Comments on: The University of Wales is Responsible for Enabling Bogus* Chiropractic Claims to be Made http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html Experiments and Thoughts on Quackery, Health Beliefs and Pseudoscience Thu, 29 Jul 2010 20:52:56 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-9884 Anonymous Thu, 11 Feb 2010 08:11:43 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-9884 Blogger you are a moron, and Richard Lanigan is correct. <br /><br />As for your name, you discredit it, so I don't really care what it is, and I'm not sure why you are so filled with venom and hate for something you know nothing about - obviously your atlas is up your arse. Blogger you are a moron, and Richard Lanigan is correct.

As for your name, you discredit it, so I don't really care what it is, and I'm not sure why you are so filled with venom and hate for something you know nothing about – obviously your atlas is up your arse.

]]> By: D P http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8494 D P Mon, 29 Jun 2009 13:44:06 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8494 I've just started study at the McTimoney college in Abingdon and am 6 months into my first year of the 5 year program. As you can imagine i meet this recent development with mixed views. On one hand i'm glad the profession and my college along with is members are pushed into a corner to consider how we can conduct ourselves from now on to help the profession and ratify what we all believe as students and regular patients of Chiropractic; It has a place in modern healthcare and helps give many individuals relief from disscomfort. The scientific basis to the course, which has recently been altered to fullfill the GCC requirements, is a great comfort to me and contradicts the earlier post of 'pseudoscientific' training. The college has worked very hard to evict the sandal wearing, tie-dye image of Mctimoney but unfortunately like with most things it takes time. Persecution always comes from lack of understanding and i intend to make it my responsability to, where possible, not tell tales on the bullies but face them head on and try to answer whatever questions they want to ask. For now i don't have the answers and i may never have them, but what i do know is that 15 years ago as a teenager i first walked into a chiropractor's practice with low back pain that left me almost fainting with pain and after my visit i didn't. You may argue that any therapy may have helped but many didn't including pysiotherapy. If it works for the patient and the practitioner is carrying out the treatment in a safe manner under safety guidlines and in good faith that what they are doing is going to be of benefit to the patient, all i can see that needs to be addressed is a poorly advised p.r campaign. As for court action as opposed to evidence submission to feed the appetite of the hungry villagers on their witch hunt... sometimes the monkeys need to grind the organ and tell the organ grinders - 'rather than concentrating on observing the practice of their members so closely perhaps they need to regulate their own actions for the sake of everyone'... please... I've just started study at the McTimoney college in Abingdon and am 6 months into my first year of the 5 year program. As you can imagine i meet this recent development with mixed views. On one hand i'm glad the profession and my college along with is members are pushed into a corner to consider how we can conduct ourselves from now on to help the profession and ratify what we all believe as students and regular patients of Chiropractic; It has a place in modern healthcare and helps give many individuals relief from disscomfort. The scientific basis to the course, which has recently been altered to fullfill the GCC requirements, is a great comfort to me and contradicts the earlier post of 'pseudoscientific' training. The college has worked very hard to evict the sandal wearing, tie-dye image of Mctimoney but unfortunately like with most things it takes time. Persecution always comes from lack of understanding and i intend to make it my responsability to, where possible, not tell tales on the bullies but face them head on and try to answer whatever questions they want to ask. For now i don't have the answers and i may never have them, but what i do know is that 15 years ago as a teenager i first walked into a chiropractor's practice with low back pain that left me almost fainting with pain and after my visit i didn't. You may argue that any therapy may have helped but many didn't including pysiotherapy. If it works for the patient and the practitioner is carrying out the treatment in a safe manner under safety guidlines and in good faith that what they are doing is going to be of benefit to the patient, all i can see that needs to be addressed is a poorly advised p.r campaign. As for court action as opposed to evidence submission to feed the appetite of the hungry villagers on their witch hunt… sometimes the monkeys need to grind the organ and tell the organ grinders – 'rather than concentrating on observing the practice of their members so closely perhaps they need to regulate their own actions for the sake of everyone'… please…

]]> By: Richard Lanigan http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8485 Richard Lanigan Tue, 23 Jun 2009 21:15:33 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8485 The MSC is a three year course with a dissertation at the end. Steve Williams course is a seminar teaching a technique. Steve is on the Board of the GCC and obviously believes as I do that having spinal joints that move symmetrically mean receptors are been activated symmetrically and this enhances health.<br />My evidence I started off reading the evidence and tried things; Now I have four children who never had any medicine. That is not to say if they got run over by a car or contracted meningitis I would not seek medical treatment. I just dont rate the biomedical model so highly at promoting health which after all is hardly an exact science anyway, look at chiropractors as personal trainers who enhance the function of the spinal joints, nerves muscles etc and who knows what else. <br />Chiropractors should not claim to treat anything, but they do because many have been trained to think medially and focus on symptom resolution. Chiropractors love preaching to the converted, these discussions will help the profession to look at how they present themselves.<br /> I have no doubt the AECC is the best chiropractic college in the world (I have visited 12)and I suspect the chiropractor posting above is a tutor from there its rather depressing they don’t use their names for fear of saying the wrong thing and not doing what the BCA lawyers want.<br /> I would say to any of you check out the AECC, if I have a criticism of the course its that they have tried too hard to make it like a medical degree. The MSC is a three year course with a dissertation at the end. Steve Williams course is a seminar teaching a technique. Steve is on the Board of the GCC and obviously believes as I do that having spinal joints that move symmetrically mean receptors are been activated symmetrically and this enhances health.
My evidence I started off reading the evidence and tried things; Now I have four children who never had any medicine. That is not to say if they got run over by a car or contracted meningitis I would not seek medical treatment. I just dont rate the biomedical model so highly at promoting health which after all is hardly an exact science anyway, look at chiropractors as personal trainers who enhance the function of the spinal joints, nerves muscles etc and who knows what else.
Chiropractors should not claim to treat anything, but they do because many have been trained to think medially and focus on symptom resolution. Chiropractors love preaching to the converted, these discussions will help the profession to look at how they present themselves.
I have no doubt the AECC is the best chiropractic college in the world (I have visited 12)and I suspect the chiropractor posting above is a tutor from there its rather depressing they don’t use their names for fear of saying the wrong thing and not doing what the BCA lawyers want.
I would say to any of you check out the AECC, if I have a criticism of the course its that they have tried too hard to make it like a medical degree.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8420 Anonymous Mon, 15 Jun 2009 09:12:35 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8420 I am not aware of any risks that chiropractic causes to children. I have seen firsthand problems resulting from drug side effects though. When looking at what a parent's options are, I would go with the least invasive, most natural treatments first, and then try the medical route if those don't work. Besides, other mother's have reported some pretty amazing results from chiropractic care for their children. Just because I don't understand how it works doesn't mean I'm going to discount it. Plus, I live in America and the chiropractic curriculum here looks as good as med school, just a different focus:<br />http://positivemotionchiropractic.com/downloads/How-Well-Educated-Is-Your-Chiropractor.pdf I am not aware of any risks that chiropractic causes to children. I have seen firsthand problems resulting from drug side effects though. When looking at what a parent's options are, I would go with the least invasive, most natural treatments first, and then try the medical route if those don't work. Besides, other mother's have reported some pretty amazing results from chiropractic care for their children. Just because I don't understand how it works doesn't mean I'm going to discount it. Plus, I live in America and the chiropractic curriculum here looks as good as med school, just a different focus:
http://positivemotionchiropractic.com/downloads/How-Well-Educated-Is-Your-Chiropractor.pdf

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8324 Anonymous Thu, 11 Jun 2009 21:13:43 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8324 Regarding your final point, to what risks are you referring? Regarding your final point, to what risks are you referring?

]]> By: Le Canard Noir http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8274 Le Canard Noir Thu, 11 Jun 2009 13:01:42 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8274 Thank you for your constructive comments. <br /><br />I have no doubt that chiropractic can help somewhat with lower back pain. Whether it is an appropriate treatment though is a very different matter.<br /><br />This post is about something quite specific:<br /><br />- the lack of good evidence base for treating children<br />- the pseudoscientific nature of McTimoney teaching on chiropractic<br />- the fact that an MSc in paediatric chiropractic is being offered<br />- the fact that this MSc is underwritten by a University<br /><br />And so the question: should a University be underwriting a MSc in a subject that is based on pseudoscientific principles and where there is no good evidence that the methods taught are effective and where there may be risks to a children?<br /><br />Those are the quesitons that need addressing. Thank you for your constructive comments.

I have no doubt that chiropractic can help somewhat with lower back pain. Whether it is an appropriate treatment though is a very different matter.

This post is about something quite specific:

- the lack of good evidence base for treating children
- the pseudoscientific nature of McTimoney teaching on chiropractic
- the fact that an MSc in paediatric chiropractic is being offered
- the fact that this MSc is underwritten by a University

And so the question: should a University be underwriting a MSc in a subject that is based on pseudoscientific principles and where there is no good evidence that the methods taught are effective and where there may be risks to a children?

Those are the quesitons that need addressing.

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8271 Anonymous Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:41:58 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8271 ... cont.<br /><br />Another of my concerns regarding some of the posts is the implication that a chiropractic qualification is equivalent to a "bought off the internet" degree which fails to provide students with the critical thinking skills and clincial knowledge required to enable them to stand alongside other health professionals in scientific debate. This stance is nothing but total fallacy (although I can't speak for the McTimoney College, as they have battled with accreditation by the GCC for a long time). The course at the AECC (Anglo-European College) is closely formed around an evidence-based attitude, where students are taught and encouraged to engage in critical evaluation of available evidence. They are also taught about research methods, statistical analysis and literature searching in order to enable them to achieve this. Further to that, and this may be a critical point, they are taught how to carry out assessments of patients with a view to correct diagnosis of their condition. This separates the chiropractic graduate from some other forms of complementary healthcare. Chiropractors are also required, in order to maintain accreditation, to carry out CPD by attending seminars etc. Unfortunately, there are practitioners out there who seem happy to ignore all this high quality training in favour of a cult-science type approach. However, these are by far the minority and should not be implied to be the rule.<br /><br />I apologise for the length of this comment and I hope it is taken in the spirit which it is intended. I would like to conclude by saying that, although I feel that Simon Singh could have chosen more appropriate words in his article in the Guardian (which forms the catalyst for the situation in which we now find ourselves), I agree with the general sentiment that libel laws should not, within reason, be used as a weapon in matters of science. It is unfortunate that we are now in a situation where this issue has become a somewhat personal battle between Simon Singh and his supporters, and the chiropractic profession. I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended). … cont.

Another of my concerns regarding some of the posts is the implication that a chiropractic qualification is equivalent to a "bought off the internet" degree which fails to provide students with the critical thinking skills and clincial knowledge required to enable them to stand alongside other health professionals in scientific debate. This stance is nothing but total fallacy (although I can't speak for the McTimoney College, as they have battled with accreditation by the GCC for a long time). The course at the AECC (Anglo-European College) is closely formed around an evidence-based attitude, where students are taught and encouraged to engage in critical evaluation of available evidence. They are also taught about research methods, statistical analysis and literature searching in order to enable them to achieve this. Further to that, and this may be a critical point, they are taught how to carry out assessments of patients with a view to correct diagnosis of their condition. This separates the chiropractic graduate from some other forms of complementary healthcare. Chiropractors are also required, in order to maintain accreditation, to carry out CPD by attending seminars etc. Unfortunately, there are practitioners out there who seem happy to ignore all this high quality training in favour of a cult-science type approach. However, these are by far the minority and should not be implied to be the rule.

I apologise for the length of this comment and I hope it is taken in the spirit which it is intended. I would like to conclude by saying that, although I feel that Simon Singh could have chosen more appropriate words in his article in the Guardian (which forms the catalyst for the situation in which we now find ourselves), I agree with the general sentiment that libel laws should not, within reason, be used as a weapon in matters of science. It is unfortunate that we are now in a situation where this issue has become a somewhat personal battle between Simon Singh and his supporters, and the chiropractic profession. I hope we don't throw the baby out with the bathwater (no pun intended).

]]> By: Anonymous http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8270 Anonymous Thu, 11 Jun 2009 12:41:09 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8270 I should first point out that I am a practising chiropractor. It is highly unusual for me to get involved in internet blogs or forums as, no offence intended, I have much better things to be doing. However, occasionally I come across one that leads me to post a comment, in an attempt to try to balance the argument. Of course, such sites are not renowned for their objective thinking (neither incidentally are many chiropractors that I have the misfortune to call my colleagues). The first comment by the anonymous author has shown a gross misunderstanding of what the manipulation of joints as carried out by chiopractors, osteopaths and some physios actually achieves (evidently the massage therapist to whom he/she refers is equally ignorant). There is ample research to justify the use of manipulation of the spine, both in the lower back and the neck, for certain conditions and for certain populations of patients. As we learn more about how to classify these patients and conditions more accurately, we are able to provide a more balanced package of care to those patients. Does this mean that we "crack" every patient that comes through the door? No, not in any reasonable clinic. Does this mean that when we manipulate patients we do nothing else? No. The fact that the recent NICE guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for certain types of patient (as do the RCGP guidelines) should tell you something about the rigour of the available evidence. <br /><br />This may be a point of some digression, as the bulk of this page appears to be concerned with the chiropractic management of paediatric patients. I don't personally treat children (other than older children for musculoskeltal problems, injuries etc) but I am forced to concede that the evidence for chiropractic management of colic, as an example, is lacking. There are studies that have shown a positive effect, but most of these have failed to include a control group (for comparison of natural history) and a placebo group. This makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions of any meaning. There is a study published in 1999 which showed a positive benefit of chiropractic in the treatment of infant colic versus a placebo group (I forget the "p" value but it was statistically significant); unfortunately this article appears to have been published in abstract form only (god knows why) which means that I cannot grade it for methodological quality. Thus, this article, although it may have been a high quality study, cannot enter into the current debate. What has become clear from the evidence is that taking a colicky infant to a chiropractor has a very high chance of resulting in an improvement of the symptoms. Whether this effect is placebo or not still remains to be clarified, but I feel that, from a humanitarian rather than staunchly scientific view, it would be a shame to remove this option for parents who are struggling to bond with their child as a result of continuous crying. We are in danger of turning this situation into a witch hunt. Saying that, it falls to the chiropractic community to carry out the necessary research to either confirm or refute their belief(s) (I shudder to use the word "belief" as I feel it has no place in healthcare, but couldn't think of a better one at the time)... cont below I should first point out that I am a practising chiropractor. It is highly unusual for me to get involved in internet blogs or forums as, no offence intended, I have much better things to be doing. However, occasionally I come across one that leads me to post a comment, in an attempt to try to balance the argument. Of course, such sites are not renowned for their objective thinking (neither incidentally are many chiropractors that I have the misfortune to call my colleagues). The first comment by the anonymous author has shown a gross misunderstanding of what the manipulation of joints as carried out by chiopractors, osteopaths and some physios actually achieves (evidently the massage therapist to whom he/she refers is equally ignorant). There is ample research to justify the use of manipulation of the spine, both in the lower back and the neck, for certain conditions and for certain populations of patients. As we learn more about how to classify these patients and conditions more accurately, we are able to provide a more balanced package of care to those patients. Does this mean that we "crack" every patient that comes through the door? No, not in any reasonable clinic. Does this mean that when we manipulate patients we do nothing else? No. The fact that the recent NICE guidelines recommend spinal manipulation for certain types of patient (as do the RCGP guidelines) should tell you something about the rigour of the available evidence.

This may be a point of some digression, as the bulk of this page appears to be concerned with the chiropractic management of paediatric patients. I don't personally treat children (other than older children for musculoskeltal problems, injuries etc) but I am forced to concede that the evidence for chiropractic management of colic, as an example, is lacking. There are studies that have shown a positive effect, but most of these have failed to include a control group (for comparison of natural history) and a placebo group. This makes it very difficult to draw any conclusions of any meaning. There is a study published in 1999 which showed a positive benefit of chiropractic in the treatment of infant colic versus a placebo group (I forget the "p" value but it was statistically significant); unfortunately this article appears to have been published in abstract form only (god knows why) which means that I cannot grade it for methodological quality. Thus, this article, although it may have been a high quality study, cannot enter into the current debate. What has become clear from the evidence is that taking a colicky infant to a chiropractor has a very high chance of resulting in an improvement of the symptoms. Whether this effect is placebo or not still remains to be clarified, but I feel that, from a humanitarian rather than staunchly scientific view, it would be a shame to remove this option for parents who are struggling to bond with their child as a result of continuous crying. We are in danger of turning this situation into a witch hunt. Saying that, it falls to the chiropractic community to carry out the necessary research to either confirm or refute their belief(s) (I shudder to use the word "belief" as I feel it has no place in healthcare, but couldn't think of a better one at the time)… cont below

]]> By: dizzyblonde http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8156 dizzyblonde Tue, 09 Jun 2009 07:00:12 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8156 What about the Anglo European College of Chiropractic in Bournmouth? http://www.aecc.ac.uk/ The BCa recruit most of their members from this college.<br /><br />Degrees are awarded by Bournmouth University and include a paediatrics Msc. <br /><br />But there is also a free lance 'short'{4 weekends!] paediatrics course run by a 'Dr' Steve Williams. http://www.stjameschiropracticclinic.co.uk/pages/SeminarSouthampton.php <br /><br />If a chiro can 'learn' paediatric chiro skills in four weekends why would any of them bother to take a Masters? What kind of double standard is this? <br /><br />Dizzyblonde What about the Anglo European College of Chiropractic in Bournmouth? http://www.aecc.ac.uk/ The BCa recruit most of their members from this college.

Degrees are awarded by Bournmouth University and include a paediatrics Msc.

But there is also a free lance 'short'{4 weekends!] paediatrics course run by a 'Dr' Steve Williams. http://www.stjameschiropracticclinic.co.uk/pages/SeminarSouthampton.php

If a chiro can 'learn' paediatric chiro skills in four weekends why would any of them bother to take a Masters? What kind of double standard is this?

Dizzyblonde

]]> By: David Colquhoun http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/university-of-wales-is-responsible-for.html#comment-8145 David Colquhoun Sat, 06 Jun 2009 22:59:23 +0000 http://www.quackometer.net/wpblog/2009/06/the-university-of-wales-is-responsible-for-enabling-bogus-chiropractic-claims-to-be-made.html#comment-8145 Well if it is anything like the validation of Nutritional Therapy by the University of Wales ('<a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=259" rel="nofollow">Another worthless validation . . . </a>;), this could be interesting. I'll send off the Freedom of Info requests tomorrow. Now that the Information commissioner <a href="http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1364" rel="nofollow">ruled in my favour</a>, they will find it hard to refuse. Well if it is anything like the validation of Nutritional Therapy by the University of Wales ('Another worthless validation . . . ;) , this could be interesting. I'll send off the Freedom of Info requests tomorrow. Now that the Information commissioner ruled in my favour, they will find it hard to refuse.

]]>