i accept that john. edzard ernst, too, has his email addies on his papers. good luck spamming it!
i dont mind the info as the gcc and sca registers and my website are free to see for anyone, and to make good use of it
now you carry on chiro bashing as id like to go on to welcome nick who will quickly find out that evidence not supporting a the majority's view here is not accepted here.
welcome!
thank you mongrel, will check soon. ill be in touch
And yet you still refuse to present a single piece of evidence, and you still haven't admitted that all the evidence which has been presented by others says you are a quack. Do you honestly not realise just how much more stupid you look every time you post?Originally Posted by richard
Better sorry than safe.
Aha, what you should find is that Argumentum ad Populum is not respected here. We shouldn't support the majority view simply because it's the majority view.
However I don't see that argument being made anywhere.
What's more I haven't seen any evidence that scepticism about chiropractic IS the majority view.
I see chiropractic and alternative medicine in general being very popular amongst the general populace.
The fact there appears to be no consensus support for chiropractic amongst respected medical journals is not the reason we doubt chiropractic. That would be Appeal to authority again not respected here.
However the reasons that are given by the respected medical journals for not feeling able to give their support to chiropractic are convincing. It is from an analysis of those reasons that those here haved formed their independant opinions. If they happen to be the same conclusions as those reached by rigorous scientific methods then that's simply because reality is fixed for everyone and if whoever looks at a part of it accurately should see the same thing.
I applaud you for being prepared to take a second look at your beliefs.
Mostly for Raph but others may be interested
I pointed you towards the "Immunisation against Infectious Diseases" book (aka "The Green Book") and have since found out it's available free online here.
This is the standard reference book sent to every clinician within the NHS and is the first point of call for vaccine information
Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
Here’s an interesting new development.
The UK chiropractic regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), has just lodged a formal complaint with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) against three UK newspapers for “inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting of the purpose and outcome of a research study”.
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/Letter%20PCC%2020Nov07%20(Website).pdf
The research study in question, which was this thread’s OP, found that there was no significant difference in the time to recovery, pain, function, global perceived effects or adverse events between people receiving active diclofenac and/or spinal manipulation compared to the respective placebo. The study’s Discussion section (p.1643) included the following comments:
According to the GCC the offending newspapers are:The spinal manipulative therapy given in this trial included a range of low-velocity mobilisation and high-velocity manipulation techniques done by physiotherapists with postgraduate training in manipulative therapy. A systematic review of spinal manipulation concluded that there is no evidence that high-velocity spinal mobilisation is more effective than low-velocity spinal manipulation, or that the profession of the manipulator affects the effectiveness of treatment.
Assessment of diclofenac or spinal manipulative therapy, or both, in addition to recommended first-line treatment for acute low back pain: a randomised controlled trial Hancock MJ et al; Lancet:370:1638-43
http://www.acatoday.org/pdf/Lancet_Acute_Back_Pain_Nov.07.pdf
With regard to the third newspaper, The Guardian, as John Jackson pointed out in post #15, it’s important to note that its headline read "Chiropractors may be no use in treating back pain, study says". Indeed, John went on to say:
- Chiropractors ‘are a waste of money’, Daily Telegraph, Rebecca Smith
- Chiropractors ‘are a waste of time’, Daily Mail, Jenny Hope
- ‘Chiropractors may be no use in treating back pain, study says’, The Guardian, Alok Jha
I think this is fair as Spinal Manipulation Therapy (SMT) is used by chiropractors and it's about the only thing they do that has any evidence to support its use.
Now that there's some doubt cast upon SMT compared to other interventions then it certainly is relevant to chiropractic.
SMT is not chiropractic as such but as chiropractors use it the link between chiropractic and SMT is highly relevant.[My bold]
That summation is pretty accurate in view of the fact that (in the UK) legislation requires that chiropractors’ provision of care must be evidence based and that in the last couple of years the evidence for spinal manipulation has been shown to be very slim.
For new readers to this thread, here is the current scientific evidence for spinal manipulation:
From 2005
From 2006The value of chiropractic
Virtually all experts agree that the best available evidence in any area of health care is that provided by Cochrane reviews. The Cochrane Collaboration is a worldwide network of independent scientists dedicated to systematically summarising the totality of the evidence related to specific medical subjects in a rigorous and transparently impartial fashion. Four Cochrane reviews of spinal manipulation are available today.
Back pain is by far the condition most frequently treated by chiropractors. The Cochrane review of spinal manipulation for back pain summarised 39 clinical trials.1 The authors’ conclusions were very clear: ‘There is no evidence that spinal manipulative therapy is superior to other standard treatments for patients with acute or chronic low back pain.’
http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1002a02t01.htm
From 2007A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation
CONCLUSIONS: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/99/4/192
Still on the subject of evidence, the GCC’s 9th November 2007 press statement concerning the Lancet study said the following:Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review
CONCLUSIONS: Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation.
http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/abstract/100/7/330
Well, just where is the scientific evidence to support the GCC’s claims that “The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatment to which they have been compared”?Chiropractors provide an evidence-based approach based on European-wide guidelines compiled by multidisciplinary teams of experts who reviewed all relevant research.
The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatments to which they have been compared. Chiropractic intervention is safe, effective and cost-effective in reducing referral to secondary care.
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/LANCET%20Australian%20study%20statement9Nov07.pdf
And where are the safety data for ‘chiropractic’ (including those for children), and the data for chiropractic’s effectiveness and for its cost-effectiveness?
Richard, Raph, Nick, can you provide it for us please?
And what about national guidelines? Here's some insight into those:
Returning once more to its formal complaint to the PCC, the GCC says that it is concerned that the newspapers’ reporting is…Chiropractors argue that their approach must be safe and effective, not least because the official guidelines on the treatment of back pain recommend using chiropractic. However, this is true only for some, but by no means all, countries. Secondly, guidelines are well known to be influenced by the people who serve on the panel that develops them. Cochrane reviews, on the other hand, are generally considered to be objective and rigorous. Writing about the importance of systematic reviews for health care in the Lancet, Sir Ian Chalmers stated, ‘I challenge decision makers within those spheres who continue to frustrate efforts to promote this form of research to come out from behind their closed doors and defend their attitudes and policies in public. There is now plenty of evidence to show how patients are suffering unnecessarily as a result of their persuasive influence.’ 10
The Value of Chiropractic
http://www.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1002a02t01.htm
…and it is seeking corrections and clarifications printed in prominent positions in each paper.irresponsible and does not serve the public interest. It misleads readers, may prevent members of the public from seeking the help of appropriately qualified, experienced and regulated health professionals, and ultimately undermines the public’s trust in the accuracy and utility of scientific research.
It is likely that such reporting has also undermined the reputation of the chiropractic profession and may have a direct impact on chiropractors’ practices; all chiropractors, apart from a handful, are in private practice. It may also prejudice any chance of increasing public access to chiropractic on a basis of need through NHS funding.
Well, presumably any such correction will be accompanied by the scientific evidence for ‘chiropractic’ (whatever chiropractic actually is), and it will also justify why several hundred McTimoney chiropractors (as well as quite a number of others) are allowed to promote the pseudoscientific concept of “innate intelligence”.
For example:
“By correctly training hands as an instrument of innate intelligence, healing can be encouraged to take place by the detection and correction of bony subluxations (slight displacements)”.
http://www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/mca_objectives.htm
Finally, it’s interesting to note the following in the GCC’s complaint to the PCC:
Treatment with NSAIDs or spinal manipulative therapy is recommended as second-line treatment for acute back pain in patients not responding to first-line management.
What it doesn’t say is that that recommendation isn’t true of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) in the UK. Its guidelines for the management of acute low back pain - which had previously recommended spinal manipulation – were withdrawn two years ago. See page 2 of the GCC’s Spring 2005 newsletter (#15) here:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/GCC_news_15.pdf
Does anyone else think that the GCC is equally guilty of inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting?
Whilst we await some answers to the above, please would someone from the chiropractic community answer the questions already posed by John Jackson in post #48. Here they are again:
Please also provide the safety data that justifies administering chiropractic treatment to infants and children under 12.
- What is Innate Intelligence?
- What is a subluxation?
- How are subluxations detected?
- Can a single patient’s subluxation be reliably found by more than one Chiropractor?
- Can subluxations be seen on x-rays?
- How do subluxations cause bed-wetting in children and how does spinal manipulation cure this?
- How does manipulating the spine of a child with ADHD cause an improvement in behaviour?
- Do you recommend vaccinations? If not, why not?
Thank you.
Last edited by Blue Wode; 23rd November 2007 at 08:53 PM.
This corrects the links in my previous post and slightly expands the comments.
Those are articles cited by rick in support of chiro. The only article related to chiro is a proposal to rename the subluxation.
Raph, you cited two articles in support of chiro- one concerned a jaw-clenching reflex and the other concerned a weak quad muscle. Since you cited these, one would think you could demonstrate the connection to chiro when asked; you have not.
It is disingenuous to say we reject articles we disagree with; I explained why I find them irrelevant. I asked what those five articles have to do with the efficacy of chiro. You two cited them, you must know.
1. My post was refering to the prescence of a chiropractic subuluxation. Not have effective chiropractic is.
2. In previous posts on here people have questioned the use of chiropractors performing research so I endevoured to find an article by a professor in orthopeadic medicine at Yale.
3. The article does not mentioned chiropractic.
4. If you read the article you will see that what this professor is referring to is very similar to the discription of a subluxation i posted. Is this not you want?
5. Yes the article is a review supported by research.
6. I suggest that next time you actually read the article instead of just scanning abstracts.
7. My name is Nick.
Only one article referred to subluxation, and that suggested re-naming it. You cannot just take some medical problem and say "That's what I mean." That is how you got saddled with the term "subluxation" at the start. That is a real medical term, it is just not relevant to chiro. (see the last paragraph)
You did try to address how effective chiro isThe answer may be "logical;" but the jump to chiro is baseless.The answer is logical that increased mechanoreceptor firing improves neuromuscular control and reduces pain. What increases joint motion and mechanoreceptor activity - Yes THE CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENT."
I take it that was the speculation about the causes of low back pain.
??
Which article? What I want is reliable proof that chiro in fact is useful for something. (see the last paragraph)
Does that research support chiro?
That is a fair complaint; however, I do not have easy access to the articles. On the other hand, when the title and abstract do not refer to a large, properly-controlled, clinical study (or, studies) of chiro, it is usually safe to conclude the article contains no concrete support for the use of chiro in health care. With respect to the articles you cited- am I wrong about that?
Your on-line 'nym is uncapitalized, people are likely to refer to you that way.
The classic definition of a subluxation refers to an imaginary entity (as I suspect you know). If you want to re-name or re-define it around something real, that might work as long as you demonstrate its relationship to chiro in clinical studies. Until then, your practice is still based on speculation, as it has been for 112 years.
Last edited by JJM; 24th November 2007 at 10:46 AM.
I was referring to Panjabi, M., in Eur. Spine J.
This articule defines what the author (A Yale Phd!) believes happens with a joint fixatation. Very similar to the defination of a chiropractic subluxation. Yes it uses different terms and does not mention chiropractic but that is the beauty of it. He a none chiropractic professor. He dosn't support chiropractic but yet he still describes a chiropractic subluxation just using different terms.
When I have a little more time we can discuss the issue of chiropractic being effective as im off to the seaside.
Have a great weekend.
Thanks for that.Mostly for Raph but others may be interested
I pointed you towards the "Immunisation against Infectious Diseases" book (aka "The Green Book") and have since found out it's available free online here.
This is the standard reference book sent to every clinician within the NHS and is the first point of call for vaccine information
There is a good discussion of the idiocy of antivaxers here:
http://scienceblogs.com/insolence/20...re_we.php#more
Orac was mentioned as well
It's one of my daily visits
Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science.
Judge Frank Easterbrook commenting on the Q-Ray bracelet
"For Gods sake you're an American! Stop thinking of the consequences and blow something up" - Stan Smith, American Dad!
Thanks for the informative links, Mongrel and JJM.
Regards chiropractors’ attitudes towards vaccination, it’s interesting to note that in JJM’s homeland chiropractors seem to be extremely wary of childhood vaccinations. Indeed, in this 2004 survey of chiropractic practices in Portland, Oregon, not one chiropractor recommended routine vaccination for children:
http://www.chirobase.org/02Research/laidler.html
(The survey also found a 100% incidence of beliefs and practices that are unsubstantiated or clash with established scientific knowledge.)
As for the UK, this chiropractic website has a section called ‘The truth about…’ which claims the following about vaccinations:
A growing number of health professionals have become disenchanted about compulsory vaccinations. Get the facts! Ask questions and reach an informed decision.Richard, Raph, Nick, would you like to comment on those claims?
If artificial immunization always worked, vaccinated children wouldn't get measles or other diseases - but they do.
Realize that there is little proof that vaccines work. Many link the decline of certain diseases with the use of its vaccine. Yet, they ignore the improved sanitation, nutrition, and hygiene that vaccinated populations have enjoyed as widespread immunization was introduced.
In addition, vaccines can be dangerous. It's hard to predict how anyone, especially an infant, will react when injected with serums made from barnyard animal blood, cultured monkey tissue, aluminium, and formaldehyde. Reactions can range from the disease itself, to disability and even death!
The fact that children survive inoculation is a powerful testament to the very immune system that is being tampered with by these substances!
Before you agree to vaccinations or any other procedure. Get the facts. Read books. Ask questions. Explore your choices. Maximize your child's natural immunity by breastfeeding and assuring the proper diet, rest, and exercise. Include regular chiropractic checkups to optimise the nervous system, which controls the immune system and every other cell, tissue, organ and system of the body.
http://www.chiropractic-clinic.com/the-truth-about.htm
And would you please provide the scientific evidence that proves that regular chiropractic checkups for children “optimise the nervous system” and have a beneficial effect on the immune system and the rest of the body.
Last edited by Blue Wode; 26th November 2007 at 06:07 PM.
You obviously believe in vaccinations, you are not being a very skeptical, skeptic blue wode. What I found interesting about this practice is that:
"The clinic is situated in a GP surgery and many of the practitioners recommend people for treatment. This allows a much closer working relationship between both the medical profession and the chiropractors than would normally be attained. This is often invaluable in helping patients receive the best of both types of care and referral for further investigations can be achieved quickly and efficiently".
There are a number of studies on the site about chiropractic if you are really interested, you must have missed them, thanks for saving me the trouble.
I have been away a few days and was surprised no one was skeptical about your claim that 80% of medicine is evidence based.
This was on page Page 16 of the Telegraph on Saturday. Just goes to show never believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Chiropractors
Contrary to any suggestion in
our headline article (Nov
9), a study published in The
Lancet into treatment of back
pain did not state that visiting
a chiropractor was a waste of
time and money. We apologise
for any misunderstanding.
Irrelevant.
There are a number of studies on the site about chiropractic if you are really interested, you must have missed them, thanks for saving me the trouble.
I didn’t miss them. They were cherry-picked according to the clinic’s agenda. Also, if you read the link to scienceblogs which was provided by JJM you’ll see that it explains how many of the vaccination studies, and others, misinform.
And yes, after having read all the pros and cons, I agree with vaccinations.
Do you agree with/believe in vaccinations, Richard?
Why were you surprised about that?I have been away a few days and was surprised no one was skeptical about your claim that 80% of medicine is evidence based.
As I said in post #7:This was on page Page 16 of the Telegraph on Saturday. Just goes to show never believe everything you read in the newspapers.
Chiropractors
Contrary to any suggestion in
our headline article (Nov
9), a study published in The
Lancet into treatment of back
pain did not state that visiting
a chiropractor was a waste of
time and money. We apologise
for any misunderstanding.
"You are quite right about the study not specifically mentioning chiropractic. However, as I understand that spinal manipulation (‘adjustment’) is the hallmark of chiropractic practice (more so, I believe, than osteopathy and physiotherapy) I think it was fair that some, but not all, of the press reports mentioned the negative implications that the study’s findings would have for chiropractic therapy."
However, what I don't think is fair is the GCC’s 9th November 2007 press statement concerning the Lancet study which claimed this:
"The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatments to which they have been compared. Chiropractic intervention is safe, effective and cost-effective in reducing referral to secondary care."
http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_file/LANCET%20Australian%20study%20statement9Nov07.pdf
Just where is the scientific evidence to support its claims that “The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatment to which they have been compared”?
And where are the safety data for ‘chiropractic’ (including those for children), and the data for chiropractic’s effectiveness, and for its cost-effectiveness?
Can you provide them for us, Richard?
Also, as previously requested, would you please provide answers to the following questions already posed by John Jackson in post #48:
Please include the safety data which justifies administering chiropractic treatment to infants and children under 12.
- What is Innate Intelligence?
- What is a subluxation?
- How are subluxations detected?
- Can a single patient’s subluxation be reliably found by more than one Chiropractor?
- Can subluxations be seen on x-rays?
- How do subluxations cause bed-wetting in children and how does spinal manipulation cure this?
- How does manipulating the spine of a child with ADHD cause an improvement in behaviour?
- Do you recommend vaccinations? If not, why not?
Thank you.
Last edited by Blue Wode; 26th November 2007 at 08:17 PM.
From Blue Wode:
Richard, Raph and nick, do you endorse this statement, and where are the proofs? Blue Wode already asked, and you did not reply. One is left to conclude that you realize that any response you make would be absurd.{snip} Include regular chiropractic checkups to optimise the nervous system, which controls the immune system and every other cell, tissue, organ and system of the body.
http://www.chiropractic-clinic.com/the-truth-about.htm
I claim that the assertion that "the nervous system, which controls the immune system and every other cell, tissue, organ and system of the body" is demonstrably wrong. Do you dispute my claim?
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
Bookmarks