Seeking science (?) in chiropractic
Question:
Very professional comment! – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> HLE has no intention on research he is just a troll. > — > Dr. Roland R. Hicks > Doctor of Chiropractic > All good things come from above-down-inside-out > Natural Alternative to Celebrex/Vioxx: > http://drhicks.joint-pain.com/ > Internet Marketing to Win: > http://www.aboutimw.com/drhicks.html > Nutrition Products and Information: > http://freelife.com/Sites/drhicks/redir.cfm?page=/info/welcome/welcom… > fm > toll free (877) 791-8686 > >> Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with > conventional > >> doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased. > >Sorry, John. That won’t work for the Science (?) in Chiropractic > experiment. > >If inquirers visit multiple chiropractors who find the same subluxation, > >that’s > >pretty good evidence that there’s a scientific foundation for at least > the > >diagnostic protocols. However, no conventional doctor acknowledges the > >existence of subluxations. No radiologist will acknowledge ever having > seen > >one > >even after many years of examining film. So it’s unlikely (I personally > think > >impossible) that a chiropractor and a physician can arrive at the same > >diagnosis based upon subluxations. > You miss my point. You believe the chiros will all come up with > different > verdicts. I believe the conventional doctors may well do the same given > the > same phony symptoms. Says nothing about subluxations, just about > diagnostic > abilities in general. If you show that doctors have a significantly > greater > unanimity of diagnosis, then that suggests something about chiros. But > only > then. > >The flip side is treatment. > >Since the symptom is spurious, the conventional doctor will probably > discover > >that and suspect either a work-related false claim or a psychosomatic > >problem. > >The chiropractor, on the other hand, will have found subluxations (they > >always do!) and manipulate over many visits. > Assumptions. They need to be tested. Your study does not do this IMHO. > Again, work out your script and apply it to both doctors and chiros. > Compare > the results. I haven’t the faintest idea what the results will be, but > the > results of your study as they stand are not going to be meaningful. > Best wishes > — > John Bain > UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor > http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html > Surround Sound for Television
Response:
I think HLE maybe your biased and are only trying to discredit something you truly do not understand nor are willing to understand. For one, you make numerous attempts to try to discredit chiropractors, yet so far for the ones who know the truth and how it all works your talking utter nonsense, we call that verbal diarrhea (in Australia). You say that different chiropractors will find a different cause/problem when presented with a particular set of symptoms, I say maybe, but generally the fix is the same as experience has proven. You have plenty of opinions, yet seem to lack one important I have been seeing a chiropractor on and off for many years. The reasons for seeing him have been varied, but generally back, neck and shoulder related, I see my chiropractor maybe 4-5 times a year as necessary. On the odd occasion when I need to see the chiropractor and he is away on holidays or something and I see a different one, the fix is the same as the one I get the next session with my regular chiropractor. Basically I walk in and let him feel my back as well as measure me and he tells me what I am feeling and is usually spot on and the odd times he is not it’s because he finds something else and when clearing it first he finds what my complaint is. I have also seen other chiropractors at other clinics when I have not been bothered to travel as mine is on the other side of the city which can be around 45 minutes drive. Other chiropractors I have seen all find the same thing at the same time and is usually corrected with 2-3 treatments, sometimes I just go in for a one off. Another side effect I notice is that I am taller as I no longer slouch after a good cracking. Probably a couple of centimetres. When I suffered from graves disease, the initial diagnosis from a doc was the flu and antibiotics were prescribed of which I never take. When I went to my proper doc I was immediately diagnosed with graves disease having reported the same symptoms to both docs. A total contradiction to what your claiming and all with experience, not just unfounded opinion. Please think wisely before making unfounded claims as you have been making. Love and Light Steven
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with conventional > doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased. > Sorry, John. That won’t work for the Science (?) in Chiropractic experiment. > If inquirers visit multiple chiropractors who find the same subluxation, that’s > pretty good evidence that there’s a scientific foundation for at least the > diagnostic protocols. However, no conventional doctor acknowledges the > existence of subluxations. No radiologist will acknowledge ever having seen one > even after many years of examining film. So it’s unlikely (I personally think > impossible) that a chiropractor and a physician can arrive at the same > diagnosis based upon subluxations. > The flip side is treatment. > Since the symptom is spurious, the conventional doctor will probably discover > that and suspect either a work-related false claim or a psychosomatic problem. > The chiropractor, on the other hand, will have found subluxations (they always > do!) and manipulate over many visits. > I hope that you will become one of the guinea pigs here – visiting a few chiros > and reporting back. > Henry
Response:
>> Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with conventional >> doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased. >Sorry, John. That won’t work for the Science (?) in Chiropractic experiment. >If inquirers visit multiple chiropractors who find the same subluxation, >that’s >pretty good evidence that there’s a scientific foundation for at least the >diagnostic protocols. However, no conventional doctor acknowledges the >existence of subluxations. No radiologist will acknowledge ever having seen >one >even after many years of examining film. So it’s unlikely (I personally think >impossible) that a chiropractor and a physician can arrive at the same >diagnosis based upon subluxations.
You miss my point. You believe the chiros will all come up with different verdicts. I believe the conventional doctors may well do the same given the same phony symptoms. Says nothing about subluxations, just about diagnostic abilities in general. If you show that doctors have a significantly greater unanimity of diagnosis, then that suggests something about chiros. But only then. >The flip side is treatment. >Since the symptom is spurious, the conventional doctor will probably discover >that and suspect either a work-related false claim or a psychosomatic >problem. >The chiropractor, on the other hand, will have found subluxations (they >always do!) and manipulate over many visits.
Assumptions. They need to be tested. Your study does not do this IMHO. Again, work out your script and apply it to both doctors and chiros. Compare the results. I haven’t the faintest idea what the results will be, but the results of your study as they stand are not going to be meaningful. Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television
Response:
HLE has no intention on research he is just a troll. — Dr. Roland R. Hicks Doctor of Chiropractic All good things come from above-down-inside-out Natural Alternative to Celebrex/Vioxx: http://drhicks.joint-pain.com/ Internet Marketing to Win: http://www.aboutimw.com/drhicks.html Nutrition Products and Information: http://freelife.com/Sites/drhicks/redir.cfm?page=/info/welcome/welcom… fm toll free (877) 791-8686
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > >> Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with > conventional > >> doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased. >Sorry, John. That won’t work for the Science (?) in Chiropractic experiment. >If inquirers visit multiple chiropractors who find the same subluxation, >that’s >pretty good evidence that there’s a scientific foundation for at least the >diagnostic protocols. However, no conventional doctor acknowledges the >existence of subluxations. No radiologist will acknowledge ever having seen >one >even after many years of examining film. So it’s unlikely (I personally think >impossible) that a chiropractor and a physician can arrive at the same >diagnosis based upon subluxations. > You miss my point. You believe the chiros will all come up with different > verdicts. I believe the conventional doctors may well do the same given the > same phony symptoms. Says nothing about subluxations, just about diagnostic > abilities in general. If you show that doctors have a significantly greater > unanimity of diagnosis, then that suggests something about chiros. But only > then. >The flip side is treatment. >Since the symptom is spurious, the conventional doctor will probably discover >that and suspect either a work-related false claim or a psychosomatic >problem. >The chiropractor, on the other hand, will have found subluxations (they >always do!) and manipulate over many visits. > Assumptions. They need to be tested. Your study does not do this IMHO. > Again, work out your script and apply it to both doctors and chiros. Compare > the results. I haven’t the faintest idea what the results will be, but the > results of your study as they stand are not going to be meaningful. > Best wishes > — > John Bain > UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor > http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html > Surround Sound for Television
Response:
> Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with conventional > doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased.
Sorry, John. That won’t work for the Science (?) in Chiropractic experiment. If inquirers visit multiple chiropractors who find the same subluxation, that’s pretty good evidence that there’s a scientific foundation for at least the diagnostic protocols. However, no conventional doctor acknowledges the existence of subluxations. No radiologist will acknowledge ever having seen one even after many years of examining film. So it’s unlikely (I personally think impossible) that a chiropractor and a physician can arrive at the same diagnosis based upon subluxations. The flip side is treatment. Since the symptom is spurious, the conventional doctor will probably discover that and suspect either a work-related false claim or a psychosomatic problem. The chiropractor, on the other hand, will have found subluxations (they always do!) and manipulate over many visits. I hope that you will become one of the guinea pigs here – visiting a few chiros and reporting back. Henry
Response:
Wow!!! This is absolutely brilliant! The only thing I dislike about the idea is that I didn’t think of it first. The result should be fascinating. The chiro people will claim that it’s not really an "experiment" because participants had preconceived notions, etc. and (having abandoned neutrality) somehow influenced the chiros in forming their professional opinions. I’ll hereby commit to 3-4 visits next week. This should be a lot of fun! If there’s an attorney here: can we publish the names of the people we see, along with their verbatim opinions? Also, does anyone have Atlas’ office address? And by the way, don’t expect commentary by the chiroguardians. They’re surely terrified by the probable results of this experiment and would like nothing better than silence. Ellie – whose tea leaves say she will have back pain tomorrow!
Response:
>Then, visit N chiropractors (N = whatever you can afford). Voice >precisely the same complaint and provide precisely the same set of data. >Get specific diagnoses and recommended courses of treatment. >Isn’t it worth a few dollars to find out whether you’d be wasting your >time seeking help from this group? If you decide to try this, remember: >script yourself, and follow the script! Also, it is entirely legal for >you to record your dialog with the chiropractor (the law requires that >at least one party of the discussion be aware of the recording). >Yes, I can imagine Atlas’ next claim. "That’s not a properly designed >research experiment. Wouldn’t even pass Research Design 201 standards. >No written protocol. No control group. No blind. Unfair! Unfair!" And >though he’d be absolutely correct from a scientific standpoint, to the >participants it would be absolutely convincing.
Then counter Atlas’s argument and alternate chiropractors with conventional doctors. Same spiel to each. Make it fair and unbiased. Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television
Response:
>Wow!!! This is absolutely brilliant! The only thing I dislike about the idea is >that I didn’t think of it first.
I’m sure the folks who pass out the Nobel prizes will have Henry listed right near the top. >The result should be fascinating. The chiro people will claim that it’s not >really an "experiment" because participants had preconceived notions, etc. and >(having abandoned neutrality) somehow influenced the chiros in forming their >professional opinions.
No, it’s an experiment. It’s just an incredibly poorly designed experiment that just oozes with bias. But then again, nobody ever did confuse Henry with being scientific. The comical part of all of this is that you’re functioning now as a sychophant to a person who refuses to look at the data. Condemnation without proper investigation is a very unattractive trait. I challenge you to become more informed about chiropractic. And THEN come back and discuss the issues with me. >I’ll hereby commit to 3-4 visits next week. This should be a lot of fun!
Perhaps your time would be better spent with a shrink. >If there’s an attorney here: can we publish the names of the people we see, >along with their verbatim opinions? Also, does anyone have Atlas’ office >address?
Atlas Chiropractic 1000 Brady Street, Suite 1516 Davenport, Iowa 52722 And no, I’m not going to send you any brochures to be used as fodder. >And by the way, don’t expect commentary by the chiroguardians. They’re surely >terrified by the probable results of this experiment and would like nothing >better than silence.
LOL! You go on believing that if it’ll sooth your own fragile ego. >whose tea leaves say she will have back pain tomorrow!
There you go again, following along in the "new science" that Henry practices. 
Response:
>Atlas complains that my mind snapped shut after assuring him that I’d >listen without prejudice. I did so listen, and I did read his >references, and only then did I form an opinion.
Wrong. You formed an opinion 32 years ago (by your own admission). I cited reference after reference after reference. You made no comment on ANY of them. And instead, kept on harping about something which occured over three decades ago. This tells me that you refuse to look at the data. >That’s because I did >homework that indicates little if any fundamental difference between >chiropractors of today and the obviously fraudulent practioners I and my >fellow Marine aviators met in 1968.
Thank you for making my point for me. There has been incredible advancements in chiropractic since you last actually bothered to read anything. Chiropractic research has been published in some of the most prestigious medical journals in the world (including Spine, and the Journal of Bone and Orthopedic Research). Chiropractors are starting to get hospital privileges. Admission requirements for entrance to chiropractic schools are consistently going up. There are all kinds of exciting things going on. But you couldn’t possibly know – because you refuse to look at the data. >Rather than argue for the sake of argument (though it’s certainly fun >when your opponent is a chiropractor or an astrologer!),
Or a close minded, ignoramus who refuses to look at the data. >I propose a >simple experiment that can be conducted by anyone following this >newsgroup. It’ll be fun, educational, and fascinating!
We already saw your previous "experiment". How "scientific" you are. What a non-bias you’re displaying. You obviously are more interested in the (sic) truth, than advancing your own personal agenda/vendetta. >Visit a chiropractor and complain of a simple problem (backache, >headaches, fatigue would be best — cancer, blindness, and AIDS would be >ok only with some DCs). Get a diagnosis – and insist on specifics. If a >"subluxation" is claimed (and it probably will be!), be certain to learn >its extent and exact location. Get a recommended course of treatment, >with details and expected expense.
Cancer, blindness, and AIDS are "simple problems"??????? Good thing for the world that you’re not an allopathic doctor. I certainly wouldn’t want to be one of your patients. >Then, visit N chiropractors (N = whatever you can afford). Voice >precisely the same complaint and provide precisely the same set of data. >Get specific diagnoses and recommended courses of treatment.
Fine. Make sure that all of the chiropractors you go to practice the same technique. If you start with a NUCCA doctor, make sure all other chiropractors are also NUCCA doctors. If you start with a Gonstead doc, follow up with Gonstead docs. It’s unfair to start with one chiropractor who practices a certain technique and then finish with another chiropractor who does a radicaly different technique. Oh wait! Henry didn’t realize that there are many different techniques within the field of chiropractic. Could it be that he didn’t realize this because he refuses to look at the data? >The chiropractors may be reasonably consistent in their diagnoses and >proposed therapies, indicating that chiropractic is indeed a science — >and Atlas will get my apology.
I seriously, seriously doubt that you’d be big enough to apologize. You couldn’t even be bothered to look at the data in the first place. >However, if the data points are all over >the map then the people who diagnosed you have no idea what they’re >doing.
Not necessarily true. There’s over 250 known chiropractic techniques. Some of them are more researched than others. The one I practice (CBP) is the most researched. I do things a little differently than another person practicing Thompson technique, or Toggle Recoil technique, or Diversified technique, or Nimmo technique, or any number of other techniques. It doesn’t mean that if we all don’t do the precise exact same thing that all of us are wrong. Do you honestly believe that ALL medical doctors do things the exact same way? Are you aware that there are many surgical techniques – and not all surgeons do all of them the same? > If the experiment is repeated by enough "patients," they’re >sufficiently consistent in their dialog, and N is a sufficiently large >number, we can be certain that the whole field of chiropractic is >fraudulent. But that’s like discovering the second law of >thermodynamics…
A day or two ago, David Wright accused me of using a "sleazy" tactic. I forgot the actual details, but it was something to the effect of me accusing the allopaths of something which could be applied to the chiropractors just as easily. (I don’t know how accurate he was with his statement. But given his batting average, I wouldn’t bet the farm on him being right). But anyway… Here we have Henry doing the precise same thing that David accused me of doing. He makes a generalization about chiropractors – and the very same thing could EASILY be applied to M.D.’s. And yet David is nowhere to be found. He’ll never jump in and challenge Henry. Not only is Henry 100% wrong in his assumptions (which makes sense given that he refuses to look at the data), but David Wright is a hypocrite for NOT bashing Henry for this. Guess the allopath guys stick up for each other. >Isn’t it worth a few dollars to find out whether you’d be wasting your >time seeking help from this group?
25 million people spent a combined $4.2 billion dollars on chiropractic care last year in the U.S. Why don’t you ask them why they keep on coming back? >If you decide to try this, remember: >script yourself, and follow the script! Also, it is entirely legal for >you to record your dialog with the chiropractor (the law requires that >at least one party of the discussion be aware of the recording).
There’s a guy named L.A. Chotkowski, M.D. who also tried to get in on this chiro-bashing game. He even went on a visit to New York Chiropractic College – for the purpose of uncovering some quackery. Click on this link, and read all about it: http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/chotvisit.html As you can see, Henry is following in Chotkowski’s footsteps. Not only did neither of them look at the data, but they both walk around with minds that are so narrow – they could both look through the same keyhole with both eyes. >Then, compile your results and report back… >I can afford a few "first visits" and might give it a try myself. It >would be about the same experiment as the military conducted in 1968… >and I will be surprised if the results are different.
"The military". You make it sound as though this were some wide-scale investigation done by the DOD. Far from it. And regardless of how the information comes back from your little witch hunt, you’ll no doubt skew the results until they fit nicely with your own personal bias and agenda. >Yes, I can imagine Atlas’ next claim. "That’s not a properly designed >research experiment. Wouldn’t even pass Research Design 201 standards. >No written protocol. No control group. No blind. Unfair! Unfair!" And >though he’d be absolutely correct from a scientific standpoint, to the >participants it would be absolutely convincing.
Who needs to be scientific when we have Henry?
Response:
Atlas complains that my mind snapped shut after assuring him that I’d listen without prejudice. I did so listen, and I did read his references, and only then did I form an opinion. That’s because I did homework that indicates little if any fundamental difference between chiropractors of today and the obviously fraudulent practioners I and my fellow Marine aviators met in 1968. Rather than argue for the sake of argument (though it’s certainly fun when your opponent is a chiropractor or an astrologer!), I propose a simple experiment that can be conducted by anyone following this newsgroup. It’ll be fun, educational, and fascinating! Visit a chiropractor and complain of a simple problem (backache, headaches, fatigue would be best — cancer, blindness, and AIDS would be ok only with some DCs). Get a diagnosis – and insist on specifics. If a "subluxation" is claimed (and it probably will be!), be certain to learn its extent and exact location. Get a recommended course of treatment, with details and expected expense. Then, visit N chiropractors (N = whatever you can afford). Voice precisely the same complaint and provide precisely the same set of data. Get specific diagnoses and recommended courses of treatment. The chiropractors may be reasonably consistent in their diagnoses and proposed therapies, indicating that chiropractic is indeed a science — and Atlas will get my apology. However, if the data points are all over the map then the people who diagnosed you have no idea what they’re doing. If the experiment is repeated by enough "patients," they’re sufficiently consistent in their dialog, and N is a sufficiently large number, we can be certain that the whole field of chiropractic is fraudulent. But that’s like discovering the second law of thermodynamics… Isn’t it worth a few dollars to find out whether you’d be wasting your time seeking help from this group? If you decide to try this, remember: script yourself, and follow the script! Also, it is entirely legal for you to record your dialog with the chiropractor (the law requires that at least one party of the discussion be aware of the recording). Then, compile your results and report back… I can afford a few "first visits" and might give it a try myself. It would be about the same experiment as the military conducted in 1968… and I will be surprised if the results are different. Yes, I can imagine Atlas’ next claim. "That’s not a properly designed research experiment. Wouldn’t even pass Research Design 201 standards. No written protocol. No control group. No blind. Unfair! Unfair!" And though he’d be absolutely correct from a scientific standpoint, to the participants it would be absolutely convincing. Anyone…?
Response:
Related Posts