Information icon.svg The election booth for the RationalWiki 2019 Moderator Election is now open. Cast your votes today!

Talk:Chiropractic/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 24 March 2017. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)

article[edit]

I hope this is informative, and I hope I offended at least one or two people, or I probably haven't done a great job.!--PalMD-yada yada 22:34, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

I was going to comment. I think it is fair, apart from, perhaps, the price part. Where the hell in the USA am I supposed to find a "GP" who can fix back pain? I went to a hospital. $180 to get told to lie on my tummy with an ice pack on my lower back. And a useless prescription that was bettered by ibuprofen (at admittedly off-label dosages, but do you know any women who take less than three at a time?). Chiropractors can do very well at relieving (and helping "cure") chronic or acute lower back and neck pain, yes. This is true. First place I'd go after a car accident. On the other hand, my D Ch., a very nice guy (haven't been there for a while) also sells, um, colored glasses, and, um, little vials of smell things. OhhhhhKay. But he doesn't "push" them, at least. So, yeah, there's a lot of quackery runnin' around in chiropractry, and, as the article says, a good massage might work just as well. I fixed a typo. humanbe in 22:53, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
By the way, what does disc surgery cost these days? humanbe in 22:56, 8 June 2007 (CDT)
A crapload...but usually isn't necessary. Most back pain gets better over several weeks to months with conservative therapy. By the time surgery is necessary, youre kind of screwed.--PalMD-yada yada 23:02, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

What we need are better drugs. Highly location-focused, anti-inflammatory and analgesic things. That are cheap. Dang, there was that time my shitty busted tooth finally abscessed under its cap - at 5 PM on a Friday. Some friends dropped by, wired to the gills... all I needed was a little "local anesthetic", you know, a 1/4 gram to spot my face through the weekend... but was there any left over? NNNnnoooooo! Shit. But the root canal was fun. "Do you want to wait for the novocain to take effect, or should I drill now?" "Drill now, Doc... Aaahhhh, that's better!" None of my frickin middle class white dentists understood why I wanted a gold star in my new cap :( - and this was 1982! humanbe in 23:31, 8 June 2007 (CDT)

Offensive article[edit]

"I hope I offended at least one or two people" OK Doc. I'll take offense. Where do you get off with this "Evidence Based Medicine" junk? Don't you know that there are other ways of knowing that can't be repeated in a test tube? Don't you know that there are thousands of people who have spontaneously got batter after just one treatment? Very often I speak to people who have heard about people who swear by alternative medicine. I hope you retract the whole article or at least acknowledge that medial science doesn't know everything. I am outraged.--Bob_M (talk) 15:13, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Godspeed, and I look forward to reading your productive edits! humanbe in 15:27, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
I'm glad to see that you are starting to adopt Mr Shafley's editorial style - and presumably - his beliefs.--Bob_M (talk) 15:39, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
They aren't "beliefs", they are facts. Please don't come here expecting that sort of liberal deceit to convince anyone of your anti-American, anti-Christian positions. I am sure within 98% certainty, for instance, that you are against school prayer. Gods peed on you! humanbe in 15:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Well, Godspeed to you too!--Bob_M (talk) 15:46, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Hey, don't use that kind of language aroun here! humanbe in 15:59, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Look, it's obvious you're only here to cause godspeeding trouble and cast doubt on the intentions of real contributors you godspeeding troll! --Bob_M (talk) 16:03, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
It's been nice discussing this with you "Bob M" (is that your real name?), but I now have to spend some time learning and writing useful plagiarized stubs articles. I will also be keeping an eye on your contributions, as it seems you are in violation of the 90/10 rule. Godspeed! humanbe in 17:12, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
"Ask not for whom the gods peed, they peed for thee."~~ C®acker 16:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
Ok, fellas, I'm gonna God the fuckin speed all over your ugly asses. And, yes, Godspeed really is Newspeak for FUCK YOU. cp:User:Aschlafly
Sir, please continue to contribute in a constructive manner and help us run this project into the ground as efficiently as possible. I look forward to learning from your constructive edits! Thank you and Godspeed! --AKjeldsen 16:40, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

sick on-topic crap[edit]

The human mind is a wonderful thing. I get tons of patients who say "I understand what you're saying about all that science stuff, but I know my own body."--PalMD-yada yada 16:38, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Since I'm out sick, im trying to violated the 10/90 rule.--PalMD-yada yada 16:43, 10 June 2007 (CDT)
All your violation are belong to me.--PalMD-yada yada 17:17, 10 June 2007 (CDT)

Horse shit![edit]

Dear Sirs;

I would like to point out that this article appears to be a slam piece against chiropractors written by someone with no experience as a chiropractor. Please, at the very least turn this into something that looks like an educated article.

First off;

Chiropractic has been proven to cost less per treatment than allopathic care. Case in point;

Blue Cross of CA

98940 Spinal Manipulation, 1-2 areas $40 Copay $5-$20

vs.

99213 Office Visit Lvl 3 $128.00 Copay $35

Vicodin ES TID 30 pills $125.00 Copay $10-$125 (Depending on formulary)

In terms of cost per lifetime, cost is insignificant compared to the money saved by keeping workers working and people off meds. 4.246.153.127 03:28, 21 November 2007 (EST)


Studies supporting chiropratctic are cited. I still don't think we can find evidence that it is any more than glorified physical therapy. Despite the fact that physical therapy is a good thing, there is no consistency of standards for chiropractic training or practice. Perhaps when that happens, it can be less roundly criticized.--PalMD-If it looks like a donut, eat it 07:06, 21 November 2007 (EST)

I take offence at the term Glorified Physical Therapy'. You seem to be unable to grasp the concept of a subluxation. A sublaxation is where one or more vertebrae are misaligned. This can cause major issues with the spinal cord, leading to pain. A chiropractic adjustment resets the golgi tendon organ and realigns the spine, thus eliminating pain.

Not all chiropractors use manual adjusting! Activator, one of the most common techniques, involves using a extremely low force. Research for it is here

AND as for me: A "slam piece" it isn't. I had the amusing pleasure of working for a chiropractor for about a year. Some of the stuff that that guy did was not merely laughable, but could be considered criminal as he plied on the ignorance of the masses. How in HELL would a piece of plastic about the size and shape of a coffee can "break up adhesions" when it was applied to a knee, and he took a wet finger and made the thing so "squeek, squeek, squeek" a few times, then move the joint, do it again, and actually feel (pretend, okay?) that this was effective? Oh, I've got tons of stories. And as far as cost effective goes, why didn't you mention that one of the primary income producing rituals of "chiropractor" is to treat, treat, treat, treat, and repeat? Yeah, the cost per visit is low, but it adds up. "See you on Wednesday and Friday. You'll need 3x week treatments for 6 weeks and then we'll be able to taper it down." Duh. Most injuries heal in, guess what? Six weeks. Nice ploy.

Yes, people feel better when there is a "laying of hands" upon them. But massage therapy is best for that. And cheaper. With better results.

And my quote is still, "You don't yell out, "Is there a chiropractor in the house?" when you need medical care. You better hope for a nurse on the lessor side of things.

But I'll hand it to them for being creative. And there is a REASON they're are not allowed to prescribe drugs. There is a REASON.— Unsigned, by: Blondesareeasy / talk / contribs

Cover story (sticky)[edit]

(please do not archive this section)

  • SusanG - nominated it, so probably "yes"
  • I think it's a good article, so I vote yes as well. humanUser talk:Human 12:18, 29 January 2008 (EST)
  • I say no, I think it needs a copyediting and rewriting. DogP 21:14, 2 April 2008 (EDT)

I agree that the primary piece forwarded for inclusion is a "SLAM PIECE." Edit correction would also include that chiropractic did not begin in the 19th century. It was practiced and extolled by the Father of Medicine, Galen. Socrates and Plato were adherents. My view is the only people gripping are those that count their lucre from the medical point-of-view, i.e. loss of income. cj — Unsigned, by: 76.115.124.187 / talk / contribs

I have had years of treatment by a chiropractor, and I approve this article. ħumanUser talk:Human 20:04, 5 September 2008 (EDT)

2010[edit]

Reading over this, I agree that it is a very informative article. I am interested in bringing this conversation back to life. Who else wants to add this to the front page? ĴάΛäšςǍ₰ hi there! 13:33, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

I don't think it has enough content yet. I fully support the nomination, however. The things that I would want to see expanded 1) "clickable" links for references. PalMD, being the original author, left us with a lot of good refs to papers, but that isn't particularly helpful for the non science literate reader 2) tidying up and clarifying the "harms" section - currently three short bullet points don't quite cut it. 3) Integrating the "summary" into the article. We only need a summary at the top and when the article is really long. 4) Expand and go into more detail with the history and claimed theory. It's very good that the article has a strong evidence base (thanks again PalMD) but we need a little more "assume no prior knowledge" in the article. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:39, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I think it's just about there for content. Reformat and we should be right - David Gerard (talk) 13:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Looking over it just now, it needs a piece on the BCA suing Singh and the backlash, where a quarter (only a quarter?) of British chiropractors were advertising blatantly fraudulent treatments - David Gerard (talk) 22:15, 14 August 2010 (UTC)
Unfortunately, I'm not as much of a Singh fanboy as I am a Goldacre fanboy so I don't feel capable of writing that section. I'm not convinced it's worth its own sub-section of this main article, however. Scarlet A.pngtheist 00:31, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Glad to see the AMA is well represented here[edit]

This article does not appear balanced. I concur chiropractic is glorified PT, but PT is not a pseudoscience. TheRationalOne 02:31, 24 March 2008 (EDT)

The problem here isn't chiropractic or PT per se, it's subluxation theory (IMO). Chiropractic is effective - but subluxation theory is a pseudoscience. Chiropractic works for some other reason(s) besides subluxation theory, and the sooner the chiro community gets away from this ridiculous clinging to a disproven theory, the sooner they will be accepted as a mainstream branch of medicine (except maybe by the stubbornist of true believers, but they're just as bad as the quacks). Same goes for acupuncture - it's effective, but "qi" is a pseudoscience. Secret Squirrel 22:25, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I agree exactly with Mssr. SS. Chiropractic "works", but has no sensible "theory" behind it. What works about it, and why, could be explored, but many chiropractic practitioners (try typing that three times in a row!) have no interest in "evidence". I went to one for years on end, paying with my own money, and I approve this message: ħumanUser talk:Human 23:50, 5 September 2008 (EDT)
I've gone to one off and on whenever back issues creep up, and it works in clearing up back pain and spasms rather quickly. I wouldn't spend my money on it if it wasn't effective for me. (Yes, that is a testimonial, which doesn't cut it at all as proof of anything, just that chiropractic is IMO worthy of much further study using scientific method -- and the biggest thing getting in the way of that is some of the chiropractors themselves, who continue to insist on belief in the disproven subluxation theory. I just ignore all the posters and brochures at their offices about "subluxations" and the claims that chiro can cure non-back-related problems like asthma and allergies - which I don't buy at all - and go to a chiropractor for back issues. Secret Squirrel 18:41, 6 September 2008 (EDT)

This place is FAR worse than Conservapedia[edit]

The Chiropractic article is about the worse example of blatant sophistry I've ever read in my life! Consider this statement:

"In some studies, chiropractic did cost more overall.[3]"

It's citation is an OP-ED article! HAHA! OMG. This place is a joke! That sentence turned into this a paragraph or two later:

"Cost: chiropractic care costs more than usual care for low back pain".

NO citation was given for that one!

Conservapedia sucks, but this place makes it look like the Encyclopedia Britannica! LOL. 24.175.66.89 00:07, 3 May 2008 (EDT)

Note, I reverted myself... got click happy, didn't notice this was a talk page.... This bunchanumbers was inserting stuff onto the main page... thought he was doing the same...
Now then, Bunchanumbers, to address your point. We've never made the claim that we're A, an Encyclopedia, B, Accurate, or C, trying to create anything near good articles.... Read through sometime, you'll notice a firm tongue in cheek editorial stance genius SirChuckBObama/Biden? 2012 00:23, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
I'll point out that even if we did, we would still be better than Conservapedia. NightFlareSpeak, mortal 00:39, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
Yeah, we're just a "bunch of idiots" (copyright Johnny Damon, ca. 2004). We're having fun, and trying to leave an interesting resource in our wake. humanUser talk:Human 01:09, 3 May 2008 (EDT)
We're all bozos on this wiki. --Kels 18:42, 6 September 2008 (EDT)
Incredibly delayed LOL at Firesign ref Kels. ħumanUser talk:Human 08:56, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Pseudoscience vs. bullshit[edit]

I believe that this is better suited as pseudoscience and not bull because chiropractic has a few good uses, and is, therefore, not a total croc. While some of the other woo surrounding chiropractic is total bullshit, chiropractic as a means of helping with back problems isn't, in and of itself, bull.The Goonie 1 08:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm torn on this one, and will fight you to the death on it ;) I have availed myself of many years of chiro - and let me tell you, as much as it sometimes made my back easier to deal with, the explanations I got for why were total bullshit. ("you're body is made to heal itself" etc. poo). Also, a decent massage would probably have done as much good as any given "adjustment". I'd argue that it is both pseudoscience (absolutely) and bullshit (absolutely). Perhaps we should make a thing where the two templates are randomly displayed? ħumanUser talk:Human 08:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
What we need to do is find some sort of wording for concepts that fit into the bullshit or pseudoscience categories not so much for the concept itself, but for explanations and uses of the concept. For example, we wouldn't call stars (you know, those things in the sky) bullshit, but we would call someone who thinks they are (oh, I don't know) spaceship lights from UFOs full of it. I don't know. I just have a hard time classifying something as bullshit if there are legitimate uses for it.The Goonie 1 08:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Actually, to tell the truth, I think both templates suck and should die a slow painful death. Neither adds to our articles - which are pretty clear as to what we think is PS, BS, etc. All they do is clutter up pages and cause terrible confusion and mortal terror and battles between such fine upstanding users as us. Now, go fuck yourself, admit I'm right, and we'll delete both lame templates? ;) ħumanUser talk:Human 08:54, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree. I never really liked those templates, either.The Goonie 1 18:39, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Any chance of a meaningful distinction?[edit]

Is there some way of noting that legitimate chiropracters (i.e. qualified doctors specialising in back problems and who usually use various forms of physical or massage therapy) are not the same as the purveyers of woo who claim all kinds of beneficial effects from it? The latter might be bullshit artists but I owe the former for my continued ability to walk unaided - Ebon (talk) 12:03, 9 June 2010 (UTC)

There is the distinction in the intro paragraph, but it's subtle. Should be more explicit. Although to the best of my knowledge, spinal manipulation only has limited efficacy even for back pain and what you'd call legitimate chiropractic medicine. But yes, it's worth noting more clearly. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:06, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Would a "legitimate chiropractor" not simply be a physiotherapist? Chiropractic carries with it a lot of woo (such as the concept of subluxations). It seems a bit like the clear differences between religious Jews, and Jews who observe Jewish tradition without actually believing in the ever watching god of war. --ConcernedResident Fightin' round the world 12:35, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Physio works on muscles, chiropractic is specifically spinal, i.e., bone and joint, manipulation. Although there will be some overlap with physiotherapy when treating back pain. Scarlet A.pngtheist 12:43, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Would those guys still be chiropractors though if they don't diagnose based on chiropractic teachings? I'm not sure that spinal manipulation necessarily equals chiropractic any more than a modern chemist using a pestle and mortar could be labelled an alchemist just because it's a tool or technique borrowed from the latter (probably). --ConcernedResident Fightin' round the world 12:53, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Indeed. Need some decent sources on these supposed non-woo chiropractors and what they do and don't do - David Gerard (talk) 12:56, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I added the Cochrane review for lower back pain, but that was mostly inconclusive, although it erred on the side of "yes it does work, in a limited, short term sense". We'd need the first hand sources for what the practitioners believe and how they market themselves. IIRC, the alt med episode of Bullshit! featured a chiropractor talking about how dangerous it was for people to do it for the alt med reasons, rather than back pain, so it appears some "legit" ones practice it responsibly and aren't afraid to call their "colleagues" out on the BS. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:02, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
Yeah, this could be difficult to pin down. I think though that it would be worth avoiding trying to distinguish between legitimate and illegitimate ones. I suspect it would be easier for us to write an article about protestants and Catholics and try to determine which is the one true religion. I'll try to make a few changes this evening, and then see what you think. ConcernedResident Fightin' round the world 13:16, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
It's not so much that we need to distinguish between "legitimate" and "illegitimate" - we just need to say that there's limited evidence for it treating lower back pain, although we might want to more clearly argue that it's probably not by the woo mechanisms mentioned in chiropractic theory. Scarlet A.pngtheist 13:21, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
I modified the final line, but I'm tired and my wording could be a bit iffy. Yeah, the point I'm trying to make in the article is exactly what you described there. 19:32, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
The modified version works for me. I just felt it was important to note that it's not entirely bullshit and there is a legitimate use for the treatment. Ebon (talk) 02:16, 12 June 2010 (UTC)

Strop strikes out![edit]

It is so funny see morons write on subject they never have studied. They only have read some bloggs written by people who also lack education. The page are so lousy, that I think you have to belong to the sceptical religion. They are a bunch of pseudosceptics.Their bible are the sceptic dictionary. Their bishop is Stephen Barrett. He worked for AMA:s committee on quackery . The committee conspired to contain and eliminate chiropractic.The committe used lies and all dirty tricks in the book.AMA was sued by 5 chiropractors and they lost the case. This you can read about in the court order. That Barrett worked for on of the sub-committees is writen a lot about. Here is a link to the court order http://buggesblogg.blogspot.com/search?updated-min=2011-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&updated-max=2012-01-01T00%3A00%3A00-08%3A00&max-results=4 Its so weird that a religion is governing "Rational wiki"--Kalle stropp (talk) 11:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
"They only have read some bloggs written by people who also lack education." - and then you link to a blog yourself. Try Pub Med next time, thanks for playing. ADK...I'll jerk your hovel! 11:44, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You do not know anything about chiropractic, and you had to prove that you don´t know anything about pubmed either! YOU CAN´T FIND COURT ORDERS IN PUB MED! But if you had read a book about chiropractic, then you would know, that the court order is a correct copy. But since you are a"beliver" in pseudo-sceptiscim http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html is it no idea to try to tell you that your ridicolus religion is wrong. That you have to find out for yourself.--Kalle stropp (talk) 15:00, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yes, but you can find actual evidence that something works. I assume you're from SCEPCOP. ADK...I'll fly your pea soup! 15:03, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
At the moment Kalle's link above seems to about as functional as Chiropractic. Perhaps he can massage it back into life?--BobSpring is sprung! 15:15, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Actually I remember reading about that court case a while ago. It's fortunate that the US justice system does not have international authority as that was a pretty bad call.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:20, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
ADK if you knew anything about pubmed,then you could check the 5000 articles about chiropractic. (The link is OK .)--Kalle stropp (talk) 15:36, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Sorry, I couldn't hear you over all the bullshit about pseudoskeptical religion, so what was your point? ADK...I'll shove your copy-paste! 15:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
You mean the link is OK now that you've edited it to fix it so as to make it look as though it was good all along? "Sorry, I just fixed it" would be a more honest response.--BobSpring is sprung! 15:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I gave you the original version. Because it is easier to read for you! But if you want the official version after the last appeal. Here it is. But I guess that one is too much over your head. http://openjurist.org/895/f2d/352/wilk-dc-dc-dc-dc-v-american-medical-association-a-wilk-dc-w-dc-b-dc-b-dc Bob you are right of course. It was interesting to hear your "discussion" about "chiropractic".HA,HA,HA sorry guys!--Kalle stropp (talk) 16:12, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
What I mean is that the link was wrong when you posted it. You sneakily went back to correct it so that you could pretend it was correct all along.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
While skepticism is important, I have to say that the vast majority of articles at pub med, on a search of "chiropractic" suggest it's very much beneficial. However, "chiropractic dangers" produces 7 results out of very noteworthy publications. I suspect both sides are correct, and maybe our article should reflect that better? (don't know, as i've not actually read the article. i was just amused at the rise of 'i know you are but what am I".  ;-) --Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:31, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Which is why you a) look at the meta studies and b) check what they're treating. It's vaguely good for back pain, but not by much compared to other treatments and certainly has no effect on the things the quacks claim it works on. I think that's actually stated clearly enough. ADK...I'll watch your dog!

────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────Chiropractic works for lower back pain (but then again, so does massage/physical therapy). The rest is woo, which is why the quacks continuously invoke the AMA cases as above to claim a Big Science/Big Pharma conspiracy against them. That might play well to the Mike Adams crowd, but not so much here... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

As long as you all feel confident you've read this stuff, i think it's great and go for it. I know next to nothing about the field, cause long long ago i heard that "if you go to one once, you'll have to keep going", and be that urban legend or not, it's stuck with me, and i distrust them. My problem for a site like this is how to mitigate my own hyper skepticism of shit like this, vs. "what is really thought by the professionals". You all seem to know what you are talking about, so i'm fine with it. (like i said, wouldn't even be here cept for the silly name calling of the annoy poster).Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 16:53, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Indeed, you would have to keep returning because it's only shown to be effective short-term. And even then, it's expensive (£40+ per session adds up) and, of course, would be more effective than doing nothing so you'll definitely feel it working personally. That's why we do actual tests. ADK...I'll watch your league! 16:56, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Yeah, this sort of stuff is part of how I became a skeptic in the first place -- ironically, the side of my family that was skeptical of religion happened to buy into just about every quack medical claim wholesale -- chiropractic, iridology, shark cartilage, the works, basically everything short of stuff like raw food curing cancer. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 17:09, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Here is what science says about what the effect is of spinal manipulation. http://chiromt.com/content/18/1/3 Some peudo-sceptics like E. Ernst so here is an artile about him. http://smperle.blogspot.com/2010/12/self-importance-of-being-ernst.html These two articles are for the to new guys who seem to be moore open minded.--Kalle stropp (talk) 17:29, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I don't know where you get the idea the "distrust" of chiro comes from one guy. Here are some articles discussing the dangers and problems and none effective treaments of/ with Chiro. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2966932, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18616068 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/14586598, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/636540, , http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16679948, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16454724 http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16291300. — Unsigned, by: WaitingforGodot / talk / contribs
This is what happened in the UK when Chiropractics tried to sue.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
In fact, I think this article - if anything - overstates the case that it's effective for mind back pain. We should probably go into the BCA case, unfortunately I never kept on top of it. ADK...I'll sanctify your diamond! 17:46, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
And just for the record, cause i sorta easily get annoyed, there is no "Science" to "say" anything. There are some studies that suggest, there are some doctors that claim. Science is a process and all it can do is provide studies and results- then someone else deals with those plus a dose of propaganda on whatever side of any issue they are using the study to "prove". So, you have an article, we have articles. You have a view... i think as the others have said, your view is NOT mainstream in the world of professional doctors and scientific studies, and as such "extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence". that's not just about god. Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 17:55, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
There certainly looks like there is a lot of stuff in the BCA case.--BobSpring is sprung! 17:58, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Opps, sorry. i wasn't aiming that at ADK, but at this "kalle stropp". I got annoyed at the line "here is what science says".Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:34, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Better "origins" peice[edit]

So reading the article posted from the Guardian, i have to say we should look into the origins of this "art" much more. it's so ratWiki esque to discuss the merrits of something started by a guy with no medical experience who thought magnets were a cure to all things. :-)--Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 19:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Check out the Novella articles. It started when a quack fooled around with someone's neck and the guy claimed it cured him of deafness. Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 19:48, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

Another stroppy post[edit]

Bob says:"I don't know where you get the idea the "distrust" of chiro comes from one guy. Here are some articles discussing the dangers and problems and none effective treaments of/ with Chiro"

Lets hav a look!

nr 1. The first study is correct the chiropractors in 1980 were not so good as today and sometimes they made disc herniations worse.

nr 2. Is pro chiropractic.

nr 3 that study is to old and biased modern science show that getting a VBA stroke after visiting a chiropractor is not more likely, then after visiting general practioner. Read this study before you say anything more. So you do not make your case worse! http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2271108/?tool=pmcentrez

nr 4.See nr. 3

nr 5.?

nr 6. Fibromyalgia what has that to do with chiropractic?


nr 7. Have an absolutely correct view of the problem: "This approach contrasts with clinical guidelines that encourage self-management, reassurance, re-activation, and involvement of multidisciplinary teams for patients who do not recover-" And that is what chiropractors say: Evidence based clinical guidelines is GOOD!


So one(!) of the studies have correct criticism. But not today that study is 23 years oldwhat is wrong with you people?

Seriously! What is wrong with you? It is no idea to try to learn you anything! You are so ignorant! I will check your "article" next year! Maybe if i need a god laugh.

Novella and Barrett are both connected to ACSH. Read this link. http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=American_Council_on_Science_and_Health — Unsigned, by: Kalle stropp / talk / contribs

Um.... you write:
  • "Bob says:"I don't know where you get the idea the "distrust" of chiro comes from one guy"
Apart from the fact this is largely incomprehensible I've never said anything like that.--BobSpring is sprung! 21:04, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
Tildes woman tildes!! ADK...I'll bake your chisel! 21:14, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
crud. Now I can't blame Bob. ;-) Pink mowse.pngEn attendant Godot 21:22, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
The meta-analysis you cite says basically the same thing we already said above, then you throw in some red herrings about Barrett and Novella (and BTW, I usually like SourceWatch, but I caution people to check the cites when using it because, guess what, I checked the cite and Novella is not even listed, so you're doubly wrong on this). Have fun until a year from now I guess.... Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 21:32, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
I think, maybe sourcewatchs list are too old. But if you check ACSHs own page. You will find out. See here http://www.acsh.org/docLib/20061211_lowDose.pdf . Pseudo-sceptics often lie that is not OK according to science: I´m not talking about you. I think you did a mistake(thats common), Check close to the end, at the article, among "scientific advisors" .Michael Shermer is also at ACSH but not a Sci.adv.. ACSH use the "sceptical "movement as a "front organization", and that is possible because the leaders are pseudo-sceptics. I em not a paranomalist. But what Truzzi say is important. He were a serious scientist.: "Originally I was invited to be a co-chairman of CSICOP by Paul Kurtz. I helped to write the bylaws and edited their journal. I found myself attacked by the Committee members and board, who considered me to be too soft on the paranormalists. My position was not to treat protoscientists as adversaries, but to look to the best of them and ask them for their best scientific evidence. I found that the Committee was much more interested in attacking the most publicly visible claimants such as the "National Enquirer". The major interest of the Committee was not inquiry but to serve as an advocacy body, a public relations group for scientific orthodoxy. The Committee has made many mistakes. My main objection to the Committee, and the reason I chose to leave it, was that it was taking the public position that it represented the scientific community, serving as gatekeepers on maverick claims, whereas I felt they were simply unqualified to act as judge and jury when they were simply lawyers.Despite serious philosophical and sociological questions about how well the system works, I believe in the process of science and scientific progress. Science is a self-correcting system. Encouragement of fair play and due process in the scientific arena will allow that self-correction to work best. A diversity of opinions and dialogue is extremely important. We cannot close the door on maverick claims." from http://www2.fiu.edu/~mizrachs/truzzi.html I will not disturb you more. But do not act as hulligans. Do not only choose team. Choose standpoint. IF you are intressted in science and not primarilly in debatt.--Kalle stropp (talk) 06:37, 4 August 2011 (UTC)