Reply With QuoteOut of interest do you have any speculative answers to those questions JoK?
*Blush* I am just part of the skeptic posse. It is rare that my sort of stuff comes to the centre of skeptical debate, and it usually is because someone is trying to close that debate down. I am just the kid who tries to get the ball back so others can play...Originally Posted by Acleron
Anyway, all ten are now posted - see http://jackofkent.blogspot.com/2008/...ropractic.html
You will see that the ten questions are intended to form a coherent sequence.
Out of interest do you have any speculative answers to those questions JoK?
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!
On experience, I can guess some of them just on the basis that it seems such an unfortunate case to bring.
As I have said elsewhere, there should be a very good reason to sue Britain's leading science writer for an expressly comment piece in a quality newspaper discussing an important aspect of public health - the treatment of sick children.
So there's either a very good reason - or no good reason at all.
The blogosphere has been quiet over the weekend, so here’s a look at the practice of ‘chiropractic paediatrics’ in the UK.
According to a recent blog post by Dr Aust…
The BCA [British Chiropractic Association] can sue Singh because they are a professional association and thus a company / charity, which gives them a right to protect their reputation. However, most of Singh’s article (http://svetlana14s.narod.ru/Simon_Singhs_silenced_paper.html), refers to chiropractic in general, and not to the BCA in particular. The offending remarks they are complaining of must therefore be wholly, or at least primarily, the two sentences in Singh’s article (in the third paragraph) that refer directly to the BCA:
“The British Chiropractic Association claims that their members can help treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying,even though there is not a jot of evidence. This organization is the respectable face of the chiropractic profession and yet it happily promotes bogus treatments.”http://draust.wordpress.com/2008/08/21/back-crack-quack-attack-its-a-legal-matter-baby/
If those do, indeed, turn out to be the offending claims, then it’s going to be interesting to see what impact the ensuing scrutiny of the *scientific* evidence for ‘chiropractic paediatrics’ has on the profession. For example, here is Part 1 of a current series of seminars on “pregnancy and paediatric theory and practice” which is being run by the UK College of Chiropractors:
‘Adjusting the pregnant patient and neonates’
http://www.colchiro.org.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/AAA%20Event%20flyers/CHIROPRACTORS%204.pdf
Apparently this seminar (part one was held last month) emphasised “the window of opportunity to adjust within the first six weeks of life and how to feel confident adjusting a neonate”.
Now, bearing in mind that Professor Edzard Ernst and Simon Singh propose in their new book Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial that all chiropractors be compelled by law to tell their patients the following about chiropractic prior to treatment (p.285)….
This treatment carries the risk of stroke or death if spinal manipulation is applied to the neck. Elsewhere on the spine, chiropractic therapy is relatively safe. It has shown some evidence of benefit in the treatment of back pain, but conventional treatments are usually equally effective and much cheaper. In the treatment of all other conditions, chiropractic therapy is ineffective except that it might act as a placebo.
and that they also say this (p.180),
As with adults, many chiropractors are willing to treat children for wholly inappropriate conditions, such as asthma, bedwetting, clumsiness, ear infections, gastric problems, hyperactivity, immune-system problems, learning disorders and respiratory problems. Chiropractors will claim to be able to treat such conditions, but we know that the evidence does not suggest that spinal manipulation can offer any benefit.
as well as having stated this in the press very recently…
…no doubt in the knowledge that there’s currently no safety data on spinal manipulation for children:The dangers of chiropractic therapy to children are particularly worrying because a chiropractor would be manipulating an immature spine.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?in_article_id=557946&in_page_id=17 74
…it is going to be interesting to see if the paediatric practices being taught at those College of Chiropractic seminars can survive.The reviewers commented that despite the fact that spinal manipulation is widely used on children, pediatric safety data are virtually nonexistent.
Vohra S. Adverse events associated with pediatric spinal manipulation: A systematic review. Pediatrics 119(1) January 2007, pp. e275-e283
http://www.ncahf.org/digest07/07-14.html
Another claim that some chiropractors make is that they can “assist with the turning of breech babies” (http://www.putneychiropractic.co.uk/), and one technique that they use is the ‘Webster Technique’. Here's what the well-respected veteran chiropractor, Samuel Homola, has to say about it:
Many chiropractors are "adjusting" the spines of pregnant women to "assure normal delivery" and to prevent breech birth caused by "intrauterine constraint." This dubious treatment -- known as the Webster Technique -- is based on the equally dubious theory that vertebral subluxations can cause malfunction in the uterus by putting pressure on spinal nerves. Chiropractors who advocate the Webster Technique, claim:
These contentions are not merely nonsensical. Reliance on the Webster Technique during the final weeks of pregnancy can endanger both the mother and the child.
- Failure to prevent sacral and pelvic subluxations can result in abnormal positioning of the baby in the uterus.
- Babies can be turned from a breech position to a normal vertex (head down) position simply by adjusting the sacrum.
More…
http://www.chirobase.org/06DD/webster.html
In view of the above, one can only hope that the British Chiropractic Association v. Simon Singh case will, once and for all, publicly address the validity of all of these claims.
Last edited by Blue Wode; 25th August 2008 at 09:55 AM.
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.
More blogging and developments:
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php...1&postcount=61
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.
It gives me great pleasure to re-activate this thread with the news that following the BCA's withdrawal of its libel suit against Simon today, the Guardian has put the original article back on its site:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...science-health
A big thank you to Simon Singh and his team for standing their ground against the British Chiroporactic Association's misconceived case.
BTW, savour the irony that this week is Chiropractic Awareness week:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/04/chi...eek-2008-2010/
ebm-first.com
What alternative health practitioners might not tell you.
Posting Permissions
Bookmarks