Value of chiropractors questioned

[Raph78]

thanks mongrel, will check

[richard]

hi john

congrats you found www.back2strength.com on the web!

Ralph did you give John, your website address, or has he used his position as a moderator of the site to look up your IP number and website.

[Matt]

I'm not a Doctor but it appears that Streptomycin and Neomycin are antibiotics. I imgine they're added to the vaccines to keep them from going off. What's the problem with that?

hi

@ matt

what do antibiotics do to help against a VIRAL strain?

Do you realy feel qualified to offer medical advice if you can't understand what I said.

However it appears that I was wrong. Mogrel's post, just above yours is very illuminating.

So the stuff you claim is added to vaccines isn't in fact added to vacines. Am I to take it that you were previously unaware that the infomration you've been giving to your patients regarding vaccines is incorrect?

[Blue Wode]

yes, i am concerned that low vs high velocity effects may not differ so much as far as documented research goes. i am looking into that and will discuss later.

the physio group used 95% low velocity treatments. do you really believe that post graduate physio education learning it as a treatment intervention is the same as a full time highly specialised, specific course in chiropractic? its a skill based technique, and we are taught WHEN to use WHAT techniques and HOW to use it. a weekend course can never get into so much depth. it is simply a guess that the skill, training, education and experience, technique, and experience do not make a difference.

It’ll be interesting to see if you can produce any evidence that shows that ‘chiropractic’ manipulation is superior to manipulation by physiotherapists (or osteopaths for that matter).

yes, the gcc may not be all perfect. dont forget: it was possible for anybody to call themselves a chiropractor up until 2002 in the uk. so there was very little patient protection and regulation of the profession. so this has hugely improved since then. we are required to undergo annual cpd training to retain registration (in the uk)

As far as standards go, where is the scientific evidence to support what is being practiced by the chiropractors who are being regulated by the UK General Chiropractic Council? In other words, how can you regulate effectively something which hasn’t been proven to work?

It's worth remembering here that the House of Lords Report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) in November 2000 - and the Government’s Response to it in 2001 - stated clearly that the following three fundamental questions about individual CAM treatments needed to be addressed: (1) To find out if the treatment offered therapeutic benefits greater than a placebo; (2) to ascertain that it was safe; and (3) to compare its cost-effectiveness with other forms of treatment.

So far neither of the chiropractors posting on this thread has produced any scientific evidence to show that ‘chiropractic’ is greater than a placebo and, with regard to safety, we already know that the safety data for ‘chiropractic’ are incomplete (and those that are in are rather worrying).

On the subject of cost-effectiveness, the most recent systematic review reached this conclusion:

Prospective, controlled, cost-effectiveness studies of complementary therapies have been carried out in the UK only for spinal manipulation (four studies) and acupuncture (two studies). The limited data available indicate that the use of these therapies usually represents an additional cost to conventional treatment.

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=17173105

the scientific base for chiropractic? we are treating what kirkaldy willis described as joint dysfunction in his model of spinal degeneration. but yes, joints in younger adults can get stuck too. grays anatomy describes that a mobile facet joint inhibits pain fibres from firing, and that nociceptor activity shuts down type 1-3 fibres (proprioception). that is well documented. inter exmainer reliabilities of motion palpation to diagnose the motion restriction of this problem are not excellent (again, its a skill!) but intra-examiner reliabilities are significantly better. it is subjective, yes, that is why i try to objectify my results using video evidence.

ill give you references once i have time, sorry.

Good. And I trust that both you and Richard will answer the questions posed by John Jackson in post #48.

but one thing is for sure. research is produced, and we now have more of it. we do not have the easily available funding from e.g. pharma groups, and many aspects of the clinical encounter here can not be so easily abstracted in numbers. there are other aspects of care that may be better examined using qualitative research methods.

If sound scientific research was conducted which repeatedly showed that ‘chiropractic’ was no better than a placebo, would your profession call it a day?

i do not respect certain chiro websites, and certain wacky professional bodies. its those who block further development of the profession. "subluxation" is a poor definition and divides chiropractors. it becomes, often, an unnecessary repetitive treatment for "normal" spinal high points, if you see what i mean. i am all for the least invasive treatment, and the least frequent care as i recognise the bodies recuperative powers (homeostasis?)

But Raph, registered chiropractors in the UK are legally obliged to provide care that is evidence based, so why are your regulators allowing wacky/quack practices to continue?

[Raph78]

matt

i inform patients that the flu vaccine contains antibiotics (for whatever reason - you may guess). it is an understatement to say that i have enough medical knowledge to understand that antibiotics dont help against a virus. patients have a right to be made aware of this paradoxon - and the gp is in the prime position to give a synopsis on the flu jab before administering it. its his treatment after all, isnt it? and the patient's decision to have it or not after weighing all the pros and cons, including being informed about well documented side effects http://www.drugs.com/sfx/streptomycin-side-effects.html

it is commonly used as an antifungal - so it could have been added intentionally

[Mongrel]

The amounts of Streptomycin and Neomycin potentially contained within the vaccines is so small that it's irrelevant to anybody who doesn't have a strong allergic reaction to them, it's merely an another warning and arse covering by the manufacturer (if they're that allergic to it they would know to stay away from eggs anyway)

If it was a pharmacologically active dose it would, by law, have to be included on the licensing documentation (SPC) either as an active ingredient or excipient. There's nothing sinister about it nor, barring allergy, is there any reason to hint that the recipient may suddenly experience side effects from these other drugs.

[JJM]

{snip}
the scientific base for chiropractic? we are treating what kirkaldy willis described as joint dysfunction in his model of spinal degeneration.

How about a real citation? And what do you mean by "treat;" how do you know your treatment is effective?

but yes, joints in younger adults can get stuck too.

Citation? Evidence that you can diagnose and treat?

grays anatomy describes that a mobile facet joint inhibits pain fibres from firing, and that nociceptor activity shuts down type 1-3 fibres (proprioception).

Since you cited a paper on a jaw-clench reflex and another on quadriceps weakness the last time you mentioned proprioception, I wonder what you think "proprioception" means; and where is the evidence that chiro affects it.

{snip} ill give you references once i have time, sorry. {snip}

I look forward to them.

[Cuddles]

i inform patients that the flu vaccine contains antibiotics

But as Mongrel has demonstrated, that's a lie. There are no antibiotics in the flu vaccine.

t is an understatement to say that i have enough medical knowledge to understand that antibiotics dont help against a virus. patients have a right to be made aware of this paradoxon

You also don't appear to have enough medical knowledge to understand that preservatives, antibiotics and anything else put in a vaccine is not put there to kill viruses, since that would be extremely stupid. They are put there to stop other things from contaminating the vaccines. Bacteria, for instance. Considering that you don't even understand the concept of a preservative, how the hell can you justify giving medical advice?

[Raph78]

lol at cuddles

thanks for your lecture. you conradict yourself are there, or arent there antibiotics (for WHATEVER reason, for now) in the flu vaccine?

[Cuddles]

lol at cuddles

thanks for your lecture. you conradict yourself are there, or arent there antibiotics (for WHATEVER reason, for now) in the flu vaccine?

Wow, I must be psychic. I somehow knew you were going to say that. How does it feel to not only be a complete idiot, but also so amazingly predictable?

I'll put this in very small words so you might have a chance of understanding. There are no antibiotics in the flu vaccine. There are antibiotics in other vaccines. They are not there to kill viruses. They are there to kill bacteria.

Is any of this starting to make sense yet, or should I use even smaller words?

[Mongrel]

lol at cuddles

thanks for your lecture. you conradict yourself are there, or arent there antibiotics (for WHATEVER reason, for now) in the flu vaccine?

Realistically, no there isn't.

There may be a some present in the egg after the hen has been on a course but after processing and growing the antigens, harvesting and purifying them for the vaccine you could probably count the dosage of these in molecules per vial.

It's potentially enough to set off an allergic reaction but for normal people there are no antibiotics

[Raph78]

thank you mongrel, for your balanced communication and info.

cuddles, spot the difference. judging by your age you have achieved nothing, you arrogant little schoolboy

[Cuddles]

cuddles, spot the difference. judging by your age you have achieved nothing, you arrogant little schoolboy

Ooo, such harsh words. There's no arrogance involved. You're a quack who has admitted lying to patients. I really hope you go to jail very soon.

[Raph78]

yes, cuddly, maybe for practicing medicine without a licence?

compare and contrast your dogmatic generalisations with mongrel's openmindedness to communicate and elaborate.

best of luck

[richard]

Ooo, such harsh words. There's no arrogance involved. You're a quack who has admitted lying to patients. I really hope you go to jail very soon.

Cuddles, did you mom ever tell you about sticks and stones.

When I decided to study chiropractic aged 35 one of my best friends a senior ENT surgeon thought I had gone mad. However he understood the skeptic in me that had made me a rebel at school, got me involved in leftwing politics and the fight for social justice took me on this fantastic journey helping people who only wanted better health.

Last week I entered this forum with an open mind and hope the discussion would be fun and helpful to chiropractic students I gave a talk to last weekend. To be told by Cuddles after my first posting that I should not call myself a skeptic was a bit of a shock, nevertheless I soldiered on but I have to say you guys seem to have no idea what David Sackett was intending when he began writing about evidence based medicine in the 90s.There are many articles in the BMJ on the subject.You use the best evidence available, if that hapens to be one case study so be it. My starting point was to be Gordon Waddles spinal dysfunction,you were not interested so there was no discussion of evidence.

You have no interest in evidence that does not support what you believe and then with the exception of blue wode you become rude and aggressive hiding behind pseudonym which allow you to pretend you are experts and authorities on things you know nothing about. You know the price of everything and the value of nothing.

If you are doing such a great public service why does not the NHS or GPs link to "Quackwatch" or your site. I will tell you why because they would not want to be associated with quacks "a boastfull pretender to knowledge that he does not posess" Most of you guys are not skeptics. You advertise yourselves as skeptics but are actually disbelievers. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics, I will follow Truzzi and call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.

http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html
The site tells us how the more belligerent pseudoskeptics have their own organizations and publications. I have plagerised this intro at this website, the article is worth a read.

Wikipedia also recognises the term
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism explaining it as thinking that appears to be skeptical, but is not. The term is most commonly encountered in the form popularised by Marcello Truzzi, through his Journal of Scientific Exploration, where he defined pseudoskeptics as those who take "the negative rather than an agnostic position but still call themselves 'skeptics'.
Characteristics of pseudoskeptics

While a Professor of Sociology at Eastern Michigan University in 1987, Truzzi gave the following description of pseudoskeptics:
In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof.
Truzzi attributed the following characteristics to pseudoskeptics:

• The tendency to deny, rather than doubt [4]
• Double standards in the application of criticism [5]
• The making of judgments without full inquiry [6]
• Tendency to discredit, rather than investigate [7]
• Use of ridicule or ad hominem attacks in lieu of arguments[8]
• Pejorative labeling of proponents as 'promoters', 'pseudoscientists' or practitioners of 'pathological science.'[9]

Blue Wode thanks for your efforts. Regarding the 80% that was an article not a study. Most of the examples were small studies and the best were picked to make the 80% point. According to the first response in the BMJ to the BMJ study you referenced they could not reproduce those results and criticised the study. I had intended to write more on this But now you know what a real skeptics do you can practice and discuss the 80% among yourselves and be real skeptics.

• Presenting insufficient evidence or proof [10]
• Assuming criticism requires no burden of proof [11]
• Making unsubstantiated counter-claims [12]
• Counter-claims based on plausibility rather than empirical evidence [13]
• Suggesting that unconvincing evidence is grounds for dismissing it [14]