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
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby bluebambue » Mon Oct 21, 2013 6:56 pm UTC

--very ninja'd as I got distracted while writing this.
Izawwlgood wrote:
bluebambue wrote:I think the problem here is that there are a lot of different types of practices that go under the heading of chiropractics and people are using the same word for very different things.
Oh curious, how so?
I think it's been covered a bit already in this thread (I haven't been reading everything), but my understanding is that there are:
1. Those who do the "spinal manipulations" and say they have wide ranging benefits. I don't think anyone in this thread are saying these are of any use.
2. Those who are basically PTs specializing in backs. These are the sort that people are saying have use.


--Change in topic where others might not agree with me
I think that within both 1 and 2 there are those that also spend more time talking about how to use your spine in order to improve posture. This is something that is less rooted in medical literature, but I think can still have use. From my very limited experience with PT's, there tends to be a lot of "this is the right way to do things" when solving problems. This both rubs some people the wrong way and isn't always the best for people as it doesn't instill a sense of "why" in people that they can build on. PT is also very focused on solving problems, whereas chiropractors/movement therapists have much larger focus on preventing problems.

At the very least some movement therapists (particularly Alexander technique) has helped the aesthetics of my posture. I think the benefits extend to more than the aesthetics, though. If chiropractors are also talking about those sorts of things, I think there is use that would be a lot harder to do a study on than just pain reduction.

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:05 pm UTC

@nitePhyrre:
Spoiler:
It's an impressive quote wall, and I stand by it. There is evidence that SMT is a means for treating lower back pain, and there is also evidence that it not effective. I've conceded that SMT may be a therapy for lower back pain, because there is some contradictory evidence, and I'm not an expert in the field, but there is zero evidence that any of the other myriad things chiropractors do work. No one at the beginning of this thread decided we were only talking about 'Chiropractor A' or 'Chiropractor B', so even if we only narrowed our discussion to 'Chiropractors who only treat lower back pain with SMT', we'd still be at a somewhat questionable procedure performed by a 'specialist'. Since it was established very early on in this discussion that the overwhelming majority (98%!) of Chiropractors don't want to only treat lower back pain with SMT, I don't feel I'm being unreasonable when I say the field isn't principally interested in applying scientific rigor to itself. My point therein was that because SMT is performed by PTs, that chiropractors are at best, capable of approaching the level of efficacy for one treatment that PTs are. And, all that said, I very early on stated that they evoke the placebo effect, something I also stated is a real thing that has real value. Or I thought I did. 'Making someone feel better' isn't 'nothing', but it's not a long term treatment of an underlying cause.

As to your condemnation of my bias against chiropractic journals, I also stand by that, but admit I used language that was too strong. By 'discard whole cloth', what I should have said was 'pay attention to their claims and then try and reproduce them with non-biased research'. What I will stand by is that the claims of chiropractic journals or doctors is not proof of chiropractic treatments working. Again, this is not analogous to, say, biologists only supporting biology journals findings or global warming being ignored by Republicans, because those are both findings and fields that have reproduced their claims in other studies. Terribly shockingly, chiropractors seem to ignore the mountains of data that their treatments don't do what they claim they do, or, only point to chiropractic studies to support their claims. That, not my disbelief, is the definition of crackpottery.

I also am not misleading anyone in my claims about chiropractic medicines evils and pitfalls. I linked an organization dedicated to protecting patients from medical fraud, and I'll relink it again here for you incase you missed it. The blog I started this thread with links to a number of peer reviewed studies that informed my opinions, as well as underline and explain some of the lobbying that the ACA has done. Interesting to note that in the early 90's, the AMA was sued by chiropractors for defamation.

ahammel wrote:What some of us are claiming, as far as I can make out, is that the people who call themselves 'chiropractors' in Canada and possibly other places are more like spineologists than the chiropractors of your experience (who, I think most of us agree, are totally fucking crazy). You don't seem particularly satisfied with the evidence for that, but I don't really know either way, so I won't argue the point. (I will say that I dont recall having seen a chiropractor's shingle in this country claiming the ability to treat anything but back pain.) Point is, some parties seem to be saying 'chiropractor' an meaning 'spineiologist', while other parties are hearing 'chiropractor' and (understandably) thinking 'loon'.
Right, which is what this was meant to address;
Izawwlgood wrote:Because PTs already do SMT for lower back pain? An analogy here would be if a psuedoscience alt med started up that believed specific salts packed into your teeth made you healthier, but only after they scrape away the plaque. These oshalopaths convince the world that dentists and dental hygienists should no longer clean your teeth, only drill cavities and the like, because the realm of scraping plaque from your teeth is something only professional oshalopaths can do. Over time, an impressive educational system is devised wherein new oshalopaths study at great length the physiology of the mouth, microbiology, and biochemistry, because knowing these things are important for knowing which salts and where to pack them to balance the mouth health. They then claim that because scraping plaque from your teeth has obvious health benefits, that the whole field must be legit.

But that said, we established at the very beginning of this discussion that only 2% of chiropractors want to dispense with the asthma, PMS, migraine, etc., issues. If chiropractors only wanted to treat lower back pain with SMT (which isn't really terribly relevant to the discussion, because they don't), I don't think we'd need them since PTs can already do it. But if an oshalopath wants to only scrape plaque from a patients mouth, then sure, kudos, do it. Not sure why you couldn't become a dental hygienist, but whatever, as long as you're not promising patients that their asthma, PMS, or migraines will vanish, I guess it's alright.
... 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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:20 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Right, which is what this was meant to address;[snip]
Well, it doesn't, really because a) spineologists (the way I've defined the term) don't claim that the stupid parts of chiropractic aren't stupid and b) I don't think anybody here thinks that the fact that SMT kind of works for back pain is a vindication of the stupid parts of chiropractic.

But that said, we established at the very beginning of this discussion that only 2% of chiropractors want to dispense with the asthma, PMS, migraine, etc., issues.
I was under the impression that that figure was for one thing a guess and for another thing US specific. If it came from a surey of the relevant population, I apologize.

If chiropractors only wanted to treat lower back pain with SMT (which isn't really terribly relevant to the discussion, because they don't), I don't think we'd need them since PTs can already do it.
PTs are busy, back pain is common. It's not obviously a stupid idea, at least to me.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:32 pm UTC

ahammel wrote:Well, it doesn't, really because a) spineologists (the way I've defined the term) don't claim that the stupid parts of chiropractic aren't stupid and b) I don't think anybody here thinks that the fact that SMT kind of works for back pain is a vindication of the stupid parts of chiropractic.
But your Spineologists only account for 2% of the population, and again, your Spineologists are the equivalent of my oshalopaths who dispensed with the salt packs; why call yourself something separate when an extant medical field already uses this therapy to treat what you're purporting to treat? It's like if I decided to call myself a 'Central Bioharmony Inducer', and treated bacterial infections with antibiotics.

But this was the original snip that gave us the 2% figure, and there's no paper linked, so I'm kind of wondering myself where it came from:
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.

I'm cool with those guys, relatively, but they're not the one's that most people are talking about, and I think it's kind of a dangerous moving of the goalposts to keep saying 'Yes, you're right that chiropractic treatment is quackery, but look, there's this small subset that conduct this singular procedure that works, so, comon man, stop being so mean to chiropractors'.

ahammel wrote:PTs are busy, back pain is common. It's not obviously a stupid idea, at least to me.
Then I'd say we need more PTs, not more 'people who do this one thing PTs do'. Or, at the very least, assuming back pain is REALLY common and PTs are just swamped dealing with all manner of other thing, we should not qualify there people to treat anything other than back pain. In that regard, I suppose chiropractors could be a sub-discipline of physical therapists, in the same way, perhaps loosely, that a dental hygienist is a sub-discipline of dentistry. But would you be pretty appalled if a dental hygienist suggested they knew how to pop a dislocated shoulder back in place, or prescribed medication for your jaundice, or any of the other million things they're not qualified to do?

Why are chiropractors allowed to do this?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
bluebambue
An der schönen blauen Donau
Posts: 900
Joined: Wed Oct 03, 2007 5:14 am UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby bluebambue » Mon Oct 21, 2013 7:57 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
ahammel wrote:Well, it doesn't, really because a) spineologists (the way I've defined the term) don't claim that the stupid parts of chiropractic aren't stupid and b) I don't think anybody here thinks that the fact that SMT kind of works for back pain is a vindication of the stupid parts of chiropractic.
But your Spineologists only account for 2% of the population, and again, your Spineologists are the equivalent of my oshalopaths who dispensed with the salt packs; why call yourself something separate when an extant medical field already uses this therapy to treat what you're purporting to treat? It's like if I decided to call myself a 'Central Bioharmony Inducer', and treated bacterial infections with antibiotics.

But this was the original snip that gave us the 2% figure, and there's no paper linked, so I'm kind of wondering myself where it came from:
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.
So the 2% figure you're quoting is only for chiropractors who are openly critical? I'm guessing that there is a significant portion that is doing the same thing as the 2%, just not being openly critical about everyone else.

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 » Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:07 pm UTC

I concede the number may be higher. How high do you think it is? I've found a handful of articles by chiropractors condemning orthopractors as 'untrained chiropractors', it's pretty easy to see that chiropractors don't hold them in high esteem. Not that I particularly expect them to.

Regardless of how high the number is, the various chiropractic associations are significantly more vocal than orthopractors.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby KrytenKoro » Mon Oct 21, 2013 8:20 pm UTC

So the 2% figure you're quoting is only for chiropractors who are openly critical? I'm guessing that there is a significant portion that is doing the same thing as the 2%, just not being openly critical about everyone else.

Myself, I'd respond that anyone who doesn't speak out against a system that primarily preaches crackpottery, attempts to silence those who point to its flaws, and has a very real and countable death toll, is not really so morally proper as to laud.

"It has been said that for evil men to accomplish their purpose it is only necessary that good men should do nothing," and all that.

On another note, I don't really see how Izzy saying "all their methods are crackpottery and useless" is so contradictory to admitting that a study says "of all the various methods they use, one method (which they claim works through crackpottery, rather than what science understands it to do) may be no worse than a functionally identical procedure already accepted by mainstream science". So all but one of their methods are bunk, and all of their reasons for performing them are bunk, basically. It sounds like a lot of people believe that SMT for back pain is the primary procedure that Chiropracters perform, and all the crackpot stuff is just, like, stuff they do on Sundays away from the office. Except, as we saw in the very first post, that's not all or even primarily what they do. And chiropractic associations are known to often flout medical ethics in order to continue what is very obviously fleecing their customers. It's like saying "well, sometimes people break even or win at casinos, so the fact that they're designed to drain people's money, are associated with the mob, and you can often get taken out back and your kneecaps broken if you're doing well doesn't mean we should criticize them."

Sure, maybe not all chiropracters are total bastards. But by aligning with a beliefset whose tenets are bastardry, they still got some bastard in 'em, and what we should do is not applaud them for having some vague discomfort, but encourage them to actually go all the way and come clean, become real PTs or orthopractors.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby qetzal » Mon Oct 21, 2013 10:29 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:I concede the number may be higher. How high do you think it is? I've found a handful of articles by chiropractors condemning orthopractors as 'untrained chiropractors', it's pretty easy to see that chiropractors don't hold them in high esteem. Not that I particularly expect them to.

Regardless of how high the number is, the various chiropractic associations are significantly more vocal than orthopractors.


Here's published data to back up the contention that most chiro's are still steeped in woo: Mirtz et al. (2009), An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation. Chiropr Osteopat 17:13.

Here's the first paragraph of the Discussion:

Opinion on the current state of the epidemiology of the subluxation construct is varied. Historically, chiropractors have claimed that subluxation was directly responsible for 95% of disease. Although this percentage is not currently in evidence, there still appears to be many chiropractors that contend subluxation is still partially responsible and/or involved with disease. The opinion by chiropractors on the connection of subluxation and disease has been substantiated. Biggs et al [14] found that 68% of Canadian chiropractors believed that most diseases were caused by spinal misalignments whereas 30% of respondents agreed with the statement that the subluxation is the cause of many diseases. McDonald et al [15] reported that over 88% of their surveyed chiropractors favored retaining the term vertebral subluxation complex. Smith and Carber [16] found that over 70% of chiropractors reported that subluxation was important to their clinical decisions which guided the clinical care of the patients. McDonald et al [15] reported that a strong majority (over 75%) of their surveyed chiropractors believed that subluxation was a significant contributing factor to 50% or more of visceral disorders.


Biggs et al [14] is a 2002 paper in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association. McDonald et al [15] is a survey of N. American chiropractors published in 2004. Smith & Carber [16] is a survey of US chiropractor attitudes published in 2008. Based on the above description of Biggs et al. (which I can't access directly), the total percentage of Canadian chiropractors who agree that "most" or "many" diseases are caused by spinal misalignments is 68% + 30% = 98%.

Why again should we give people who call themselves chiropractors the benefit of the doubt?

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:39 pm UTC

The Great Hippo wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Is it necessary that I understand how field equations work to realize that an object being a wave and particle at the same time and that it interfering with itself is a load of horeshit?
That's such a deep misrepresentation of my point that I'm not even sure how to adequately address it.

Do you believe it is necessary that I become well-versed in homeopathy before I know enough to dismiss homeopathy as a legitimate field of medicine? Or do you think knowing the definition of homeopathy (the belief that if something causes a condition, a smaller dose of that something can be used to treat that condition -- with an arbitrary, largely untested mapping of cases where this is believed to be true) is sufficient to dismiss homeopathy?
I understood your point to be that you don't need to understand something before you could dismiss it, if you don't like the sound of it, that's enough to justify dismissal. If that wasn't your point, please elaborate, because it really, really seems like that is your point.

And to answer your question: I'm not too sure. Definitely not the second. The second one is very wrong. First off, it doesn't sound all that ridiculous to begin with. It is what we currently do and what we have historically done with allergies and poisons, respectively. In any, case even if it had been something completely ridiculous, like particle/wave duality, that doesn't mean it is wrong. Only when something is self-contradictory can you dismiss it with just the definition. And if we wanted to be really pedantic, not even then. You still need to be well-versed in logic, in addition to the definition.
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Mon Oct 21, 2013 11:50 pm UTC

That wasn't the point, and the rest of us had no trouble understanding it so the problem must lie on your end.

When something is pseudoscientific on its face, you don't need to know the details before rejecting it. If I know the underlying principles of chiropractic or homeopathy or iridology or whatever, *and* I know that those principles are neither based on nor borne out by any rigorous scientific research, then I can reject it.

I don't need to study the political history of the nations of Jupiter to realize that someone claiming Jupiter has nations in the first place is full of shit. I don't need to read Hogwarts: A History in order to determine that Harry Potter is fictional.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:12 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:That wasn't the point, and the rest of us had no trouble understanding it so the problem must lie on your end.

When something is pseudoscientific on its face, you don't need to know the details before rejecting it. If I know the underlying principles of chiropractic or homeopathy or iridology or whatever, *and* I know that those principles are neither based on nor borne out by any rigorous scientific research, then I can reject it.
If you know the underlying principles, and whether or not those are borne out by research, you already know a fuck-ton more than just the definition. In fact, I'd call that fairly well versed.

If there is a problem on my end, apparently, there is a much deeper one on your end.
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:16 am UTC

I'd say the basic principles *are* the definition, and the research need not be specific tests of those principles. Anyone with a basic understanding of chemistry could conclude that water won't remember what was in it or that smaller doses don't have stronger effects.

And from there it is reasonable to reject it on its face, unless or until very strong *positive* evidence shows up.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:23 am UTC

Well, TGH stated what he meant by definition (for homeopathy). It was less than the basic principles, so I don't know what you are going on about, or why you think you understood his point.

EDIT: Also, your interpretation reduces to "Once we've collected enough knowledge and evidence to determine that something is false, we can dismiss it as false". No shit!
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
ameretrifle
Vera
Posts: 814
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 6:32 am UTC
Location: Canada (the flat bit)

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby ameretrifle » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:28 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:When something is pseudoscientific on its face, you don't need to know the details before rejecting it. If I know the underlying principles of chiropractic or homeopathy or iridology or whatever, *and* I know that those principles are neither based on nor borne out by any rigorous scientific research, then I can reject it.
No, those don't match in any common parlance. "On its face" implies, by the very origin of the phrase, a knowledge of only the most obvious, surface features of a thing. To equate that with knowing the "underlying principles" is, at the very least, mixing metaphors. Or assuming x-ray vision. If you're secretly from Krypton I suppose the confusion is understandable.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 22, 2013 12:55 am UTC

TGH mentioned the less-is-more nonsense, which is one of the most basic principles of homeopathy, which I'm fine calling part of the definition, the absurdity of which I would consider being absurdity on its face.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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 » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:24 am UTC

qetzal wrote:[The results of a survey that I indirectly asked for earlier]
Huh.

Well, on that evidence, I'd say that the whole "let's teach chiros actual medicine" project has been a pretty spectacular failure and we should probably get rid of it.
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:37 am UTC

gmalivuk wrote:TGH mentioned the less-is-more nonsense, which is one of the most basic principles of homeopathy, which I'm fine calling part of the definition, the absurdity of which I would consider being absurdity on its face.
Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.
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 » Tue Oct 22, 2013 1:43 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:TGH mentioned the less-is-more nonsense, which is one of the most basic principles of homeopathy, which I'm fine calling part of the definition, the absurdity of which I would consider being absurdity on its face.
Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.

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

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7164
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 22, 2013 3:41 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.
No, he didn't, because -- as he clearly stated -- part of the requirement to be considered a legitimate field of medicine requires the application of scientific rigor. A lack of scientific rigor is part of homeopathy's definition; there are no breakthroughs in homeopathy, because there are no methods to test and acquire new data.

You might notice part of the definition I gave for homeopathy includes a lack of scientific rigor (a mapping of arbitrary, largely untested "cures"); this is not hard to determine. Homeopaths tell you this, more or less; notice how homeopaths do not claim that their cures were derived via lab tests, but rather logic and special, largely untested knowledge. This is all you need to know about homeopathy to dismiss it.

Pseudoscience is often easy to identify, because -- unlike genuine science -- it relies on a special, arbitrary knowledge that is largely untested. Knowing the core principle behind it (such as "small doses of things have the opposite effect") is often sufficient to dismiss it -- when science discovers that something has the opposite effect in small doses, it does not turn this into a general principle without extensive testing.

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 22, 2013 2:19 pm UTC

The rigor that can be applied is to their claims. I think it's reasonable to discount, for the time being anyway, the why/how of a treatment; testing a drug or a treatment is often much easier than discovering it's underlying mechanism. What is not reasonable to discount is the claim; if homeopaths claim this pill will reduce kidney inflammation, then a double blind study with that pill and a sugar pill shouldn't do the same thing.

This is the rigor I'm talking about with respect to chiropractic treatment. I don't really care, truthfully, if their training involves sitting in huts and chanting over crystals or if it involves rigorously learning anatomy and physiology and microbiology and biochemistry; if the net result does nothing, and they continue to do it (to put it mildly), then we have a problem. Conversely, if your training involves sitting in huts and chanting over crystals, and whatever you do cures cancer, that's great, we should study that! Maybe even isolate the part of it that works, so we can dispense with the parts that don't. Chiropractors may have gotten SMT right, and may even have ways of improving it; we shouldn't ignore that. We should ignore everything else that they hasn't been corroborated.
... 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 22, 2013 3:10 pm UTC

On the other hand, if you claim you can cure cancer or whatever, but you have no sound evidence, AND you claim your treatment works through some highly implausible method like chanting at crystals, or diluting things 10^20 fold, or manipulating subluxations that don't appear to objectively exist, then we probably should spend our time studying more promising ideas.

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:37 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:TGH mentioned the less-is-more nonsense, which is one of the most basic principles of homeopathy, which I'm fine calling part of the definition, the absurdity of which I would consider being absurdity on its face.
Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.
Which treatments?
Looks like someone misunderstands homeopathy, vaccines, or both.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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 22, 2013 6:43 pm UTC

Vaccines are made by diluting viruses 10^22 times, are they not?
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

User avatar
oxoiron
Posts: 1365
Joined: Fri Jul 13, 2007 4:56 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby oxoiron » Tue Oct 22, 2013 6:46 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:Vaccines are made by diluting viruses 10^22 times, are they not?
Observations like that are why I love you.
"Whenever you find yourself on the side of the majority, it is time to reform (or pause and reflect)."-- Mark Twain
"There is not more dedicated criminal than a group of children."--addams

User avatar
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:32 pm UTC

The crazy thing is that that's only 11X strength, which in homeopathic terms is rather "weak". Better to have something like 20C-30C, the last of which is diluting 10^60 times. Also known as 1mL in a cubic volume of water 100 light years on a side.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

User avatar
The Great Hippo
Swans ARE SHARP
Posts: 7164
Joined: Fri Dec 14, 2007 4:43 am UTC
Location: behind you

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby The Great Hippo » Tue Oct 22, 2013 7:44 pm UTC

Yeah, that's the other thing I keep forgetting to add homeopathy's definition (and it's pretty critical in regards to telling us why we should disregard it): All of its strongest cures map to pure water.

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 22, 2013 7:45 pm UTC

Antibodies impart their imprinted memory on water.See, the important thing is that we apply scientific rigor to these claims:
In the first series of supervised experiments, the original experimental procedure was followed as it had been when the paper was first submitted for publication. The experiments were successful, matching the published data quite closely. However, Maddox noted that during the procedure the experimenters were aware of which test tubes originally contained the antibodies and which did not. A second experimental series was started with Maddox and his team in charge of the double-blinding; notebooks were photographed, the lab videotaped, and vials juggled and secretly coded. Randi went so far as to wrap the labels in newspaper,[9] seal them in an envelope, and then stick them on the ceiling so Benveniste and his colleagues could not read them. No memory effect was observed in the blinded experiments.


Bad science happens, we all get that, which is why we need to be rigorous. More importantly, when rigor refutes results, it's time to let go of those results.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby nitePhyyre » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:36 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:As to your condemnation of my bias against chiropractic journals, I also stand by that, but admit I used language that was too strong. By 'discard whole cloth', what I should have said was 'pay attention to their claims and then try and reproduce them with non-biased research'.
Izawwlgood wrote:Again, he's trained as a chiropractor. I don't hold his findings that chiropracty is effective in much regard.
Izawwlgood wrote:I'm quite comfortable disregarding them due to their obvious and glaring bias.
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.
Izawwlgood wrote:being heavily involved in chiropractic organizations still makes me skeptical of his chiropractic findings
Izawwlgood wrote:you're still not catching my point of 'chiropractors doing studies on chiropractic practice that aren't corroborated or reproducible by non-chiropractors means I don't really care what chiropractors have to say'
Izawwlgood wrote:Cleverbeans, thanks for the link, but I'm going to poke around for something less... http://www.chiropractorassociationofawesome.com
Izawwlgood wrote:Zcorp, we've been over this; every single article you linked is either from a journal of chiropractic medicine or conducted by chiropractors. Do you see the problem with this 'evidence'?
Izawwlgood wrote:yeah, it's almost like I remember having a conversation about his biases...
Izawwlgood wrote:Zcorp, the links you provided to do nothing to add to the validity of chiropractic as a treatment. The journal that was founded is the official journal of the American Chiropractic Association. The three people you linked are all alt-med specialists. Mike Reed has impressive credentials being on the US Olympic team support, but is still a chiropractor.
Oh, now I get it. Sure, that's a very easy mistake to make, 9 times. I mean all those buttons on the keyboard are just soooo close together.

You fucking dumbass.

Izawwlgood wrote:I also am not misleading anyone in my claims about chiropractic medicines evils and pitfalls.
Sure, when you linked to a site saying it was a citation showing that there are absolutely no benefits to chiro, and that article said that there were in fact benefits, that isn't misleading! What was I thinking? Its a blatant lie.

Sorry, did I say you're a fucking dumbass? I stand by that, but admit I used language that was too strong. What I should have said was 'To each their own, potato, potahto'.

Izawwlgood wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.
Which treatments?
nitePhyyre wrote:It is what we currently do and what we have historically done with allergies and poisons, respectively.


gmalivuk wrote:Looks like someone misunderstands homeopathy, vaccines, or both.
Or, I'm aware that more than two medical procedures exist. Thank for further proving my point.

And, I didn't think of vaccines originally, but now that you mention them, I'd argue dead virii are 'less' than living ones and that using only some sugars or proteins is 'less' than whole, so yeah, your description of the 'obviously absurd' would throw some vaccines out also.

The Great Hippo wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.
No, he didn't, because -- as he clearly stated -- part of the requirement to be considered a legitimate field of medicine requires the application of scientific rigor. A lack of scientific rigor is part of homeopathy's definition; there are no breakthroughs in homeopathy, because there are no methods to test and acquire new data.

You might notice part of the definition I gave for homeopathy includes a lack of scientific rigor (a mapping of arbitrary, largely untested "cures"); this is not hard to determine. Homeopaths tell you this, more or less; notice how homeopaths do not claim that their cures were derived via lab tests, but rather logic and special, largely untested knowledge. This is all you need to know about homeopathy to dismiss it.
Well, yes. Clearly. Your 'definition' of homeopathy includes you editorializing as to whether or not it is bullshit. It's no surprise that if your definition includes "oh, by the way, this is bullshit" you can conclude that it is bullshit simply by looking at the definition.

I think you are vastly underestimating your level of knowledge on the subject. Knowing whether or not there have been advances in the field is more than the definition. Knowing whether or not there are methods to test for data, is more than the definition. Knowing whether or not there are methods to acquire data, is more than the definition. Having talked to a homeopath to let them tell you anything about homeopathy, is more than just the definition. Listening to their claims as to whether the results come from a lab or their magical knowledge, is more than the definition. Knowing even a single one of these points is a chasm away from 'just the definition'.

The definition of homeopathy:
a system of complementary medicine in which ailments are treated by minute doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment.
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
gmalivuk
GNU Terry Pratchett
Posts: 26518
Joined: Wed Feb 28, 2007 6:02 pm UTC
Location: Here and There
Contact:

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby gmalivuk » Tue Oct 22, 2013 11:53 pm UTC

They aren't minute doses, though. They are nonexistent doses. As in, if you can find one molecule of it in a mL of 30C dilution, you've done the equivalent of correctly guessing a random 128-bit number.

And by less is more I meant the whole relationship, where greater dilution means greater potency. Vaccines and allergy treatments don't become stronger by using less of the substance in question, but homeopathic treatments, according to homeopathy, do.

So like I said: you misunderstand homeopathy, or vaccines, or both.
Unless stated otherwise, I do not care whether a statement, by itself, constitutes a persuasive political argument. I care whether it's true.
---
If this post has math that doesn't work for you, use TeX the World for Firefox or Chrome

(he/him/his)

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

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby KrytenKoro » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:27 am UTC

Yeah...vaccines don't produce more antibodies by being lesser doses. They don't make you sick or kill you in smaller doses, allowing your body time to produce the antibodies it would even if it was a fatal dose.

Comparing the mechanism of vaccines to that of homeopathy is almost...purposefully deceitful.
From the elegant yelling of this compelling dispute comes the ghastly suspicion my opposition's a fruit.

User avatar
addams
Posts: 9996
Joined: Sun Sep 12, 2010 4:44 am UTC
Location: Oregon Coast: 97444

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby addams » Wed Oct 23, 2013 12:46 am UTC

True. True.
Although; Just the thought is enough to make some people sick and to make other people feel better.

Examples? The placebo effect. So, powerful. Mind over matter?
Examples? Things I have seen with my own eyes.

The label on the container. I am susceptible to the label.
If I can't read the label, It does not bother me. If I can, it does.

Homeopathy rinses out the container?
Nice. I still don't want to drink from it.

Plastic bottles from the Chem Lab are always suspect.
I don't care how many times you rinsed it out.

Water from Lordes? Well; The act of caring enough to go get a person water is healing to the soul.
Both persons benefit. The giver more than the receiver.

Nice plan: Go get the water together, before anyone gets sick. Save the rush at the end.

Back to stoping chiropractors. Poor babies. Why do you want to mess up the lives of those people?
Life is, just, an exchange of electrons; It is up to us to give it meaning.

We are all in The Gutter.
Some of us see The Gutter.
Some of us see The Stars.
by mr. Oscar Wilde.

Those that want to Know; Know.
Those that do not Know; Don't tell them.
They do terrible things to people that Tell Them.

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 23, 2013 1:46 am UTC

nitePhyyre wrote:Oh, now I get it. Sure, that's a very easy mistake to make, 9 times. I mean all those buttons on the keyboard are just soooo close together.
Yet... none of those quote snips you pulled seem to support your beef with me, nor your assertion that I'm waffling... So... Cool?
nitePhyyre wrote:Sure, when you linked to a site saying it was a citation showing that there are absolutely no benefits to chiro, and that article said that there were in fact benefits, that isn't misleading! What was I thinking? Its a blatant lie.
Did you... not read what I said about it, nor what it said about SMT? That's the only way you could repeat the above quote.
nitePhyyre wrote:It is what we currently do and what we have historically done with allergies and poisons, respectively.
I'm still not understanding the vague point you're trying to make here; I think you're suggesting that our method of experimenting with substances has led to medicines that work, but we've already talked about applying scientific rigor to the reproducibility of stated treatments/cures, so unless you're going in for strike four on a claim here, I'll just have to ask you to carefully (and politely) explain your point.
nitePhyyre wrote:And, I didn't think of vaccines originally, but now that you mention them, I'd argue dead virii are 'less' than living ones and that using only some sugars or proteins is 'less' than whole, so yeah, your description of the 'obviously absurd' would throw some vaccines out also.
Ah, gotcha, so you actually don't understand how vaccines work. Good to know. If you want a deeper explanation, I feel we'd be happy to provide some more details.
definition of homeopathy wrote:a system of complementary medicine in which ailments are treated by minute doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment.
Is a fine definition, and yet, for some reason, you seem to hold that it is somehow not beholden to the same rigors of reproducibility that medicine is. Additionally, it doesn't take a genius to see the ridiculousness of some applications of this line of thinking.

nitePhyrre, respectfully, you also need to take a deep breath and try again. You're letting your personal vendetta's against... well, me, I presume, but maybe against people who disagree with homeopathy, obfuscate your ability to make a coherent argument.
... with gigantic melancholies and gigantic mirth, to tread the jeweled thrones of the Earth under his sandalled feet.

curtis95112
Posts: 638
Joined: Thu Jan 27, 2011 5:23 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby curtis95112 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:25 am UTC

nitePhyyre, if vaccines weren't what you were originally thinking of, I'd like to echo this question.

Izawwlgood wrote:
nitePhyyre wrote:
gmalivuk wrote:TGH mentioned the less-is-more nonsense, which is one of the most basic principles of homeopathy, which I'm fine calling part of the definition, the absurdity of which I would consider being absurdity on its face.
Well, you just threw out legitimate medical treatments because in your ignorance you've considered them absurd on their face. Congratulations on proving exactly why dismissing things without any sort of understand is foolish.

Which treatments?


Because I really can't think of any legitimate medical treatment you might have in mind.

nitePhyyre wrote:I think you are vastly underestimating your level of knowledge on the subject. Knowing whether or not there have been advances in the field is more than the definition. Knowing whether or not there are methods to test for data, is more than the definition. Knowing whether or not there are methods to acquire data, is more than the definition. Having talked to a homeopath to let them tell you anything about homeopathy, is more than just the definition. Listening to their claims as to whether the results come from a lab or their magical knowledge, is more than the definition. Knowing even a single one of these points is a chasm away from 'just the definition'.

The definition of homeopathy:
a system of complementary medicine in which ailments are treated by minute doses of natural substances that in larger amounts would produce symptoms of the ailment.


If you insist that we shouldn't dismiss things on basis of their dictionary definition alone, then you're right. But you might notice that nobody on this thread actually said we should.

The Great Hippo wrote:Is it necessary that I understand how Freudian psychotherapy works with dream analysis to realize Freudian psychotherapy is a load of horseshit? Is it necessary for me to read the Bible to dismiss the Bible as untrue?


gmalivuk wrote:When something is pseudoscientific on its face, you don't need to know the details before rejecting it. If I know the underlying principles of chiropractic or homeopathy or iridology or whatever, *and* I know that those principles are neither based on nor borne out by any rigorous scientific research, then I can reject it.

I don't need to study the political history of the nations of Jupiter to realize that someone claiming Jupiter has nations in the first place is full of shit. I don't need to read Hogwarts: A History in order to determine that Harry Potter is fictional.


Both are making the perfectly reasonable point that you don't need to know exactly how a given theory is wrong, if you have evidence of a global error.
If a math crank comes up to you with an 80-page proof that all numbers are rational, you don't have to go through it line-by-line to find an error. A single counterexample is sufficient evidence to dismiss the whole thing out of hand. A proof of Fermat's Last Theorem that works for n=2? Again, no need to actually analyze the whole thing.

You're perfectly correct that our rejection of homeopathy and its ilk come from more than just an understanding of the definitions. It would be wrong to completely dismiss homeopathy without knowing that memory effects don't appear to exist. Thank goodness nobody actually claimed that.
Mighty Jalapeno wrote:
Tyndmyr wrote:
Роберт wrote:Sure, but at least they hit the intended target that time.

Well, if you shoot enough people, you're bound to get the right one eventually.

Thats the best description of the USA ever.

User avatar
Zamfir
I built a novelty castle, the irony was lost on some.
Posts: 7493
Joined: Wed Aug 27, 2008 2:43 pm UTC
Location: Nederland

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Zamfir » Wed Oct 23, 2013 6:02 am UTC

nitephyrre, stop the insults and quote-sniping

Tyndmyr
Posts: 11443
Joined: Wed Jul 25, 2012 8:38 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Tyndmyr » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:00 pm UTC

KrytenKoro wrote:Yeah...vaccines don't produce more antibodies by being lesser doses. They don't make you sick or kill you in smaller doses, allowing your body time to produce the antibodies it would even if it was a fatal dose.

Comparing the mechanism of vaccines to that of homeopathy is almost...purposefully deceitful.


Yup.

One can trivially test the claims of homeopathy by, on seperate occasions, drinking the same quantity of alcohol. On one occasion, without water, on the other, with. According to homeopathy, the addition of a shitload of water should greatly enhance the effect.

Or, you could just observe that having a glass of pure water doesn't kill you.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Red Hal » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:31 pm UTC

That isn't necessary:

http://www.badscience.net/2007/11/the-lancet-benefits-and-risks-of-homoeopathy/
We've done homeopathy before: viewtopic.php?f=8&t=26220&p=826681?

As to Chiropracty: I didn't find links to any of these in the preceding pages, but my search-fu is poor today.

Chiropracty probably doesn't make you worse if you are an adult: http://chiro.org/wordpress/2013/09/24/o ... se-events/
Chiropracty no better than placebo for infant colic: http://adc.bmj.com/content/84/2/138
Chiropracty better than 1995 treatment for lower back pain: http://www.bmj.com/content/311/7001/349
Chiropracty no better than placebo for asthma: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... ated=false
Chiropracty effective against control for migraine: http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/ar ... 5400900733 (not, not double-blind or placebo-controlled.)

The evidence, for me, points to Chiropracty as useful for the management of long-term back pain, possibly useful for other spinal pain (including migraines) and not better than placebo for anything else.
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

User avatar
davidstarlingm
Posts: 1255
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:33 am UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby davidstarlingm » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:52 pm UTC

This may have already been answered somewhere else, but I haven't been able to find out.

In studying the efficacy of synovial spinal manipulation for the treatment of back pain, how would one begin to control for the placebo effect? The identification of areas with inflammation or low ROM is made by the practitioner at the same time as the manipulation itself, and the process is typically very noticeable. You can't double-blind an "adjustment". The only thing I could think of would be to have the patients placed under anesthesia, and then have the control group receive no treatment while the experimental group receive the manipulations....but that seems awfully risky. Any other ideas?

Tyndmyr wrote:One can trivially test the claims of homeopathy by, on seperate occasions, drinking the same quantity of alcohol. On one occasion, without water, on the other, with. According to homeopathy, the addition of a shitload of water should greatly enhance the effect.

Then again, that might give you some false positives. Drinking a lot of water along with alcohol can cause the alcohol to be absorbed into the bloodstream more rapidly, giving you a shorter but stronger buzz.

User avatar
Red Hal
Magically Delicious
Posts: 1445
Joined: Wed Nov 28, 2007 2:42 pm UTC

Re: Chiro quackery - now on bebbies!

Postby Red Hal » Wed Oct 23, 2013 1:54 pm UTC

Standardised forces have been used as the placebo: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15750369
Lost Greatest Silent Baby X Y Z. "There is no one who loves pain itself, who seeks after it and wants to have it, simply because it is pain..."

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 23, 2013 2:08 pm UTC

Red Hal wrote:Standardised forces have been used as the placebo: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15750369
Heh, the first author on that paper has an AOL address.
... 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 » Wed Oct 23, 2013 2:13 pm UTC

Izawwlgood wrote:
Red Hal wrote:Standardised forces have been used as the placebo: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15750369
Heh, the first author on that paper has an AOL address.

How did that slip by the reviewers?
He/Him/His/Alex
God damn these electric sex pants!


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 18 guests