Articles

369 thoughts on “Chiropractic – A Brief Overview, Part I

  1. Harriet Hall says:

    “Let me see, it is a big choice here?
    Quackwatch or Harvard University???????/
    Quackwatch or JMPT?
    Quackwatch or Royal Commission of Inquiry?”

    I would pick Quackwatch every time, because I have seen egregious errors from all those other sources, but I have never found an error on the Quackwatch site. And despite all the ad hominem attacks on Dr. Barrett, no one here has been able to point out any false statements in the content of the Quackwatch website. They may disagree with Dr. Barrett’s conclusions, but his facts are solid and are supported by references.

  2. OZDigger says:

    Harriet, as long as you support Quackwatch, your posts can only be considered suspect. I have gone into the site and read some of the articles. They remind me of some of the articles I have read by the Holocaust Deniers. Lots of rhetoric, but short of unbiased fact.
    It is not valid, could not be used as a reference for any peer review article. It is unsafe.

    It is to “Medical Literature”, as the Chevrolet Corvair was the automobile safety.

    “Unsafe at any speed”.
    (With apologies to Ralph Nader)

  3. weing says:

    OZ,

    Can you give an example of what you found that upset you or struck you as wrong? What is a biased fact?

  4. daedalus2u says:

    I drove a corvair for years, it was a great car. It was only “unsafe” if you didn’t know how to drive it and allowed the wheels to lock up, then it was unstable and would go into a spin.

    The “medical literature”, is written by medical professionals for medical professionals. It is meant to be a communication from one peer to another peer. From one person who understands the science to another person who understands the science sufficiently well that when they don’t know something they are aware of it and look it up by looking at the cited references or at the rest of the scientific and medical literature.

    It is said that it is a poor workman who blames his tools. A poor driver who drives his car in an unsafe manner. If you don’t ‘understand the scientific or medical literature, the fault is not with the literature.

  5. OZDigger says:

    I understand “scientific literature” very well.
    Quackwatch is not part of it. It is unsafe, biased and outdated in a lot of the articles.
    It would not be accepted to be used in a citation.

  6. nwtk2007 says:

    Biased is correct. Hypocritical application of principals applied on one side and not on the other.

    The bias is clear as I have stated previously.

    But it is human nature to be biased. As long as they are not too self righteous, the bias is their option. I guess, in America, even self righteous bias is OK, but it is certainly not acceptable in a “scientific” community.

    It is the blindness to the bias here that is most egregious. It is always those who feel most sure of their correctness that are the most susceptible to a biased point of view.

    Not necessarily Dr Hall, but many who post here are biased in the extreme. Although, to embrace the Quackwatch brigade is very, very suspect indeed.

  7. weing says:

    “It is always those who feel most sure of their correctness that are the most susceptible to a biased point of view.”

    You see very sure that you are correct about Quackwatch being biased. Again, examples of bias and danger from either your or OZ would be helpful. Or do we just have to take your word for it?

  8. Harriet Hall says:

    Quackwatch is indeed biased – in favor of rigorous science and critical thinking. Some people’s beliefs are threatened by that and they lash out with ad hominems and blanket condemnations. But no one has offered any cogent criticism of Quackwatch content or any examples of any inaccuracies on the site.

  9. lonelystudent says:

    @OZ: I agree with you but would replace the word “unsafe” with “creepy”

  10. Joe says:

    @lonelystudent: Great, another person to tell us specific errors of fact in technical articles at Quackwatch. (Typographical errors don’t count.)

  11. nobs says:

    HH->>>”I would pick Quackwatch every time, because I have seen egregious errors from all those other sources,

    Yes, I agree that there have been egregious errors that have made it through the peer-review process in prestigious journals– eg. see: http://www.thenation.com/doc/20020805/newman20020725

    However, it is a logical fallacy to conclude that by default, “THAT” makes quackwatch a valid, non-”egregious” source. You already know that, Harriet.

    ““““““““`

    HH->>”but I have never found an error on the Quackwatch site.

    That is your personal ancedote…… Nothing more.

    It is interesting to note here that you omitted your association with quackwatch: you are listed as a “medical advisor” to Quackwatch. That would be considered an “egregious” failure of disclosure in peer-reviewed journals…..

    “““““““““`

    HH->>>” And despite all the ad hominem attacks on Dr. Barrett,

    I must dispute that- nothing posted here re: Barrett has been unfactual, and your use of the “ad hominem” defense is without merit.

    ““““““““`

    HH->>>”no one here has been able to point out any false statements in the content of the Quackwatch website. They may disagree with Dr. Barrett’s conclusions, but his facts are
    solid and are supported by references.

    Do not confuse “false statements” with the more insidious: intellectually dishonest statements, misleading statements, statements from an assumption of a false(“uncredible”) scientific authority…….

    Quackwatch is an op/ed site- nothing more. Respresenting it as anything other is “egregiously” dishonest.

  12. Grimreapor says:

    I’m just curious as well. What (if any) substantial criticism do you have of Quackwatch?

    Admittedly I have not read every article on the site, but so far I have not found a fault in his articles.

    The only criticism about Quackwatch are the alternative medicine groups who probably deserve a libel/slander suit against them for what they say.

    And in all honesty I don’t see we need to call using ‘rigorous science and critical thinking’ as being biased… One works the other won’t. Who would you trust more, a physicist building your plane or a priest with no knowledge? Personally I’d take science any day of my life.

  13. weing says:

    “Quackwatch is an op/ed site- nothing more. Respresenting it as anything other is “egregiously” dishonest.”
    Oh I get it. You don’t like the opinions. You don’t need to defend your tastes. But what would make it unsafe? You still don’t seem to be able to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

  14. nobs says:

    Grim->>”I’m just curious as well. What (if any) substantial criticism do you have of Quackwatch?

    See above. It is an op/ed site- nothing more. Everyone is entitled to their opinions, and even to create websites to publish their opinions. Quackwatch is such a site. It reflects the OPINION of the site owner and whom he allows/recruits as “contributors”.

    ““““

    Grim->>”The only criticism about Quackwatch are the alternative medicine groups who probably deserve a libel/slander suit against them for what they say.”

    REALLY???? REALLY??? Please elaborate.
    “““““““`

    Grim->>”And in all honesty I don’t see we need to call using ‘rigorous science and critical thinking’ as being biased…

    It depends on what you call/define as ‘rigorous science and critical thinking’ . Please clarify.

    “““““““““

    Grim->>” One works the other won’t.”

    HUH???? See above

    ““““““““““

    Grim->>”Who would you trust more, a physicist building your plane or a priest with no knowledge? Personally I’d take science any day of my life.”

    I absolutely agree with you here. Barrett simply doesn’t have the credentials or education to set himself up as the “expert” he claims to be. In fact, in a recent court case in California (which he lost) a panel of judges declared him “biased and unworthy of credibility”. Anyone that’s thoughtful and reasoning should view Barrett’s biased rhetoric as precisely that: extreme opinions he attempts to disguise as “fact”.

    Is THIS what you wish to define as “‘rigorous science and critical thinking’”?

  15. nobs says:

    Weing->>”Quackwatch is an op/ed site- nothing more. Respresenting it as anything other is “egregiously” dishonest.”
    Oh I get it. You don’t like the opinions. You don’t need to defend your tastes. But what would make it unsafe? You still don’t seem to be able to provide any evidence to back up your claims.

    It is what it is—– an op/ed site—–it appears that it is YOU that has a problem with that? If you do not agree- what do you prefer to call it?

  16. Harriet Hall says:

    “intellectually dishonest statements, misleading statements, statements from an assumption of a false(”uncredible”) scientific authority……. ”

    Still no specific examples. I’ve never seen anything on the website that would meet that description.

    “It is an op/ed site-”
    It is an educational and informative site that expresses “bottom line” opinions based on solid referenced facts.
    Quackwatch is highly regarded by everyone except those whose beliefs it challenges. The Wikipedia article about Quackwatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch has a long list of kudos with references. Just one example:
    The Health On the Net Foundation, which confers the HONcode “Code of Conduct” certification to reliable sources of health information in cyberspace, directly recommends Quackwatch,[61] and has stated about Quackwatch:
    “On the positive side, “four web sites stand out” from the rest for the exemplary quality of their information and treatments: quackwatch.org, ebandolier.com, cis.nci.nih.gov and rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu. Three sites, quackwatch.org, rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/ and cis.nci.nih.gov are HONcode certified by the Health On the Net Foundation.”[62

    “Barrett has been unfactual”
    Still not a single example.

    Ad hominems:
    He is being criticized for not having credentials, for what nonscientists like a judge have said about him, and for having failed a psychiatry board exam in the distant past. These are ad hominem attacks unrelated to the content of the Quackwatch site.

    And yes, I am an advisor to Quackwatch and am the author of several of the articles on the site. I was proud to get involved because long experience showed me that Quackwatch was an accurate source of information with high integrity. I did not specifically mention my association with Quackwatch here because it is common knowledge and is prominently featured on my personal website. If you have any specific criticisms of the articles I wrote for Quackwatch, please explain.

  17. weing says:

    “It is what it is—– an op/ed site—–it appears that it is YOU that has a problem with that? If you do not agree- what do you prefer to call it?”

    I don’t have any problem with that. I’ve never visited that site. All I know is that it appears to have engendered strong feelings in you about it. What is he supposed to be an expert at? Quackery?

  18. nobs says:

    “““““““““
    # Harriet Hallon 04 Jul 2009 at 11:26 am
    “intellectually dishonest statements, misleading statements, statements from an assumption of a false(”uncredible”) scientific authority……. ”

    Still no specific examples. I’ve never seen anything on the website that would meet that description.

    THAT is your personal opinion. You are entitled to that. Don’t masquerade it is being something else.

    “““““““““““““
    HH->>”“It is an op/ed site-”
    It is an educational and informative site that expresses “bottom line” opinions based on solid referenced facts.

    That still makes it an op/ed site. Whether it informs and educates is subjective.

    “Bottom line” ????? REALLY? “bottom line” implies ‘case closed’>>>….>>no discussion. WOW! Is that your position?

    ““““““““`

    HH->>”Quackwatch is highly regarded by everyone except those whose beliefs it challenges.

    HMM- I’ve never seen it even cited by any peer-reviewed sources/PUBMED sources…..yup the same peer-reviewed sources you seem to cite when it suits your propag….I mean agend….I mean….well you know what I mean….your position.

    HH->>”The Wikipedia article about Quackwatch http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quackwatch has a long list of kudos with references. Just one example:
    The Health On the Net Foundation, which confers the HONcode “Code of Conduct” certification to reliable sources of health information in cyberspace, directly recommends Quackwatch,
    [61] and has stated about Quackwatch:
    “On the positive side, “four web sites stand out” from the rest for the exemplary quality of their information and treatments: quackwatch.org, ebandolier.com, cis.nci.nih.gov and rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu. Three sites, quackwatch.org, rosenthal.hs.columbia.edu/ and cis.nci.nih.gov are HONcode certified by the Health On the Net Foundation.”[62″

    Quoting Wikipedia????? From “egregious” peer-reviewed journals, to wikipedia? Are you serious? Do you really want to go there?

    ““““““““`

    “Barrett has been unfactual”
    Still not a single example.

    Uninteligible……..??????

    “““““““““““““

    HH->>>”Ad hominems:
    He is being criticized for not having credentials, for what nonscientists like a judge have said about him, and for having failed a psychiatry board exam in the distant past. These
    are ad hominem attacks unrelated to the content of the Quackwatch site.”

    I don’t see any of that as being posted here. AND–I will not address your ad hom of “non-scientific judges”. You appear to be reconstructing/embellishing posts. However if you think the judges’ details are important/relevant………. by all means, continue……..

    ““““““““

    HH->>”And yes, I am an advisor to Quackwatch and am the author of several of the articles on the site. I was proud to get involved because long experience showed me that Quackwatch was an accurate source of information with high integrity.”

    That is your personal opinion and ancedote.

    ““““““““““

    HH->>”I did not specifically mention my association with Quackwatch here because it is common knowledge and is prominently featured on my personal website. If you have any
    specific criticisms of the articles I wrote for Quackwatch, please explain.

    Harriet- c’mon- I can’t believe you said that. “Common Knowledge”??? To whom? Those that already know you? The same that already agree/support/post in kind with you?. …

    >>”prominently featured on my personal website”….. That is totally lame Harriet. Your personall website is not referenced in quackwatch articles equivalent to references required in peer-reviewed papers To imply otherwise is dishonest.

    You know full well about disclosure. Do you really want to go there?

  19. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs,
    “I’ve never seen it even cited by any peer-reviewed sources/PUBMED sources”
    That means nothing. It is not a primary source.
    —-
    “bottom line” implies ‘case closed’”
    No it doesn’t. It means the best conclusion based on current evidence and is always open to revision.
    —-
    Re Wikipedia: don’t be silly. I cited it not as an authority but because it had a convenient compilation of kudos supported by original references for each.
    ————
    “I don’t see any of that as being posted here.”
    Don’t know why you don’t see it. At least two are posted here and others on a previous thread.
    ————
    “You know full well about disclosure. Do you really want to go there?”
    (1) This website has information about each of the authors with links to further information. It also has a statement about our philosophy and the reason for establishing this blog. I think that’s fair disclosure.
    (2) I haven’t seen any comparable disclosure from the commenters – many of whom are chiropractors who are obviously biased towards their own belief systems.
    —-
    None of you critics of Quackwatch has yet offered any examples to support your criticism. It has been said that “Barrett has been unfactual” and “intellectually dishonest statements, misleading statements, statements from an assumption of a false(”uncredible”) scientific authority……. ” Generalities like that are meaningless blather unless you can support them with facts.

  20. Grimreapor says:

    Nobs saying Quackwatch is an op-ed site is completely unfounded. What makes you think that? Steve Barrett quite nicely explains why the modality is worthless and references to some really good literature to boot. I think you are being intellectually dishonest here. Unless you are reading Steve Barrett’s observations of Quackery which in case it is quite obvious why there are no references.

    Also note that I took the quote ‘rigorous science and critical thinking’ from Harriet Hall. Since I was quoting Harriet Hall I am implying by his same standards science and critical thinking which is quite nicely shown by all writers of SBM.

    Next:
    Who would you trust more, a physicist building your plane or a priest with no knowledge? Personally I’d take science any day of my life.
    Either misunderstood me completely at the point I was getting across and/or twisted to suit yourself. I was comparing Dr Barrett to the physicist and the quacks to the priest. You here are perfectly using an ad homineim attack here. Dr Barrett does not have the credentials therefore he is wrong. You cannot apparently find the ad hominem attacks but you are using them! If a 10 year old tells you that the earth is round and explains why and how we know. Does it mean he is wrong because he has not got the formal qualifications/credentials? It is a more fundamental comparision of what you are saying.

    But even then I think you are misinformed about Dr Barrett’s credentials. He has proven himself very competent in his writings and has even shows his CV on Quackwatch. http://quackwatch.org/10Bio/biovitae.html

    Also reaffirming the point you just don’t get it at times is this:
    ‘“Barrett has been unfactual”
    Still not a single example.

    Uninteligible……..??????’
    Why is that unitelligeble? Quite obviously Harriet Hall is just stating the fact that no one hear has yet shown where Dr Barrett is unfactual.

  21. pmoran says:

    I have worked with Dr Barrett, too. He is forthright in his opinions, but I know how meticulous he is in documenting his sources. He risks litigation from digruntled quacks every day.

    I would thus be astonished if many factual errors could be found in his writings.

    In the absence of examples of his alleged misdeeds, we are entitled to observe that only those who find themselves running out of telling evidence resort to allegations of bias and bad faith. I have yet to hear any of the skeptics question the sincerity of opponents on these chiropractic threads.

  22. OZDigger says:

    It is not hard to find on the internet articles about Barrett et al.
    Whilst some of this may be irrelevant, it does expose some serious shortcomings of the site and organisation. i.e. it’s reluctance to be critical of anything that is considered normal within mainstream medicine. E.G. use of placebos, Vioxx debacle, antibiotic over usage, iatrogenic causes of death just to name a few issues.
    As such, it is still pseudo-scientifically biased and not trustworthy.

    http://www.raysahelian.com/quackwatch.html

  23. Diane Jacobs says:

    OZdigger, this guy’s nose went sideways and he wrote that long defensive accusation because of an innocuous email from Barrett, simply asking for a bit of information? What an over-the-top, porcupine-esque reaction. It’s like Barrett said BOO! and Sahelian jumped instinctively. Makes me understand better how Barrett is doing a good job trying to protect the public from potential scammers, if all he has to do is send an email and get a reaction like that. Sahelian reveals himself completely in that long tirade, doesn’t he?

  24. Harriet Hall says:

    OzDigger criticized Quackwatch’s “reluctance to be critical of anything that is considered normal within mainstream medicine.”

    That is not a valid criticism. That’s like criticizing a website about cats because it doesn’t discuss dogs.

    The whole purpose of Quackwatch was to look at health claims outside mainstream medicine – things that no one else was addressing. It fills a unique niche. Mainstream medicine has always criticized itself; alternative medicine has no such tradition, so Quackwatch was sorely needed.

  25. weing says:

    OZ,
    I checked out the website you linked to. The guy was outraged to be asked questions that any medical speaker or lecturer has to answer upfront. Even when publishing an article in a peer reviewed journal. Sorry, but that information is definitely our business, whether peddling supplements or promoting the latest antibiotic. It appears your friend thinks supplement peddlers should be exempt from such disclosure.

  26. pmoran says:

    “As such, it is still pseudo-scientifically biased and not trustworthy.”

    I find it amazing that you can continue to make such statements, despite being unable to supply an example.

    The most that anyone could possibly claim is that a few of the subjects discussed on Quackwatch are controversial.

    Even in those cases it will be found that Barrett presents prevailing scientiific opinion. It merely suits some slick operators to pretend to the general public that they are engaged in legitimate scientific controversy and that Quackwatch repreresents some kind fo extreme position.

  27. nobs says:

    # pmoranon 04 Jul 2009 at 5:16 pm
    I have worked with Dr Barrett, too. He is forthright in his opinions, but I know how

    meticulous he is in documenting his sources. He risks litigation from digruntled quacks

    every day.

    I would thus be astonished if many factual errors could be found in his writings. In the

    absence of examples of his alleged misdeeds, we are entitled to observe that only those who

    find themselves running out of telling evidence resort to allegations of bias and bad

    faith. I have yet to hear any of the skeptics question the sincerity of opponents on these

    chiropractic threads.”<>”Nobs saying Quackwatch is an op-ed site is completely unfounded. What makes you think

    that? Steve Barrett quite nicely explains why the modality is worthless and references to

    some really good literature to boot. I think you are being intellectually dishonest here.

    Unless you are reading Steve Barrett’s observations of Quackery which in case it is quite

    obvious why there are no references.

    I believe you have answered your own query: ” Steve Barrett quite nicely EXPLAINS……”

    “EXPLAIN” what? His personal interpretation/opinion? I opine that it is YOU that is

    feigning “intellectually ignorant/dishonest”……..trying to pass “EXPLANATIONS” as being

    anything other than opinion. One can base an “explanation” on anything that supports their

    position. “OPINIONS” do not require objectivity. Barrett is entitiled to that. n
    DO NOT mjiscontrue/mislead/misrepresent it as otherwise.

    In the spirit of the oft frequent Harriet Hall: —–Let me “boil it down” for

    you:……… It is an OP/Ed site. (And in the words of “seinfeld”- “nothing wrong with

    that”)…….JUST call it what it is. It is nothing more, and DO NOT represent it as

    anything other. THAT would be “dishonest”.

    Where might I find Barrett’s “explanations” in the indexed peer-reviewed literature>?

    OH YEAh!!! SCRAM!!
    See below:

    ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~`
    Grimreapor->>”Also reaffirming the point you just don’t get it at times is this:‘“Barrett

    has been unfactual”Still not a single example.

    Uninteligible……..??????’
    Why is that unitelligeble? Quite obviously Harriet Hall is just stating the fact that no

    one hear has yet shown where Dr Barrett is unfactual.

    “unfactual” is not the same as misrepresnting or misleading, such as:

    Barrett/Quackwatch describes/adertises SCRAM as being “peer-reviewed”

  28. nobs says:

    # OZDiggeron 05 Jul 2009 at 1:03 am
    >>>…..”As such, it is still pseudo-scientifically biased and not trustworthy.”<<

    I think pseudo-skeptical would be a better descriptive.

  29. Joe says:

    Still no data, nobs. As for your 11:55 post, it is uninterpretable.

  30. Harriet Hall says:

    “misrepresnting or misleading, such as:Barrett/Quackwatch describes/adertises SCRAM as being “peer-reviewed””

    I think you mean SRAM. He describes it as peer reviewed because it IS peer reviewed. It says so on the SRAM website.
    http://www.sram.org/

    And I have personal experience of peer-reviewing and being peer-reviewed for articles in SRAM. I’m wondering where you got the idea that it was NOT peer-reviewed… it seems you are the one whose statements are misrepresenting or misleading.

    Still no cogent criticism of anything in the content of the Quackwatch website.

  31. HH->>”but I have never found an error on the Quackwatch site.

    That is your personal ancedote…… Nothing more.

    I’m confused nobs. You keep complaining about quackwatch, but you haven’t pointed to an article and said “This article is wrong, right here, and here is why.”

    Why not?

  32. nobs says:

    WCTs->>”I’m confused nobs. You keep complaining about quackwatch, but you haven’t pointed to an article and said “This article is wrong, right here, and here is why.”

    Why not?”<<

    Perhaps you have me confused with some other poster…….

    Let me boil it down for you:

    I am not complaining about quackwatch. Do not assign untrue accusations to me. My posts affirm that QW is Barrett’s site, and he has every right to post anything he wants there.
    There are no pre-qualifications. It is his op/ed site, and he has complete liberty to post what suits him.

    Perhaps some took offense when I questioned the declaration of SRAM being proclaimed as “peer-reviewed”.

    I did request some clarification on the ambiquity of SRAM…… describing itself as peer-reviewed”. No one so far has professionally addressed the query. Lots of obfuscation, dodging, meaningless blather………….NO honest reply. Not one.

    Whar makes it’s claim of “peer-review”ed” valid? What is it’s peer-review process? criteria? relative to other “peer-reviewed” journals? Please clue us in as to SRAM’s claims to be “peer-reviewed” .

  33. Citizen Deux says:

    SRAM is peer reviewed as indicated by Dr. Hall’s pointing to the site.

    All submissions will be reviewed by at least one internal editor and will be sent for outside peer review at the editor’s discretion. Authors may suggest reviewers’ names. Depending on the need for reviews, the editors may request submission of at least two hard copies of text, references, legends, tables, figures, and other required elements.

    Now, you may not like the reviewers – but this seems to meet the requirements for peer review.

    Why didn’t you read the site?

  34. nobs says:

    >>”# Citizen Deuxon 07 Jul 2009 at 2:24 pm
    SRAM is peer reviewed as indicated by Dr. Hall’s pointing to the site.

    All submissions will be reviewed by at least one internal editor and will be sent for outside peer review at the editor’s discretion. Authors may suggest reviewers’ names. Depending on the need for reviews, the editors may request submission of at least two hard copies of text, references, legends, tables, figures, and other required elements.

    Now, you may not like the reviewers – but this seems to meet the requirements for peer review.

    Why didn’t you read the site?”<<

    Would you consider this(above) consistant with standards of other “peer-reviewed” journals” If so- Which? Please document. Honest answers only- PLEASE-

  35. weing says:

    I think what nobs is getting at is that there are no homeopaths, chiros, faith healers, etc doing the peer review.

  36. pmoran says:

    Nobs, a recent post of yours seems to be attributing to me statements that I would not make i.e. “Steve Barrett quite nicely explains why the modality )chirtopractic) is worthless and references to some really good literature to boot.”

    I know that SB sees a place for spinal manipulation in medicine.

    I think that you will find he and contributing Quackwatch authors are quite specific about the aspects fo chiropractic theory and practice they criticise.

    Without looking at Quackwatch I suggest that the following matters would be top of the list: unfounded scientific concepts, the practice-building ploys, the use of non-chiropractic quack methods and devices, the use of spinal manipulation in children and for “wellness”, and violent antivax and anti-doctor biases.

    These are legitimate grouches. They are all a very long way from having even average standards of scientific suppport. About the only really controversial issue is the percentage of chiropractors that indulge in these matters.

  37. Joe says:

    nobs on 07 Jul 2009 at 2:11 pm “… I am not complaining about quackwatch. …”

    Sorry, there are so many cranks responding to this topic that it is easy to be confused. I take it, then, that you recognize that quackwatch is reasonable and factually accurate.

  38. Harry says:

    Epic Post is Epic!

    In before 404!

  39. alee826 says:

    There IS such thing as a Specific Scientific Chiropractic Adjustment.

    I have witnessed first hand the life that begins to flow through the body upon the removal of a subluxation.

    Chiropractor’s are more educated on the human body than any other professions out there.

    A misaligned vertebrae in the spinal region can be compared to a kink in a water hose. No one can disagree that the kink disrupts the flow of water through the hose. The same applies for the subluxation..it simply cuts off the flow of life through the body which allows the body to function to its maximum potential. A Chiropractor simply removes the interference.

  40. nwtk2007 says:

    alee826, you are so in for a bruis’in here. But at least they won’t boot you off. And pretty mannerly considering.

  41. Harriet Hall says:

    alee826,

    Thank you. I was looking for an example of a meaningless testimonial and you have provided a doozy.

    Your assertions are just as logically acceptable as if a child asserted “There is too a Santa Claus!”

    The water hose analogy may have been credible in 1895, but today we understand how nerve impulses are propagated (not like water flowing, but by electro-chemical processes) and we can measure nerve conduction speeds. No chiropractor has demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with a “subluxation” and shown that it improves after chiropractic adjustment.

    You are clearly not playing by the rules. See http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=337

  42. airshowfan says:

    I’ve been following this site for a long time, and I just signed up to comment on “Why We Need Science: ‘I saw it with my own eyes’ Is Not Enough”. But I thought I’d just post a quick comment here to say that this is my favorite post on this site. Many people I know still think that chiropractic has some legitimacy to it, and I make sure to point them all to this post. Very handy. Thanks for explaining it so clearly. Keep up the good work :]

  43. alee826 says:

    - Harriet Hall

    The water hose was a simple illustration to explain how life flows within the body through the nervous system. A kink a hose is just as applicable then as it is now.

    You are correct in you understanding of how the brain sends electrical nerve impulses and messages throughout the body.. from the brain through the nervous system to every cell tissue and organ in the body.

    –”No chiropractor has demonstrated
    decreased nerve conduction with a
    “subluxation” and shown that it improves
    after chiropractic adjustment.”–

    Chiropractors actually use NASA Published Space Certified equipment which CAN and does MEASURE nerve interference. I see on a daily basis patients being tested before and after an adjustment and the results speak for themselves.

    Im not sure what rules you are referring to, however, lives are being changed daily and people are being set free from the bondage and propaganda of prescription medication. The testimonials speak for themselves as well:

    http://www.godiscoverhealth.com/templates20/custom-content/1testimonials

    Its important to understand that Chiropractic in and of itself does not claim to ‘heal’ the body. A Chiropractor removes the interference and the body begins to restore health the way it was created to.

  44. Harriet Hall says:

    alee826 said,
    “I see on a daily basis patients being tested before and after an adjustment and the results speak for themselves. ”
    Unfortunately, results do not speak for themselves. Please read my article “Why We Need Science” at http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/?p=729

  45. Harriet Hall says:

    alee826 said, “Chiropractors actually use NASA Published Space Certified equipment which CAN and does MEASURE nerve interference.”

    I think you are referring to the Insight Subluxation StationTM. It does not measure nerve interference and has nothing to do with NASA. “The system measures skin temperature differentials and the sensitivity of paraspinal tissues and assesses range-of-motion, heart rate variability, and the amount of tension of paraspinal muscle activity to create the visual images used by chiropractors and their patients.”

    See http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2009/jul/a.htm for a critique showing that the claims made for this device are false.

  46. nobs says:

    Harriet declares:

    >>”The water hose analogy may have been credible in 1895, but today we understand how nerve impulses are propagated (not like water flowing, but by electro-chemical processes)….”<>”>>> and we can measure nerve conduction speeds.”<>” No chiropractor has demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with a “subluxation” and shown that it improves after chiropractic adjustment.”<<

    Please cite the support for your above claim.

    Thank-you in advance.

  47. nobs says:

    For some quirky reason, my reply did not get posted as typed……???

    So I will re-post- hopefully it will appear as it is intended. And just as an insurance- I will divide it into two parts.

    Harriet declares:

    >>”The water hose analogy may have been credible in 1895, but today we understand how nerve impulses are propagated (not like water flowing, but by electro-chemical processes)….”

    Harriet- water does INDEED flow via “electro-chemical processes”. Your claim above implies otherwise…?

  48. nobs says:

    Harriet posts:

    “See http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2009/jul/a.htm for a critique showing that the claims made for this device are false.

    RREALLY Harriet? Do you think that WCA is scientific based? A credibly SBM source to refer to on a supossed SBM site? Represents the majority of DCs? I must consider your reference disingenuous. AND— I think you agree. SHAME!!

  49. nobs says:

    Harriet declares:

    “No chiropractor has demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with a “subluxation” and shown that it improves after chiropractic adjustment.”

    Please cite your indexed evidence(NOT a lame cite like your above WCA —puh-leaze—–) to support your claim.

    Thank-you in advance

  50. Joe says:

    @nobs on 20 Aug 2009 at 12:52 pm asked for support for the claim that ”No chiropractor has demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with a “subluxation” and shown that it improves after chiropractic adjustment.”

    Duh?! Here is all the nonexistent evidence:

    Basically, if chiros claim they can improve nerve conduction, the onus is on them to prove it. So far, they have not (114 years and counting).

    @nobs on 20 Aug 2009 at 1:01 pm “… water does INDEED flow via “electro-chemical processes”.

    You use that term “electro-chemical process” but I don’t think it means what you think it means. So, you have made a claim, can you support it?

  51. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs,

    Re the water hose analogy: when you step on the hose, no water comes out at the end. When you compress a nerve, as in carpal tunnel syndrome, the nerve conduction speed slows in the compressed area but is measurably normal on either side.

    The burden of proof is not on me, but on you. If I say there are no black swans, it is up to you to find one. Please provide your evidence that chiropractors have demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with subluxation and improvement after spinal adjustment. And your evidence that the “NASA-approved subluxation station” has anything to do with NASA or that it measures subluxations and can support its advertising claims.

  52. nobs says:

    Harriet : “Please provide your evidence that chiropractors have demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with subluxation and improvement after spinal adjustment. ”

    Harriet- Perhaps you are confused. That was YOUR claim(“- “No chiropractor has demonstrated decreased nerve conduction with a “subluxation” and shown that it improves after chiropractic adjustment.” ) As previously requested- Please provide your indexed cites supporting your claim.

    Harriet:’And your evidence that the “NASA-approved subluxation station” has anything to do with NASA or that it measures subluxations and can support its advertising claims.

    You are again confused. I never posted relative to NASA OR subluxation station. It was YOU who chose to cite WCA relative to this topic. I merely called you out on your shameful/disingenuous choice:
    “RREALLY Harriet? Do you think that WCA is scientific based? A credibly SBM source to refer to on a supossed SBM site? Represents the majority of DCs? I must consider your reference disingenuous. AND— I think you agree. SHAME!!

  53. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs,

    I claimed that there was no evidence. If you question my claim, it is up to you to show that there is evidence.

    I linked to a critique of the subluxation station. What matters is not whether the site is science-based, but whether the critique is valid. If you claim it is an inaccurate critique, it is up to you to demonstrate why.

  54. weing says:

    nobs,

    No one has demonstrated proof of the existence of tooth fairies. Now you come along and want proof of that statement in order to stop believing in the existence of tooth fairies.

  55. nobs says:

    Harriert- You continue to side-step my comments to you. Your attempts are not going unnoticed.

    You are the one that chose to invoke a WCA editorial- A highly controversial, fringe source, and even you, cannot honestly claim that they are in any way representative of the majority of the DC profession,………and now you are asking me to defend your editorial choice?

    As one who reqularlily editorializes, and speaks on chiropractic, you surely know the issue/s with the WCA—–yet you seem to have no problem quoting them when it is convenient to suit your bias. You have disappointed, but not surprised me.

  56. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs,
    You are the one who is side-stepping. You reject my statements but provide no evidence that they are wrong, even after I have directly asked you.
    I cited a chiropractic source that was critical of a chiropractic claim – if anything, that should add credibility. Instead of poisoning the well by impugning the website, tell us whether you think the critique was valid. Even a stopped watch is correct twice every day. Do you believe the subluxation station was developed by NASA? Do you believe it measure subluxations? If so, why?

  57. nobs says:

    Weing-
    “No one has demonstrated proof of the existence of tooth fairies. Now you come along and want proof of that statement in order to stop believing in the existence of tooth fairies.”

    I will give you the benefit of the doubt as to knowing the fallacy of your post.

  58. nobs says:

    Harriet-
    Do you believe the WCA to be a credible source to cite from?

  59. Harriet Hall says:

    I won’t be baited or pinned down to your idea of black and white. I consider WCA to be a credible source of information about actions taken against chiropractors who have made false claims about devices like the subluxation station and the Axiom devices. Their home page offers several stories with links to original sources. If you have inside information that anything in these stories is untrue or that the sources have been fabricated, please tell us.

    I certainly don’t accept the chiropractic beliefs of the WCA, but I accept that they reprint factual information in an attempt to protect their members from prosecution, and they list their sources. In that limited area, they arguably have more credibility than an anti-chiropractic website would.

  60. nobs says:

    Harriet posts:
    “I certainly don’t accept the chiropractic beliefs of the WCA, but I accept that they reprint factual information…

    Really Harriet? I am compelled to opine that your bias is getting in the way of the facts, or is your bias of such magnitude that you are willing to misrepresent the facts?

    For someone that spends so much time on chiropractic issues, I know that you should know, and do know, the lack of credibility of the WCA. I am sorely dissappointed that you would use it as a source of any sort, despite the depth of your bias.

    I also know that you have read this, but am posting it here so no others will be mislead, and will know that ANYONE quoting WCA as a source, should be held with skepticism.

    http://www.claregistration.com/thefacts/Chiro+Journal+letter+from+NASA+07102009.pdf

  61. Harriet Hall says:

    In the pdf you cited, NASA says the information it had was not sufficient to designate the subluxation station as a NASA spinoff, and there was certainly no corroboration of the claim that NASA was involved in designing it. It simply denies that NASA made any determination of fraud. This is a peripheral quibble. The main point is that the manufacturer made claims it could not support with evidence, and chiropractors were fined for repeating them.

    I fully expect to be “held with skepticism” for everything I say, but if we can get back to the original claim I responded to, it was that “Chiropractors actually use NASA Published Space Certified equipment which CAN and does MEASURE nerve interference.”

    I could find no evidence that the Subluxation Station was a “NASA Published Space Certified” equipment – whatever that means.

    The manufacturer’s website does not show that the machine can “measure nerve interference.” It says
    “The system measures skin temperature differentials and the sensitivity of paraspinal tissues and assesses range-of-motion, heart rate variability, and the amount of tension of paraspinal muscle activity to create the visual images used by chiropractors and their patients.”

  62. nobs says:

    Harriet posts:…… “Chiropractors actually use NASA Published Space Certified equipment which CAN and does MEASURE nerve interference.”

    AND then, to support your claim, linked to a disingenuous, misleading and false WCA claim: “CLA claims scrutinized for Fraud”.

    Then, in a later post described it a “fact”. Neither is credible. -THAT- is the point of my posts.

    Let me point out from the NASA letter, that the information linked to in your post, and declared by you to be “fact”, is indeed, NOT fact.

    NASA responds to Dr. Rondberg:

    1. “we have been made aware of the article “CLA claims scrutinized for fraud”…and your accompanying editorial statement……The assertion that NASA has made any determination or finding with regard to fraud in the course of its review of the spinoff status of the CLA’s Insight Subluxation Station(Insight) is FALSE.

    2. ANY assertion that NASA’s review the Spinoff status of the Insight was triggered by a “US Senayte investigation” is FALSE.

    3. The review was in response to an inquiry received from the office of Senator Cantwell….It is disingenuous to refer to such inquiries as “US Senate investigations.

    4. IN FACT- the inquiry was “initiated by David Marcarian”

    5. “We are unaware of any evidence suggesting wrongdoing or unethical behavior on the part of CLA”

    6. “We expect the WCJ to correct Mr. Marcarian’s article…..”

    7. We “request that the WCJ and Mr. Marcarian refrain from referencing NASA’s actions in this matter in an attempt to leverage your competitive position.

    http://www.claregistration.com/thefacts/Chiro+Journal+letter+from+NASA+07102009.pdf

    Do you continue to opine the WCA article to be “fact”?

  63. nobs says:

    Harriet posts:

    “I linked to a critique of the subluxation station. What matters is not whether the site is science-based, but whether the critique is valid. If you claim it is an inaccurate critique, it is up to you to demonstrate why.”

    It has been so demonstated. See above(7:31 pm)

  64. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs wrote
    “Harriet posts:…… “Chiropractors actually use NASA Published Space Certified equipment which CAN and does MEASURE nerve interference.”

    I did not post that: I was responding to that claim by alee 826 and showing why it was wrong.

    You are quibbling about a minor point and it seems you are confusing the totality of the information on the WCA website with the information in one article that was published in the WCJ. NASA complained about one writer’s misleading language in the WCJ, not about the factual issue of whether NASA had participated in designing the device (it had not), whether it had been designated a spinoff of NASA research (it had not), or whether the device was effective. In fact, the WCA website contains a point by point refutation of the offending letter at http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/gentempo_response.htm This whole kerfuffle amounts to a tempest in a teapot, apparently over competing companies. The WCA website is warning its readers not to repeat unsubstantiated claims.

    This whole thing is trivial and not worth this amount of attention, and it appears to be a blatant attempt to discredit me because I used a source you considered unreliable and to thereby divert attention from Alee826′s claims which are clearly false. If a chiropractor made the claims that Alee826 did, it would be illegal advertising and he would be in trouble with the FTC.

  65. nwtk2007 says:

    Funny how these chiro discussions get the SBM’ers going.

    Not biased? Not directed?

    Good SBM discussions can go but these chiro topics roll on and on.

    Nothing like the chiro’s to tweek your tweeters.

    Sorry. Trolling. Many chuckles.

    What ever happened to FiFi?

  66. nobs says:

    Harriet opines:

    HH:-”You are quibbling about a minor point and it seems you are confusing the totality of the information on the WCA website with the information in one article that was published in the WCJ.”

    NO Harriet- it was YOU that chose to use this article, from this site, as “evidence” to support your reply to alee.

    HH-”NASA complained about one writer’s misleading language in the WCJ,…”

    Harriet c’mon- the issue here it is NOT about “misleading language”, it is about your choice of “evidence” to support your position. PLUS- NASA requested a correction of the WCA accusations. I have not seen any corrections. Have you?

    HH-”not about the factual issue of whether NASA had participated in designing the device (it had not),”

    I did not find any claims by CLA about NASA “designing the device”——–Please enlighten us as to where we might find this claim(other than fabrication from WCJ editorials).

    HH-”whether it had been designated a spinoff of NASA research (it had not), or whether the device was effective. In fact, the WCA website contains a point by point refutation of the offending letter at http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/gentempo_response.htm

    I provided evidence as to the poor, disingenousness, and misleading content of your ahem….source(which, BTW, really had nothing to do with refuting allee’s post). And now you want to support it with another piece from the same debunked author/site? Harriet, I have a hard time being convinced you consider this site/author credible on anything. Your dispute appears to be with me—– that I called you out on using it.

    HH-”This whole kerfuffle amounts to a tempest in a teapot, apparently over competing companies.”

    Yes, and I have pointed out that out to you several times…..So why you feel you must insist on defending your poor choice of “evidence” is more than a bit curious.

    HH-”The WCA website is warning its readers not to repeat unsubstantiated claims.”

    Really? I find NO evidence for that declaration. Where might we find that?

    HH- “This whole thing is trivial and not worth this amount of attention, and it appears to be a blatant attempt to discredit me because I used a source you considered unreliable….”

    Yes, I agree it should have been a trivial “mea culpa”/OOPS. I have provided you with the evidence that your link is “unreliable”. Your posts impliy an indignation that anyone would suggest your “evidence” to be “unreliable”/ less than credible. And from that, you assume and declare that that implies a personal “attempt to discredit me”. Your refusal to acknowledge the discredited “evidence” speaks for itself.

    HH-” and to thereby divert attention from Alee826’s claims which are clearly false.”

    I am not addressing any of Alee’s claims. My posts are to you, specifically dealing with YOUR “evidence” disputing her claims. Your “evidence” has been debunked and clearly is without merit. Why do insist on continuing to defend it?

    Do you opine that no one should challenge you or call you out when you provide invalid, disingenous, and misleading evidence? Do you continue to opine the WCA article to be “fact”?

  67. Harriet Hall says:

    nobs,

    Refusal to acknowledge the discredited evidence? You “debunked” statements from the WCJ letter posted on the WCA website. The WCA website also debunked the WCJ letter point by point in great detail. The WCA website itself acknowledged the discredited evidence.

    Despite the debunking, the fact that the “Certified Space Technology” logo had nothing to do with NASA stands, as well as the advice that chiropractors should not make NASA related claims that violate FTC regulations. That is the reason I cited the website, not the peripheral quibbling about who said exactly what.

    The WCA website is useful because of its reproduction of, and links to, original documents. It is not useful when it espouses chiropractic mythology. An astute reader can tell the difference. It’s like Wikipedia – not a reliable source in itself, but a source of information not readily available elsewhere, and that gives links to original sources. The false advertising claims for the Subluxation Station are handily summarized here: http://wcateam.net/nasa/index03.php.

    “I am not addressing any of Alee’s claims. My posts are to you, ” That pretty much says it all. You appear to be interested in discrediting me personally rather than in addressing the issue about whether chiropractors can measure nerve interference. They can’t.

  68. weing says:

    nobs,

    I’m very sorry. I thought you could understand an analogy. I was wrong.

Comments are closed.