Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:43 pm UTC

Article here

Parents need to be educated. Obviously this is 'malpractice', of a sort because a chiro isn't a doctor, but when parents subject their children to this alt med crap, I think there should be mandatory classes to attend that explain the difference between medical opinion, doctors potential for mistakes, and outright snake oil peddling.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Telchar » Tue Oct 15, 2013 12:53 pm UTC

There's actually a body of evidence to suggest that chiro can help alleviate lower back pain. My gf goes to a chiro because of back pain, so I looked into it because I was skeptical.

That being said, there's 0 reason to send a baby, whose bones are still soft, to a chiro and a lot of chiros go too far in selling their benefits.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:16 pm UTC

Is there any evidence that a chiro is better than a physiotherapist?

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:42 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Is there any evidence that a chiro is better than a physiotherapist?
No. A chiropractor is the same as an acupuncturist insofar as it's ability to evoke the placebo affect is strong.

EDIT: This is personally a hot button issue for me; the entire alt med field basically keeps demanding these small pilot studies that practically guarantee false positives, and then bandy them as 'proof' that the shit works. Whenever a larger study then gets conducted, the effects disappear, and the alt med community falls back on this conspiracy of authority excuse. It's a horribly obnoxious waste of time and brain power.

Read up on some history of the founding of chiropracty. It'll change your opinions.
Last edited by Izawwlgood on Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:51 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Diadem
Posts: 5654
Joined: Wed Jun 11, 2008 11:03 am UTC
Location: The Netherlands

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Diadem » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:49 pm UTC

If memory serves me right, different things are sold under the banner of 'chiropractor', some of which are complete quackery and some of which kinda make sense. Just like some homeopathic medicines actually work, because they are just plant extracts sold under the banner of homeopathy, and some of those plants have actual medicinal value.
It's one of those irregular verbs, isn't it? I have an independent mind, you are an eccentric, he is round the twist
- Bernard Woolley in Yes, Prime Minister

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:If memory serves me right, different things are sold under the banner of 'chiropractor', some of which are complete quackery and some of which kinda make sense. Just like some homeopathic medicines actually work, because they are just plant extracts sold under the banner of homeopathy, and some of those plants have actual medicinal value.
I'm pretty sure this is incorrect, and is just a way chiropractors shift the goal posts.
"I'm not doing alt med, I'm basically a physical therapist! Lets stretch and massage your aches, and ten lets move some vertebrae around!"
"I'm not peddling snake oil, I'm just making tea of willow bark for your pain! And ground nutmeg and newt eye for your cold liver!"
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:07 pm UTC

Hey, sometimes the snake oil salesmen get things right! Like when adder-oil became a treatment for ADHD.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:15 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Hey, sometimes the snake oil salesmen get things right! Like when adder-oil became a treatment for ADD.
No disagreement there! But 'sometimes getting it right' is one of the reasons this shit persists. Yes, ancient Chinese medicine got it right that willow bark has pain and inflammation reducing properties. No, it is not because it cools your qi and balances the meridean, and that other crap is wrong. Not just 'not optimal', but 'wrong'.

It's important to recognize this about alt med. Yes, sometimes people will undergo these therapies and get better. This isn't because the alt med is doing something novel and unique to actual medicine, it's because statistically, sometimes people get better, and because the placebo effect is a strong and strange thing. Actual medicine factors this in, whereas alt med will continue shifting goal posts to keep doing it's quackery.

Getting something right for the wrong reasons is still a problem insofar as your method for looking for the right thing stays wrong.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:21 pm UTC

My joke was a bit too subtle. Adderall is a drug that's used for ADHD. An adder is a type of snake. Adder-oil, Adderall.



Anyway, I believe there should be a rule by the FDA. In order to make any health claim whatsoever by your product, you must have a proper scientific study to back it up. No, you don't get to claim that as food it doesn't get treated the same as medicine. No, you don't get to use any weasel words like "may". Either your penis pill works or it doesn't. Fuck you smiling Bob, I hope you die of ED.
Last edited by CorruptUser on Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:28 pm UTC, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:23 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:My joke was a bit too subtle. Adderall is a drug that's used for ADHD. An adder is a type of snake. Adder-oil, Adderall.
Sorry, this shit gets me hopping mad and I missed that entirely. I gotta work on that.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:39 pm UTC

Oh, you think you hate Alty medicine? I'm of the belief that faith healers and other woomeisters should be taken to court for practicing medicine without a license. Or malpractice. If you claim to be a professional, if you rely on convincing people you are a professional, you should be held to professional standards whether or not you have the certification.

As for psychics, they should be glad I'm not dictator of everything. My test for psychic powers would be 'which chambers in this gun are loaded'.

User avatar
eran_rathan
Mostly Wrong
Posts: 1821
Joined: Fri Apr 09, 2010 2:36 pm UTC
Location: in your ceiling, judging you

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby eran_rathan » Tue Oct 15, 2013 2:48 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:As for psychics, they should be glad I'm not dictator of everything. My test for psychic powers would be 'which chambers in this gun are loaded'.


Trick question, it's all of them.
"Does this smell like chloroform to you?"
"Google tells me you are not unique. You are, however, wrong."
nɒʜƚɒɿ_nɒɿɘ

KrytenKoro
Posts: 1487
Joined: Tue Apr 05, 2011 2:58 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby KrytenKoro » Tue Oct 15, 2013 4:36 pm UTC

Hey, we could try and get a citizen's proposition for the testing thing. Is there a central body for giving a seal of approval to scientific studies, or would we just go with "peer-reviewed"?
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:30 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Obviously this is 'malpractice', of a sort because a chiro isn't a doctor


Chiropractors are allowed to use the title Doctor in Canada, just like dentists and optometrists. They also have the right and obligation to provide a clinical diagnosis just like a medical doctor. I also found this research synopsis which seems to have some positive things to say about Chiropractic treatment. Australia seems to have much lower standards for their chiropractors, and it seems that the practices varies significantly from country to country. Perhaps this accounts for some of the conflicting research?
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 5:35 pm UTC

I don't think so. There's a wealth of small pilot studies that find some positive benefit, especially if you're willing to look at lower tiered journals or journals to the effect of 'Journal of Chiropractic Manipulations' or the like.

As I mentioned, these positive benefits disappear when you conduct an actual study. Time and time again.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 6:12 pm UTC

Who knew that small data sets could be manipulated to support any type of view?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Oct 15, 2013 8:47 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:As I mentioned, these positive benefits disappear when you conduct an actual study. Time and time again.

Could you provide a citation? I can't find anything so damning.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
CorruptUser
Posts: 10250
Joined: Fri Nov 06, 2009 10:12 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby CorruptUser » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:12 pm UTC

This should help a bit.

Assuming you don't mind a Rationalist/Humanist bias.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Tue Oct 15, 2013 9:26 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:This should help a bit.

Assuming you don't mind a Rationalist/Humanist bias.


What? They only link to two studies, one that shows chiropractic care is effective when combined with traditional treatment, and another that indicates chiropractic care is ineffective as a stand-alone treatment for work-related back pain. The rest of the citations are anecdotal and do not cite their sources, so this seems to be insufficient.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:02 pm UTC

... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

qetzal
Posts: 855
Joined: Thu May 01, 2008 12:54 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby qetzal » Tue Oct 15, 2013 11:53 pm UTC

Diadem wrote:If memory serves me right, different things are sold under the banner of 'chiropractor', some of which are complete quackery and some of which kinda make sense. Just like some homeopathic medicines actually work, because they are just plant extracts sold under the banner of homeopathy, and some of those plants have actual medicinal value.


Sure, but just because some things that a chiropractor or a homeopath offers actually work, doesn't mean that chiropractic or homeopathy work. There is no such thing as innate intelligence, vertebral misalignment doesn't cause the kinds of disease that chiropractors claim, and the manipulations that are actually part of chiropractic are not beneficial.

Similarly, a substance's ability to cause the same symptoms as a disease is not an indication of its therapeutic value, and repeatedly diluting a substance does not make it more and more potent, regardless of whether you mix it by thwacking it with a bible.

User avatar
Jorpho
Posts: 6213
Joined: Wed Dec 12, 2007 5:31 am UTC
Location: Canada

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Jorpho » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:34 am UTC

Hey, I had a thread about this once.

In fact, didn't Simon Singh get in trouble in the first place for reporting on the chiropractic treatment of infants – five years ago?

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 3:58 am UTC



So what does this have to do with back pain? I don't see any evidence of chiropractors claiming they can cure tumors. The studies I read show they do in fact help back pain so why exactly are you so convinced they're of no benefit? You claimed that chiropractic treatment is no more than the placebo effect, but none of the research suggests this. It seems more accurate to compare it to physical therapy. While it's certainly not going to cure a tumor, it definitely has benefits within the scope of the treatment.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Telchar
That's Admiral 'The Hulk' Ackbar, to you sir
Posts: 1937
Joined: Sat Apr 05, 2008 9:06 pm UTC
Location: Cynicistia

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Telchar » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:53 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
CorruptUser wrote:Is there any evidence that a chiro is better than a physiotherapist?
No. A chiropractor is the same as an acupuncturist insofar as it's ability to evoke the placebo affect is strong.

EDIT: This is personally a hot button issue for me; the entire alt med field basically keeps demanding these small pilot studies that practically guarantee false positives, and then bandy them as 'proof' that the shit works. Whenever a larger study then gets conducted, the effects disappear, and the alt med community falls back on this conspiracy of authority excuse. It's a horribly obnoxious waste of time and brain power.

Read up on some history of the founding of chiropracty. It'll change your opinions.



:/

Your objection is noted, but your hyperlink is titled incorrectly. The article talks about chiropractics and it's specific effect on a specific age group and a specific disorder. No one seems to be endorsing the use of chiropractic care for infants or children. This article doesn't appear to address any of the concerns brought up in this thread.

The hyperlink itself is not a scientific study, but an opinion piece, however well reasoned.

Yes, there are chiropractors who claim to cure smoking, or affect mood, and some probably believe they were abducted by aliens. There are also pediatricians who believe vaccines cause autism. I don't roundly condemn pediatricians. Admittedly, there are more who don't, and while that may not be true of chiropractors it doesn't mean we should ignore the evidence in favor of it's use simply because we don't like how some people go too far.

From a related article:
A small minority of chiropractors, numbering only about 1,000, or 2% of all chiropractors (these are rough estimates because accurate figures are lacking), have been openly critical of their own field. They have called for absolute rejection of the subluxation theory of illness, disposing of pseudoscientific and unethical practices by chiropractors, and the restriction of chiropractic to treating acute musculoskeletal symptoms. They are attempting to bring their field into the scientific mainstream.

Occasionally chiropractic reformers have attempted to forge a new profession, entirely shedding the pseudoscience attached to the chiropractic brand. About ten years ago one group in Canada renamed themselves “Orthopractors,” and considered the new discipline of orthopractic as distinct from chiropractic. Orthopractic is the use of manipulation to provide symptomatic relief from uncomplicated acute back strain. They do not believe in maintenance therapy, treating medical ailments, or the use of pseudoscientific alternative practices.


We can both embrace this movement and it's benefits while shunning pseudscience.
Zamfir wrote:Yeah, that's a good point. Everyone is all about presumption of innocence in rape threads. But when Mexican drug lords build APCs to carry their henchmen around, we immediately jump to criminal conclusions without hard evidence.

Роберт
Posts: 4285
Joined: Wed May 14, 2008 1:56 am UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Роберт » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:01 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:From a related article:
A small minority of chiropractors, numbering only about 1,000, or 2% of all chiropractors (these are rough estimates because accurate figures are lacking), have been openly critical of their own field. They have called for absolute rejection of the subluxation theory of illness, disposing of pseudoscientific and unethical practices by chiropractors, and the restriction of chiropractic to treating acute musculoskeletal symptoms. They are attempting to bring their field into the scientific mainstream.

Occasionally chiropractic reformers have attempted to forge a new profession, entirely shedding the pseudoscience attached to the chiropractic brand. About ten years ago one group in Canada renamed themselves “Orthopractors,” and considered the new discipline of orthopractic as distinct from chiropractic. Orthopractic is the use of manipulation to provide symptomatic relief from uncomplicated acute back strain. They do not believe in maintenance therapy, treating medical ailments, or the use of pseudoscientific alternative practices.


We can both embrace this movement and it's benefits while shunning pseudscience.

So only 2% of those in the community want to shun the obviously psuedoscientific part of it? That seems fairly low.
The Great Hippo wrote:[T]he way we treat suspected terrorists genuinely terrifies me.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 4:15 pm UTC

Роберт wrote:So only 2% of those in the community want to shun the obviously psuedoscientific part of it? That seems fairly low.

It's also just an estimate made up by the author, not an actual statistic.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:05 pm UTC

Telchar wrote:The hyperlink itself is not a scientific study, but an opinion piece, however well reasoned.
I urge you to click on the hyperlinks in the article itself, which are links to studies.
Telchar wrote:No one seems to be endorsing the use of chiropractic care for infants or children.
Except for the parents of the infant in the OP.
Telchar wrote:There are also pediatricians who believe vaccines cause autism. I don't roundly condemn pediatricians.
Perhaps, but you should roundly condemn all of those pediatricians.
Telchar wrote:We can both embrace this movement and it's benefits while shunning pseudscience.
You must have missed the linked study that indicated stretching or physical therapy have the same if not more pronounced effects than chiropractic treatments for alleviating lower back pain?

Cleverbeans wrote:So what does this have to do with back pain? I don't see any evidence of chiropractors claiming they can cure tumors. The studies I read show they do in fact help back pain so why exactly are you so convinced they're of no benefit? You claimed that chiropractic treatment is no more than the placebo effect, but none of the research suggests this. It seems more accurate to compare it to physical therapy. While it's certainly not going to cure a tumor, it definitely has benefits within the scope of the treatment.
This is incorrect, as linked in the blog I linked.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:11 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:This is incorrect, as linked in the blog I linked.

When did blogs become proof? Read the studies the blogger is reaching a ridiculous conclusion based on the evidence.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 16, 2013 6:20 pm UTC

The blog linked to a few studies. Or it's possible I found the studies throuogh the blog;

2011 study on ~6,000 patients finds no evidence of SMT or chiropractic visits to help lower back pain outcomes

But no, the blogger is reaching very logical conclusions from all the studies. Please describe what you find unreasonable.

EDIT: Protip, if an article finds evidence of SMT being a useful therapy for lower back pain (or anything, really) take a look at the journal name first, and disregard the article whole cloth if it's got 'Chiropractic' anywhere in the name, and secondly, look at the authors, disregarding the article whole cloth if any of them are DCs
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 7:53 pm UTC

From that study:
The results of this review demonstrate that SMT appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy.

They also point out that they could not compare these results to placebo effects because of there was a high risk of bias. I feel like these bloggers are significantly overstating the results.

In response to your protip I don't reject scientific studies because of their authorship, or the journal their published in, only on the merits of the study. Of course, all the articles I linked were published in mainstream medical journals because you'd already expressed your bias and it seemed reasonable to look for articles you could agree too as well. There are certainly enough studies demonstrating the merits of chiropractic treatment there anyway. In Canada research into chiropractic care has traditionally been done by qualified individuals at respected universities (Greg Kawchuck for example).

However it seems Canada is very much the exception. We have significantly higher standards than say, Australia in both education and how the practices are regulated. It seems to me they're physical therapists with a specialization in neck and back pain and have educational standards similar to medical doctors. However in Australia the standards for chiropractic education are lower than the Canadian standards for elementary school teachers which I find rather frightening. I believe this is likely why we see the profession so differently.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:02 pm UTC

You're cherry picking. Here is the quote in full:
The results of this review demonstrate that SMT appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy. However, it is less clear how it compares to inert interventions or sham (placebo) treatment because there are only a few studies, typically with a high risk of bias, which investigated these factors. Approximately two-thirds of the studies had a high risk of bias, which means we cannot be completely confident with their results. Furthermore, no serious complications were observed with SMT.

In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain.

Cleverbeans wrote:In response to your protip I don't reject scientific studies because of their authorship, or the journal their published in, only on the merits of the study.
You most certainly should! One of the important declarations a scientist makes prior to publishing a paper is that they have no competing or otherwise influencing connections or motivations that may skew their unbiased reporting. Obviously you can conduct science with competing interests, but it certainly casts your findings in a different light. To that end, studies on whether or not chiropracty is an effective treatment conducted by chiropractors are I feel highly suspect! This is precisely why reproducibility is such an important aspect of science!

Cleverbeans wrote: In Canada research into chiropractic care has traditionally been done by qualified individuals at respected universities (Greg Kawchuck for example).
Again, he's trained as a chiropractor. I don't hold his findings that chiropracty is effective in much regard.

Cleverbeans wrote: It seems to me they're physical therapists with a specialization in neck and back pain and have educational standards similar to medical doctors.
Yet, for some reason, they opted out of pursuing medical training as a physical therapist!

I don't hold that everyone with a DS is a quack, but I do believe that because no evidently unbiased research study has found SMT to be more effective than stretching and regular physio, that chiropracty is either similar to stretching and/or regular physio at best, or an evoker of the placebo affect at worst. To this end, I am not convinced chiropracty itself does anything unique, just like (and this is why I titled the link as such) accupuncture.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:24 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Again, he's trained as a chiropractor. I don't hold his findings that chiropracty is effective in much regard.

So do you reject medical studies conducted by doctors for the same reason? It seems to me that most research is conducted by experts in their respective fields...
Yet, for some reason, they opted out of pursuing medical training as a physical therapist!

Right, they do significantly more training than physical therapists although much of their training overlaps. This is why chiropractors are allowed to make a clinical diagnoses and physical therapist aren't. You seem to have a very inaccurate view of what chiropractic training entails here.

I don't hold that everyone with a DS is a quack, but I do believe that because no evidently unbiased research study has found SMT to be more effective than stretching and regular physio, that chiropracty is either similar to stretching and/or regular physio at best, or an evoker of the placebo affect at worst. To this end, I am not convinced chiropracty itself does anything unique, just like (and this is why I titled the link as such) accupuncture.


It's certainly not unique and has significant overlap with exercise and physical therapies, which is why it seems strange that you reject one and accept the other. They do a lot more than just pop backs. Dr. Kawchuck is a very well respected researcher and you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate objection to his work.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

nitePhyyre
Posts: 1280
Joined: Mon Jul 27, 2009 10:31 am UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:48 pm UTC

CorruptUser wrote:Is there any evidence that a chiro is better than a physiotherapist?
Cleverbeans wrote:So what does this have to do with back pain? I don't see any evidence of chiropractors claiming they can cure tumors. The studies I read show they do in fact help back pain so why exactly are you so convinced they're of no benefit? You claimed that chiropractic treatment is no more than the placebo effect, but none of the research suggests this. It seems more accurate to compare it to physical therapy.
Izawwlgood wrote:This is incorrect, as linked in the blog I linked.

You mean the blog that says...
Overall the evidence suggests some benefit for manipulative therapy for acute uncomplicated lower back strain, but probably no better than physical therapy or even minimal intervention.
i.e. the exact opposite of what you are claiming it says? The blog post says nothing at all about acupuncture, placebo, or back pain. All of things you claim it is a cite for. On the other hand, it talks exclusively about infant torticollis.

Err,
The results of this review demonstrate that SMT appears to be as effective as other common therapies prescribed for chronic low-back pain, such as, exercise therapy, standard medical care or physiotherapy. However, it is less clear how it compares to inert interventions or sham (placebo) treatment because there are only a few studies, typically with a high risk of bias, which investigated these factors. Approximately two-thirds of the studies had a high risk of bias, which means we cannot be completely confident with their results. Furthermore, no serious complications were observed with SMT.

In summary, SMT appears to be no better or worse than other existing therapies for patients with chronic low-back pain.
It is worth noting that SMT is a widely used "procedure" that is used even by physiotherapists, so even if you weren't blatanly wrong about the conclusion of the study, it isn't saying what you think it is.

Are you so biased that you are deceiving yourself? Or, for some reason are you trying to deceive the fora? Maybe you accidentally posted the wrong links, several times?
sourmìlk wrote:Monopolies are not when a single company controls the market for a single product.

You don't become great by trying to be great. You become great by wanting to do something, and then doing it so hard you become great in the process.

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Wed Oct 16, 2013 8:58 pm UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:So do you reject medical studies conducted by doctors for the same reason? It seems to me that most research is conducted by experts in their respective fields...
Valid question! Of course not; typically however, the findings of a nephrologist can be reproduced by a neurologist. And mind you, this isn't a case of two nephrologists arguing about the best treatment plan for a dialysis patient, this is more akin to a nephrologist declaring the patients failing heart is due to kidney issues, while a cardiologist claims otherwise, and then the Society of Kidney Dudes publishes pilot study after pilot study confirming that kidney disfunction causes heart issues, while the Conglomeration of Cardio Coolios says otherwise.

Glibness aside, it's about reproducibility; when a study performed by non-chiropractors finds chiropracty to be more beneficial than physio, I'll believe it's more beneficial than physio. That hasn't happened.

Cleverbeans wrote:Right, they do significantly more training than physical therapists although much of their training overlaps. This is why chiropractors are allowed to make a clinical diagnoses and physical therapist aren't. You seem to have a very inaccurate view of what chiropractic training entails here.
That is indeed contrary to my understanding of what chiropracty is. They do *not* make clinical diagnoses. And I wouldn't say their training is more robust than a PT. I'd say it's just more intrenched in metaphysical crap. There's an enormous amount of accurate medical anatomy they learn, I'm not arguing that, but I don't believe they're learning more or better than a PT.

Cleverbeans wrote:It's certainly not unique and has significant overlap with exercise and physical therapies, which is why it seems strange that you reject one and accept the other. They do a lot more than just pop backs. Dr. Kawchuck is a very well respected researcher and you'd be hard pressed to find a legitimate objection to his work.
I think I outlined my objection to his findings plainly in the last post. Chiropracty asserts that pain or other issues are due to spinal misalignment, and that by aligning the spine, you can fix the issues. That is psuedoscientific at best. This is why the paper we were just discussing outright states 'it's hard to tell if any positive affects are due to the placebo affect'.

Respectfully, Dr. Kawchuck is a member of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, AND the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation. I don't object to the notion of him pursuing studies in what interest him or what he is well versed in, but until the $Country Medical Association or National Institute of Health corroborates any of those findings, I'm quite comfortable disregarding them due to their obvious and glaring bias.

nitePhyyre wrote:i.e. the exact opposite of what you are claiming it says? The blog post says nothing at all about acupuncture, placebo, or back pain. All of things you claim it is a cite for. On the other hand, it talks exclusively about infant torticollis.
Whoa, you mean like the following sentence that said 'BUT NO BETTER THAN PHYSIO'???
EDIT: Also, to claim that I'm claiming it's a citation about accupuncture indicates a pretty humorous reading failure on your part. Here, I'll link it for you;
Izawwlgood wrote:To this end, I am not convinced chiropracty itself does anything unique, just like (and this is why I titled the link as such) accupuncture.
Or you know, a placebo affect, like the article Cleverbeans and myself were just talking about asserted as well.
nitePhyyre wrote:Err,
Did you stop reading after the sentence you bolded? You must of, that's the only way to explain your conclusion.
nitePhyyre wrote:Are you so biased that you are deceiving yourself? Or, for some reason are you trying to deceive the fora? Maybe you accidentally posted the wrong links, several times?
Or maybe you're just incapable of reading and comprehending multiple sentences in a row?

SMT may be used by PTs, so the question is 'why do we need a group of psuedo quacks who do it and other spinal things to treat a range of issues, most/many/some of which are entirely unrelated to the issue at hand, when we already have PTs who are trained in actual medicine?'
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Wed Oct 16, 2013 9:47 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:That is indeed contrary to my understanding of what chiropracty is. They do *not* make clinical diagnoses. And I wouldn't say their training is more robust than a PT.

But they *do* make clinical diagnoses in Canada. Apparently this is the only English speaking country where this happens. They also have two more years of schooling over PTs and are required to pass additional exams before they can practice.
Respectfully, Dr. Kawchuck is a member of the Canadian Chiropractic Association, AND the Canadian Chiropractic Research Foundation. I don't object to the notion of him pursuing studies in what interest him or what he is well versed in, but until the $Country Medical Association or National Institute of Health corroborates any of those findings, I'm quite comfortable disregarding them due to their obvious and glaring bias.

He holds a Canadian Research Chair!They don't just hand those things out you know. He's a bonafide researcher at one of the best medical universities in the country. Maybe you should reconsider your blanket rejection of every journal on the subject? There has been a serious push by the Canadian Chiropractic Association since 2000 to focus on proper medical research and I think you'll find the work they're doing will meet your standards of objectivity, reproducibility and methodology.
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:03 am UTC

Cleverbeans wrote:But they *do* make clinical diagnoses in Canada. Apparently this is the only English speaking country where this happens. They also have two more years of schooling over PTs and are required to pass additional exams before they can practice.
Can you link some info on that?

I actually just read that some states (Washington and one other?) recently saw some beef with the American Society of Chiropractors or some such bar physical therapists from doing SMT, so only chiro's can do it. This is pretty outrageous. Seriously, take a look at the wikipedia entry on Chiropractic practices; it's pretty shockingly psuedoscientific, and most positive claims are definitely from biased resources.
Cleverbeans wrote:He holds a Canadian Research Chair!They don't just hand those things out you know. He's a bonafide researcher at one of the best medical universities in the country. Maybe you should reconsider your blanket rejection of every journal on the subject? There has been a serious push by the Canadian Chiropractic Association since 2000 to focus on proper medical research and I think you'll find the work they're doing will meet your standards of objectivity, reproducibility and methodology.
Can you link to this, because as I can find, he's only been appointed a Canadian Research Chair OF CHIROPRACTY.Again, I'm not particularly impressed that he's Canada's eminent Chiropractor.

And again, I'm not blanketly rejecting every journal on the subject, I'm rejecting every journal that has a clear and present bias and hasn't had it's findings reproduced by a non-biased peer reviewed case study, for reasons I've already outlined.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
ahammel
My Little Cabbage
Posts: 2135
Joined: Mon Jan 30, 2012 12:46 am UTC
Location: Vancouver BC
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby ahammel » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:30 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Can you link to this, because as I can find, he's only been appointed a Canadian Research Chair OF CHIROPRACTY.Again, I'm not particularly impressed that he's Canada's eminent Chiropractor.
Canada Research Chairs aren't handed out by field. He was competing against every other scientific researcher in the country for it.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Thu Oct 17, 2013 3:51 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Can you link to this, because as I can find, he's only been appointed a [url=http://www.chiroweb.com/mpacms/dc_ca/article.php?id=46552]Canadian Research Chair OF CHIROPRACTY.


Sure. http://www.chairs-chaires.gc.ca/chairho ... ileId=1519
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln

User avatar
Izawwlgood
WINNING
Posts: 18686
Joined: Mon Nov 19, 2007 3:55 pm UTC
Location: There may be lovelier lovelies...

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Izawwlgood » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:16 am UTC

Ok, I stand corrected on his placement. That certainly lends credibility to his research, though being heavily involved in chiropractic organizations still makes me skeptical (admittedly less so than before) of his chiropractic findings, until they are robustly corroborated. But, that said, can you link something about the elevated standards of Canadian chiropractic practice?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
Cleverbeans
Posts: 1378
Joined: Wed Mar 26, 2008 1:16 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Cleverbeans » Thu Oct 17, 2013 4:32 am UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:But, that said, can you link something about the elevated standards of Canadian chiropractic practice?

I got most of the information from here. http://www.chiropracticcanada.ca/
Also, wikipedia has a pretty good summary with citations here. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic_in_Canada
"Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration." - Abraham Lincoln


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 21 guests