chiropractors

[Ginger Rogers]

Now I thought chiropractors were perfectly fine. I mean, I see one, and she puts back in place the bits that are wrong. So how is that 'woo' then?? ???
My chiropractor said that doctors think of them as 'woo' and when mentioning 'alternative treatments' my own doctor added chiropractor along with homeopathy, reflexology and all that!!!

Not sure how you can compare a chiropractor with a homeopath!

Or is it true that its' one of those unsubstantiated types of treatment that is not proven to do anything?? But, she does do something, she puts my bones back - surely I'd know if she wasn't doing anything?? !!

[Mongrel]

There's some good information at Chirobase (http://www.chirobase.org/) for you to peruse.

Discounting the 'subluxations' and Anti-Vaccination stance that is prevalent (although a lot less so over here I believe), a Chiro is doing no more than physical manipulation, generally with a lot less training than Physios and costing more.

[Admin]

Now I thought chiropractors were perfectly fine. I mean, I see one, and she puts back in place the bits that are wrong. So how is that 'woo' then?? ???


The Woo is that your bones were never out of place to begin with (!)

Chiropractic "subluxations" don't exist.

See: UK-Skeptics on Chiropractic (http://www.ukskeptics.com/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php) for an overview of the topic.


Or is it true that its' one of those unsubstantiated types of treatment that is not proven to do anything?? But, she does do something, she puts my bones back - surely I'd know if she wasn't doing anything?? !!

She may be manipulating your bones and even making them 'crack' but is there any valid medical reason for doing so? The answer is: no.

There are risks associated with spinal manipulation, especially of the neck, so is it worth taking the risk with a treatment that has no medical benefit?

It's only the Chiropractor who tells you your bones need realigning in the first place!! ;)

Your choice, but I'd steer well clear.

[Admin]

We have also produced a factsheet: http://www.ukskeptics.com/factsheets/Chiropractic.pdf

Again, a topic overview but this one can be printed out and shared around. O0

[Sgt Badass]

A friend recently found he had a shattered vertebrae after he'd been seeing a chiro for some time. Now the NHS has got to patch him up.

They should be put against the same wall along with the homeopaths etc when the revolution comes...

[Ginger Rogers]

I'm really surprised.

I only go to the chiropractor (a McTimony chiropractor) when I'm sufferening back pain. For example, I could tell my neck was 'wrong' it felt like my head was twisted round 360º!!
So I go to my chiropractor and she does whatever it is they do and it corrects it.

I've just read your fact sheet.

She certainly doesn't un-recommend vaccinations or any such thing, and has never said that it can cure all ills, as far as I'm concerned I only go when I'm in pain or discomfort with my back, and my neck etc and for me it works

When I was younger I suffered very badly with a mis-aligned pelvis - I know it was mis-aligned because quite often when I bent over or lifted things my back would spasm and I would be in a lot of pain.
Since I started going to the chiropractor I don't have that any more - or I do but rarely and much less painfully.

[Allo Allo]

Hi Ginger,

You'll get no intelligible answer here about any complimentary therapies - fundamentalism rules!

McTimony is NOT accepted as Chiropractic. This technique is not used by the mainstream of the worldwide chiropractic profession. At the present time, McTimony Chiropractors are not eligible to join the British Chiropractic Association.

I have been to a McTimony Practitioner for agonisingly painful knees which the NHS Physiotherapist had worked on for months without any joy. Someone "recommended" McTimony and I was sorted in two session at the cost of £40. Of course the mob here would say that was "the placebo" - but it has lasted me very well - 8 years of placebo and still going strong! The other side effect was that my deaf right ear improved in its hearing ability. I "heard" it open up during my second session. But of course this is anecdotal nonsense - I was not part of a clinical trial, so have no corroborating evidence.

If I sound sour - I am! Not meant against you...just suggesting some here either won't reply because they haven't a clue - or because they are pseudoskeptics and simply regurgitate nonsense.

M :scared:

[Admin]

You'll get no intelligible answer here about any complimentary therapies - fundamentalism rules!

[.....]

If I sound sour - I am! Not meant against you...just suggesting some here either won't reply because they haven't a clue - or because they are pseudoskeptics and simply regurgitate nonsense.


Do I spot a familiar Woo tactic? ;)

If you can't defend you inane beliefs then resort to attacking Skeptics with fallacious Ad Hominems (http://www.ukskeptics.com/forum/index.php/topic,457.0.html).

And for the record Michelle, I don't believe your anecdote for one minute. It's another form of bullshit WooWoos come out with. "I was treated by doctors for years and nothing got better then one session with my quack and I was healed".

If it looks too good to be true..... ;)

[Allo Allo]

John,

Could you point out what is INCORRECT about my statement that no intelligible answer will be given here about complimentary therapy when you yourself bore that out by explaining that MY EXPERIENCE is bullshit! HOW DO YOU KNOW THAT? This is YOUR OPINION and NOT based on any logical or critical thought.

I do NO KIND of complementary therapy IN ANY FORM. I take NO HERBS, have NO MKB therapies. I have FEW woo ideas that most woos have. I would like you to list the inane beliefs I have. What are those beliefs? You ASSUME I have "beliefs" of which YOU don't approve.

I have spent two months studying mainstream scientific ideas - there are very few with which I have any issue. I have discovered many ideas that have personally been inspiring - if you thought my post on the Science Section was ironic - it wasn't - it was genuine. However, in my two months self education I have discovered that there is a GREAT difference between "scientific thought" and "scientific fundamentalism" - "radical science".

As for my knees - what arrogance! How the hell can you KNOW? Are you psychic? Or does this comment come from a balanced, thoughtful space?

I have ever only gone to a McTimony Therapist once - and I shared my experience - which was positive. And the fact that it is not considered "chiropractic".

I do have issue with the unthinking blah that can be "predicted" to be posted here that is an example of "herd mentality". That is NOT skepiticism - it's something else..

M >:(

[Admin]

Michelle,

I know who you really are and I've read your musings on various ideas.


I would like you to list the inane beliefs I have. What are those beliefs? You ASSUME I have "beliefs" of which YOU don't approve.

I'll publish your articles if you like.

Now, you may be challenging your ideas and looking at things in a more logical way but if you think you're going to achieve anything by insulting people who know a damn site more than you do on various topics then you're wrong.


I do have issue with the unthinking blah that can be "predicted" to be posted here that is an example of "herd mentality". That is NOT skepiticism - it's something else.

Bullshit.

You barely understand science or skepticism at all. You're just sounding like the multitude of Woos who so desperately need to attack skeptics because they can't justify their ideas and beliefs.

If you don't like our conclusions (which are arrived at independently ;)) then why not counter them with a well-considered logical argument?

We've heard the "closed-minded skeptic" crap before - let's have a quality counter-argument if you think we're so badly wrong.

[Mojo]

I do have issue with the unthinking blah...

Well stop posting it then.

[Admin]

To get back on topic...




I've just read your fact sheet.

She certainly doesn't un-recommend vaccinations or any such thing, and has never said that it can cure all ills, as far as I'm concerned I only go when I'm in pain or discomfort with my back, and my neck etc and for me it works


I would say that not every Chiropractor embraces every type of nonsense they're into but I think that if pushed, you might just find that your Chiropractor is a little more wacky than you may realise. ???

After all, they believe (and McTimoney adheres very much to Palmer's original ideas) that all (or at least 95% of) disease and illness is caused by malfunctioning of the nervous system because of misaligned vertebrae.

For back pain, especially the lower back, they are probably as effective as any other physical therapist but we have to remember, the general public may think of them as 'back doctors' but that's not how they see themselves (!)

As with all alternative practitioners, if we're to use them, we have to keep what they can actually do in perspective.

Personally, I wouldn't use a Chiropractor for anything.

[Blue Wode]

McTimony is NOT accepted as Chiropractic. This technique is not used by the mainstream of the worldwide chiropractic profession. At the present time, McTimony Chiropractors are not eligible to join the British Chiropractic Association.


Practising McTimoney chiropractors must, by law, be registered with the UK regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council. Therefore, McTimoney IS accepted as chiropractic in the UK. However, you do appear to be correct in saying that its techniques are not used by the mainstream of the worldwide chiropractic profession.

Regards Mctimoney chiropractors not being eligible to join the British Chiropractic Association, whilst that may be the case, they do have their own professional association:
http://www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/mca_objectives.htm

Interestingly, their association says that “By correctly training the hands as an instrument of innate intelligence, healing can be encouraged to take place by the detection and correction of bony subluxations”. That suggests that they’re probably too new-agey for the more scientific image that the British Chiropractic Association likes to project – although even it can be just as guilty of pseudoscientific leanings:



You rely on your spinal cord
Like at telephone network, your spinal cord delivers messages from your brain to your body through the nervous system. The vertebrae - the bones of your spine - provide protection for this vital part of your body. As you go through life, a loss of proper function (movement) in the vertebrae, which some chiropractors call a subluxation, may interfere with the healthy working of your spine and the nerves that run through it. This may affect your body’s natural ability to recover from injury and you may find yourself increasingly unwell, unable to shake off apparently minor aches, pains and even some illness.

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/gfx/uploads/textbox/Servicing%20your%20spine.pdf



Note the weasel words in the above quote: may interfere, may affect, may find...

I have to agree with John Jackson that subluxations don’t exist and I’d steer well clear of chiropractors too.

[Allo Allo]

When I first started here I was quite clear that I was "having a thought crisis". I am throwing myself and my ideas against a wall to see if there ARE any pieces left...I don't think I've done this RUDELY.


I do have issue with the unthinking blah that can be "predicted" to be posted here that is an example of "herd mentality". That is NOT skepiticism - it's something else.


Bullshit.

You barely understand science or skepticism at all. You're just sounding like the multitude of Woos who so desperately need to attack skeptics because they can't justify their ideas and beliefs.

If you don't like our conclusions (which are arrived at independently ;)) then why not counter them with a well-considered logical argument?

We've heard the "closed-minded skeptic" crap before - let's have a quality counter-argument if you think we're so badly wrong.


Which of your well-considered logical arguments leading to "conclusions" (which are arrived at independently) would those be? "Bullshit" possibly? ;D - I am seldom rude - but outspoken yes! I am quite clear in my mind that there is a skeptic "culture" - "herd mentality" a "fundamentalism" - and this is not "progress" - and there is so much fundamentalism about right now - who needs more?

M :ponder:

[Mongrel]

Given that clinical trials have shown little effect beyond placebo for Chiropractic manipulation the ball's in their court to show it works. Here's a meta-study from Bandolier (http://www.jr2.ox.ac.uk/bandolier/booth/alternat/CP095.html) carried out in 1994 and I think the end comment sums it up nicely


A bit of a mixed bag. A remarkable lack of evidence for interventions carried out so commonly.

[Mojo]

I am quite clear in my mind that there is a skeptic "culture" - "herd mentality" a "fundamentalism"

Why are you "quite clear in your mind" about this? If it exists, what evidence do you have that people here are part of this "herd mentality"?

[Physiotherapist]

Michelle,

I have to agree with you here. Especially the arrogance and the "I am always right" mentality. I notice John never replied to that part of your post.

I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!! >:D

[Admin]

I have to agree with you here. Especially the arrogance and the "I am always right" mentality. I notice John never replied to that part of your post.

I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!! >:D


The thing is that such inane posts are not worth bothering with.

To any neutral reader all they will see is skeptics arguing the case for/against something and providing reasons and/or evidence to support their case; and credophiles, who will believe anything no matter how silly, who attempt to support their case by insulting those who disagree with them.

All we have here is:

Argumentum ad Hominem: instead of countering the argument you attack the person instead. It is completely fallacious and does nothing to prove your point. Let’s say I am an “anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself” – how does that support the case for Chiropractic?

The Strawman fallacy: all you’re doing is creating a caricature of skeptics (the strawman) so that you can attack it rather than the reality. Again, even if we were like your invented strawman, how does that support the case for Chiropractic?

Instead of this child-like approach why don’t you ‘believers’ come up with some credible argument to support what you believe in?

If you believe that Chiropractic or Quantum Touch etc. are worthwhile medical interventions then please state your case. If it’s a good one, it will stand up to skeptical scrutiny. ;)

[Admin]

Look at this and it may give an indication why Skeptics strongly oppose Chiropractic:

http://ik3a.com/chiro.png

Taken from this thread on the JREF: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=64283

It's worth a read. O0

[Jocky]

It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!!

All we have here is:

Argumentum ad Hominem: instead of countering the argument you attack the person instead.

Whatever next: an ad hom on someone's avatar :D

I claim a new fallacy: "Argumentum ad Avatarem" 8) - but then as a short, bald lab rat with delusions of grandeur, who am I to say ...

[boffin]

Dear John,

I'm intrigued.

"I know who you really are and I've read your musings on various ideas."

"I'll publish your articles if you like."

As as scientist and teacher of science I'm intrigued when I hear of people self-teaching science and then passing opinion as if they have a deep understanding of great scientific principles - in my experience these people usually misunderstand more than they understand because they don't have a scientific mind (for example - I've talked to christians who claimed that the universe does not obey the second law of thermodynamics because we are ordered, thus there must be a god..etc..!).

Please publish the articles.

Also, your comments make me proud to be a sceptic and scientist, John - keep up the good work.

[Allo Allo]

To Johnathan,

My articles are not a result of my "self taught" science - sorry - they are old musings from about 9 years ago which I am on my present mission to challenge in every way. So you could not see how I have "self taught" myself - only possibly deluded myself!

I would be very unhappy if John published any of my writing - especially if it were as an internet link, because it would completely destroy my anonymity, which I would find dangerous and sinister.

I have learned a tremendous amount whilst here - I am afraid I am not self teaching, but going on an exploration of knowledge from mainstream scientists.

Some questions I have, remain unanswered - because it seems that currently main stream science has no answer - but thats OK - because I don't know the answer either!

M :)

[Cuddles]

Especially the arrogance...

...I have to say that that photo says it all really. It's that 80's look of the whiter than white anally retentive public school boy who is too afraid to step out of line and think for himself image!! >:D


Something about pots and kettles...

[Ginger Rogers]

To Johnathan,

My articles are not a result of my "self taught" science - sorry - they are old musings from about 9 years ago which I am on my present mission to challenge in every way. So you could not see how I have "self taught" myself - only possibly deluded myself!

I would be very unhappy if John published any of my writing - especially if it were as an internet link, because it would completely destroy my anonymity, which I would find dangerous and sinister.

I have learned a tremendous amount whilst here - I am afraid I am not self teaching, but going on an exploration of knowledge from mainstream scientists.

Some questions I have, remain unanswered - because it seems that currently main stream science has no answer - but thats OK - because I don't know the answer either!

M :)


I'm intrigued - so are you some kind of celebrity or something? otherwise why would you be so concerned to stay anonymous - unless of course you have something to hide... ??? No offence meant of course, just curious why you think it's 'dangerous and sinister' that people know who you are!

[Admin]

Michelle's articles are no longer in the public domain so I won't publish without permission.

No, Michelle is not a famous or public figure - so no potential for scandal I'm afraid. :P ;D

Blackmail, however.... :ponder:

May be worth a go. ;D

[Jocky]

My articles ... are old musings from about 9 years ago which I am on my present mission to challenge in every way.

Fair enough Michelle - it seems you had some sort of "woo form" (if you'll pardon the expression, no offence intended) in the past, but you are now challenging your former belief system and thinking critically about these issues.

Good for you O0 This can be a very difficult (and sometimes painful) process, and I for one don't think we should hold past statements against anyone when they have made it clear that they've having a change of heart.

So, to get back to the topic:

1. You posted an anecdote concerning a visit to a chiropractor. John thought that you were employing the classic woo tactic of extrapolating general proof for a complimentary therapy, based on nothing more than anecdotal evidence, confirmation bias and the Post Hoc fallacy. If this is not what you were doing, what in fact were you trying to say when you posted this story?

2. You posted a wider allegation that (if I understand you correctly) some members of this forum are guilty of repeating parrot-fashion some kind of skeptical 'party line' on CAM, based not on critical thinking but on some kind of desire to 'fit in' with the crowd. To repeat Mojo's question, upon what evidence do you base this notion - or was it just a general attack on skepticism?

3. Do you have evidence to offer which contradicts any of the assertions made in the UKS factsheet about chiropractic, or which contradicts the clinical evidence (such as the study to which Mongrel referred) which suggests that there is very little evidence for the efficacy of many claims made by chiropractic?

If you feel that my points above misrepresent your views or your intentions, then I apologise and I stand ready to be corrected. However, if you have expressed views which you have since realised you cannot support with evidence and critical thinking, then I'm sure nobody will think any the worse of you for just saying so. We're all on a learning curve - I certainly am when it comes to chiropractic - and I'm sure we all want to discuss the issues here and not let things degenerate into personal attacks 8)

[Allo Allo]

I am in the wrong place here. I enjoy ideas, concepts, possibilities and how they develop. I question everything and always have. I don't use any medication, new age therapists, chiropractors, acupuncture, - whatever. I have a woo background -so I know it well. I have grave misgivings about the greed and avarice I see in "New Age" stuff and the uselessness/dangerousness of much of it. My story about McTimony was just MY experience - I am ASTONISHED it rocked anyone's boat! I don't give a hoot about chiropractors - would never use one.

I run no "courses", belong to no "groups", have no "religion" and am what one would call an atheist. I have, through my life developed inner serenity, which I thought was reasonably stable - but I find I am stressing out by what is written on this board! I am observing that there is a "cult" of skeptic - it's as distressing as any other.

My intuition seems backed up by this from Wikipedia

Activist skeptics, self-described "debunkers" are a subset of scientific skeptics who aim to expose in public what they see as the truth behind specific extraordinary claims. Debunkers may publish books, air TV programs, create websites, or use other means to advocate their message. In some cases they may challenge claimants outright or even stage elaborate hoaxes to prove their point, such as Project Alpha.

Because debunkers often challenge popular ideas, many are not strangers to controversy. Critics of debunkers sometimes accuse them of robbing others of hope. Debunkers frequently reply that it is the claimant, whom they many times accuse of exploiting public gullibility, who is guilty of abuse.

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

I don't want to have anything to do with this - and I hope this board can retain the ideals that John has for it.

M :ponder:

[Admin]

Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

See my comments about the Ad Hominem and Strawman fallacies above. These sort of inane comments tend to come from parapsychologists because skepticism is what prevents their sloppy research being accepted as real.

Regarding project alpha: have you read what it was all about?

Parapsychologists allowed themselves to be duped by a couple of young magicians for years. It was a very worthwhile project and illustrated beautifully just how gullible and willing to believe that parapsychologists can be.

Try looking at parapsychology websites (like this one (http://www.skepticalinvestigations.org/)) and look at how much effort they put into attacking science and especially skeptics.

You see, they like to think that they are 'real skeptics' and that people like us who really do adhere to the principles of science and skepticism are the close-minded, materialist, debunking, denying, pseudoskeptics.

Their efforts in attacking skeptics looks more like a pathological obsession to me. ;)


I am observing that there is a "cult" of skeptic - it's as distressing as any other.

Look on here. I've just set up a page so that we can make a little money with an Amazon affiliate programme and I've had to ask others if they will help out by using it. Does that sound like an infallible leader instructing his blind followers on how to act?

Now look at the Quantum Touch forum. A leader whose followers take his word as gospel and encourage everyone to "look through the telescope" and believe everything he says - and promote his book.

Skepticism is the opposite of a cult. The whole point is to challenge authority and accepted wisdom. I'm afraid that the "cult" insult is just another well-worn and entirely fallacious ad-hominem.

Finally,

Let's take Chiropractic as an example as it's what this thread started out as.

We don't oppose Chiropractic because we have a pathological need to deny it. We do so because chiropractic does not stand up to scrutiny.

These quacks, amongst other things, claim to be able to treat things like ADHD in children. They will manipulate spines, crack bones, use X-rays, and possibly impose dietry restrictions and advise against things like immunisation; all whilst cultivating the client to become a well-paying repeat customer.

There is no medical benefit to the child. (!)

If you, or anyone else, thinks that standing up against such a perverted interpretation of healthcare is being close-minded, pathological, or that 'debunking' it is not not a worthy cause then you certainly are in the wrong place.

[Allo Allo]

Michelle's articles are no longer in the public domain so I won't publish without permission.

No, Michelle is not a famous or public figure - so no potential for scandal I'm afraid. :P ;D

Blackmail, however.... :ponder:

May be worth a go. ;D


Yes John,

I came on here to reply to "Johnathan" so I'll post my reply anyway ....

I am no celebrity! As moderator John probably does have the tracking skills to "know" who I am. I have an idea what "musings" he is referring to - I have written for a long time in different styles, and under different names- no fame - no fortune. However, I did have a website on a private server of archived stuff which I have now removed from the Internet - which gave my name, address, phone number, the business I run and other details of my life. I do not want them shared for very obvious reasons! Unless you feel my bank details should also be included? I get enough junk mail, junk e-mail and junk phone calls as it is!

I felt this posting of John's to me was sinister because it was a threat! and not the thoughtful action of the moderator of this board. I wonder what responsibility the moderator has? What responsibility is taken by UKS to honour the anonymity of their postees? My crime here is that I have woo ways with words.

However, I am a writer still - whatever is not now on the Internet exists in book form in many places all over the world and cannot be retracted now. I would avoid becoming a celebrity at all costs. I am reclusive. John knows where to find me and if he called, I would love to meet him.

Some Skeps here have allowed me to grow - I thank them and wish them well.

M :angel:

[Admin]

I felt this posting of John's to me was sinister because it was a threat! and not the thoughtful action of the moderator of this board. I wonder what responsibility the moderator has? What responsibility is taken by UKS to honour the anonymity of their postees?


Well I have no powers other than the ability to google.

Sorry if it looked like a threat. :( I was just pointing out that I did indeed know of your ideas when you were challenging me to prove it.

Although I'm one of those nasty skeptics, I do actually treat people with respect. So I'll take your name and address down from the website's main page now. ;D


John knows where to find me and if he called, I would love to meet him.

We'd probably get on well. ;) Your persona certainly makes me smile. It's just this anti-skeptic stance you've taken that annoys me as you're just falling for the fallacies.

[Jocky]

I don't give a hoot about chiropractors - would never use one.

That is a fair response to the evidence - skepticism in action. Way to go, Michelle O0 I don't see why you think you are in the wrong place.

If you catch anyone on this forum "relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism." then I think you should say so, pointing to specific things they have said which are not supported by evidence or which rely on faulty logic.

OTOH, making vague, generalised criticisms of strawmen set up in place of skepticism is in itself fallacious thinking, and one might expect such behaviour to be criticised.

Thinking critically about any information you read is a good plan - and I'm sure John would be the first to agree that this applies to anything he posts as much as it does to anybody else.


Does that sound like an infallible leader instructing his blind followers on how to act?

:wnw: Absolutely not, O Master :wnw:
:D

[Cuddles]

I run no "courses", belong to no "groups", have no "religion" and am what one would call an atheist. I have, through my life developed inner serenity, which I thought was reasonably stable - but I find I am stressing out by what is written on this board! I am observing that there is a "cult" of skeptic - it's as distressing as any other.

My intuition seems backed up by this from Wikipedia

Almost all "woos" have a vested interest in promoting themselves and putting down skeptics, since otherwise they would have no jobs. Most skeptics, on the other hand, have no reason to debunk things other than simlpy widhing the truth to be knwon - they have financial (and usually no emotionl) interest in proving things either wrong or correct. Wikipedia can be edited by (almost) anyone. Who is more likely to spend their time writing articles, someone who does it out of the goodness of their heart, or someone whos entire livelyhood rests on their ideas not being questioned? This is exactly why skeptics gernerally only trust verifiable data from trustworthy sources, preferably peer-reviewed.

I have seen no evidence any where of a "cult of skeptic". On this board most people tend to agree because there are not very many of us and so far only very well established subjects have been discussed. We agree on these things because we have all seen the same evidence which overwhelmingly says that things like chiropractic are pure quackery. If you go to a board like the JREF forums moast of the threads are skeptics arguing amongs themselves, usually in a much more friendly way than the woos do. Even when a clearly ridiculous claim arises there is still usually debate over how silly it is and whether it could really be possible. The only time skeptics could ever sound anything like a cult is when people repeatedly bring up the same old arguments that have been debunked for years, in which case everyone will tell the claimant to shut up and do some research. This is not because some leader told us to do so, it is simply because most people have no interest in discussing the same tired old claims over and over again.


Habitual debunkers are sometimes called pseudoskeptics or pathological skeptics and accused of intentionally relying on pseudoscience masquerading as empirical skepticism.

Bolding mine, which I think clears things up a bit. Debunkers are often accused of being all sorts of things, but this does not make the accusations true. As I said above, most woos have strong financial interest in making skeptics look as bad as possible. The fact that they never seem to be able to point to any specific case where debunkers are pseudoscientific is a rather telling point.

[tkingdoll]

I'm going to counter a pro-chiro anecdote with another anecdote, which will cancel out the first anecdote, rendering it useless as evidence. This is a true story and a very recent one.

My friend Todd had been suffering from back problems. He told me he was going to a chiropractor, and although I gave him some information about them, his girlfriend pressured him and he ended up going anyway. The chiropractor cracked a few bones and he felt some relief, and went on his way.

Now, let's consider the immediate aftermath of this vist. He felt some relief (placebo effect) and would have passed on the good news about his visit to the chiropractor to anyone who happened to ask in that period. Chalk up a few recommendations to that particular practitioner!

Except...a few days later, the pain returned, worse than before. Todd decided to stop messing about and (as he should have done in the first place) went to his GP.

His GP diagnosed a sciatic nerve problem and referred him to a consultant, who promptly sent him for an MRI which revealed a problem so severe it requires surgery.

So, as you can see, a positive chiropractic anecdote can easily be countered with a negative one. Just consider what would have happened to Todd's back had he continued to see the chiropractor.

My story, although it is true, is useless as evidence against chiropractic, as much as the original story is useless as evidence for it. Therefore, the only way that chiropractic, or any alternative therapy, can be judged, is on the empircal evidence, and in this, chiropractic fails, miserably. Therefore, why should we tolerate it? Or at the very least, why shouldn't the public be aware of the facts behind the 'theory' of chiropractic before making their decision?

Nothing fundamentalist about that.