astrology, and countless other things that many people believe but mainstream authorities won’t recognize. I’d hate to accuse you of inconsistency, of course …
“… and countless other things that many people believe but mainstream authorities won’t recognize.”
Whenever a similar phenomenon is experienced by millions of people in many different eras and cultures, I consider it to have some possible validity. It might not be exactly what the experiencers think it is, but there is probably something worth investigating. I do not see humanity, in general, as a bunch of hallucinating gullible idiots. I do not see truth as something owned exclusively by the modern scientific establishment. And that’s where we differ. I have always been interested in parapsychology and I know that at least some of the things you listed scornfully are supported by scientific evidence. I also believe that the universe is infinitely stranger than the universe as described by materialist ideology, and I believe that what is currently understood by science is the tip of an infinite iceberg.
The scientific method is great, but we should not disbelieve all our experiences until science gets around to investigating them. And most things might never be investigated, for political and financial reasons. And I also believe that all of us follow an informal scientific method in our everyday reasoning. Ideas that are contradicted by clear and obvious evidence, or that are never supported by any positive evidence, die out.
I do NOT believe every quack and kook, but I DO have faith in the reasonableness of humanity in general. And I do not dismiss my own experiences as hallucinations and delusions just because they are not sanctioned by materialist science. I do not scornfully dismiss ancient practices like yoga or energy healing merely because they originated before modern science.
Materialist extremists like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, James Randi, etc., are just as way out and kooky as extremists in the other direction.
pec, I’m surprised to say that I agree with the majority of what you just wrote. Unfortunately, you’re painting your actual views with an extremely forgiving brush, and you’re setting up quite the strawman to tilt against.
Let’s stick with examples of what you DO believe. Humouralism is an ancient belief that millions of people apparently had positive experiences with. It is still used today as a CAM modality (Unani medicine). Do you believe in it? Why or why not? How did you arrive at this opinion? How would you feel if it were in the news rather than chiropractic? Would you (or do you) defend it as passionately as you do other CAM modalities here? One of SBM’s “friends” (Orac) just posted a blog entry about a little girl dying after being unsuccessfully “treated” with homeopathy; how would you feel if she’d died after a bloodletting treatment?
@pec:
Surely you mean “mass existing in well-distributed people since long“?
pec says “I do not scornfully dismiss ancient practices like yoga or energy healing merely because they originated before modern science.”
I don’t think anyone on this blog (scornfully or otherwise) has ever dismissed any ancient practices merely because they originated before modern science. In fact, science doesn’t “dismiss” anything. It asks for evidence, and if the evidence is not there, it reaches a tentative conclusion but is always willing to look at new evidence and change its tentative conclusions if the new evidence warrants.
Pec – again:
IF chiropractic subluxation were real, you’d think that chiropractors would be able to consistently diagnose them. However, the same spinal X-rays read by different chiropractors are “diagnosed” as showing “subluxations” at different locations.
Of course, “millions of people” aren’t hallucinating – just the thousands of chiropractors who think they see subluxations. And even the chiropractors aren’t “hallucinating” – a more appropriate word would be “imagining”.
Their training – such as it is – has taught them to see “subluxations” where trained radiologists see overlapping shadows, rotation and normal variants. That’s why no two chiropractors can read an X-ray the same way – they’re misinterpreting “noise” as “signal”.
As for the much talked about but rarely seen “mainstream authorities”, I don’t put much stock in what they say. What matters is the data, and the data say that chiropractic is about as useful as physiotherapy for low back pain and almost as useful as placebo for anything else.
Here’s something for “pec” to chew on – what financial motivation do real doctors have to put chiropractors out of business? It is often asserted that the only reason “mainstream” (real) medicine wants to see chiropractic (or homeopaths or naturopaths or…) eliminated is fear of competition, but I don’t see real doctors having any difficulty keeping busy.
They may have problems with insurance company reimbursements and paperwork, but I don’t think that getting rid of chiropractic (etc.) will solve those problems. And I’ve yet to find a doctor who has enough free time in their schedule that I can get a same-day appointment without feigning serious illness.
So, tell me – why would real doctors care about chiropractors (etc.) if it was just about the money?
Maybe the real doctors are concerned about people spending their hard-earned money on useless treatments. Maybe they’re concerned about people treating real illnesses with fake medicines? Maybe – just maybe – the real doctors don’t like seeing people exploited and harmed?
How’s that for a radical thought?
Prometheus
Suggestion to PEC and that “Nyah, nyah, nyah – there is TOO such a thing as a subluxation!”
Read this:
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/crelin.html
We learn that in 1973 Edmund S. Crelin, Ph.D. demonstrated that there simply is no such thing. (At the time, Dr. Crelin was Professor of Anatomy and Chairman of the Human Growth and Development Study Unit at the Yale University school of medicine – rather impressive bona fides). A Google search (Crelin subluxation) provides all the details of his study.
tgobbi
If subluxations exist, and they exist in a specific place or segment, then a specific treatment should be necessary….right?
Wrong:
http://ajp.physiotherapy.asn.au/AJP/49-4/AustJPhysiotherv49i4Chiradejnant.pdf
Also, if you claim to be able to find them how do you get around motion palpation being found both unreliable and unvalid consistently when studied?
And, even if you could find a specific segmental alignment with palpation (can’t), would it even be possible to deliver a force to a specific segment?
Nope:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15621330?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15029938?ordinalpos=6&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
[science doesn't ‚"dismiss‚" anything. It asks for evidence, and if the evidence is not there, it reaches a tentative conclusion but is always willing to look at new evidence]
Well you don’t. Your opinions always conform to the mainstream medical authorities, on every point. Why is subluxation theory rejected? Simply because MDs and chiropractors have always been at political war. It is obvious and well known that bad posture can result in fatigue and pain. How do you explain this if subluxations can’t possibly exist? The spine can be out of alignment without any dislocations or pinched nerves, yet nerve functioning is impaired.
“Let’s stick with examples of what you DO believe.”
I don’t have dogmatic beliefs and disbeliefs. I consider the evidence.
That’s your dogmatic belief in spite of this evidence: Groups of chiropractors cannot reliably identify a chiropractic subluxation in a given patient.
You clearly think that these hypothetical “subluxations” of the spine are the only explanations of backache in someone with poor posture. There are many mechanisms for pain in this situation. One of the commonest is a discomfort induced by the strain put on muscles and ligaments which are trying to compensate for incorrect spinal alignment from poor posture. Why would subluxations come into it, and why invent them to explain something readily explicable by more obvious mechanisms? Occam’s razor and all that, you know.
This weekend I noticed residual pain and fatigue in my dominant forearm because I spent an hour or so contorting it to get behind a storage tank in my loft to fix it into position. Can you explain which bit of my spine has “subluxed” to cause this? Surely a more rational explanation is that I was forcing my arm into an unnatural position and performing unaccustomed actions, which put strain on the muscles, ligaments and tendons in the forearm?
Same thing happens to spines.
“It is obvious and well known that bad posture can result in fatigue and pain. How do you explain this if subluxations can’t possibly exist?”
Why do you have to have subluxations to explain this?
@ pec:
Please post some references to your evidence so we can consider it as well.
See above:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=474#comment-18802
“… and countless other things that many people believe but mainstream authorities won’t recognize.”
Practicing on that basis would be considered “claim” based medicine and not evidence or science based medicine. Would you really like us to practice medicine based only on claims that a drug or procedure works?
Pec-”I do not see humanity, in general, as a bunch of hallucinating gullible idiots.”
While most people are not idiots, we all hallucinate and tend to be gullible. That’s why critical thinking skills and the scientific method were developed.
Pec-”I believe that what is currently understood by science is the tip of an infinite iceberg.
I don’t think anyone on this blog would disagree with this, but it doesn’t support your argument in any way .
Pec-”The scientific method is great, but we should not disbelieve all our experiences until science gets around to investigating them.”
Nor should attribute an unproven or disproven modality as being the cure or fix for what we experience.
Pec-”And most things might never be investigated, for political and financial reasons. ”
You left out plausibility.
Pec-”And I also believe that all of us follow an informal scientific method in our everyday reasoning. Ideas that are contradicted by clear and obvious evidence, or that are never supported by any positive evidence, die out.”
First, I don’t think there is any such thing as “informal scientific method” Maybe you mean heuristics , but those can be notoriously misleading. Second, many false beliefs hang around for centuries. Just think of astrology.
Pec-”I do NOT believe every quack and kook….”
Maybe not every one, but from your previous posts, it is obvious that you buy into many dubious beliefs.
Pec-”I do not scornfully dismiss ancient practices like yoga…
I don’t think that mainstream science dismisses some of the benifits of yoga such as exercise,stretching, improvement of balance,strength etc. as unproven, just some of the energy (chi) claims, and other unproven health claims.
Pec-”Materialist extremists like Richard Dawkins, Susan Blackmore, James Randi, etc., are just as way out and kooky as extremists in the other direction.”
Please give examples.
pec said “Your opinions always conform to the mainstream medical authorities, on every point.”
pec knows this is not true. In fact, she has agreed with me on more than one occasion when I challenged mainstream practices, for instance:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=461 See her comment on 21 April at 10:06.
pec uses the same schtick with me. She seems to forget the multiple posts I’ve done criticizing conflicts of interest, big pharma chicanery (as my post earlier this week did) and various surgical dogma that is no longer supported by evidence but still in use.
It doesn’t matter, though. If you point out how unscientific nearly all CAM practices are, to pec you “always conform to the mainstream medical authorities.”
pec, you’re ridiculous. You consider the evidence? Forget evidence for chiropractic subluxations; where is your evidence for this vast “political war” (code for conspiracy) you keep referring to? Of course, I’m sure the lack of evidence is just evidence that MDs are successfully suppressing chiropractic Truth.
Ok yes, there are times when Harriet Hall and David Gorski have criticized some mainstream establishment practices, and when I have agreed with them. However it is true that neither of you are willing to consider the evidence regarding non-mainstream theories, such as chiropractic subluxations. Joints do not have to be dislocated for nerve function to be impaired, and anyone can easily experience this fact for themselves.
The spine has an optimal curve, which we all depart from to some degree, and health suffers correspondingly. This is important, and can make a real difference for your patients. For example, fibromyalgia patients are now given an anti-seizure drug such as Lyrica, even though a major cause — or the major cause — of fibromyalgia is vertebral subluxations.
These patients are taking a strong drug indefinitely, maybe for life, instead of getting the advice that could cure them.
And I do NOT think every chiropractor helps their patients; it is probably only a minority who have the skill to find and correct subluxations. And even then, muscle habits are powerful and the subluxations will return, so I do not think chiropractic is the answer. Yoga, physical therapy, etc., are probably more useful.
So you can see I am not an advocate for chiropractors, or for any other CAM practitioners. I am interested in getting past political and ideological bias and finding out what works.
pec,
I would be willing to consider the evidence if I could find it. I searched for “subluxation” and “fibromyalgia” on PubMed and on the Index to Chiropractic Literature. I found zero articles.
Have you really thought this through? How do you differentiate between “subluxations” and mechanical factors like poor posture, muscle strain and associated pain? How is the optimal curve defined and how do you know when it is achieved?
You are right that “Joints do not have to be dislocated for nerve function to be impaired” – ruptured discs are a prime example. With a ruptured disc, nerve impairment can be objectively measured. Where is the evidence for such nerve impairment with the chiropractic “subluxation”?
pec is the adult version of Veruca Salt – demanding to have her way no matter what, escalating her tantrums and constantly trying to get her way, facts be damned.
Just a bad nut(ter).
[Have you really thought this through? How do you differentiate between “subluxations” and mechanical factors like poor posture, muscle strain and associated pain? How is the optimal curve defined and how do you know when it is achieved?]
Yes I have really thought this through and there are no simple answers to your questions. I know that the nerves are affected by subtle changes in vertebral alignment. I’m sure many chiropractors and physical therapists would agree with me — there is nothing very new or surprising in what I am saying. Your argument that you can’t find it in PubMed is a tired one. Yes I know the mainstream has not been interested — that is the problem.
And you can find articles in the chiro index by just searching for fibromyalgia.
One example: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9272472?ordinalpos=42&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum
So, in over 11 years they haven’t been able to get at least 81 patients to see if there is anything to it? That’s not evidence that’s a claim. Ok, I guess, if you want to practice claim based medicine.
pec said “I know that the nerves are affected by subtle changes in vertebral alignment.” Please explain how you know this.
The study you cited is a preliminary one and the results were not statistically significant. The reported results could be due to simple physical therapy and a placebo response to hands-on treatment. Anyway, it does nothing to support your claim that subluxations are associated with fibromyalgia.
weing,
I said it was ONE EXAMPLE. So of course you conclude that only one example exists. But you are only interested in reflexively disagreeing with anything I say, not in learning from it.
pec,
It was not ONE EXAMPLE showing that subluxations are real or are associated with fibromyalgia. Do you have ONE EXAMPLE of that?
Pec-> “I know that the nerves are affected by subtle changes in vertebral alignment.”
I’m a PT who is big on nerves, on doing things manually, ostensibly help them oxygenate optimally/”breathe”, to help a nervous system downregulate somatic pain.
Assuming there is some veracity to your statement, therefore, I have a couple questions, Pec, if you would be kind enough to indulge me:
1. Nerves can be affected by pretty much anything. Why are you thinking that the only place they can ever be “pinched” is at a vertebral level?
2. Why do you think that “vertebral alignment” causes the “subtle changes” (which implies defect, i.e., some kind of noun, called “subluxation”)?
3. Have you ever considered that perhaps the nervous system itself is unusually cranky for some reason, maybe lack of simple movement, or that a nerve can become entrapped somewhere at a considerable distance from the spine, subverting the entire motor output to a posture of defence? (Maybe the spine looks a tad off center or something, but the situation is much more verb than noun, and correlation still does not equal causation.)
Pec -> “I’m sure many chiropractors and physical therapists would agree with me — there is nothing very new or surprising in what I am saying.”
I disagree – I think there’s a lot wrong with looking at a postural adaptation devised by a nervous system under some stress somewhere, as a noun instead of a verb, then developing an entire so-called profession around the whole conceptual hallucination, insisting that everyone see the verb as a noun, then complaining for a century because people who see the difference prefer to consider the verb and refuse to acknowledge it as any kind of noun.
Ok Harriet I linked the first one I found, since it was in PubMed. I don’t really have time to search extensively, and of course I do not have subscriptions. Most of the information, as I said, is not in mainstream publications anyway, since mainstream medicine prefers drugs and surgery. A lot of what I know is from my understanding of yoga and VERY extensive direct experience. But of course you will say it’s just me — and of course it isn’t. The principles are well known, although fibromyalgia has not been recognized for very long. But the same would apply to arthritis and many other disorders.
Tense muscles, fixated joints, vertebral misalignment — all can seriously impair the functioning of nerves, and health and subjective well-being are NOT independent of the nervous system!
MDs have largely ignored the mechanical aspects of health — ironically since their approach is supposedly “mechanistic.” The mechanics of the body is extremely important, extremely complicated, and can be damaged by injuries, emotional stress, inactivity, etc.
“I think there’s a lot wrong with looking at a postural adaptation devised by a nervous system under some stress somewhere, as a noun instead of a verb,”
Ok, I am not an advocate for chiropractic. Yes, there is often a postural adaptation, or compensation, for a stress somewhere (old injury, etc.) and this can put a strain on many joints. The joints can lose some mobility and nerves can be stretched or in some way stressed. I think it’s important to consider the myelin covering, not just the nerve fiber. Of course I do not know exactly how it all works — I doubt anyone does — and I do not claim to be all-knowing.
Yes, you have to consider the spine as a whole. You cannot have a misalignment in one place without the whole spine being affected.
pec said, “A lot of what I know is from my understanding of yoga and VERY extensive direct experience. But of course you will say it’s just me — and of course it isn’t.”
If it isn’t, it’s up to you to show us evidence that it isn’t.
pec said,: “However it is true that neither of you are willing to consider the evidence regarding non-mainstream theories, such as chiropractic subluxations.”
Wrong. They have looked at the so called evidence and came away unimpressed and unconvinced for various reasons already explained numerous times before. (Low quality studies with poor controls, no blinding or randomization, small sample sizes, lack of reproducibility, etc)
While I don’t want to put words in either of their mouths, what I believe is true is that neither of them are willing to accept unscientific theories such as chiropractic subluxations without good quality, scientific evidence. They and many others are still waiting for that evidence.
Pec -> “Yes, you have to consider the spine as a whole. You cannot have a misalignment in one place without the whole spine being affected.”
I’d say you can’t consider the spine in isolation at all, under most circumstances. It has an entire body affixed to it after all… Nerves are sensitive everywhere – they are, after all, excitable tissue. The nervous system’s job is to protect the life of its organism, keep it working together, be a threat detector, maintain metabolic and autonomic business as usual. As a PT practitioner I barely ever even worry about the “spine”. I take a look at its behaviour but certainly don’t immediately blame it for pain presentations or look for postural “defects” or assume that if postural asymmetries do exist they are automatically a “cause”. One cannot lift up a single finger, after all, without muscles around the spine (driven by reflexive mechanisms) physically “adjusting” the organism to the effort, to maintain the whole body axis in accordance with said effort. This is behavioural output or habit as opposed to a specific condition. Like I said before, the situation of spinal posture is much more verb than noun. Subluxations of a chiro kind are mythical beasts.
Pec -> “Ok, I am not an advocate for chiropractic.”
Whew. For awhile there I thought you were.
But don’t worry Harriet, I am searching for osteopathic research relating to vertebral alignment and diseases such as fibromyalgia. There are some open access journals.
This is a pilot study showing osteopathic manipulation was effective for fibromyalgia:
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12090649
pec,
That was a preliminary study with poor controls (no attempt at sham manipulation) and no blinding. Positive results in that situation are compatible with PT and placebo effects. There is nothing in that study to confirm the existence of subluxations, to show that fibromyalgia is related to subluxations, or to show that manipulation treats subluxations.
“poor controls (no attempt at sham manipulation) and no blinding.”
You know very well that trying to use sham manipulation as a control is ridiculous. You say the same thing about every successful study of chiropractic or acupuncture, because you know they can’t do anything about it.
pec,
Come on! 6 subjects in each group? Don’t call that evidence, please. It’s been at least 7 years, you’d expect a positive study to be done by now. I guess they wouldn’t publish a negative one.
pec,
you’ve done it again. You’ve completely ignored my main point: No matter how good or bad the study is, there is nothing in that study to confirm the existence of subluxations, to show that fibromyalgia is related to subluxations, or to show that manipulation treats subluxations.
Yes, the impossibility of adequate controls or blinding severely limits the credibility of most chiropractic research. Instead of assuming the reality of subluxations and doing Tooth Fairy research, they need to go back to square one and test whether subluxations and nerve interference are really present. We have sophisticated new imaging methods and we can measure nerve conduction. If the subluxation is real, they ought to be able to demonstrate it.
Oh dear what’s this I see? Who’s nutty enough to suggest that fibromyalgia can be treated with spinal manipulation? You know, my doctor gave Lyrica to treat my fibromyalgia and it worked like no other drug or treatment before it did. I also did some physical therapy but not for Fibromyalgia; I had some other low back pain issues and neck pain which the physical therapy really helped.
But I am telling you now that the physical therapy did very little to help my fibromyalgia. Not that therapy wouldn’t or couldn’t help some fibromyalgia patients, though.
But this subluxation is nonsense. It has nothing to do with fibromyalgia. I’ve already suffered enough physical pain. Spare the intellectual pain.
“they need to go back to square one and test whether subluxations and nerve interference are really present. ”
That’s why I had linked the animal nerve experiment in the first place. This kind of thing really requires animal research, and at this point I don’t know how much has been done. Hopefully someone has done it , or is doing it, and hopefully there is funding. Again, I will see what I can find out, with my limited access to journals.
And I do think you will have to admit it is reasonable to suppose that when a vertebral joint is far from its ideal alignment, that the nerves passing through might be adversely affected in some way that is not yet well understood.
The clinical experience of chiropractors and osteopaths over many decades, the personal experiences of millions (or hundreds of millions) of people who practice yoga, along with plain old common sense suggests there is something to the subluxation theory.
Yes I understand you “skeptics” have no faith whatsoever in common sense, but please note that is only one item out of several on my list of reasons to think before rejecting the theory.
“But this subluxation is nonsense. It has nothing to do with fibromyalgia.”
Well it’s too bad you won’t consider it and instead are planning on a lifetime of drug use. I wouldn’t actually recommend chiropractic, since I think their skill levels vary tremendously. But you should explore every avenue of physical therapy, exercise and yoga. When your faith is in MDs, as mine was long ago, you can suffer needlessly for many years.
It’s very easy for the spine to depart from its ideal alignment, and all kinds of symptoms can result. Most people probably have some misalignment and compensation, but don’t even notice because the symptoms are subtle, or they blame it on the “normal” aches and pains of aging.
It’s really really too bad that everyone accepts all those aches, or takes drugs for them. No one knows the long-term effects of taking anti-convulsants every day.
I recommend thinking twice about this and not having blind faith in modern drug-oriented medicine.
pec said, “it is reasonable to suppose that when a vertebral joint is far from its ideal alignment, that the nerves passing through might be adversely affected in some way that is not yet well understood.”
But when chiropractors say a joint is out of alignment, x-rays prove it ISN’T out of alignment. Even the chiropractors were convinced: they changed their definition of subluxation so that it no longer requires a bone out of place.
Anyway, we know actual subluxations can occur with no nerve interference. Spondylolisthesis is an example. It can be asymptomatic and picked up on x-ray by chance.
I’m wondering if you are confusing the chiropractic subluxation with things like poor posture and curvatures: in those cases there is muscle strain that can lead to symptoms, but that has nothing to do with subluxations.
You want to rely on clinical experience and common sense: but we have learned that we need science precisely because experience and common sense can mislead us. Bloodlettters in the Middle Ages had plenty of clinical experience and their common sense told them bloodletting ought to correct the imbalance of the humours.
pec said,
“you should explore every avenue of physical therapy, exercise and yoga. ..I recommend thinking twice about this and not having blind faith in modern drug-oriented medicine.”
pec, you have no business giving medical advice to anyone. Fergie tried other things like PT and finally found a drug that helps. That is not “blind faith.” You seem to be the one who has “blind faith” that conventional medicine is bad.
“Bloodlettters in the Middle Ages had plenty of clinical experience”
You always rely on that example. You never consider that physicians in the Middle Ages used what they knew, just like physicians today. Bloodletting probably helped in certain conditions, so the evidence was ambiguous. If it never worked for anything, they would have given up on it after a short while. We have similar situations today, for example with chemotherapy for cancer — MDs believe it works for some cases so they use it for most, even though there is no scientific research comparing chemo to no chemo. It might be useless or harmful for many patients, just like bloodletting was.
“But when chiropractors say a joint is out of alignment, x-rays prove it ISN’T out of alignment.”
It all depends on exactly what you mean by “alignment” or “subluxation.” We do not have unambiguous definitions for these concepts. It is not hard to notice when the spine fails to conform to its ideal curve, and you can see that some vertebrae are incorrectly aligned. MDs will not believe it because they think there must be intense pressure on a nerve before its functioning can be affected.
The subject is, at least, controversial and very far from having been settled.
“you have no business giving medical advice to anyone”
My advice should not be considered medical advice. I would tell anyone the same thing if they complained about joint or muscle pains. I would warn anyone that some of the most commonly used drugs have not been tested for long-term effects.
I am not an MD, and no one has to take any of my advice. I really think Lyrica is bad, even though it may decrease pain. I really think it’s another case of MDs and the public having too much confidence in the “wisdom” of the drug companies.
“Recent neuroscience research supports a neurophysiologic rationale for the concept that aberrant stimulation of spinal or paraspinal structures may lead to segmentally organized reflex responses of the autonomic nervous system, which in turn may alter visceral function.”
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10714536?dopt=Abstract
pec on 07 May 2009 at 12:26 pm cited an abstract of a symposium presentation.
The abstract is in a chiro magazine and, essentially, concludes that chiros are right about the subluxations (surprise!!) which they cannot succinctly define and which nobody else can detect.
That is only evidence tat chiros still believe in subluxations (which we already knew) despite all evidence to the contrary.
“We have similar situations today, for example with chemotherapy for cancer — MDs believe it works for some cases so they use it for most, even though there is no scientific research comparing chemo to no chemo.”
That’s quite a claim. Evidence for it? Reeks of conspiracy.
I think sham arthroscopic surgery would be a much better example:
http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/347/2/81?ijkey=d86d72705a5ba87b42d21de333ed95e6039c3595
“The abstract is in a chiro magazine”
It’s in a journal concerned with the spine and SMT; I don’t know if that makes it a chiro journal. But either way, I would not expect people from outside the field to take the trouble of researching subluxations. An MD who thinks chiropractic subluxation theory is a mass delusion would not waste time studying it.
Pseudo-skeptics will continue denying subluxation theory until there are hundreds of RCTs paid for by Big Drug showing subluxations are real. Clinical experience doesn’t count, personal experience doesn’t count, research in chiropractic journals doesn’t count.
And, of course, you don’t want subluxation theory to get research funding since it belongs to CAM. So, as usual, your minds are nailed shut.
weing,
We do not have good evidence that chemotherapy for cancer works in most, or even in many, cases. But, just like bloodletting, it is used in every case because that’s what MDs were taught to use. Because of over-diagnosis and lead-time bias we cannot know the real cancer cure rates. And the chemo/no chemo comparison can never be made, because it would involve depriving patients of a “proven” treatment. Of course, it never was proven, just accepted. New cancer drugs are not compared to no drug, they are compared to older drugs. If a small number of patients survive a little bit longer with a newer drug, it is considered effective. But maybe the newer drug is just a little less lethal than the old one; no one can really know.
And all that is accepted without question or complaint by the pseudo-skeptics.
Your standards for CAM are very different from your standards for mainstream.
pec fallaciously tries to compare bloodletters to modern scientific doctors. The difference is that bloodletters never tested their beliefs. Weing’s sham surgery example is a prime example of modern medicine testing its own assumptions and abandoning something that doesn’t work.
She says “there is no scientific research comparing chemo to no chemo.” Maybe. There is no scientific research comparing appendectomy to no treatment or antibiotics for pneumonia to no treatment or casts for broken bones to no treatment, because the treatment is effective and it is unethical to deny patients effective treatment.
Chemo “might be useless or harmful for many patients, just like bloodletting was.” Yes, chemo is useless or harmful for some patients, but overall it is beneficial. We can’t yet predict which patients will benefit, so we look at risk/benefit ratios and statistics and make the best decisions we can. That is completely different from the situation with bloodletting, where we can predict which patients will benefit (for example, those with iron storage disorders).
“I really think Lyrica is bad.”
What you “think” is irrelevant.
As I thought, you are confused about definitions. When the neck is pulled out of its optimal curve by torticollis, the bones are still in alignment with each other. Confusing muscle phenomena with bony misalignment only muddies the waters.
pec said “An MD who thinks chiropractic subluxation theory is a mass delusion would not waste time studying it.”
There are DCs like Samuel Homola who wasted 4 years of chiropractic school studying it and then realized it was a mass delusion. I did not think it was a mass delusion when I started researching it; I came to that conclusion based on the evidence I found.
“Your standards for CAM are very different from your standards for mainstream.”
You can say this as many times as you want but it still won’t be true. The whole point of this blog is to apply the same rigorous scientific standards to every claim.
So, again you claim that chemotherapeutics are lethal and that there is a conspiracy to keep using them. So, now what? You simply look for evidence to confirm these claims and ignore any evidence that contradicts them. You call that skepticism?
pec on 07 May 2009 at 1:24 pm “It’s in a journal concerned with the spine and SMT; I don’t know if that makes it a chiro journal.”
http://www.journals.elsevierhealth.com/periodicals/ymmt
“Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) is dedicated to the advancement of chiropractic health care.”
Life does not get much simpler than that, pec.
“Recent neuroscience research supports a neurophysiologic rationale for the concept that aberrant stimulation of spinal or paraspinal structures may lead to segmentally organized reflex responses of the autonomic nervous system, which in turn may alter visceral function.”
Does this show that subluxations exist, that they cause nerve dysfunction, or that chiropractic adjustments can correct them? I don’t think so!
For crying out loud – it only says research “supports a rationale” – not that research has found any evidence!
[“I really think Lyrica is bad.”
What you “think” is irrelevant.]
What I think is relevant. What everyone thinks is relevant. We don’t have to trust the medical priesthood; we can think for ourselves. Patient report websites are valuable and it’s sometimes surprising what you won’t hear from your MD and what the TV drug ads fail to mention.
[ it only says research “supports a rationale” - not that research has found any evidence!]
I could not read the article. But certainly, by “supports a rationale” they must mean there is evidence. Would you say research supports a rationale for something that was contradicted by the research? Harriet, even Wikipedia seems to be open-minded about subluxations, and they are generally very skeptical.
It is a common sense concept supported by massive clinical and anecdotal evidence. I know you have no use for common sense or clinical/anecdotal evidence, but in reality they are the basis of most medical decisions. As they should be.
“Weing’s sham surgery example is a prime example of modern medicine testing its own assumptions and abandoning something that doesn’t work.”
Most of the time sham surgery would be impractical or unethical, so most of the time it is not done. Decisions are made based on common sense and clinical experience.
” There is no scientific research comparing appendectomy to no treatment or antibiotics for pneumonia to no treatment or casts for broken bones to no treatment, because the treatment is effective and it is unethical to deny patients effective treatment.”
And none of those are comparable to chemotherapy for cancer. And you have just contradicted your whole philosophy that clinical experience is worthless.
HH -> “What you “think” is irrelevant.”
Pec-> “What I think is relevant. What everyone thinks is relevant.”
What anyone “thinks”, individually, is only opinion. It doesn’t count scientifically. Everyone is entitled to his or her opinion, but when the opinion has little or no substance or is inherently contradictory, it will be weighed only briefly by others then discarded. Repetitious assertion of it thereafter will only annoy, not convince.
Opinion based on objective reality, i.e., that which has been determined scientifically, and which has been subjected to a heartless pruning with Occam’s Chainsaw, preferably by the opinion holder him/herself, may carry a bit more weight.
Wow i never knew that MD’s where at odds with chiropractors…
I guess you learn something new each day right?
@Vargkill,
Physicians aren’t so much at odds with chiropractors as they are at odds with bad chiropractors.
Re:http://www.chirobase.org/01General/respect.html
vargkill states: “… I never knew that MD’s [sic] where [sic] at odds with chiropractors.”
And I assumed that everyone was familiar with Wilk v. American Medical Association. Then I realized how many years it’s been since that case was adjudicated; it all began in 1976! (I’m getting too old).
See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wilk_v._American_Medical_Association
The AMA lost the case, but only on a legal point: restraint of trade. The judge had these comments about the scientific validity of chiropractic.
“The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study… No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.”
Despite the above pronouncement and against the warnings of the ACA (American Chiropractic Association), “doctors’ of chiropractic went out of their way to proclaim that their legal victory was a validation of chiropractic theory and treatment. They read what they wanted to see into the judge’s remarks.
tgobbi
I honestly never heard that chiropractors where under such
scrutiny! I really had no clue until i came on SBM and heard
folks talking about how its nothing more then CAM.
I have never personally been to one but everyone iv ever
talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better.
Interesting indeed!
I honestly never heard that chiropractors where under such
scrutiny! I really had no clue until i came on SBM and heard
folks talking about how its nothing more then CAM.
I have never personally been to one but everyone iv ever
talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better.
Interesting indeed!
pec on 07 May 2009 at 6:25 pm “I could not read the article. But …”
I’ll finish that for you ‘… but certainly I can imagine what it says; after all, nobody would publish nonsense in a chiro magazine. Would they?‘ How is that? And you, pec, can ignore the big kids that tell you there is no tooth fairy.
[...] and a nice post from Harriet Hall on the topic of chiropractic: http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=474 [...]
Vargkill writes (in part): “I have never personally been to one but everyone iv [sic] ever talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better.”
This is all a matter of perception and can be influenced by any number of factors. It happens following just about any intervention: chiropractic prodding; acupuncture poking; naturopath colon cleansing, witch doctor shaking sticks, etc. It’s called the placebo effect. For many, if not most, of us ANY intervention of ANY kind may have an effect on our perception, especially of pain – which is highly subjective. For a thoroughly enjoyable read that explains placebo in depth I urge you to read “Snake Oil Science: The Truth About Complementary and Alternative Medicine” by R. Barker Bausell. It’s a must read for anyone who doesn’t already understand what placebo is all about. It will give you a lot of insight into why people “feel better” after being treated by quacks of any stripe.
tgobbi
“The results of this study support previous results showing that some people report significant improvement in migraines after chiropractic SMT.”
http://linkinghub.elsevier.com/retrieve/pii/S0161475400900733
Pec,
Impossible to properly evaluate that paper without paying AFAICT. One example point – in most such papers I’ve seen the “control” was medication. That is NOT a suitable control for ruling out the placebo effect, and would render the results entirely useless for the purposes to which you’re attempting to use them.
“It is a common sense concept supported by massive clinical and anecdotal evidence.”
If you think it’s “common sense” that displacements of the vertebrae so tiny that they cannot be detected nevertheless profoundly affect all aspects of the body’s functioning, then you’re completely lost to all hope.
You also neglect to mention that said concept is firmly rebutted by even more massive quantities of higher-quality evidence, so the anecdotes lose quite badly.
I can get the paper through my school. The control group received “detuned interferential therapy,” whatever that is. It looks like they were hooked up to a machine that was turned off, and moreover they were explicitly informed that they were either going to get chiropractic or a noneffective placebo. Sounds to me like the “blinding” was anything but … obviously the people hooked up to dead electrodes would know they were getting the placebo, and the people seeing the chiropractor would know they were getting the real deal.
So, the placebo wasn’t a medication, but medication did play a role. One of the outcome measures was frequency of medication usage for treating migraines. Not sure how (or whether) that would affect the results, but it seems like a serious complicating factor.
Another complication is a comment the article kept coming back to: that most of these folks’ migraines are brought on by stress. Wouldn’t a real chiropractic appointment be stress-reducing compared to being hooked up to a machine you know isn’t doing anything? Personally, that would stress me out to no end: “I signed up for this experiment to get actual treatment, not to have some putz pretend this machine is doing something when we both know it isn’t!”
pec,
Studies showing symptomatic improvement after spinal manipulation do nothing to establish whether subluxations exist, whether they cause nerve interference, or whether manipulation fixes subluxations.
Just as showing that there is money under the pillow the morning after a tooth is left for the Tooth Fairy does not establish the existence of the Tooth Fairy.
vargkill said
“everyone iv ever talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better”
That’s why you can’t rely on personal experience. Studies have shown that 50% of patients seeing a chiropractor report mild to moderate discomfort after treatment, with 26% of symptoms lasting longer than a day. Chiropractic malpractice insurance regularly pays claims for
Disc 32.7%
CVA (Stroke) 9.0
Vicarious liability 4.7
Professional discipline 10.2
Aggravation 5.6
Failure to Dx 7.8
Fracture 10.4
Other 19.6 (Treatment, burns, strains, sprains, soft tissue, TMJ)
This is from the major American chiropractic insurance company in 2002.
Also, I have a friend who called on a Friday to make an appointment with a chiropractor for Monday. Over the weekend, his back pain disappeared. If he had seen the chiropractor on Friday, the chiropractor would have been falsely given the credit for a cure.
[If you think it’s “common sense” that displacements of the vertebrae so tiny that they cannot be detected nevertheless profoundly affect all aspects of the body’s functioning, then you’re completely lost to all hope.]
They are NOT so tiny they can’t be detected. Vertebrae diverging from their normal, or ideal, position are very easy to detect. Any of you could easily find out for yourself, but you prefer sticking to your dogmatic belief system. I don’t know if anyone has done RCTs of chiropractic vs sham chiropractic on large numbers of various types of patients. I doubt anyone had the funding for that.
And sham chiropractic is a ridiculous concept. And I am not an advocate for chiropractic and do not have any faith in the skill of individual chiropractors, since I know it varies greatly.
So maybe the only kind of evidence you would accept does not exist — I really don’t know, since I am not a chiropractor and don’t get their journals. But this in no way justifies denying the importance of subluxations, of the spine’s normal curve, the relevance of muscle tension and weakness, and of nerve function impairment.
It’s like saying you can’t pull a splinter out of a patient’s finger because there hasn’t been an RCT on how it should be done.
“I have a friend who called on a Friday to make an appointment with a chiropractor for Monday. Over the weekend, his back pain disappeared. If he had seen the chiropractor on Friday, the chiropractor would have been falsely given the credit for a cure.”
Well that can happen with anything. Should your friend have run a RCT before making the appointment? We are seldom absolutely sure what works and what doesn’t, even with RCTs.
Our ability to know is limited, our desire to know is infinite. We do our best and we always fall short, but we are not delusional hallucinating morons.
Why is sham chiropractic ridiculous? The very article you cited even mentioned it as a superior control procedure for future studies! Nice work there, pec.
I’m sure people thought sham acupuncture was ridiculous, but multiple sham acupuncture techniques have been developed (needles in the wrong place, sheathed needles that only seem to enter the skin). Heck, some of the sham techniques work better than the “real” acupuncture!
Your language and analogies are getting sillier and more bombastic with each passing comment. Did you really just compare chiropractic to pulling out a splinter? That hardly even warrants a response, because you’re about as wrong as you can be. The evidence of a problem is undeniable in the case of a splinter, yet we have no good tangible evidence for chiropractic subluxations. The evidence that the treatment works is undeniable in the case of a splinter, yet we have no good tangible evidence that chiropractic works beyond placebo.
“They are NOT so tiny they can’t be detected. Vertebrae diverging from their normal, or ideal, position are very easy to detect.”
Shifts that are large enough to be detected are acknowledged, understood, and dealt with as appropriate by mainstream medicine. Chiropractic subluxations are pretty much by definition too small to be detected (since nobody has ever managed to actually demonstrate detection of one).
“Shifts that are large enough to be detected are acknowledged, understood, and dealt with as appropriate by mainstream medicine.”
That is completely untrue. I am not defining “subluxation” as a deformity of the bones, or as a dislocated joint. It is a functional concept, but easy to see or feel.
“We do our best and we always fall short, but we are not delusional hallucinating morons.”
I disagree with that claim. I think we are.
“That is completely untrue. I am not defining “subluxation” as a deformity of the bones, or as a dislocated joint. It is a functional concept, but easy to see or feel.”
So, if I bend my finger, it’s a subluxation? If I bend my neck forward, it’s a subluxation?
vargkill said
“everyone iv ever talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better”
Given for the sake of discussion that this is accurate, you don’t know how many people you have talked to that went to a chiro and experienced no improvement didn’t talk to you about their experiences with you; you only know that of all the people who did talk to you about their experience, they all claimed it made them feel better.
What kinds of problems did the people you have talked to see a chiro for? It is generally acknowledged that chiro can be effective for uncomplicated lower back pain; I don’t have any figures, but I wouldn’t be surprised if the majority of people who see a chiropractor do so for back pain.
Some other things to be aware of when listening to anecdotes or reports of anecdotes:
Selection bias: The sample may not be representative of the relevant population.
Confirmation bias on the part of both the interviewers and the responders: One tends to notice and to look for what confirms one’s beliefs, and to ignore, not look for, or undervalue the relevance of what contradicts one’s beliefs. (both consciously and unconsciously)
Personality bias: Responders are likely to respond differently depending on the interviewer- personality, interview style, established or perceived opinion/bias of interviewer, etc.
Post hoc ergo prompter hoc fallacy: Just because B follows A does not mean B is caused by A.
Causation can be especially difficult to establish with subjective and self limiting conditions.
Also to note. Even if chiropractic manipulation is shown to be effective for a condition, such as lower back pain, that doesn’t validate the tenet that vertebral subluxations exist and interfere with the body’s function and its innate intelligence which is the underlying foundation of chiropracty.
Things that work sometimes work for different reasons than we suppose, and they don’t always work for applications we believe they should work for.
Pec perseverates:
If this were so, you’d think that these “subluxations” could be seen on x-ray, no? After all, x-rays can detect bony deformities that are too small to feel. Or, if it not a “deformity of the bones”, but a “functional” concept (whatever that might mean), then chiropractors should be able to consistently diagnose them, right? After all, isn’t that what chiropractors are supposedly trained to do?
Then why is it that chiropractors are not consistent in their diagnosis of these “subluxations”? A few years ago, our local newpaper sent a person (with no history of back pain or injury) around to a number of chiropractic offices and had them complain of vague “low back pain” without radiation. This person – the same person – had “subluxations” diagnosed at different levels by each of the four chiropractors he was seen by.
Each of the four chiropractors also prescribed a course of “adjustments” to be followed by monthly (one suggested weekly) “maintenance” adjustments.
When this same person went to a real doctor, said doctor told them that they could find nothing wrong and suggested that it was probably muscle strain and “prescribed” stretching, hot baths, gentle exercise and ibuprofen.
This is not a “one-off” occurence, either. Even people who believe in chiropractic can tell tales of seeing one chiropractor who diagnosed a “subluxation” in one place and then saw another who claimed that the “subluxation” was in an entirely different spot.
Now, I’m sure that Pec will have some convoluted explanation about how this is not only reasonable, but is actually proof that chiropractic “works”.
I’m open-minded about chiropractic (as I try to be about all things) – show me the data and I’m willing to “believe”.
Prometheus
Prometheus writes, in part: “I’m open-minded about chiropractic (as I try to be about all things) – show me the data and I’m willing to believe”’.
I’m not. Not any more. I used to have an open mind and made it a point to emphasize the point to “doctors” of chiropractic when debating with them. Why is my mind now closed? Because after 30 or more years of searching for the data, begging DCs to refer me to valid and reliable studies and searching high and low for the slightest indication that these “doctors” can do anything they claim to be able to do (other than help with simple backaches) – I still come up with “bupkis!” (That means “something worthless”).
Despite what the occasional reform DC tells us it’s still basically a disreputable business, made up of shameful practitioners who promote shameful, and potentially dangerous, pseudoscience. The typical “doctor” of chiropractic is tantamount to a religious fanatic who has nothing but a deep-seated belief system to support his untenable theories.
IMO there are two basic types of chiropractors: the ones who truly, and naively, believe in what they’re doing; and the ones who realize that they’re bilking the public, but continue to practice because they can’t find a way to extricate themselves from the business after spending much time and money for what passes for an education.
Coincidental to this discussion, there’s just been an unfortunate legal case in the U.K. in which a well-know crusader against quackery has lost his case. See:
tgobbi
Speaking of a “definition” of a subluxation, here’s the official definition from the Association of Chiropractic Colleges, taken from its “consensus” definition of chiropractic:
A subluxation is “a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health . . . ”
Anybody care to take a guess at what that means?
Prometheus,
I have already said over and over that I am not advocating chiropractic. I have heard of chiropractors who were useless and others who were geniuses. I do not think whatever they learn in chiropractic school gives them the knowledge to understand and cure subluxations, which are very poorly understood. However I do think some of the ideas behind chiropractic and osteopathy, and hatha yoga, are valid. That does NOT mean they are simple or easy to verify. But scientists are not easy in things that are simple and easy to verify, are they? Science explores things that are not yet understood.
That does NOT mean that we should wait and suffer until all the RCTs are in. If your spine is already nearly perfect you cannot experience the benefits of yoga — but anyone else can probably do their own experiments. You will discover that very subtle differences in the spine can dramatically influence how you feel.
Woooooo wooooooo people! Calm down! Im not defending
Chiropractors here!! WOW you people are so quick to jump!
I never been to one and probably will not need to go to one.
Only form of “Alternative” medicine i will defend is Acupressure
and that is only if the person really knows their shit.
Lets not get into an arguement on here over that either! If
you want to talk about that then click this link where we had
a nice long talk about it…
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=453#comment-18218
pec is not advocating chiropractic; she is rejecting science. She is asking us to believe in something without evidence other than opinion and personal experience.
“You will discover that very subtle differences in the spine can dramatically influence how you feel.”
How do you know it is the subtle difference in the spine that dramatically influences how you feel?
How do you know there is a difference in the spine at all, if it’s so subtle?
Can you rule out any other reason for influencing how you feel?
@ tgobbi,
“there’s just been an unfortunate legal case in the U.K. in which a well-know crusader against quackery has lost his case.”
I take it you mean this:
http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2009/05/bca-v-singh-astonishingly-illiberal.html
Versus quotes: “A subluxation is ‘a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health . . . ‘
Anybody care to take a guess at what that means?”
Yeah, it’s right out of “Alice in Wonderland!”
Translation of subluxation definition: “A vertebral subluxation is precisely what any given ‘doctor’ of chiropractic, at any given time, wants it to be. It can, and does, cause myriad systemic, organic, visceral nasty things to your body. Only we ‘doctors’ of chiropractic are trained to diagnose, treat and fantasize about it and real doctors are just plain jealous of us, thus causing them to claim that we’re making the whole thing up.!
***
And PEC states, in part: “I have heard of chiropractors who were useless and others who were geniuses. ”
Can you please refer me to some of the geniuses amongst them? If there are any in my area I’d like to make an appointment with one.
Also, since you raise my curiosity, what are the criteria for determining “genius” status in chiropractors???
tgobbi
vargkill says,
“I have never personally been to one but everyone iv ever
talked to that went to see one claims it makes them feel better”
an then when it is pointed out why this is not logical support for or a reason to believe in the efficacy of chiropracty, responds with:
“Woooooo wooooooo people! Calm down! Im not defending
Chiropractors here!! WOW you people are so quick to jump!”
What was the point of your statement if not a defense of chiropracty?
…..Another ‘I’m just saying’ statement from vargkill.
” what are the criteria for determining “genius” status in chiropractors???”
The same as for any profession, unless you’re too biased to be objective.
I’m just saying …
Genius would be an IQ > 145. Does pec really go around checking their records or giving them IQ tests? Or is it a more subtle perception?
nwtk2007 quotes me: ” what are the criteria for determining ‘genius’ status in chiropractors???”
and smarmily (is that really a word?) states: “The same as for any profession, unless you’re too biased to be objective.
I’m just saying …”
May I ask what this remark adds to the discussion? Nothing, as far as I can see. It’s just taking the opportunity to be a smartass.
It never fails: when there’s no science to back up a modality its supporters resort to the “Nyah, nyah, nyah” mentality that PEC has espoused.
Gimme a break, nwtk2007…
tgobbi
To paraphrase Eugene McCarthy, to be a genius chiropractor; you have to be smart enough to understand chiropractic, and dumb enough to think it’s important.
Karl Withakay,
Here we go again! The amazing Karl needs to pick a fight!
My point is, i had no idea that Chirppractors where under
scrutiny. I have never been to a Chrio, Never would go to one
for that matter because i would not want someone messing
with my back. Yes a number of people have told me they
felt better after going to one, that is not to say it really
worked nor am i trying to say their method of treatment.
The point is, you might be suprised to know how many people
out there believe that a Chiro is prefectly well practiced, and
well respected.
an then when it is pointed out why this is not logical support for or a reason to believe in the efficacy of chiropracty, responds with:
Yes Karl, because everyone seemed to think i was siding with
the practice of chiropracty, which i am not and if i was i would.
“What was the point of your statement if not a defense of chiropracty?”
Why does it have to be anything more then it was? It was
just a simple statement of how i thought due to lack of knowledge on my part that Chiros where legit and recognized
within the medical field.
I guess i was wrong and i aknowledge that fact.
just come right out and say it.
If this posts twice sorry guys!
Karl Withakay,
Here we go again! The amazing Karl needs to pick a fight!
My point is, i had no idea that Chirppractors where under
scrutiny. I have never been to a Chrio, Never would go to one
for that matter because i would not want someone messing
with my back. Yes a number of people have told me they
felt better after going to one, that is not to say it really
worked nor am i trying to say their method of treatment works.
The point is, you might be suprised to know how many people
out there believe that a Chiro is prefectly well practiced, and
well respected.
an then when it is pointed out why this is not logical support for or a reason to believe in the efficacy of chiropracty, responds with:
Yes Karl, because everyone seemed to think i was siding with
the practice of chiropracty, which i am not and if i was i wouldjust come out and say it. Would it make you feel better
if i said they where awesome and their treatments totally
work?!
“What was the point of your statement if not a defense of chiropracty?”
Why does it have to be anything more then it was? It was
just a simple statement of how i thought due to lack of knowledge on my part that Chiros where legit and recognized
within the medical field.
I guess i was wrong and i aknowledge that fact.
I am interested in learning more about this whole thing.
Please enlighten me!
“She is asking us to believe in something without evidence other than opinion and personal experience.”
No, I didn’t. I recommended doing your own experiments. I said that there is an enormous amount of evidence, aside from my own experience and opinion. I said I don’t know if there are RCTs, but that most mainstream medicine depends more on common sense and clinical experience than on RCTs. I said this is because we can’t always wait years for RCTs, which often have results that are hard to interpret anyway.
But I am NOT against RCTs! Just the opposite — I think we need more funding for CAM research, not less!
And I have said all the above many many times. Harriet just likes to pretent I am against science.
Pec,
I feel you!
These folks on here i tell you!
pec said,
“anyone else can probably do their own experiments. You will discover that very subtle differences in the spine can dramatically influence how you feel.” …”common sense and clinical experience”
I said, “She is asking us to believe in something without evidence other than opinion and personal experience.” and I think that is an accurate characterization of her position as she has stated it here. If she does not accept that common sense and clinical experience and trying something to see if you feel better are not adequate guides to truth, she is by definition against science.
tgobbi said :”and smarmily (is that really a word?) ”
Of course it is! I had some smarmily on my toast just this morning.
It’s also good on Chiro-crackers…..mmmmmmmm smarmily!
I’m just saying
“If she does not accept that common sense and clinical experience and trying something to see if you feel better are not adequate guides to truth, she is by definition against science.”
Harriet, it is ridiculous to say I am against science because I also value personal experience, clinical experience and common sense. Almost everything you do every day relies on your own common sense and your own personal experience. Experimental science is fine, but controlled experiments are not always possible, and when they are possible they usually require a lot of time and money. That’s fine, I am not AT ALL against controlled experiments! The more the better!
But we ALSO must rely on our experience and common sense or we will not be able to function.
And the decisions that are made about who gets funding for what research are made without most of us having any say in the matter. So our questions might never be answered by the experts and the authorities. And this is a problem for CAM, because people like you and the other authors at these blogs are fighting hard to prevent CAM research from being funded.
I would very much like to see more strictly controlled scientific studies on CAM subjects that interest me. I have posted some here, on various threads, but someone always objects that they’re small or have not been replicated hundreds of times, etc. So of course I would like to see more CAM research.
pec said, “I also value personal experience, clinical experience and common sense. Almost everything you do every day relies on your own common sense and your own personal experience.”
I value personal experience for making everyday decisions, but I do not cite it as evidence for general truth statements. If I felt better after a treatment, I might try the same treatment next time, but I would never claim that the treatment worked better than placebo based solely on my personal experience or on the personal experience of others, no matter how many. And I would certainly not interpret anyone’s personal experience as evidence for qi, subluxations, or human energy fields.
I know lots of people with personal experience of receiving Tooth Fairy money, but I wouldn’t recommend research funds be spent studying the phenomenon. I think we all would draw the line at funding research that we think is highly implausible. The problem is, pec finds lots of things plausible that the rest of us don’t.
“I think we all would draw the line at funding research that we think is highly implausible. The problem is, pec finds lots of things plausible that the rest of us don’t.”
I am not a materialist, and therefore my ideas about what is plausible are different from yours. Like the great majority of humans that have ever lived, I believe there are levels beyond the world we perceive with our senses or instruments. I believe the universe is conscious and that life is an expression of its creativity. I know how much scorn you feel for the things I believe. It doesn’t matter what millions of humans have experienced because you can’t believe anything unless you think it has been demonstrated by an RCT (unless, of course, it’s a materialist or mainstream medical claim).
And even though there are many high quality RCTs that demonstrate that materialism is wrong, you won’t believe them because their theories are “implausible.” So your decisions about what to believe are ideological, not rational.
For example, I had a recent argument with Steve Novella about some experiments by Dean Radin. Novella rejected the experiments’ conclusions because they depended on statistics!
He couldn’t find anything wrong with the methodology, so he said the effects were so small they could only be detected with statistics! He would probably deny he said that, but that was essentially his argument, because he had nothing rational to say.
(Even Ray Hyman, a CSICOP skeptic, admits that parapsychology has had overall positive effects. Of course he tries to explain them away because he is certain that psi can’t exist.)
So Novella rejects RCTs if they support non-materialist theories, but he believes correlational studies if they support his ideology. For example, correlational studies showed that thimerosal has no role in autism — autism diagnosis rates increased while thimerosal levels in vaccines decreased.
There is no control in a study like that — autism can have many causes and no one is saying it is only caused by vaccines.
I have no opinion on whether vaccines can cause autism. This is just an example of how you “skeptics” often form opinions that are not based on the results of RCTs. As long as it’s a mainstream medical position you will go along, whether it’s supported by RCTs or not.
And I have argued with Gorski about the effectiveness of chemotherapy for cancer. He is absolutely sure it’s generally effective, even though RCTs cannot be done, and even though over-diagnosis and lead-time bias make it impossible to know whether a patient has been cured by the treatments or not.
So you are wrong in saying you, and the other “skeptics” here, make your medical decisions entirely based on controlled experiments. Your opinions are based more on ideology than science.
Pec shows her true colors. I won’t attempt to answer something like this that is both filled with false statements and at the same time “isn’t even wrong” in Pauli’s sense.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Not_even_wrong
“there are many high quality RCTs that demonstrate that materialism is wrong” (??!!)
I will only bother to defend Ray Hyman, who is a friend of mine and who has never, ever suggested “that parapsychology has had overall positive effects.” That is so contrary to his life work that it almost amounts to defamation.
“I am not a materialist, and therefore my ideas about what is plausible are different from yours. Like the great majority of humans that have ever lived, I believe there are levels beyond the world we perceive with our senses or instruments. I believe the universe is conscious and that life is an expression of its creativity. I know how much scorn you feel for the things I believe. It doesn’t matter what millions of humans have experienced because you can’t believe anything unless you think it has been demonstrated by an RCT (unless, of course, it’s a materialist or mainstream medical claim).”
I do not feel scorn for the things you believe. It’s just that science has no way of studying those things. They are not amenable to testing. Tremendous progress has been, and is being made, by studying what can be perceived with our senses and measured with instruments. And we have only begun to scratch the surface. Why do you feel the need to have these beliefs validated by science? The scientific method, in my opinion, is not about validation of beliefs but more about opening your eyes. You end up saying something like “So, that’s what’s going on! That’s how it works!” in wonder.
Just saying.
…pec can’t be bothered to actually cite any.
Harriet,
Ray Hyman may be your friend, but you have not read his writings on Stargate, or on parapsychology in general.
“This evidence for anomalous cognition, according to Utts and the parapsychologists, meets the standards employed by the other sciences. By this, I think Professor Utts means that in many areas of scientific inquiry the decision that a real effect has occurred is based on rules of statistical inference. Only if the null hypothesis of no difference between two or more treatments is rejected can the investigator claim that the differences are real in the sense that they are greater than might be expected on the basis of some baseline variability. According to this standard, it seems that the SAIC experiments as well as the recent ganzfeld experiments have yielded effects that cannot be dismissed as the result of normal variability.”
Then he goes on and on about why parapsychology effects don’t mean anything. He works very hard to explain away effects that he has to admit are real. I can find other quotes from Hyman proving I am not “defaming” him. You just have not bothered to read what he actually said, since he always implies that parapsychology has not demonstrated anything, and does not threaten your world view.
And Harriet, it is obvious that my previous post made you angry, since you really cannot explain why controlled experiments are only necessary for theories that oppose materialism. If it’s a cancer drug, no RCT is needed. It would be unethical to deprive patients of a treatment you “know” is effective. Well that’s probably what they used to say about blood-letting.
Pretty bold, pec, to accuse Harriet of not reading Hyman’s work while clearly demonstrating that you only read enough to cherry-pick a quote out of context. What you call “go[ing] on and on about why parapsychology effects don’t mean anything” and “work[ing] very hard to explain away effects that he has to admit are real” is actually the crux of his argument.
Reading that article you cited, my impression is that he’s admitting that they have results that are technically statistically valid. However, he explicitly points out that this is NOT enough to claim that the effects are real, because they are NOT replicable, well-controlled, or even statistically powerful. This is NOT rejecting things that don’t fit one’s worldview; it is science! Trust me, you have to survive criticism far harsher than what Hyman dealt out in that paper to get your work accepted by the scientific community. I’m sorry if you don’t like it because it’s hard, pec. Feel free to take your ball and go home.
pec,
I have not only read what Hyman wrote but have spent many hours talking with him about parapsychology, statistics, critical thinking and science. You will probably not believe me, but I can assure you if there were any credible evidence for parapsychology, Hyman would not reject it. He has never thought that psi “couldn’t” exist. He would be delighted to have proof that it did exist because it would open up a whole new area of scientific investigation. I would also welcome such proof. It would not “threaten my world view” but would enlarge and enlighten it.
When Hyman said certain parapsychology experiments
“have yielded effects that cannot be dismissed as the result of normal variability” he went on to explain why they should be dismissed for other reasons.
There is also the example of Susan Blackmore, who did parapsychology research and earned a PhD in parapsychology; she believed in it but eventually recognized that the evidence was faulty and decided it was not a productive area of research. She, also, has never said that psi couldn’t or doesn’t exist;she just says that there is no evidence that it does, and that studies have consistently yielded either negative results or questionable small effects that when scrutinized have been shown to be due to experimental error or fraud.
I am only responding to your comments about Ray Hyman to defend his reputation. I won’t respond to the rest of what you said because it “isn’t even wrong.”
Pec states:
Well, why didn’t you say so in the first place? If you reject the notion that reality only consists of those things that we can perceive, there’s no limit to what you can “believe”.
Pec, the whole point of modern science is to discover the “rules” that govern the Universe and that will allow us to predict what will happen in a given set of circumstances. That’s why we observe, why we contruct hypotheses and test them, why we insist that results be repeatable and why we construct our experiments to limit the influence of subjective “beliefs”.
Your assertion that “…the great majority of humans that have ever lived…” “…believe there are levels beyond the world we perceive with our senses or instruments.”, is factually correct and totally irrelevant. The same could be said of the belief in magic or the idea that the Sun and stars rotated around the Earth.
I also don’t doubt that a large number – perhaps even the majority – of people alive today also believe – to some extent – that there is some sort of supernatural Power – call it “God”, “Cosmic Consciousness” or “The Force”. This is also irrelevant. Just because a large number of people believe nonsense doesn’t make it true. The Earth orbited the Sun for billions of years before people “believed” that it did.
Pec, if you reject the fundamental basis of science, there is really no point in continuing to discuss the data with you. You have made up (and closed) your mind and there is nothing that anyone can say that would change it. You have even closed your mind to the idea that other people might not be willing to accept your “beliefs” as evidence that the things you claim are actually true.
Personally, I prefer to remain reality-based. Once you start letting your fantasies and wishful thinking be your guide, you start having unpleasant collisions with the real world. It’s like trying to drive through Colorado using a road map of Wyoming.
Let us know how that works for you, Pec.
Prometheus
I think the big issue on SBM is there are clashes with those
who view things a bit differently, and those who like to go back
and forth in circles with everyones point getting lost in translation. Some folks dont need evidence to believe and some
folks do need evidence to believe. I can almost guarantee
that a lot of the scientists and doctors on here are open to
the possibility of other things, but cancle it out when there is
no way to prove it. Nothing wrong with that because for them
its just logical thought process. Others dont need to measure
their thoughts or beliefs. That is where the issue comes in
because everyone wants to argue with everyone else on here.
Kinda like when i said i was helped by a man who practices
acupressure. Everyone wanted me to prove it over a damn
blog, as if that is possible. I know what he did worked and
no one can tell me any different because i was the one who
was helped.
Perhaps we can find a better way to exchange our notions
on here without the back and forth arguements in which no
one is going to get the other person to change their opinion.
Think about it for a minute…
What are we getting accomplishing by fighting on a blog?
**braces himself for the bliovating rhetorical comebacks**
“He would be delighted to have proof that it did exist because it would open up a whole new area of scientific investigation. I would also welcome such proof.”
I don’t believe that. If you admitted that any paranormal phenomenon was real you would have to admit that others might also be real.
And Susan Blackmore is a fanatic. Her own research didn’t work so she became a materialist. Does she think all the successful parapsychologists are liars?
“studies have consistently yielded either negative results or questionable small effects that when scrutinized have been shown to be due to experimental error or fraud.”
That is just not true. You reviewed Gary Schwartz’s energy experiments book, so you know he claims to get strong results most of the time. You didn’t find any errors or fraud in his experiments — your criticism rested entirely on one small skeptical experiment with negative results. You believe one experiment if it supports your world view and reject hundreds of others because they don’t.
Are you actually claiming that all the successful parapsychologists, such as Scwartz and Radin, have been making errors and/or committing fraud throughout their long careers?
” If you reject the notion that reality only consists of those things that we can perceive, there’s no limit to what you can “believe”.
Oh really — nothing can be real unless we happen to have the senses to perceive it, or happen to have designed instruments that can detect it? So, in other words, everything in the universe that exists has already been discovered by our species?
“if you reject the fundamental basis of science”
The fundamental basic of science is NOT materialism. Materialism may be the fashion for scientists today, but it hasn’t always been.
“What are we getting accomplishing by fighting on a blog?”
I see a lot of false statements being made and I try to correct them. If people don’t feel they can express a different opinion, then everyone is just a robot or a trusting sheep.
Harriet claims to base her opinions on scientific evidence, but she and the other “skeptics” believe what they want and ignore the evidence they don’t like. If they want to believe vaccines can’t harm babies, they don’t need controlled experiments to prove it.
And if they want to believe that all energy healing is woo, they will ignore any experiments that show otherwise.
Pec,
I believe in energy healing in some respects.
I had a great encounter with an acupressure specialist
who was able to help me out a lot with a stomach problem
i was having. Since acupressure uses energy to heal i do
believe for sure. I also believe there are a lot of folks who
practice acupressure and have no clue what they are doing.
It is in my opinion that i expirenced what i did with someone
who truly knew his stuff.
“Harriet claims to base her opinions on scientific evidence, but she and the other “skeptics” believe what they want and ignore the evidence they don’t like. If they want to believe vaccines can’t harm babies, they don’t need controlled experiments to prove it.”
There are some of us that believe in what we believe becaue
of faith, personal expirence, the power of belief, and wanting
to believe, or proving it to ourselves.
The other folk on here use logic their own method through
self study or because it is their job.
My point?
We are all entitled to believe what we will and prove to ourselves what we will in our own way. No one else on SBM
has to believe what we do and we do not have to believe
what they believe. You see? Thats is why life can be so utterly
beautiful because we are all simply entitled to our own opinions
ect. We do not have to practice their method to prove something
to ourselves. I might not always agree with how they practice
but i do respect it.
Pec asks:
Nice straw man, Pec, but let me answer your question anyway.
No, we humans have not discovered everything in the Universe. However, that’s not what I said. Our reality can only consist of those things we can perceive, but that doesn’t mean that things that we can’t perceive are “unreal”.
Until the discoveries of Maxwell and Hertz in the late 1800’s, we were not aware of radio waves. In fact, we still can’t detect radio waves with our unaided senses, but we can observe their effect on other objects (e.g. a radio).
If someone back in the 1700’s had proposed that the “aether” was permeated with invisible radio waves, they would have been correct, even though they could not (at the time) see any effect of radio waves. Pec might see this as a vindication for her position, but it isn’t. In the absence of any observable phenomenon that need such an explanation (radio waves), it could only be right by sheer (and highly improbable) chance.
Think of all of the incorrect explanations that we know for observable phenomena (e.g. the motions of the Sun and stars). The odds against coming up with a correct “explanation” for something that hasn’t been observed are – if you’ll pardon the pun – astronomical.
There are certainly things that we humans have not discovered because we are either too remote (in time or space) from them or because we currently lack the technology to detect them. However, absent some indication that these as-yet-undetected “things” exist, it is irrational to simply assert that they exist because you prefer that explanation over one better supported by the data.
So, if there are mysterious “forces” or supernatural “powers” out there and were haven’t detected them or their effects, they are not part of our “reality”. Yet. To propose that they exist in the absence of us perceiving them (or their effects) is not only irrational, it is superfluous.
If Pec can point out an observable phenomenon that would be better explained by an as-yet undetected force or entity, then this is her opportunity to convince us. If, however, she simply wants to claim that the supernatural or the unobservable exists because she thinks it must or because they haven’t been proven to not exist, then she’s commenting on the wrong ‘blog.
In the comment that prompted my response, Pec claimed that she is “…not a materialist.” I took her at her word. Materialism is a philosophy that – in brief – argues that the only things that can be “proven” to exist are matter (and, by extension, energy, since matter and energy are interchangeable). “Spirit”, “soul” and other non-material or “supernatural” entities are not addressed by materialism except to say that their existence cannot be proven.
If Pec disagrees with that philosophy, as her comment seems to indicate, then she must either believe that non-material (and non-energy) things can be proven to exist or that material things cannot be proven to exist. I eagerly await her “proof”.
As for materialism only recently being the “fashion” in science, she is correct – it has only been for the last century or a bit longer that materialism has been the “fashion” in science.
Perhaps she is confused by the fact that some scientists believe in God or have other supernatural beliefs. These are generally childhood teachings that most (if not all) good scientists have learned to keep out of their work. When religion or other superstition gets tangled up with scientific research, the results are almost always bad science.
Prometheus
Vargkill –> “I believe in energy healing in some respects.
I had a great encounter with an acupressure specialist
who was able to help me out a lot with a stomach problem
i was having. Since acupressure uses energy to heal i do
believe for sure.”
As someone who practices manual therapy for pain relief for a living (almost 3 decades), I get annoyed by statements like that. There is an entire sensitive nervous system laced through the entire body, 45 miles of it, being ignored here. At the front end of it, there is a brain with a hundred billion neurons continually processing input and creating output, tasked with being its organism’s threat detector and survival ensurer. Most of its processing is completely non-conscious.
If another nervous system applies itself judiciously and physically to the first, changes can occur at many many levels, none of which have the slightest thing to do with anyone’s belief in “energy.” The nervous system is complex enough to get itself out of pain, given the right kinesthetic input at the right rate, and barring outright medical pathology. Having a successful encounter with a body worker, or being a successful body-worker, is no excuse to adopt or maintain a dualistic perspective. Yet successful body workers love to spread these unnecessary ideas because they probably don’t want to bother learning anything about the system they are actually working with, the nervous system, which is biological, and they’ve probably never heard of Occam’s Razor, which is an admonition to not promote or adhere to “unnecessary” hypotheses, any that are not the simplest/most plausible/don’t have the broadest base. In science, you are supposed to apply Occam’s Razor to yourself, first, or no one has to give you the slightest credence.
So, to legitimately promote an “energy” hypothesis, you have to have considered and then ruled out the nervous system and all the ways in which it behaves. If you can, fine. If you can’t, you’re blowing smoke.
Diane,
I am going by my expirence and the expirence of others who
have been treated by the same person.
“As someone who practices manual therapy for pain relief for a living (almost 3 decades), I get annoyed by statements like that. There is an entire sensitive nervous system laced through the entire body, 45 miles of it, being ignored here. At the front end of it, there is a brain with a hundred billion neurons continually processing input and creating output, tasked with being its organism’s threat detector and survival ensurer. Most of its processing is completely non-conscious.”
Why get annoyed? Im not asking you to believe me or asking
you to embrace acupressue or any other form of alternative
medicine am i? I am making the statement that it worked for me
and you cannot tell me any different.
Im in no way saying that
every form of alternative medicine works, i am only saying the
the person i go to knows his shit and is damn good at what
he does. This is an elderly man from China, so go into his practice and tell him he does not know what he is doing.
Im glad you help people. Good for you Diane, i wish you continued success with your form of medicine.
vargkill –> “Why get annoyed?”
I get annoyed, because the field of work I chose to do is riddled through and through with, drowning in, prescientific, pseudoscientific, and anti-scientific purveyors. For every science-based manual therapist (mostly PTs) there are probably twenty who are evidence-based only (still mostly PTs), and for each of them there are probably twenty thousand of various kinds (like your acupressure guy, acupuncturists, massagers, myofascial releasers, craniosacralists, chiros, Reiki-ists, and hundreds more) who actively resist all effort to update manual therapy into the twenty-first century, to make what we all do (various versions of human primate social grooming) and in particular, what we THINK we do, the treatment constructs of our work, congruent with modern neuroscience and pain science. I find this depressing as well as annoying. It holds everything back.
So, manual therapy continues to remain bogged down by ridiculous treatment constructs (like “subluxations”, like “energy” this or “quantum” that), doomed to produce nothing but tooth fairy science (good one by the way HH – I’ve used that several times, giving you full credit of course). Then, people such as yourself come along with your rude crude cartoons, and deliberately choose to uphold nonsense. That’s why I get annoyed. Every time someone like you pops up to heckle a very good blog like this one, I feel like it sets everything back another couple decades.
It’s a good thing I have nothing whatever to do with managing this blog, or both these trolls would have been gone long ago.
Diane
Diane,
If you had read the thread where vargkill originally mentioned his acupressure experience with Mr. Wu, you would know that his claim is strongly intertwined with the concept of energy healing as he claims that Mr. Wu not only has great skill at acupressure, but also has the paranormal ability to diagnose what ails a person without talking to or touching them with a 100% success rate.
Diane,
First off, RELAX! This is a free country after all right? Last time
i checked people had the free will to be treated as they wished
and also had the ability to believe what they choose. If you are
so against alternative medicine then don’t practice it and inform
your people who you work with to stay away from it. Im not
saying you or Karl have to believe me or anyone else for that
matter. Only thing i did was say that i believed in acupressure
if the person knew their shit. Why does that bother you so much? Is it really ripping you apart inside to know that i personally believe in acupressure? If you think you are doing
a good job in what you practice then good for you. Im glad
that you are able to help people and i wish you continued success with that, but that will not change my opinion.
People like you Diane are the reason i was posting middle
fingers and saying vulgar stuff. Its one thing to express your
opinion that acupressure is wack but what right do you have
to wage a personal crusade against me for believing in it?
Again this is a freeish country right? So who are you to sit
there and tell me how wrong i am or how its my fault that you
are losing patients to alternative medicine? Go be an advocate
for SBM and try to make other practices illegal if you hate it
so much. Just posting on a blog aint gonna help your position.
As for the middle finger thing, get over it, yeah i posted it
and what done is done. If you have not noticed there are all
kinds of people who come on here and post their opinions.
And unless these people get kicked off or SBM says no alternative believers allowed then deal with it!
Karl Withakay,
My personal expirence with Mr Wu is what i seen wtih my own
2 eyes, so again, asking me to prove that over a blog is utterly
impossible. But i also dont have to prove it to you because
i expirenced it for myself.
You know whats funny about this whole thing, everyone gets
on me when i use vulgar language and stuff but yet it seems
perfectly fine when someone else brings up something nasty…
Weing
SD,
Come on answer.
When did you stop having sex with sheep?
I guess that on top of other examples or perfectly ok but then
when i do or say something its the end of the world right?
Gotta love the double standard on here!
“If, however, she simply wants to claim that the supernatural or the unobservable exists because she thinks it must or because they haven’t been proven to not exist, then she’s commenting on the wrong ‘blog.”
I didn’t claim anything exists. I said there is evidence, including evidence from controlled experiments, that certain things the blog authors deny, such as energy healing, actually seem to have validity. I look at the evidence and if it agrees with my own experiences and the experiences of millions or billions of others, then I think well maybe this thing is real.
The blog authors here, on the other hand, refuse to consider any ideas not already approved by mainstream science. Mainstream and alternative science have parted ways, at least for a while, because alternative science is not stuck on materialism.
The organized political “skeptic” movement wants to keep science where it is and to block CAM research. There is nothing scientific or logical about their crusade — they sincerely believe the public is stupid and ignorant and in need of their expert paternalistic guidance.
“There are some of us that believe in what we believe becaue
of faith, personal expirence, the power of belief, and wanting
to believe, or proving it to ourselves.
The other folk on here use logic their own method through
self study or because it is their job.”
It is absolutely not true that the “skeptics” here are logical and scientific, while I get my opinions from faith. I am much more scientific and objective than they are. I am not committed to a particular ideology, while they are committed to materialism.
Where would they be without materialism? They might have to admit that humanity is not a bunch of hallucinating delusional ignorant morons, while only the exalted materialists have the secret wisdom and the means to know the Truth.
Where would you be without materialism?
Or to phrase the same question slightly differently, are you planning to eat in the foreseeable future?
vargkill,
Please show me where in this thread I asked you to prove the supposed skills of Mr. Wu.
The purpose of my posted reply was to give Dianne a broader understanding of your beliefs about acupressure. In that reply, I made no judgments and drew no conclusions, I merely provided information.
Karl Withakay,
You are refrencing another thread as am i.
Im talking about the other blog in which we talked about
acupressure. I believe it was you or weing that tried to
get me to prove it. If it was not you then sorry i said it was.
Yes i believe this man has the ability to do what he does and
i do not believe anyone else can do what he does. I believe in
him mostly over anyone else.
Anyways there is no reason for Dian to get so huffy puffy
over what someone else believes. That is the problem with
some people on here, they get to damn personal over another
persons opinion. Its stupid and acomplishes nothing.
Speaking of news items about chiropractic that have irritated me:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=485
vargkill,
Thanks for clarifying to everyone that I was referencing another thread, since I cunningly tried to hide it from everyone with my stealthy, “If you had read the thread where vargkill originally mentioned his acupressure experience with Mr. Wu” precursor statement.
I’ll repeat that my intention was to provide Dianne additional context to your belief in energy healing and acupressure, specifically as practiced by Mr. Wu. I intentionally did not mention what support you did or did not have for you belief or ask you to prove anything as that had already been discussed in the other thread.
Vargkill,
Just a few follow points I’ve just now gotten around to:
“The point is, you might be suprised to know how many people out there believe that a Chiro is prefectly well practiced, and well respected.”
No, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. I am not under the impression there aren’t large numbers of people who believe in or swear by the effectiveness of chiropracty.
“Since acupressure uses energy to heal i do believe for sure.”
I take it that means you believe that if acupressure works (which you believe it does for Mr. Wu, at least), then the underlying energy healing “theory” behind it is valid? Have you considered the possibility that acupressure works, but for reasons different than are generally accepted by it’s adherents?
“Again this is a freeish country right? So who are you to sit there and tell me how wrong i am …”
Uh, see your own comment about a freeish country. Also, who is telling you that you are wrong is irrelevant; their arguments are either logically supported or they’re not.
“You know whats funny about this whole thing, everyone gets on me when i use vulgar language and stuff but yet it seems perfectly fine when someone else brings up something nasty…”
You seem to have the same definition of nasty as does Sylvia Browne. There is a difference between being nasty and being cold, ruthless or less than cordial.
Diane did refer to you as a troll, but that’s hardly “nasty” by internet blog standards.
“are you planning to eat in the foreseeable future?”
Materialism is the philosophy that ONLY what we call “matter” is real. You don’t have to be a materialist to know that there is something we call matter. I can’t believe I am bothering to explain this.
“Mainstream and alternative science have parted ways, at least for a while, because alternative science is not stuck on materialism.”
Science has given us airplanes, satellites, nuclear power, TV, the computer, etc. Alternative science has given us what? The Ouija board, koro?
Quoth pec, “Materialism is the philosophy that ONLY what we call “matter” is real. ”
I won’t bother to explain why that’s a big straw man.
Shouldn’t pec be using telepathy, and healing energy to communicate on this blog instead of the materialist computer and internet?
Karl Withakay,
“vargkill,
Thanks for clarifying to everyone that I was referencing another thread, since I cunningly tried to hide it from everyone with my stealthy, “If you had read the thread where vargkill originally mentioned his acupressure experience with Mr. Wu” precursor statement.”
WOW! Everything is going to be ok man! Take a chill pill there
buddy!
“The point is, you might be suprised to know how many people out there believe that a Chiro is prefectly well practiced, and well respected.”
“No, I wouldn’t be surprised at all. I am not under the impression there aren’t large numbers of people who believe in or swear by the effectiveness of chiropracty.”
Let me ask… How stupid are you really? Because you seemed
to have clearly missed the point in me saying that. I was not
arguing against anyone nor was i defending Chiros.
I said that there are a good number of people who had no idea
that Chiropracty was considered to be a bogus practice or was
not recognized as being accepted. Never did i say that many
people believed in Chiropracty only that a few people i knew
personally said it was effective.
“I take it that means you believe that if acupressure works (which you believe it does for Mr. Wu, at least), then the underlying energy healing “theory” behind it is valid? Have you considered the possibility that acupressure works, but for reasons different than are generally accepted by it’s adherents?”
I have considered anything and everything.
I also admitted to the possibilty of being wrong and it being
nothing more then a placebo effect. But nevertheless what i
do know is that it helped me and was diagnoised in a way
that let me believe in something. My own 2 eyes Karl. Why cant
you accept that? No one said you had to believe me and if you
do not which you clearly do not that is fine with me. I can respect that. So can we drop the hostility?
“Uh, see your own comment about a freeish country. Also, who is telling you that you are wrong is irrelevant; their arguments are either logically supported or they’re not.”
“Uhhhh that was my own comment einstein.
Yes who is telling me i am wrong is relevant to the conversation.
How would it not be?
“Diane did refer to you as a troll, but that’s hardly “nasty” by internet blog standards.”
The nasty comment was in refrence to people calling me out
when i say somethign nasty, not in refrence to Diane calling
me a troll you moron!
A clarification about materialism:
One definition of materialism is “a theory that physical matter is the only or fundamental reality and that all being and processes and phenomena can be explained as manifestations or results of matter.” This is a philosophical position, not a scientific one.
Science is a process of inquiry that does not espouse any philosophy, whether of materialism or anything else. The only philosophical assumptions required for science are that a material world exists and that it behaves consistently enough that we can study it and learn things about how it works. The scientific method is necessarily limited to studying the material world. If something “beyond” exists, it can only be studied if it has measurable effects on the material world.
Karl Withakay,
vargkill,
Thanks for clarifying to everyone that I was referencing another thread, since I cunningly tried to hide it from everyone with my stealthy, “If you had read the thread where vargkill originally mentioned his acupressure experience with Mr. Wu” precursor statement.
I’ll repeat that my intention was to provide Dianne additional context to your belief in energy healing and acupressure, specifically as practiced by Mr. Wu. I intentionally did not mention what support you did or did not have for you belief or ask you to prove anything as that had already been discussed in the other thread.
My response,
“You are refrencing another thread as am i.
Im talking about the other blog in which we talked about
acupressure. I believe it was you or weing that tried to
get me to prove it. If it was not you then sorry i said it was.”
I was acknowledging your refrence and mine as well not that
you had any intention of hiding it.
Below i was refrencing when you or others asked
me to prove my expirence. Even saying sorry if it was not
you who asked.
Seriously, how stupid are you Karl?
Anyways, new topic anyone? Im interested in learning more
about Chiros and what they do.
Dont wanna argue anymore with Karl, Weing, Diane, or anyone
else for that matter. Lets let it be done with.
“WOW! Everything is going to be ok man! Take a chill pill there buddy!”
You might want to take your own advice there, you seem to be the one getting agitated about this dialog.
“Anyways, new topic anyone? Im interested in learning more
about Chiros and what they do.”
Here are some starting points to start your research:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?cat=4
http://quackwatch.org/index.html
It was only recently that I realized that I was supposed to pronounce “Withakay” as “With a K.” Otherwise, I was trying to invent all kinds of ethnic pronunciations for it (last one was “Wheat ha kye”, attempting to guess what it’s origins might be, and so on.
[The scientific method is necessarily limited to studying the material world. If something “beyond” exists, it can only be studied if it has measurable effects on the material world.]
Everyone knows that. People who study life energy find ways to measure some aspects of it. Some aspects of life energy are the same as, or related to, the electromagnetic energies that are familiar to science.
There is absolutely no reason to decide that life energy (whatever exactly we mean by that concept) is not part of the material world or that it can’t possibly be measured.
But there has been a traditional division between the scientific materialists and the vitalists, which is extremely unfortunate and unnecessary.
Most alternative science and CAM assumes the existence of some kind of biological energy and fields. There is absolutely no reason for mainstream science and medicine to deny that these concepts are plausible.
So by using “alternative science” we can utilize life energies for transportation as described in the stories about flying carpets and brooms? Wow. As an added benefit it would be non-polluting.
I remember when it started raining during the Woodstock Festival, people were chanting “No rain!” to make it stop raining. They were using the combined mind power of all the attendees to stop the rain. That was “alternative science” in practice.
pec,
So life energy is part of the material world and can be measured, but vitalism is a better guide than materialism?
Now I’m really confused.
Harriet,
It’s just a problem of terminology. I don’t think the words “vitalism” or “materialism” are currently meaningful and I think it would be helpful if scientists stop thinking in those terms. Everything is, by definition, part of nature and everything is “material” in some sense. It would be possible for mainstream medicine and CAM to begin to understand each other if only we could get past this kind of unhelpful dichotomy.
There was a time when scientists who more or less considered themselves materialists felt that they had triumphed over the vitalists. The materialists probably felt they were more modern and scientific, and wanted to distance themselves from the older vitalism.
I think now it’s time for mainstream science to reconsider some aspects of vitalism. There is no need for mainstream medicine and CAM to be at odds to this extent.
pec,
You are the one who brought up the term materialism and are criticizing all scientists for being materialistic. If you think everything is material in some sense, why do you think there are aspects of vitalism that should be reconsidered? Which aspects, specifically?
Karl Withakay,
No man, Not getting mad at all, just saying lets try something more constructive. Now was that so hard Karl?
I will read the links tonight.
Thanks for sharing Karl.
One last thing…
Anyone out there recommend anything that does not contain
antihistamines for seasonal allergies? I don’t like the body
buss that comes with taking an antihistamine…
Pec clarifies her position:
Well, if you have “evidence from controlled studies”, then you wouldn’t mind sharing it with us, would you?
Here’s the problem I’ve seen with all of the “controlled studies” I’ve seen on “energy healing”: they all either failed or lacked controls.
I’m willing to accept that energy healing exists if someone will just provide data that supports it. I’m willing to work with them, but they’re not giving me any data.
The majority of “energy healing” studies I’ve seen fall into the “open label trial” category – they take a bunch of patients and treat them with “energy healing” and observe how many get better. This doesn’t “prove” anything, except that people do get better without any real therapy.
Another class of “energy healing” studies are more of the “uncontrolled controlled study” type – they compared people who received “energy healing” to people who received nothing. If there were any differences, it merely shows that people exhibit the “placebo response”.
Finally, there are a very few studies where some attempt is made at providing a placebo control. These studies either show no effect from “energy healing” or an effect that is close to the limit of statistical significance.
Many of the studies purporting to show that “energy healing” has a statistically significant effect have failed to correct for multiple comparisons, which renders their results non-significant. Others have chosen vague, ambiguous or eccentric measures for “success”. Most have failed to check to see if their “placebo” actually fooled their subjects.
Strangely, the studies that fail to show any effect of “energy healing” are generally much better designed than those that claim to show an effect, leading me to believe that any “effect” is spurious and won’t stand up to scrutiny.
Pec continues:
And if it doesn’t agree with your experiences, what then?
Millions, if not billions of people “experience” centrifugal force. Most of them feel a force “pulling” them to the outside of a curve when they turn. However, the reality is that there is no such thing as “centrifugal force” – it is an illusion.
The reality is that the car, by turning, is accelerating laterally, which causes it to push them sideways, giving the illusion of a force pulling the person to the outside of the curve.
Imagine how much easier it is for uninformed opinion and experience to deceive when the subject matter is much more complex than high school physics.
Letting your “experience” or even the experience of millions (or billions) of people be your guide is a good way to jump to the same wrong conclusions that millions (or billions) of people have made.
Remember how millions (or billions) of people “experienced” the Sun and stars revolving around a stationary Earth?
Remember how millions (or billions) of people’s “experience” was that evil spirits and angry gods caused disease, famine, war and disaster?
Remember how (until fairly recently) millions (or billions) of people’s “experience” was that “bad air” caused fevers and pneumonia?
All of the “experiences” of these millions (or billions) of people did not prevent them from coming to the wrong conclusions.
Still, if Pec – or anybody else – has knowledge of a good study of “energy healing” that showed a positive effect, I’d be interested to hear about it.
As I’ve said before, I keep an open mind to anything, but that doesn’t mean that I’m willing to accept things on faith. Show me the data and I will believe.
Prometheus
Karl Withakay,
Thanks for the links and all Karl, but the second one i didnt
need because im already aware of the bull crap that most
alternative medicine supports. As i have stated before, i mostly
only believe in acupressure/acupuncture. Not really a believer
in most of the other crap.
Any Doctor will tell you getting proper nutrients is good for you
and doctor with a brain knows nutrients can do wonders
for our bodies.
As for the first link, I was looking for something more on
what it is they study and what their method of treatment is.
Missed a few.
From Pec:
No, it’s not. Materialism holds that only matter (and, as I mentioned above, energy) can be proven to exist. Everything else has to be taken on faith, since it cannot be perceived.
And really, what’s the point of arguing about something that cannot be perceived and – as a result – has no impact on us or the world we live in?
We are currently able to measure energy flows much smaller than we can perceive with our unaided senses (e.g. radio waves from pulsars in other galaxies), but we cannot measure the “energy” in “energy healing”? What should that tell you about “energy healing”?
Pec continues:
In fact, Pec, scientists don’t think in those terms. Vitalism – the idea of an “energy” of life that is somehow different from other energies we are aware of – has been defunct for decades. It will remain defunct unless someone can find data that supports the existence of such a “vital force” or “life energy”. For now, the currently known “energies” are sufficient to explain what we see.
Pec further states:
So Pec is a materialist! I’m confused. Everything in “nature” (I would say “the Universe”) is material (i.e. either matter or energy). Everything that is not either matter or energy is therefore supernatural or un-natural and, conveniently enough, undetectable.
The funny thing about things that are undetectable – they are difficult to distinguish from things that don’t exist.
Pec concludes:
Ah, but I think real medicine does understand “CAM” – and “CAM” understands real medicine, as well. You see, “CAM” consists of those practices and therapies that have not been shown to be effective. Real medicine, on the other hand, has all the practices and therapies that have been shown to be effective.
Every time a “CAM” therapy is found to actually work, real medicine takes it away. Real medicine is like the classic bully on the playground, taking all the good toys for itself and leaving poor “CAM” with just the broken ones. It’s not nice and it’s surely not how my mother taught me to play, but that’s the way the world works.
And frankly, “CAM” is pretty happy with the way things work. They don’t have to deal with insurance companies, malpractice insurance, weekend call coverage, licensing (in many cases) or dealing with life-and-death decisions. They make a very good living without having to go to school for very long or having to actually learn anything real.
Even the chiropractors – who yammer on and on about wanting to be “primary care providers” (for insurance purposes, of course) alwys fall back on the “not part of my scope of practice” excuse when they get caught failing to diagnose cancer or meningitis.
As much as it may grate on New Age sensibilities, there is a dichotomy between real medicine and “CAM”. It exists because their isn’t any equivalence between the two. People may wish this wasn’t so, but wishing for a pony never got me one.
Prometheus
For seasonal allergies I recommend increasing your nitric oxide level. NO is one of the things that regulates the immune system, and sets the “gain”. NO inhibits NFkB and turns the “gain” down.
Normally the immune system has automatic gain control, and the basal NO level is a part of that automatic gain control. But when your NO/NOx physiology is messed up one of the consequences is too much “gain” in the immune system, so you get things like “feedback” (i.e. autoimmune disorders).
My hypothesis is that low NO causes seasonal allergies as well as asthma (and many other things as regular readers of this blog know).
daedalus2u,
Its an interesting hypothesis but i do not see how making
the immune system stronger is going to get the immune system
to stop freaking out over harmless pollens, weeds, and other
simple things in the air that are harmless. Considering im a healthy person who works out and besides having a sit around
IT job im pretty active. So NO levels are pretty good. You also
talking to be a guy who barly ever gets sick, has never had
tonsillitis, strep throat, pink eye, or hardly ever has the flu.
Not that that means anything but that can give you an idea
of how good of an immune system i have.
I have to respectfully disagree daedalus2u, If NO caused
seasonal allergies and asthma i think we would be able to better treat both conditions.
Any other opinions?
I think it would be a bit faster if Daedalus listed conditions he does not attribute to low nitric oxide.
No offense Daedalus, but there hasn’t been a condition discussed on this blog that you haven’t attributed to NO.
“Stronger” is not the right term, “controlled” is a better term. The proper amount of NO doesn’t make the immune system “stronger”, it makes it work better and be under better control. Being in the “just right” zone where there isn’t too much, and isn’t too little. NFkB isn’t the only immune system factor regulated by NO. Mast cell degranulation is potentiated by low NO. To deal with allergies it is better to prevent mast cells from degranulating than to deal with the histamine they release after they do. That is what more NO does, reduces the “gain”, so they don’t degranulate as much, so there isn’t the histamine (and other mast cell agent) mediated positive feedback. That control is local, so a local reduction in NO (as from the respiratory burst), or from protease mediated XOR activation, or many other things can still trigger degranulation, the threshold is just slightly higher.
The immune system is very complex, with many and multiply redundant pathways doing zillions of different things in essentially every tissue compartment simultaneously. It isn’t something that you can “strengthen”. All you can do is “tune it up” so that it works better with all the pathways better “in sync”. NO is a major factor in keeping the myriad pathways “in sync”.
For example, a “stronger” heart is only better under conditions where strength per se is what is needed. Most of the time what kills people is a lack of control, as in fibrillation. A very strong heart that is fibrillating is useless for pumping blood.
I will try to think of physiological systems that are not regulated by NO. NO is involved in so many different things that it may take a while.
Harriet, you are a troll magnet! It seems like every time you post a great article they come out. En force.
Folks, how about not feeding the trolls?
“You are the one who brought up the term materialism and are criticizing all scientists for being materialistic.”
Not at all! I was criticizing the organized “skeptic” movement and the authors of this blog. I do not think all scientists are materialists.
“If you think everything is material in some sense, why do you think there are aspects of vitalism that should be reconsidered? Which aspects, specifically?”
As I tried to explain “material” is a word that we do not have a precise definition for. We now know that our world includes fields, energies, subatomic particles, and various concepts from modern physics that no one really understands such as strings, etc. The days when the definition of “matter” was obvious are over.
There is no reason for scientists to assume that the old concept of “life energy” was worthless. The idea was discarded long ago by scientists who thought they were being modern and progressive, but things seemed a lot simpler back then.
Since life energy was discarded by mainstream science we don’t know as much about it as we might have. Even well-known forms of energy such as electricity have not been given the attention they deserve in medical research.
Some researchers have been investigating the role of electricity, and other less-understood forms of energy, in biology. But they have mostly separated from mainstream medicine and formed their own organizations and journals.
One energy researcher you do know about is Gary Schwartz, since you reviewed his energy experiments book. You know that he does a lot of measuring of electromagnetic fields and energies, and that he claims to have found some interesting things.
Gary Schwartz does tend to sound very new-agey, unfortunately, and that is probably a turn-off for any skeptical scientists who read his reports and books. It certainly is a turn-off for me. But we should not ignore good quality scientific evidence for emotional reasons.
Rupert Sheldrake is another brilliant scientist who has left the mainstream. His book A New Science of Life does a great job of explaining why, he thinks, there are aspects of vitalism that should not have been discarded. That book is theoretical, not empirical, however.
I don’t like Sheldrake’s dog experiments because they are complicated and too easy to criticize. His results were positive, but it was easy for “skeptics” to make feeble attempts at replication that were guaranteed to fail.
But Sheldrake, Schwartz and Radin are examples of scientists who are driven more by scientific curiosity than by a desire for a successful and secure career. They followed the evidence and what seemed logical to them, and did not mind going off in their own direction without mainstream support.
Instead of focusing your energy on looking for holes in their research, why not look at it objectively and fairly? They are extremely careful in their methodology since they expect to be attacked by skeptics.
When people like Ray Hyman can find absolutely nothing wrong with parapsychology experiments they will resort to saying nutty things and hoping no one will notice how irrational the statements are.
For example, Hyman said that increasing the power of an experiment increases the likelihood of false positives! And, as I already had mentioned, Steve Novella thinks that a statistically significant effect can be so small that the signal can’t be separated from the noise.
Those statements show a complete misunderstanding of inferential statistics. Either that, or they are being deliberately misleading and not expecting anyone to notice.
[Remember how (until fairly recently) millions (or billions) of people’s “experience” was that “bad air” caused fevers and pneumonia?]
I never said I think people are always right about everything. I have said, repeatedly, that most things are not known. Most people have not known most things, and that remains true today.
Microbes were discovered after the technology for seeing them was developed. I would not therefore conclude that people who did not believe in microbes, and believed in “bad air” instead were delusional idiots. They didn’t have microscopes.
daedalus2u,
I get your point, maybe they should do more studies on this?
pec, if there are holes in their research, we as scientists do them no favors by ignoring them. Ignoring flaws in research sets the field back, it does not advance it.
It is only after a thorough and almost exhaustive search for holes can we have some confidence that there are few large holes left.
If there are holes in my NO research, I would greatly appreciate someone (anyone!) telling me what they are.
daedalus2u,
You are saying that higher NO levels will fight asthma and
seasonal allergies. Where higher NO levels are great for
people in gereral as it does wonders for blood vessels and
cells ect that does not explain how the immune system is
going to unlearn something harmless as seasonal pollens,
weeds, ect is not a threat.
You said yourself that is your hypothesis, and well it sounds
good i think you need to work a little harder on it. What then
do you say to an athletic person who still suffers? Or the people
who run marathons? They have better NO levels then most
people yet they still can suffer asthma and seaonal allergies.
According to your hypothesis people with regulated NO
levels should not suffer or should suffer much less then
those without the same NO levels. I see that as being
fatched, but nevertheless it is interesting.
Im not trying to sound like a dick, and if it comes off that
way then i Apologize.
NO is a lot more complicated than that. People who appear healthy can have low NO levels. People who exercise can have low NO levels. The basal NO level is a dynamic parameter. It changes all the time in response to immediate needs.
The immune system doesn’t “unlearn” how to attack pollon. It simply regulates itself such that it does not attack pollon. It still knows how to do it, and could attack pollon in a heart beat if it got the signal to do so.
It would be easier for us to not think you were trying to sound like a dick this time if you didn’t try to sound like a dick at other times.
” if there are holes in their research, we as scientists do them no favors by ignoring them. ”
Yes of course I agree, and that is why parapsychology experiments have generally become so tightly controlled and carefully designed. But by looking for holes, I meant having the intent of finding defects whether there are defects or not. That is what Ray Hyman was doing when he said increasing the power of an experiment increases the chance of false positives. Either he has not studied statistics and experimental methodology, or he just says random things that might sound scientific to a non-scientist.
And, as I have explained several times but no one answered, Steve Novella does the same thing. It almost seems like they took a course from James Randi in how to sound like you’re debunking an experiment without actually making any sense. Non-scientists might be impressed and convinced, but anyone who is paying attention will see that it’s nonsense.
So there are helpful and unhelpful ways of looking for holes. It is helpful to read the reports carefully and point out defects. It is unhelpful to start with the assumption that the results must be caused by fraud or error (notice Harriet’s recent statement to that effect) and then come up with longs lists of silly justifications for your preconceived position.
Pec,
I’m not going to go around this same argument again. I have tried to show why Schwartz’s work does not qualify as good science. Neither does Sheldrake’s.
I won’t argue about this, because I know I can’t say anything to change your mind.
BUT I am sick and tired of you misinterpreting what I write and saying things like “the assumption that the results must be caused by fraud or error (notice Harriet’s recent statement to that effect”
I did not assume that the results must be caused by fraud or error, I stated a fact: whenever positive parapsychology results have been carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists, so far they have all been found to have fatal flaws. In many cases the experimental design did not rule out confounding factors. In many cases negative data were suppressed or altered. In no case have the results been replicated by independent labs nor has any progress been made towards a coherent body of knowledge.
daedalus2u,
“It would be easier for us to not think you were trying to sound like a dick this time if you didn’t try to sound like a dick at other times.”
Well excuse me for trying to be nice! Everyone else can
sound like a dick but me hey?
I hate to sound like everyone else on here, but wheres
the proof in your hypothesis? Where is the documented
research? If there is any id love to read it.
I know what NO does for the body but i fail to see how this
is a sure fire. How is higher NO levels going to stop the
excessive activation of mast cells triggering the IgE?
” I stated a fact: whenever positive parapsychology results have been carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists, so far they have all been found to have fatal flaws. ”
That statement is not true. I am assuming it’s because you are not familiar with the research and/or have been mislead by the “skeptic” organizations.
And Harriet, if it were true then I am sure Steve Novella would have used the same argument. But he didn’t. He could not find anything wrong with Radin’s presentiment experiment, so he said the effects were too small to have significance, even though they had passed the statistical test and were therefore, by definition, probably meaningful.
And your review of Gary Schwartz’s energy experiments didn’t mention any defects or error or fraud. You just went on and on about one experiment that had opposite results. You never suspected the negative experiment involved any fraud or error. Only experimenters you don’t agree with are frauds and fools.
I was just pointing out the obvious, which on the other thread you seem to have overlooked. What goes around comes around. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a dick, don’t act like one. As some of the other commenters pointed out, they would have banned you already. That would be your loss.
If you know what NO does, then you are ahead of the entire NO research community by many orders of magnitude.
NO physiology is extremely complex and is mostly not understood. How it interacts with the immune system is not something I have written a lot about. I wouldn’t use the term “sure fire”, but rather that things would work better.
It is so complex that any description of it can only be cartoonish. All of physiology is like that. Most researchers don’t appreciate how complex physiology is because they are only looking at tiny parts of it. All of those parts are coupled together, and the coupling is all non-linear. That makes physiology inherently chaotic in a mathematical sense. The different physiological states are the strange attractors connected by paths that can be traversed with differential effort. Whether they are or not depends on a lot of different things.
You shouldn’t think of NO as a drug. It is a signaling molecule. As a signaling molecule it is used to regulate and couple together myriad different pathways. The basal NO level is part of the “NO signal” that is used as the feedback signal to regulate those pathways. When the basal NO level is off, that skews the feedback pathway in a characteristic way. This is what I call “good regulation around a bad setpoint”. In other words the regulatory pathways are working correctly, they are just trying to achieve a setpoint that is dysfunctional for the organism at that particular time (but might be functional in a different physiological situation).
An example I like to use is that of a thermostat. Suppose it is set 20 degrees too high. Could you fix the temperature by bringing in ice? You could try, but if you cool things down 20 degrees below the setpoint, the heater is going to go on full blast. You could bring in more and more ice, but until you have overwhelmed the heater, the temperature isn’t going to fall. Now the temperature is ok, but the heater is going at full blast, at maximum overload. How long can it operate under those conditions before it gets tired? Physiology is a lot more complicated than a heating system. When physiology goes “full blast”, it compensates by turning stuff off. In the heater example I have a steam powered wood splitter. When all the heat is dissipated by melting ice, there isn’t enough steam to run the wood splitter, so you need to burn the furniture instead (as in induce cachexia when there isn’t enough mitochondria capacity for glucogenesis). When do the safety valves blow? Do they reset, or are they fusible plugs?
We know that people can run themselves to death. Under those circumstances the “safeties” of pain and fatigue are over ridden and the organism is pushed until it drops dead. NO is what maintains a lot of those “safeties” in place. If you lower NO enough, you eliminate them. You have a greater capacity (because it isn’t limited by the safeties), but the potential for damage is high, and the lower the NO level the more extreme that potential gets. This is not appreciated by people because they “feel” great. The delusion of not being tired is the elimination of the “safety” of being tired. Just because you “feel” good doesn’t mean that what ever treatment achieve that feeling improved health.
All important physiological systems have to be under feedback control. We mostly don’t know how those systems work, but that they must exist and that they do work extremely well is not in doubt. For those systems to work they must satisfy conditions of stability, and we know that those systems originated through evolution, and we know that the systems all work together. That puts enormous constraints on them.
Much of my research is in how NO regulates stress responses. Most stress response are from deep evolutionary time, all organisms have them to some extent, and they are more or less the same, conserved over a billion years. About 2/3 of mouse genes can be knocked out and give rise to viable fertile mice. Those genes are termed “non-essential”. How/why have “non-essential” genes been conserved in mice for so long?
NO is known to be involved in a lot of immune system pathways. Pretty much all of them have the immune system turning on harder when there is low NO. The respiratory burst is part of the positive feedback that the immune system uses to achieve a very rapid turn-on. For things like anaphylaxis to be regulated at all (and it is regulated exquisitely well) by prompt release of pro and anti-inflammatory cytokines, they have to be “in sync”, and “in sync” with a common signaling molecule. That signaling molecule has to be NO (because if NO is used some, it was the archetypal signaling molecule and must be used a lot, and everything else must be compatible with its use).
I know this sounds like hand-waving, but I don’t really have time to go into the level of detail it would take to do more than that.
daedalus2u,
“I was just pointing out the obvious, which on the other thread you seem to have overlooked. What goes around comes around. If you don’t want to be mistaken for a dick, don’t act like one. As some of the other commenters pointed out, they would have banned you already. That would be your loss.”
I only act like a “dick” when it is called for. There are plenty
of times when i have perfectly good conversations with folks
on here.
Also, do you really think you can ban the IT guy? Id just come
back with a new SN and a new IP.
“If you know what NO does, then you are ahead of the entire NO research community by many orders of magnitude.”
You know what i meant come on now! All i meant was i know
what purpose it serves within the human body. Not that i knew
more then you or a research team. To little is bad and to much
is not good and appropriate levels of NO production help protect
organs ect.
“You shouldn’t think of NO as a drug.”
I dont think of it as a drug. Not to be confused with N20 or
NO2, i understand.
After doing a little research you where correct in it being
an important part of immunology! Sorry i spoke too soon!
I stand corrected!
Id be intrested in hearing anything else you have to say
on this matter.
“I know this sounds like hand-waving, but I don’t really have time to go into the level of detail it would take to do more than that.”
I get it man, post away!
pec,
(1) I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.
(2) Did you actually READ my critique of Schwartz? It’s available online at http://www.csicop.org/si/2008-02/hall.html
I enumerated several defects in his experimental design and in the whole approach of his research.
One flaw that I pointed out is particularly unforgiveable in a scientist: he used BLINDFOLDS to prevent subjects from seeing which hand was being tested. Blindfolds are ineffective controls, as any magician can tell you. I have participated in a workshop on blindfolds: we tested a variety of standard commercial and homemade blindfolds and found that even naive people can often see around them and sometimes even through them.
An illustration: there was a girl who allegedly could read by running her fingers over a book while blindfolded. It turned out that because of the unusual anatomy of her nose it was next to impossible to prevent a “nose peek” with any blindfold. Her ability to read with her fingers magically vanished when a cardboard barrier was held at the level of her neck above the book and hands, preventing visual access.
I have a lot on my blog. A lot of that is related to autism and other neurological stuff.
daedalus2u,
Sent a myspace friend request, thanks for the info gonna
be an interesting read for sure!
“I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.”
Harriet,
There have been many parapsychology experiments that were scrutinized and were not found to have flaws. Even your friend Ray Hyman would have to admit that. The methodology in parapsychology was tightened in response to skeptics’ criticisms until the standards surpassed those of other scientific areas. Early parapsychologists may have been naive about certain things, but that has not been the case for decades.
Meta-analyses have also shown very substantial overall effects for parapsychology, and Hyman would have to admit that also.
The only problem that I am aware of is that it is not possible — or no one has figured out how — to screen out experimenter effects in parapsychology experiments. Some parapsychologists get terrific effects most of the time, but there may be others who do not. That might explain why Susan Blackmore never got positive results.
You are under a very wrong impression — that 100 years of parapsychology has shown nothing but fraud and error. There are overall reliable effects and no one can seriously doubt that. There are and have been highly qualified researchers in the field who have never been accused of cheating and who are far from naive.
So I don’t know where you got your ideas about parapsychology in general. Ray Hyman has lots of criticism (some of it nonsensical), but I doubt he would claim that there are no overall positive effects, or that it’s all the result of fraud or error. There is really no one who seriously claims that, if they have actually reviewed the literature.
pec,
“I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.”
“I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.”
I will give you a quick answer just for now — I think you ought to know that Ray Hyman was one of the reviewers for the SRI remote viewing research, and that he did not find any fatal flaws, or any flaws that I know of. His conclusion was that the research should be stopped because he could not believe the effects actually resulted from psi. This research went on for 20 years and no one found fatal flaws in it. Jessica Utts, a statistician, found the statistics to be ok.
I can dig up other specific examples, but this is just for now, because I am working now. I can’t believe you don’t know that SRI remote viewing was never found to have fatal defects, even though it was examined by an extreme skeptic. There have also been many Ganzfield experiments that survived skeptical scrutiny.
Of course, most parapsychology experiments were probably not examined by skeptical scientists from outside parapsychology. That is not the fault of the parpsychologists.
You gave one example of a problem you had with Gary Scwartz’s energy healing study that used blindfolds. But his book is full of experiments that you didn’t find fault with. And you’re assuming his subjects had a very unusual anatomy that would let them see around blindfolds to what was going on behind them.
But ok, he shouldn’t use blindfolds. It was probably obvious to him that his subjects could not see behind their backs while facing forward, but he should make more effort to satisfy people like you.
There have been so many other experiments where no cheating or errors were found. And you really are assuming an incredible motivation for cheating!
But aside from all that, there is no shortage whatsoever of parapsychology experiments that were examined and found to be ok. And it is amazing that you are not aware of that. You have far too much faith in whatever James Randi says — he is a human being and just as fallible and biased as anyone else.
Go to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Remote_viewing and read the section under “Scientific debate.”
“the notes given to the judges contained clues as to which order they were carried out, such as referring to yesterday’s two targets, or they had the date of the session written at the top of the page. Dr. Marks concluded that these clues were the reason for the experiment’s high hit rates.”
“Details and transcripts of the SRI remote viewing experiments themselves were found to be edited and even unattainable.”
Try again, pec!
The heading was “scientific debate” and of course you chose to quote someone you agree with.
“Professor Richard Wiseman, a psychologist at the University of Hertfordshire and a fellow of the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (CSI) has said that he agrees remote viewing has been proven using the normal standards of science,”
But, of course, he doesn’t believe it anyway, even though he would if it were any other area of science.
Harriet I have read about parapsychology and alternative science all my life and it is not true that all, or most, of the research has been debunked. As I said, even Ray Hyman admitted their were real results.
You can select quotations to prove anything you want. But I doubt there are many scientists who are at all familiar with parapsychology, and are not James Randi devotees, who would agree with you that it has all been shown to be fraud or error.
Whatever problems parapsychology might have, it has never been generally debunked as fraud and error. There is plenty of controversy and debate and people on either extreme are absolutely sure they are right.
But the professional “skeptics” always fall back on the idea that it just has to be fraud and error, since they are convinced that psi can’t possibly be real so not one single experiment could be legitimate.
Recently Steve Novella’s blog had a discussion of Dean Radin’s presentiment research. Novella agreed that the methodology was good, but (of course) he denied that the results were meaningful. The results were meaningful according to accepted research standards.
Novella agreed there was no fraud or error and he had no rational alternative explanation for the results (he said the effects were too small to be detected, even though they HAD been detected statistically).
I’m sure many of Radin’s experiments have been examined by skeptics, and as far as I know they never found evidence of fraud or error.
pec,
For the third time: I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.
“For the third time: I challenge you to provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws.”
I guess I don’t know exactly what you are asking. Who specifically do you have in mind? As my quote shows, even Wiseman didn’t find fraud or errors in RV. Your knowledge of the field must consist entirely of reports of fraud and error by specific “rigorous scientists” that you happen to have read, and I don’t know who you are thinking of.
It is a fact that there is a very large amount of literature on parapsychology and a large percent of it is generally considered high quality, by anyone who has looked at it, according to what I have read or heard.
You have read selectively and you have specific reports in mind, and I don’t know what you are really getting at.
If I gave you a specific example of an experiment no one has found fraud or errors in, you could always say the scientists who reviewed it were not “rigorous” enough for your standards. And even if they were, you could say it wasn’t replicated. And if it was replicated, you could say it wasn’t replicated by anti-psi skeptics.
I can probably find you the kind of specific example you’re asking for if I could understand what you mean. But if there are only 2 or 3 skeptics in the world you feel are rigorous, then I don’t know how many experiments they have looked at.
And, of course, you probably only consider some rigorous if they find fraud and errors.
I even posted quotes from Ray Hyman that acknowledge there are real results that don’t seem to be caused by fraud or error.
If I quote anyone who believes in psi, you won’t believe it. But when I quote anti-psi skeptics you don’t believe it either.
Pec,
I’ll give you an easier challenge – give me an example of a well-documented phenomenon that is explained better by “life energy” than it is by “conventional” forces.
Just so the ground rules are clear, the “phenomenon” has to be:
[1] Well documented.
Not just “this person experienced this” or “millions of people believe that” – real documentation; something that was perceptible and repeatable and measurable.
[2] Better explained by “life energy” than by conventional forces.
By this I mean that “life energy” is a better explanation, not just a possible explanation. After all, crop circles might be messages from extra-terrestrial beings, but the better explanation is that they are pranks by terrestrial beings.
Further, I would emphasize that this phenomenon has to exist outside of somebody’s mind. “Feeling better”, “connectedness” or “perceiving energy” is too subject to wishful thinking and – to be blunt – delusion and hallucination. This should be something that even a non-believer can observe, even if they don’t agree with your explanation.
Well Pec, you’ve said that these things exist – give us an example.
Prometheus
I’m still waiting for a “life energy” powered vehicle, carpet, broom, anything. Even a prototype. The only ones I find are bicycles and the Flintstones car.
pec,
The quotations you cited are taken out of context and are not evidence that any positive parapsychology results reflect reality. Yes, you can find results that are statistically significant, but if they are based on meaningless data the statistical significance is irrelevant. I don’t know of any skeptic who has accepted remote viewing results. The transcripts of the SRI study were edited and the judges were given clues – that at least raises the possibility of fraudulent results, whether due to deliberate deception or inexcusable unscientific carelessness. When I say “error” I include errors of experimental design, failure to rule out confounders, and poor controls. The biggest error in remote viewing studies is that they accept as “hits” things that are way too nonspecific. A remote viewer sees a columnar structure and the judges find something columnar at the desired site. It’s just like horoscopes: you read your own specifics into a vague statement. This is explained in detail at http://www.skepdic.com/remotevw.html
also http://www.skepdic.com/refuge/radin1.html
” I believe that the SAIC experiments as well as the contemporary ganzfeld experiments display methodological and statistical sophistication well above previous parapsychological research. Despite better controls and careful use of statistical inference, the investigators seem to be getting significant results that do not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research.”
—Ray Hyman, The Journal of Parapsychology, December 1995
You are quoting Hyman out of context. The snippet you copied was in a paragraph starting
“Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology [...] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven”
Yes, they “seemed” to be getting significant results that did not appear to derive from the more obvious flaws of previous research. They derived from less obvious flaws, which Hyman goes on to explain.
See the article at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ganzfeld_experiment – read the sections on Criticism and Controversy.
@Prometheus:
But they require access to advanced technologies involving, er, planks and pieces of rope.
Nonsense Harriet. Hyman and Honorton agreed on the protocols and the experiments were successful, and were replicated elsewhere. What more can you possibly ask?
Most of the criticisms just grasp at anything, desperately trying to deny the reality of psi.
When Hyman said increasing power increases the chance of false positives, he was either ignorant or had no reasonable criticisms but had to say something negative.
And you cannot assume everything on Wikipedia is unbiased and accurate! Certainly not for controversial subjects.
Nonsense, pec. You have been unable to present provide a single example of a positive parapsychology result that was carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists and was not found to have fatal flaws. You say that skeptics reject these studies only because of prejudice and nit-picking; that is an opinion. These studies have not been replicated by independent investigators and have not built on each other to provide any coherent body of evidence: that is a fact.
Harriet,
We obviously have very different sources. Most sources are slanted one way or the other and the come to opposite conclusions. I have not given you one single experiment; I have explained that there are many. Of course, i can’ know your exact criteria for “rigorous scientists” and I can’t know what you mean by replicated. The meta-analyses have shown a very high degree of replication. But have all the experiments been scrutinized by what you consider rigorous scientists? How could I possibly know that?
Why don’t you show me a quote by Ray Hyman stating that no parapsychology experiments are without fraud or error?
Still waiting for Pec’s example of a phenomenon that is explained better by “life energy” than by conventional forces.
[crickets chirp, coyotes howl - a tumbleweed rustles as it rolls by]
Prometheus
pec said “Why don’t you show me a quote by Ray Hyman stating that no parapsychology experiments are without fraud or error?” Neither Hyman nor I have said that. I said “whenever positive parapsychology results have been carefully scrutinized by rigorous scientists, so far they have all been found to have fatal flaws.” I don’t know of an exception. I asked if you did, and you were unable to cite one.
Hyman said, “Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology […] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven”
30 years ago Susan Blackmore started “a crusade to show those closed-minded scientists that consciousness could reach beyond the body and that death was not the end.” She finally faced the facts and said, “I found no psychic phenomena – only wishful thinking, self-deception, experimental error and, occasionally, fraud.”
Harriet,
Susan Blackmore’s research was unsuccessful, and there are many possible reasons. It makes no sense to conclude that the whole field is nothing but fraud and error just because she was disappointed. Her disappointment apparently led her to an opposite extreme and now she crusades against all parapsychologists. Why? How can she possibly know they are all frauds or in error? As I said previously, it may be that experimenter effects can’t be screened out in parapsychology.
“Obviously, I do not believe that the contemporary findings of parapsychology […] justify concluding that anomalous mental phenomena have been proven”
No he doesn’t believe it, but he also cannot say the research is all bad. He collaborated with Honorton to develop Ganzfields, and then they worked. But he still didn’t believe, because it is not his nature or preference to believe.
You challenged me to find one experiment but that is silly. There have been many, many successful experiments but none of them mean anything alone. There are meta-analyses that you can believe or not believe.
In other fields you take the researchers on faith, even when their methods are weak. You don’t wonder if a new cancer drug is effective or not — if the researchers said it is, you believe it.
And this is in spite of the fact that there are no controlled experiments comparing the drug to no drug. If a parapsychologist used that kind of methodology you would never take it seriously.
Parapsychologists have improved their methods over the decades and now they are highly automated. There are some very competent researchers, although of course they are human beings who can make mistakes. As in any field.
Susan Blackmore thought the failure of her own experiments was due to something she was doing wrong. The reason she left the parapsychology field was her evaluation of the state of research for the whole field. She tried hard to find research she could trust. She was particularly disappointed when she dug into the “best case” research of someone she regarded highly and found irregularities like changes in recorded data.
Perhaps your own prejudices are so strong that you can’t imagine Blackmore objectively looking at the evidence and changing her mind. Perhaps you won’t believe me when I tell you I used to believe in some of those things and was initially impressed by reports of research but changed my mind when I learned more details and developed better critical thinking skills.
It’s not just a matter of prior plausibility. Cancer drugs are evaluated within a coherent body of knowledge built on many studies that support each other. Parapsychology studies are scattershot and have not built anything; they are not even guided by a coherent hypothesis.
It doesn’t make sense to me that Susan Blackmore could have evaluated the research fairly and objectively and come to completely different conclusions than others who have also reviewed the research. I haven’t read enough by Blackmore to really know how objective she was in evaluating it. I will try to find out.
Everyone is biased in some way and scientific research is hard to understand and interpret. I had the impression from what I did read by Blackmore that she was very disappointed at not getting her own results.
As I have said several times, parapaychology has the special difficulty of not being able to screen out the experimenters’ mind. If psi is real, that is. So one experimenter might get better results than another for no apparent reason.
In any case, even though Blackmore did not get results, and even though she found that someone she trusted had cheated, it is a fact that many others have had positive results and there have been many experiments that skeptics could not find fault with.
I specifically mentioned the Ganzfield experiments that Hyman helped to design. How could he claim those results were from fraud or error?
Susan Blackmore is just one person, a very outspoken and opinionated person but still only one individual. Her opinion should not be taken as gospel when there are so many who claim to have good reasons for disagreeing with her.
In this article http://www.susanblackmore.co.uk/Articles/si01.html she does NOT state that parapsychology is all fraud and error. She seems to say there is no obvious answer (I agree) but that her personal negative experience seems to have a big influence on her.
“The problem is that my personal experience conflicts with the successes I read about in the literature and I cannot ignore either side.”
“Whenever strong claims are made critics from both inside and outside of parapsychology get to work – as they should – but rarely is a final answer forthcoming.”
“Cancer drugs are evaluated within a coherent body of knowledge built on many studies that support each other. ”
But when was there ever a study comparing chemotherapy to no chemotherapy? Long ago, there may have been one that happened to show a benefit for chemo and after that it was never questioned. And we know that one study seldom provides a definitive answer. Now if a patient gets chemo and recovers, it’s considered a cure and more evidence for chemo. Even though we now know that most early cancer would never have progressed or caused illness.
pec,
You disregard what I quoted from Blackmore as “only one opinion” and then you quote her yourself. And I think you have quoted selectively and misrepresented her position.
If you will go back and carefully read all of the Blackmore article you cited, I think you will find more evidence for my position than for your own. She discusses the ganzfeld experiments and points out that many of the studies included in the metaanalysis were from a lab she had personally found to commit errors and fraud. Her published criticisms of those studies were not even noted by the reviewer. That would seem to discredit the supposedly positive conclusion of the meta-analysis.
You comments about cancer therapy are biased and have already been addressed on another thread.
pec said,
“But when was there ever a study comparing chemotherapy to no chemotherapy?”
Ever heard of the Helsinki declaration?
Would it be ethical to conduct a study of antibiotics to no antibiotics for a disease such as bubonic plague?
You’re essentially asking for a study where the control group is given no treatment and their cancer is allowed to proceed probably through mastitis to death so they can be compared with the chemotherapy group to determine if they was a difference in the outcomes.
“You’re essentially asking for a study where the control group is given no treatment and their cancer is allowed to proceed probably through mastitis to death”
I was not asking for that! I said that the “skeptics” here accept the weak research on chemotherapy for cancer, and reject the very much stronger evidence for psi. They do not apply the same standards to parapsychology that they apply to mainstream research. Most scientific research is difficult and hard to interpret and contains errors, and occasionally fraud. If any of that is found in any parapsychology the entire field is discredited, in their view.
Anyone who has actually been involved in a scientific field knows how difficult and error-prone it usually is, and how seldom it results in clear unambiguous answers. Statistics are complicated and very often become confusing even to experts. Experiment designs are never perfect and experiments often fail to address the question they were supposed to answer.
You cannot expect parapsychology to be more perfect than other scientific areas. Demanding perfection from parapsychology, but not mainstream areas, results in the misconception that parapsychology as a whole has been debunked. It has not.
Susan Blackmore found some errors — well it would be a surprise if she didn’t. Maybe Blackmore is type of person who thinks perfection can exist in science. It doesn’t exist in any corner of this world.
There are tests of chemotherapy agents in animals all the time compared against no treatment. The differences are large and very obvious.
Have there been tests of CAM treatment modalities for cancer in animals that have shown positive effects?
In the long-ago past, wasn’t there a sentence of “death by a thousand pecs”?
In 1960s, I knew someone with Hodgkins which was invariably fatal. Later, my cousin was diagnosed with Hodgkins 25 years ago, and chemo cured him and now he has a full-time job, runs a farm, and is a volunteer firefighter. At 55, he is as robust as he was when he was 30.
That is an anecdote; but a doctor, here, can fill in the numbers. As I recall, essentially nobody survived Hodgkins before the 70s, but more than 80% of cases, today, can be cured by chemotherapy.
Pec, your imagination and wishful thinking are no match for reality.
Pec asks:
That would be the nineteenth century and the first half of the twentieth century. During those times, cancers were meticulously diagnosed and their natural course dutifully observed and recorded – primarily because that was all the doctors of the time could do.
Surgery was done (after the discovery of anesthesia), but chemotherapy for cancer was unknown until the early part of the twentieth century.
We know what happens with cancers – of a variety of types – that are treated with nothing (as was done for most of the nineteenth century) or with surgery alone (late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries) and the results weren’t nearly as good as treatment with chemotherapy (for those cancers where chemotherapy is indicated – not all are treated that way).
For that matter, “CAM” has given us a unique opportunity to see – in the twenty-first century – the natural history of untreated cancer. There are numerous people – many of them described right here in this ‘blog – who have been conned by “CAM” practitioners (quactitioners?) into using non-surgical and non-chemotherapeutic “options” to treat their cancers. The results have not been pretty.
Pec is clutching at straws. The data – and even anecdotes! – show that chemotherapy for cancer – when indicated – generally prolongs life and/or improves the quality of the remaining time a cancer patient has. Pec thinks that by closing her eyes, plugging her ears and screaming “Lalalalala! I can’t hear you!”, she can change reality.
Sorry, Pec, it doesn’t work that way.
By the way, I’m still waiting for Pec to provide one example of an observable phenomenon that is explained better by “life energy” than by “conventional” forces.
[crickets chirping, coyotes howling, tumbleweeds rustling as they roll by]
Prometheus
@ Prometheus: For that matter, “CAM” has given us a unique opportunity to see – in the twenty-first century – the natural history of untreated cancer. There are numerous people – many of them described right here in this ‘blog – who have been conned by “CAM” practitioners (quactitioners?) into using non-surgical and non-chemotherapeutic “options” to treat their cancers. The results have not been pretty.
Here’s a news story fresh off the AP wire demonstrating just that:
“Judge rules family can’t refuse chemo for boy”
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090515/ap_on_re_us/us_med_forced_chemo
This is so sad. I hope the charlatan who recommended “natural remedies” for this boy gets prosecuted (again).
The difference between a new chemo drug and a new parapsychology study is that the chemo drug is evaluated in the context of a coherent body of knowledge about a demonstrated phenomenon (cancer) and progress is demonstrated by progressively increased survival rates and improved palliation. A new parapsychology study alleging to show dogs know when their owners are coming home appears in the context of unconnected studies of other alleged parapsychological phenomena with no coherence and no overall guiding hypothesis. One alleged phenomenon is identified and then they go on to look for another, rather than trying to study the laws that govern how the first phenomenon works – whether the effect varies with distance and other factors. No progress is made.
We can test and learn things about a chemo drug: which cancers it works for, in combination with which other drugs, how much to give for each dose, how often to give it and for how long, whether it lowers the white blood count, what its side effects are and how to minimize them, etc. etc. There is nothing comparable in parapsychology.
For some reason, the latest version of the AP story does not contain this information from the original story:
“The Hausers have eight children. Colleen Hauser told the New Ulm Journal newspaper that the family’s Catholicism and adherence to the Nemenhah Band are not in conflict, and that she has used natural remedies to treat illness.
Nemenhah was founded in the 1990s by Philip Cloudpiler Landis, who said Thursday he once served four months in prison in Idaho for fraud related to advocating natural remedies.
Landis said he founded the faith after facing his diagnosis of a cancer similar to Daniel Hauser. He said he treated it with diet choices, visits to a sweat lodge and other natural remedies. ”
Note also that the pediatric oncologist said his hospital offered supplements and acupuncture to counter the effects of chemo. Jeez! This poor child won’t be able to avoid sCAM no matter what happens.
“There are numerous people – many of them described right here in this ‘blog – who have been conned by “CAM” practitioners (quactitioners?) into using non-surgical and non-chemotherapeutic “options” to treat their cancers. The results have not been pretty.”
And how pretty are the typical results for mainstream treatments? The medical industry is claiming cases that were diagnosed early as cures, even though most early cancer would not have progressed. Alternative practitioners probably do the same thing and are just as deceptive.
You compare your “successes” with CAM failures. Of course CAM often, or always, fails with advanced cases, but so do mainstream treatments.
“One alleged phenomenon is identified and then they go on to look for another, rather than trying to study the laws that govern how the first phenomenon works – whether the effect varies with distance and other factors. No progress is made.”
That is not true. Parapsychologists study things like whether certain types of people have more ESP, what factors might influence psi abilities and effects, etc. You simply have not read much at all about parapsychology. If all you read is one wikipedia page you will not get the whole story. Far from it.
If Sheldrake has not done follow-ups of his dog study (I don’t know if he has) it is most likely related to funding or time constraints. He is only one person, without funding from Big Drug.
pec said, “Parapsychologists study things like whether certain types of people have more ESP, what factors might influence psi abilities and effects, ”
So tell us, what have they learned about which types of people have more ESP and what factors influence psi abilities and effects? And how has this knowledge been used to guide further research or to predict anything? What progress has been made?
pec is still claiming that modern cancer treatment is useless. Repeating a false statement, no matter how many times you say it, will never make it true.
“pec is still claiming that modern cancer treatment is useless”
I am not claiming that. I am claiming that assumptions are being made without good quality evidence. Cases diagnosed early are counted as cures even though chances are they would not have caused death or illness if untreated. And these mainstream success stories are compared to CAM failures. Have you compared cure rates for mainstream vs. CAM for early stage cancer? If not then you can’t be sure mainstream treatments are superior.
pec-”Cases diagnosed early are counted as cures even though chances are they would not have caused death or illness if untreated. ”
Do you have anything to back up this assertion?
[pec-”Cases diagnosed early are counted as cures even though chances are they would not have caused death or illness if untreated. ”
Do you have anything to back up this assertion?]
It is well known and acknowledged in the mainstream, and has been mentioned on this blog. There are mainstream articles, for example, about autopsies showing small cancers that never spread or caused illness. It is very common. Most of these small cancers were probably never diagnosed during the person’s life, especially if they are extremely small. But they are diagnosed more often now, thanks to better imaging technology. This leads to the impression, which may be at least partly an illusion, that cancer rates are increasing but so are cure rates.
And, as I said, CAM practitioners can take advantage of this illusion as well as mainstream practitioners. When early stage cancer is “cured” by any kind of treatment, we should question whether it really was a disease condition. Most cancerous cells are destroyed or contained by the immune system.
Later stage cancer is a different story altogether and for many types there are no reliable treatments. I am not an expert on CAM and I am not advocating any CAM cancer treatments. As far as I know, they are worse than or no better than mainstream treatments for advanced cancer.
But the fact is that mainstream medicine has not made much progress at all in treating cancer, and most of the “progress” is actually an illusion resulting from better diagnostic imaging technology. This is not a controversial statement and even the authors of this blog will admit it.
pec forgets what has been explained to her ad nauseum.
Scientists correct for lead time bias and other sources of error. After these corrections, there is still clear evidence that cancer treatments work.
pec- My question to you would be: If you were told that you had a small tumor that was caught early and was inoperable,but was easily treatable by chemo therapy if you were to act soon, would you ,assuming that you only have one option:
A. Proceed with chemo?
B. Wait to see what happened?
C. Proceed with homeopathy?
D. Proceed with theraputic touch ?
E. Follow some other CAM modality?
” After these corrections, there is still clear evidence that cancer treatments work.”
There is no clear evidence showing how often cancer treatments cure early stage cancer that would have otherwise progressed. There is nothing clear or simple about it and my question was never answered in any straightforward way.
” If you were told that you had a small tumor that was caught early and was inoperable,but was easily treatable by chemo therapy if you were to act soon”
I would choose blood-letting.
pec said, “I would choose blood-letting.”
This is the answer of a troublemaker, not of someone willing to engage in a rational discussion. Shame on you!
Please try to answer this without sarcasm:
Have you read Dr. Gorski’s post about Daniel Hauser today? What would you do if your child had Hodgkin’s lymphoma? Do you deny the large body of scientific evidence showing that it is curable with chemotherapy and almost routinely fatal without it?
Indeed we do, and I wrote a long post last year about lead time bias, length bias, and the Will Rogers effect. In fact, pec probably wouldn’t even know what those terms mean if she hadn’t read my post.
In any case, this has all has been explained to pec time and time again, and yet she still keeps repeating the same nonsense. When pec says, “There is no clear evidence showing how often cancer treatments cure early stage cancer that would have otherwise progressed,” she is making a blanket statement about a relatively few cancers where there is genuine uncertainty (very small foci of ductal carcinoma in situ progressing into breast cancer or small foci of prostate cancer) and implying that that is true for most, if not all, cancers. Certainly she doesn’t qualify it.
Here’s the problem. We currently do not have any way to determine which early cancer in a given patient will progress to life-threatening cancer. Until we do have techniques that will allow us to do that accurately, the default is to treat the patient. pec seems to be arguing that, because we can’t estimate this for individual patients, that chemotherapy doesn’t work.
Harriet,
From what I have heard, some forms of childhood cancer are curable with chemotherapy. If I had a child with cancer I would learn all I could about it and would act according to the scientific evidence. Of course the comparisons between chemo and no chemo cannot be made so the evidence would be hard to interpret. I don’t know why there is so much certainty about the effectiveness of the current treatments for these diseases and I would be skeptical, as always, when trying to find out. I would also want to know the possible long-term harmful effects of the treatment.
It is much harder to make this kind of decision for someone else, especially a helpless child, than for oneself. Right now I really don’t know if there is unambiguous high-quality evidence. I do not trust the medical industry (or CAM for that matter) so I would have to do a lot of research. As any one should who is responsible for a child with a serious disease.
“We currently do not have any way to determine which early cancer in a given patient will progress to life-threatening cancer.”
We know that most will not, if they are diagnosed very early.
“pec seems to be arguing that, because we can’t estimate this for individual patients, that chemotherapy doesn’t work.”
No, I am arguing that you do not know if it works or how often it works. But that doesn’t stop you from claiming patients are cured when they are given chemo and “recover.”
So there are very many cases that are categorized as cures where the therapy did nothing.
This is deceptive and the public does not realize it. It is possible that chemo is the wrong approach for many types of cancer, and that other avenues should be investigated.
Really? Now many?
If we can estimate what percentage of tumors would have regressed (or at least never progressed) if left alone, then, when coupled with the literature on various chemotherapy regimens for various cancers, we have enough information to estimate how many cases are incorrectly categorized as “cures” where the therapy didn’t do anything.
Get cracking. Put some specificity into those vague guesses of yours.
“There is no clear evidence showing how often cancer treatments cure early stage cancer that would have otherwise progressed,”
“Most alternative science and CAM assumes the existence of some kind of biological energy and fields. There is absolutely no reason for mainstream science and medicine to deny that these concepts are plausible.”
Why not apply the same standards to both?
Wrong. The comparisons between the regimens of chemotherapy we have now and older regimens can and have been made. Let me make an analogy. Alt-med mavens often claim that we don’t accept uncontrolled studies or anecdotes for “alternative cancer cures” because they are not randomized studies. That is mostly true, but there are exceptions. For example, historical data shows us that half of people with metastatic pancreatic cancer will be dead within less than six months of diagnosis and less than 5% will still be alive in two years. Virtually none of them will be alive in five years. If someone (like Gerson, for example) were able to show in a case series of patients with metastatic, biopsy-confirmed pancreatic cancer treated with a new therapy that all of them (or even half of them) were alive at five years, then, given the uniformly dismal prognosis for metastatic pancreatic cancer, we cancer docs would have to sit up and take notice. And we would. You see, when done properly, it’s valid to use historical controls when the disease under study has virtually a 100% mortality. Indeed, one might even argue that in such a case where a case series showed a much higher than expected survival in a treated group it would be unethical to do a randomized trial.
If Gerson or any other purveyor of alternative medicine could produce such a high quality case series, I guarantee that the oncology community would sit up and take notice.
For childhood cancers, it was a similar situation 40-50 years ago. Then, childhood cancers had a poor prognosis, with few long term survivors. Today, on average, between 75-90% of children with childhood cancers are cured with chemotherapy and radiation (and, in some cases, surgery), depending upon the specific tumor. That is an improvement that is simply incredible to behold. Even if we had not a single randomized study to show that our chemotherapy regimens worked, by looking at historical controls alone, we can tell how much better our therapy is now than it was then.
But we have far, far more than that. We have the results of numerous randomized clinical trials done over five decades, the cumulative results of which demonstrate unequivocally that our current regimens are effective and save many lives that would have been lost 40 years ago. The evidence is not “hard to interpret.” It is unequivocal. Our current regimens of chemotherapy and radiation have brought about a radical improvement in the odds of survival for children with cancer. Indeed, our success against childhood cancers represents one of the great success stories of science-based medicine.
I think pec is subscribing to the Goebbels principle that if you repeat a lie enough times people will believe it.
pec herself admitted “I really don’t know if there is unambiguous high-quality evidence.” She doesn’t know; we do; and when we tell her, she refuses to believe us.
“Our current regimens of chemotherapy and radiation have brought about a radical improvement in the odds of survival for children with cancer. ”
As I said, I had heard that mainstream cancer treatments are effective for some common forms of childhood cancer. But this does not seem to be at all the case with adult cancer, so maybe they should not be treated similarly.
“She doesn’t know; we do; and when we tell her, she refuses to believe us.”
I can read as well as you and that’s how I find out information. I don’t need to have blind faith in materialists. Most of what you “know” is your opinion, and I have no reason to make your opinions my own, without questioning your sources and your biases.
And if I admit I don’t know all about a particular subject in detail, that does not mean I am an ignorant idiot in need of expert guidance. No one knows the complete details of any subject area, except maybe their own narrow specialty.
I don’t pretend to be a know-it-all, but that doesn’t mean I can’t read or think for myself.
Actually, given how you keep repeating misinformation over and over again about particular subject areas that you don’t know “all about,” even after being corrected patiently and repeatedly on numerous occasions, I might beg to differ about at least half of your assessment. Clearly, you do need expert guidance. Unfortunately, you reject it.
I think this thread has been pec’d out now. Meeting adjourned?
Because that would be unreasonably privileging the evidence-based narrative.
Microfascist!
” after being corrected patiently and repeatedly on numerous occasions,”
You have never explained in any coherent way how you determine the cure rate for early cancer. You claim a very high success rate, but never explain how you estimate how many patients would have done well with no treatment. You like having the public believe mainstream medicine know how to cure cancer, and you don’t like it when someone asks for evidence. Any evidence you have “patiently” explained was convoluted and not scientifically convincing.
Here is an interesting topic for the crowd!
Health care!
Perhaps this is not the correct area to post this but since
i cannor write my own section on here, ill ask it here…
Being in America, i would like to know how the health care
pros on here feel about the current state of affairs with
the health care system in america?
I have lived in 2 other countires myself and have personally
expirenced socialized medicine and know first hand how it
works and what to expect from it.
Any ideas?
How do we make health care more affordable for americans?
Back on 13 May, I asked Pec if she could:
http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=474#comment-19284
Despite several reminders, Pec has steadfastly ignored my simple request. I am truly puzzled.
Afer all, if this “life energy” exists and is so obvious that “millions” of people believe in it, there must be some objective manifestation of it.
So why can’t Pec – who professes to believe in “life energy” – give me one, single, solitary example of an observable phenomenon that needs “life energy” to explain it?
I’d even settle for a phenomenon that is better explained by “life energy” than it is by conventional forces.
I’m beginning to think that Pec doesn’t have a single example. Prove me wrong, Pec! I really want to believe, all you have to do is give me a chance.
Prometheus
vargkill,
Tort reform and have the freeloaders pay into the system. Indemnify doctors when they deny expensive, high tech, and futile end of life care that the families of patients demand. A consumption tax so that everyone will be paying into the system. Check out the book, Healthcare, Guaranteed by Ezekiel Emanuel.
Mojo,
You’re right. It wouldn’t be fair. I’m so sorry. What was I thinking?
Ok so thats pretty linear, can you go a bit deeper?
I think insurance is bullshit, what’s your opinion?
Odd how pec blithely dismisses anything that disagrees with her preconceptions as “not scientifically convincing” without being able to do anything other than repeating the same schtick again and again and again. No, it’s not odd. It’s par for the course.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=104351710
“After running 36 couples through this test, the researchers found that when one person focused his thoughts on his partner, the partner’s blood flow and perspiration dramatically changed within two seconds. The odds of this happening by chance were 1 in 11,000. Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.”
And what convoluted far-fetched reasons will Gorski and Novella find for dismissing today’s NPR story on non-physical communication?
Not enough known about the methodology to be able to say anything.
Correlation does not equal causation. Whoever wrote that piece (which reads like a news article, and out of which Pec picked the part that appealed to him/her most), about what possibly might have been a real study of some kind, may not have remembered to include that particular point.
Diane
Most published research findings are wrong. Never believe one study. We must wait for independent replication. For that matter, NEVER believe news reports without checking the studies themselves – news reports are so often distorted and inaccurate.
“Three dozen double blind, randomized studies by such institutions as the University of Washington and the University of Edinburgh have reported similar results.”
I doubt that. I bet they are all different kinds of studies with different end points. I’d like to see those 36 articles.
The idea of quantum entanglement shows a misunderstanding fo quantum physics. As the article itself says “Physicists are very clear that the relationship is purely correlational and not causal,” Sloan says. “There is nothing causal about quantum entanglement. It’s good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.”
pec, if you want to pursue this further, please contact the reporter and get a list of the studies so we can look at the original data rather than a reporter’s second-hand interpretation.
[The idea of quantum entanglement shows a misunderstanding fo quantum physics. As the article itself says “Physicists are very clear that the relationship is purely correlational and not causal,” Sloan says. “There is nothing causal about quantum entanglement. It’s good to be open-minded, but not so open-minded that your brains fall out.”]
Of course, because Sloan is a dogmatic materialist. NO ONE understands quantum physics, Harriet! Not even physicists who devote their lives to it! So please don’t join the dogmatic materialists in falling back on that objection.
[pec, if you want to pursue this further, please contact the reporter and get a list of the studies so we can look at the original data rather than a reporter’s second-hand interpretation.]
That is a good idea, and I will try it. And earlier experiment of this type by Radin was torn apart by “skeptics” who made him look like an idiot. I don’t believe them, but I have no blind faith in Radin and his noetic friends either.
pec said, “NO ONE understands quantum physics”
That may be true, but physicists have studied how it behaves and have made accurate predictions based on that knowledge. It’s like gravity: no one understands it, but we can calculate its effects. Physicists have calculated that quantum entanglement is not an explanation for the phenomena referred to.
Harriet,
Quantum physics is not like gravity. Neither is understood, but quantum physics is much less understood. It is not something we can related to or see examples of in daily life.
I don’t care what physicists think they have calculated — and I’m sure most physicists would agree that they have not come to any conclusions on the subject.
“Skeptics” just use that excuse to deny the obvious fact that reality is much stranger than the old pre-20th century theories ever imagined.
“quantum entanglement is not an explanation for the phenomena referred to”
No, it is not an explanation. But it is an observation that although things may seem completely separate in space they can actually be intimately connected.
Harriet, please admit it — no one understands this stuff! And when parapsychologists get this kind of result — as they often do — it’s hard to dismiss.
Sloan’s statements are purely dogmatic and unthinking and irrational.
pec,
Yes, “It is not something we can related to or see examples of in daily life.” That’s why laymen get such wrong ideas about it. But physicists study it and have plenty of experimental examples and have learned enough about it to use it for valid predictions and to design technology that works.
Quantum entanglement refers to observations at the quantum level. Non-physicists think they can extrapolate concepts that are only valid at the quantum level to a macroscopic level – but the concepts are not valid at a macroscopic level. As Orac explained on his blog, “the “interesting” quantum effects average out as you get more and more particles together. This is referred to as “decoherence” and explains why we don’t see footballs (”soccer” balls, to those raised in the US) changing into waves during the World Cup.” You can read Victor Stenger’s “The Unconscious Quantum” for a fuller explanation.
Physicists have done the calculations to show that decoherence prohibits using quantum entanglement to explain consciousness or parapsychology.
You “don’t care what physicists think they have calculated” because you would rather believe in parapsychology than accept what physicists have learned.
No Harriet! There are physicists who DO NOT AGREE with that! Brian Josephson comes to mind, but there are others. There is a whole world in science that you are not aware of, because the “skeptic” organizations pretend it does not exist!
” rather believe in parapsychology than accept what physicists have learned.”
NO! I care more about the evidence and being rational than belonging to some group!
“There are physicists who DO NOT AGREE with that.” Sure. There is no idea so crazy that you can’t find a PhD somewhere to support it.
Josephson has “renounced conventional physics” and admits that to explain ESP, quantum theory would have to be “overhauled.” http://www.stevens.edu/csw/cgi-bin/blogs/horganism/?p=20
The physicists who remain committed to existing “conventional” (evidence-based) physics agree with Victor Stenger.
There is no consensus. Some people don’t want to admit that most things are unknown, or that there is strangeness and mysteriousness in the universe. They want things to appear sensible from a human point of view, without stopping to think that we are just one little species in a tiny corner of the universe. I would not expect things to make sense from our point of view! But that is what materialists hope for and demand. They want the knowledge already acquired to be the last word, and they want things to be simple and comprehensible with our little human brains. They sincerely believe that we are smarter than the universe (which they are sure is dead and mindless), so it just can’t be all that complicated.
Yes there are alternative scientists who throw around quantum concepts as if it can explain everything, and they are mistaken also.
The last word is that we don’t know. It’s more interesting to be open to new evidence than to always find ways to deny evidence that contradicts what you already believe. The organized “skeptics” work long and hard to keep their preconceived ideas intact. They don’t understand quantum physics — even the physicists don’t!
And I just happened to mention Josephson, but there is a a whole field of neurophsyics and some of it does consider quantum physics in trying to understand how the brain works.
“We don’t know.” So should we be content to imagine that any weird idea could be true, or should we do science? I think most scientists are very willing to admit the limits of our knowledge and the mysteriousness in the universe; but they think human science has a good chance of increasing our knowledge and explaining the mysteries. The very nature of science insures that no one can claim that the knowledge already acquired is the last word. Scientific theories are always subject to modification based on high-quality new evidence.
If good evidence is lacking or if the evidence contradicts what you want to believe, it may make you feel better to say we don’t know everything and our intellects are too puny to understand, but it’s a cop-out.
Harriet,
We are both saying that we believe in science and that we follow the evidence, not ideology. There is no argument in that regard. But we know about different evidence and we disagree about certain things. I do not think all the parapsychology evidence is the result of fraud and error, and I don’t think anyone familiar with the fields could honestly say that.
You don’t have to preach to me about the virtues of science because I already agree. I just do not think there is anything about science that leads to a materialist ideology.
Nothing in science tells us the universe is dead and mindless and made out of “matter.” That philosophy doesn’t make sense to me, because I am scientific rather than ideological, and I have considered the available evidence.
pec- Here is what I would like to know: You come on this blog challenging what you call ‘dogmatic materialist’ opinions, but when challenged with counter information you always retreat to the ’sensible’ position that “I am scientific rather than ideological” , “We are both saying that we believe in science”,”NO! I care more about the evidence and being rational than belonging to some group!”, or “Yes there are alternative scientists who throw around quantum concepts as if it can explain everything, and they are mistaken also.” Soooo, given your statements that seem to indicate that you are not biased against conventional science, and apparently are even-handed and open minded,and only seek the truth, could you direct me to the blogs that you frequent that espouse what we are calling pseudo-science, so that we can see where you have taken them to task in a similar manner that you continually do here? After all, pec, if you really are not one sided about these things, then you must be also attacking Dean Radin’s followers as well, or chiropratic believers, or homeopathic adherents, right. Give us the URL’s so we can see for ourselves how you roam the nets delivering well placed skeptical criticism on BOTH sides of these issues. If you can’t, then quit trying to pretend that you are a modern day Diogenes.
And oh, by the way, since you are so fond of referring to people on this blog as “dogmatic materialists” (so much for being objective) I will, from here on knight thee: IMMATERIAL : From Merriam Webster:” of no substantial consequence : unimportant”. See I was nice, I left off the “dogmatic” bit.
pec said,
“I just do not think there is anything about science that leads to a materialist ideology.” I don’t think so either. It couldn’t possibly lead to a materialist ideology because it can’t lead to ANY ideology. Science deals only with evaluating claims that can be tested. Materialism is a philosophical position in an entirely different universe of discourse.
As for parapsychology, I think we know about the same evidence. I just apply more rigorous standards and decline to accept things you find acceptable. I think you are deliberately misunderstanding what I meant about error. Sometimes the error is in the whole design of the experiment, as Ray Hyman explained.
“Nothing in science tells us the universe is dead and mindless and made out of “matter.” Very true. But everything in science is compatible with that hypothesis.
You say “That philosophy doesn’t make sense to me, because I am scientific” That doesn’t even make sense because science has nothing to say about philosophy.
Yup, it’s death by a thousand pecs.
“Sometimes the error is in the whole design of the experiment, as Ray Hyman explained.”
Hyman has not found defects in all areas of parapsychology, so I don’t understand why you think it has all been debunked. In your review of Gary Schwartz’s energy experiments book, you never said what you thought was wrong with his experiments. Your only criticism was that the Rosa experiment contradicted all of his. You trust one experiment that supports your world view and reject all the many experiments he did that demonstrated some kind of healing energy.
As I have said several times already, it is possible that two different experimenters can get completely different results , even though neither is guilty of fraud or error. That is because, as is acknowledged by some parapsychologists, the experimenter’s attitude towards psi cannot be screened out.
That might account for some of the controversy and confusion surrounding parapsychology. If two researchers follow exactly the same procedures they should get the same results, but that might not always be the case when studying psi.
I very much doubt that you have reviewed a large amount of parapsychology research and found all of it defective. I don’t think any of the skeptics, including Hyman, have been able to explain away all the many successful experiments.
“If two researchers follow exactly the same procedures they should get the same results, but that might not always be the case when studying psi.”
That may not be the case when studying anything. Bias occurs everywhere. If it’s real, then it should be replicable.
pec said, “you never said what you thought was wrong with his experiments”
Yes I did. More than once. Did you forget, or did you fail to understand what you read?
“The only thing of substance in the book is the experiments, which lose credibility because they were not accepted for publication in mainstream peer-reviewed journals.”
“He finally gets around to mentioning Emily Rosa’s landmark experiment, published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 1998, which showed that therapeutic touch practitioners could not sense human energy fields as they claimed. ”
Your only criticism, of all the many the experiments described in the book, was of the energy sensing experiment, because he used blindfolds and did not consider hand temperature. I do not think Gary Schwartz is perfect, but he is an experienced and qualified researcher. I don’t think one skeptical experiment outweighs all the hundreds of experiments he has done on energy healing.
And your main objection is that the Rosa experiment showed — conclusively and without a hint of doubt — that no energy healers in the world can ever sense human energy fields.
Your other main objection is the infallible James Randi who has held on to his million dollars. And of course Randi is perfectly fair and scientific and unbiased.
I am going to read some more recent books that summarize parapsychology, since the subject is becoming ever more controversial and divided.
I prefer books written by true skeptics, not believers or materialists. Then I should be able to provide you with more and better information.
I agree that Schwartz, Radin and Sheldrake are all believers. Then have seen so many of their own experiments get positive results. They know they aren’t deluded or crazed and that their methods, while not always perfect, are far from careless.
So they believe what they have seen, over and over, understandably. But I will look for books by others who are not directly involved in the research.
pec,
I used to believe in all this nonsense too. I thought my lucid dreams were out of body experiences, thought I could make tea leaves move in a cup of tea, etc. Then I turned to the dark side, ie the scientific method and demolished all my beliefs regarding this. If any of this is real then it hasn’t been found yet. I felt like the guy who realized the boy was right when he explained that the emperor had no clothes.
pec,
Do you have some parapsychological access to some part of my brain that I can’t access? Because you keep telling me what I think, and I don’t think it’s what I think. For instance, I certainly don’t remember ever suggesting “that no energy healers in the world can ever sense human energy fields,” and I don’t think my brain is capable of thinking in those absolute terms. Apparently I don’t know my own mind, but you do.
I won’t presume to continue this discussion with you, because the “me” that you want to argue with is not the “me” that I know. You don’t need me. You can just continue to make up what you think I think and carry on your own dialog with the straw man (woman) you have set up.
Harriet,
I think the identity you have created for yourself is a person who divides the world into scientific/rational/educated vs. unscientific/credulous/ignorant. You are actively involved in the organized political “skeptical” movement, like the other authors at this blog. If you acknowledge that even one parapsychology experiment has not been debunked (and very many have not, but you won’t even admit there is one left standing), that opens the possibility that the “rational” materialist world view may be incomplete.
Like all the other “skeptics” here you discount all the insights and theories related to contemporary physics as irrelevant woo that can’t possibly have anything to do with how our minds work. It has already been decided — the brain generates intelligence and consciousness, like some kind of computer. Never mind that no one has proof or evidence for this assumption, it just HAS to be that way.
Any kind of evidence that might suggest that intelligence and consciousness are not created somehow by the brain would damage your certainty. No matter how much evidence the parapsychologists gather, you will deny it and pretend it has all been shown to result from fraud or error.
“the scientific method and demolished all my beliefs regarding this. If any of this is real then it hasn’t been found yet.”
No one has the answers weing. You were disappointed because no one could give you certainty, so you created your own certainty — nothing is real unless it has already been demonstrated by experiments. That leaves almost everything still unknown, but you can’t handle that. Your reality is the already-known and the already-discovered. Everything else must be “nonsense.”
I’m almost beginning to believe in psychic powers.
pec not only knows what I think (when I don’t think I think that), but she also knows more about what weing thinks than he does. She is even predicting what I will think in the future. Very impressive, pec!
Do you think the man who realized the emperor really had no clothes was disappointed? Maybe because he had to have a child point it out. But I would rather say he was enlightened. I stopped searching for certainty a long time ago. I am quite satisfied with the conditional.
pec said:”I prefer books written by true skeptics, not believers or materialists.”
A true skeptic should not a priori reject information based solely on the philosophical leanings ( i.e. materialism etc.)of a proponent. Instead, skeptics should only look at the substance of the proponent’s claims.
True, we don’t always live up to this standard, but then we are all human, and what we tend to believe is influenced by many conscious and unconscious biases. That is why the scientific method was developed to limit those biases. You are starting with the bias that “I reject materialism” so any science that looks like materialism is therefore wrong. Not very scientific right? Or do you a priori reject the scientific method as well?
P.S. Got those URL’s where you challenge the woo- meisters yet?
[You are starting with the bias that “I reject materialism” so any science that looks like materialism is therefore wrong.]
I did not start with a bias against materialism. I learned materialism and atheism in college, when I was young. I assumed that whatever the professors said with such great authority must be based in science and reason. Over the course of my life I questioned what I had learned, and eventually decided that materialism is not based in logic or evidence. I concentrated on the fields of biological evolution, artificial intelligence and parapsychology.
I don’t pretend to be an authority or a know-it-all. My whole point is generally that we do not have answers for the big questions. People like Dawkins claim to have those answers. I realize that not all “skeptics” are quite as dogmatic and certain as Dawkins, but most of you probably sympathize with his opinions.
pec-”Over the course of my life I questioned what I had learned, and eventually decided that materialism is not based in logic or evidence.” So you agree, that your *current* bias is that you reject materialism. So that any science that is rooted in materialism is therefore not logical and not evidence based? What about the science of aerodynamics? That seem to be a fairly straightforward example of ‘materialistic’ science.Is aerodynamics illogical or lacking in evidence? Is there some paranormal explanation of powered flight that is out there for you to defend?
“So you agree, that your *current* bias is that you reject materialism. So that any science that is rooted in materialism is therefore not logical and not evidence based?”
There is no science that is rooted in materialism. Materialism is a philosophy. There is nothing in any of the scientific discoveries that support the philosophy of materialism. The scientific method in no way relies on the philosophy of materialism.
Materialists today no longer claim that only matter is real — now many things have been discovered that are senses can’t perceive.
Materialists no longer have a coherent position. They seem to believe that no substances, energies or fields can exist that have not already been discovered.
The idea that there might be things that mainstream science has not already discovered IN NO WAY denies that our scientific knowledge is valid! It just isn’t complete.
“Is there some paranormal explanation of powered flight that is out there for you to defend?”
If someone is not a materialist, that in no way implies they believe in paranormal explanations for everything! Some things have been explained and discovered by science, at least partly. Why do you believe that scientific knowledge is already complete and everything is known and understood, just because some things are?
pec-”There is no science that is rooted in materialism.”
Hmmm. From the Dictionary of Philosophy of Mind:”Materialism is a general view about what actually exists. Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.”
Are you really going to argue that there is *NO* science that is rooted in things “that actually exist”?
pec-”now many things have been discovered that are (sic) senses can’t perceive.” Okay, does this mean that those things are not material phenomenon? An example please.
pec- “They seem to believe that no substances, energies or fields can exist that have not already been discovered.”
Who the hell ever asserted this ? Your straw man is burning,call 911.
pec-”If someone is not a materialist, that in no way implies they believe in paranormal explanations for everything! ”
That’s the thing,pec, it’s really hard to know what you actually believe, because you start off defending things like chiropractic medicine, homeopathy, remote healing, etc., then when people try to counter your arguments, you weasel- word your way out of it and start throwing around the ‘materialist’ accusation.
pec-”Why do you believe that scientific knowledge is already complete and everything is known and understood, just because some things are?”
I think I will miss you most of all, scare-crow maker.Where’s that fire engine?
—Any kind of evidence that might suggest that intelligence and consciousness are not created somehow by the brain would damage your certainty. No matter how much evidence the parapsychologists gather, you will deny it and pretend it has all been shown to result from fraud or error.—
Classic crank: “You’re upset at my lunacy because you’re afraid of the Truth(tm).”
I find it helpful to substitute “reality” for “materialism” in a crankalog.
[”Materialism is a general view about what actually exists. Put bluntly, the view is just this: Everything that actually exists is material, or physical.”]
By that definition, everyone has to be a materialist. So it doesn’t mean anything.
pec-”By that definition, everyone has to be a materialist. So it doesn’t mean anything.”
So you get to define your *own* terms, then assign them to those that don’t conform to your world view, and you call that an argument? Give me a break pec! can’t you do better than that?
In any case, I identified my source of definition , agree with it or not. Also you didn’t give me the example that I requested for things are not material phenomenon, and I am still waiting for you to direct us to those woo websites where you must be criticizing those people for their credulity since you are said to be skeptical of them as well. Or is it that you really are only critical of people with a reality world view?
There are intangible things that exist in law, intangible property exists and can be bought and sold but it is not “material”.
d2u- Now don’t be goin’ all semantical on me bro !
@pec: “Materialists no longer have a coherent position. They seem to believe that no substances, energies or fields can exist that have not already been discovered.”
Well, it’s that word “seems”, isn’t it? You’re allowing your prejudices to colour your view.
What scientists tend to do is to not worry too much about entities that cannot be detected and have no observable effects. Some people find this attitude objectionable.
[...] Chiropractic in the News (sciencebasedmedicine.org) [...]