The Royal College of Vestigial Victorian Fairground-Mystic Bone Setters.

Good one – made me laugh!

I do not adjust Vertebral Sublusations. I graduated in 2009, and this is no longer part of the curriculum. So as I mentioned in my original comment, reference to old school chiropractic is now redundant.
I would love to meet you and have a chat about what it is exactly I do with my patients. Perhaps you yourself have some musculoskeletal problems that I could treat, free of charge and with no obligations. If you’ll read the research you’ll see that the only risk associated with treatment worth mentioning is some post treatment soreness. All I ask of you is that if you indeed do feel better and perhaps see that your witch-hunt is misplaced. You write that on here.
I do not dedicate my spare time to attacking other healthcare professions. Indeed it is within the chiorpractic code of conduct never to talk badly of other health professions. But I will say that it is a shame when one medical professional attacks another, when really Our common goal is to get people better. I decided to be a chiorpractor simply because my sister in law’s father was a consultant neurologist who lectured at the AECC in Bournemouth and he believed, knowing that I was very scientific and evidence-based in my approach, that chiorpractic would be better suited to me. I did not wish to be a physiotherpaist because they do not learn as much as chiorpractors do, and we also have a greater toolbox, and have more physical therapy interventions at our disposal. They do not learn the art of spinal manipulation and I am extremely hands on and practical and love to learn new and complex skills. These reasons coupled with a strong desire to simply get people better was my reason for choosing chiorpractic. I was actually also offered a place at the British School of OSteopathy, but I declined after visiting the Welsh Institute and seeing the fantastic programme they offered.

Best Wishes

I do not adjust Vertebral Sublusations.

What do you adjust?

What evidence do you have that your adjustments produce better outcomes than any othe standard care?

Do you adjust the cervical spine?

It would be quite appalling to think that all that money and time in training was to study something that was no more than an elaborate placebo based on an old vitalistic worldview, wouldn’t it?

Thank you for that. Whoever you are.

Why did you not become a physio, or doctor given your evident vocation. And why go to osteopathy in the first place?

If you don’t adjust subluxations, just what are you doing that a physio does not/

No one is attacking your ‘profession’.

Many of us have a very hard time understanding just what you are up to.

You should come to an academic medical meeting and see how we have a go at each other!. It’s called ‘scientific peer review.’

Answers to my inquiries would help.

I am pleased that your code of conduct forbids ‘attacking’ another profession.

I was interested that physios do not learn as much as chiropractors. Incoherent or what/

And how do you know?

Let us face it. You like alternatives to regular orthodox therapies. Fair enough. I just hopw you get properly informed consent from your patients.

Dr Quack said, “reference to old school chiropractic is now redundant.”

It isn’t redundant to refer to old school chiropractic as long as chiropractors are doing old school chiropractic and they are. Both the chiros I saw a few years ago were full of it. I hasten to add that I only saw them because they haranguing people in shopping centres like carwash hustlers. What sort of “profession” does that, for pity sake?

Unfortunately, an ‘old school’ chiro treated my teenage niece for chronic pain. He diagnosed a muscular skeletal problem, talked about ‘subluxations’, which he ‘adjusted’ and spouted some nonsense to the effect that he could feel the problem leaving and it would just need a few more sessions. On about session 8 he said that unfortunately there’d been a regression and he could feel the problem had returned and it would, of course, need a few more sessions.

The treatment was relaxing but at no time was her pain relieved. This isn’t surprising as it turned out that her pain had nothing to do with so-called subluxations in the spine. It wasn’t even a muscular-skeletal problem but an extremely rare problem with her biliary duct.

“It is this word of mouth which helps the profession to grow on a daily basis, and this word of mouth which is helping chiropractic to fast become a household name for leading spinal healthcare.”

Dream on. In the last few years many more people have become aware that chiropractic is quackery.

Dr Rawlins that’s actually very funny lol 🙂

Dr Richard Rawlins said:

I found I was quite unable to move them significanty without using a bone lever at direct open operation, or without using an osteotome to undercut a facet. And I’ve never seen a subluxation. have you?

Ah! But chiros have magic hands!

I claim to be the only qualified magician in this discussion!

Richard Rawlins
AKA Professor Riccardo
Member of The Magic Circle

On a serious note: Alan has it on the button. Magic.Paul Caster (born Custer) was a ‘magnetic healer’ in the US Mid-West who used mesmerism.Of his students, A.T. Still founded Osteopathy (somatic disease can be helped by manipulation of bones and releasing blockages in the blood supply to the distant part). D.D. Palmer, under the guidance so he said of his god, founded Chiropractic (adjustment of vertebral subluxations releases innate intellegence and unblocs the free flow of vital neural energies which thereby benefits the distant part).

Spinal manipulation obviously helps folks with stiff spines. That’s what physiotherapists do. But that is not what Chiropractic is. Chiropractic is a “primary healthcare profession”. Chiropractors practice medicine. Many claim they are doctors. In the US you cannot practice medicine without a licence – so they make sure they have one! But not MD degrees. In the UK anyone can practice medicine without a licence – just not in the NHS, nor can they claim to be a “Registered medical practitioner” unless they are. Any one can style them selves as ‘Doctor’ – though why they would do so unless they want to mislead patients I do not know.

But misdirection, sleight of mind, and creation of illusions is what magicians do. Most of us are honest enough to fess up and admit it. You must judge the integrity, intellectual honesty and probity of chiropractors for yourself.

(BTY I am not a ‘retired orthopaedic surgeon’ though I am retired from clinical practice. I still consult and offer my services to the BMA, GMC, Royal College of Surgeons, and the Courts and legal profession as an expert medical witness. I am still registered by the GMC!)

Dr R R

Apologies for the “retired” canard. I either misunderstood or misinterpreted something from the TATTnes discussion thread. Perhaps “retired from clinical practice” led me astray. Still, you do seem to have a fleeting familiarity with the skeleton.

Any chance Professor Riccardo can magic me up a new lumbar spine?

Dr Rawlins,

At which point and why have you determined that I’m a physiotherapist? Do you lump everyone who does not cut people with scalpels into one box to make life easier for you? We are distinct professions, there is considerable overlap in what we do, but our education focuses a lot more on the spine and manipulation of its numerous articulations. I would be surprised to hear a physiotherapist say that they could manipulate the spine as proficiently as a chiropractor, with their undergraduate training alone.

Your comment:

“I found I was quite unable to move them significanty without using a bone lever at direct open operation, or without using an osteotome to undercut a facet. And I’ve never seen a subluxation. have you? (Dislocations, yes, but that is not what chiropractors describe).”

Firstly, I find this comment hard to respond to. Mainly because it lacks some vital information. Why was this patient having surgery? What was the diagnosis? The age and gender? any degenerative changes? ankylosis perhaps?

You left out the key information there. Get back to me and I will tell you whether or not I could have moved it, but I’m guessing after the mess you made with your “bone lever and osteotome” there’d certainly be no hope of helping afterwards!

Also your comment “I’ve never seen a subluxation, have you?” is a strange one because subluxations aren’t things that chiropractors claim to see, as such, they “claim” to feel them with their hands. So let’s leave that one there.

I do not wish to argue with you, especially as you are being pedantic, and such arguments I left behind in the school playground a long time ago. I prefer to stick to the bigger picture usually. However, I am polite and will address your points. By Orthopaedic examination, I mean there is a section of my physical examination, which entails performing orthopaedic tests. Orthopaedic tests are orthopaedic tests, whether an orthopaedic surgeon performs them or a chiropractor. They could be taught to a monkey my friend. One does not need to study medicine to learn how to apply them, they are simple.

Secondly, I used to want to be a doctor. When I was 11 that was my original dream. My primary school teacher brought in lamb’s hearts and we dissected them with kitchen knives! I was sold! I wanted to follow in my brother’s footsteps, who was at the time a newly qualified doctor (now a consultant in his field).

However on reaching the age of 16, we had to find work experience placements. I naturally chose to follow a surgeon who was my father’s friend, and also on a separate occasion a GP. My dreams were somewhat shattered when I followed the surgeon around hospital on ward rounds, and watched him in theatre operating. It lacked the kind of patient-doctor interaction I had imagined. Watching the GP too, rapidly prescribing medications for everyone, hardly touching a single patient, more concerned with the time than anything else was enough to put me off. I was very upset, and also lost, as now I had no direction.

I found chiropractic thanks to a friend’s recommendation. She had been successfully treated by one, and it sounded fascinating. I had been increasingly interested in exercise and health as a young twenty-something student, and so I liked the sound of giving exercises to patients and lifestyle modification advice. I did some research and found (on a non-chiropractic, non-biased website) that chiropractic seemed to tick all the boxes for me. Spending plenty of time with the patient, being the one in charge of meeting the patient, doing the case history, the examination, taking x rays if necessary, reporting all the findings back to the patient, devising a plan of management and also implementing it! Sounded great to me! (and it is). I got to be with the patient at every stage of their care, as opposed to the patient being passed around the NHS from one practitioner to the next, and often feeling completely in the dark throughout the process, as I witnessed in my work experience.

I assure you Dr Rawlins, being an orthopaedic surgeon, was the least most appealing thing to me, and it still is, although it would have its perks. You may then find it hard to stand on your pedestal and wag your finger so pompously. Maybe I should study JUST to give my arguments more credibility in your eyes? Would you agree? Then again I have orthopaedic surgeons who are my patients, as well as GPs, physiotherapists (I work with 3) and Osteopaths. The irony here is that this is just one man’s opinion, and he is entitled to it. But sadly it does not represent your entire profession. I have probably treated a few of your colleagues.

Even more hilarious was your comment that you offer an “option: surgery or not as the case demands”. Wow, what a vast toolbox! Anything else you offer? Must you cut everyone open to make them feel better? Oh I’m sorry you did say, you refer them to a physiotherapist for manipulation. So if you can’t cut something, then you are lost it would seem… how limited your toolbox was. I’m sure you saved countless lives in these extreme situations. I just see your everyday Joe blogs and Mrs Smith. But they are ecstatic to get some quality of life back, and that’s enough for me.

Some of you may have been tainted by chiropractic, probably personally, such as SKEPTICAT above, who had the unfortunate incident with his daughter, and is now naturally jaded. I’m sure if the chiropractor had been the only one to have successfully diagnosed the problem, and referred accordingly, he or she would have been hailed. I know I’ve been the only one to notice a few conditions before, much to the delight of my patients and the astonishment (and embarrassment) of their doctors. It never ceases to amaze me the power of a traumatic event or bad experience – we can instantly generalise and assume that everyone is the same, even though logically we know the laws of probability are against us.

Finally in reference to this comment. Do not wish for me that I had found myself into an orthodox profession. I’m happy where I am. I do not have any problem with mainstream medicine. In fact I work alongside physios and GPs and regularly send and receive referrals to and from surgeons such as you. They respect what I do, and realise that it works. I have the best of both worlds, and I do it all with my “magic hands”

Anyway. I know this argument can go on and on and on so it’s important to know when to stop. My only aim is to offer any potential reader some food for thought and perhaps another side to this otherwise extremely biased discussion. Luckily any reader with common sense can see that, but it’s still good to have the perspective.

On to the next comment….

Dear Dr Quack,

How do you know you are not as deluded about your justifications of chiropractic as subluxtion-based chiropractors?

I wish I knew your name. However,thank you very much for your posting from which we can learn much.

I know what a physiotherapist does, and that is what you do – with additional manipulation. What other differences are there?

My comments about facet joints referred to numerous patients for numerous reasons. Facet joints are very hard to move without considerable force. e.g. in a major accident. It might be they get stiff capsules which benefit from manipulation (and heat, and excercise)but that does not ammount to any form of ‘adjustment. It just doesn’t. Please move on. I asked you if you had seen a facet joint (in a living patient). Apparently not.

We just do not recognise the term ‘orthopaedic examination.’ There are a variety of physical examination techniques, but none used exclusively by orthopaedic surgeons. A ‘neurological examination’ specifies the neurological system. but there is not a ‘orthopaedic system’ nor ‘orthopaedic tests’ – so the terms you use are simply not receognised by the orthodox community. I cannot of course speak for alternative practitioners. You will have your alternative views of life, the universe and everything. I am sure we all agree the answer is 42.

I always told my students that surgery could be carried out by any well trained orang-utan. But they had to be well trained, and versed in the scientific method!

And now to the rub of it. I am sorry your ambition to become a doctor like your brother was not fullfilled. As you correctly point out, there are many faults with some medical practitioners and we could have done with your particular insights and dedication. But although I get the sense that you scouted around to find a job in the healthcare field which would provide satisfaction, I remain unclear why you settled on chiropractic. The elements of practice you describe are not exclusive to chiropractic. What is the USP of chiropractic? Metaphysical, magical, imaginative. Mot manipulation – that can be done by other practitioners (as the Government review on back pain pointed out – citing ostepaths, physios and doctors).

So, just what do you imagine you are doing when you move all this ‘innate’ about? Or has that gone the way of ‘subluxations’? If so, what’s left?

You seem to misunderstand the nature of surgery. We do not want to operate. We only do so when there is no reasonable alternative. (Which fortunately is often enough to provide us with a good living). If we find any practitioner operating when not necessary, we disclipine them. Even strike them off. We are very tough on unethical behaviour.

The decision is more important than the incision. Deciding whether to operate (and when, how etc.) is more important than the doing of it. Good surgeons know when to say “no.”

Finally, I note your claim you have the best of “both worlds”.From my perspective, there is only “one world” – and we live in it. Cartesian dualism, superstition, vitalism, macriapheric medicine are now the alternative to modern rational scientific evidence-based medicine.

May the wu be with you, and your chakras ever be aligned.

Best wishes,

Your new friend who cares about you,

Richard

Richard, my new friend…

I actually like you a lot. You’re very witty and funny, and we can assume you have half a brain being a surgeon.

I’m sorry to disappoint you with me answer, but I didn’t care whether I became a chiropractor or an osteopath. I applied for both, got an interview for both, and got accepted for both. The reason I chose chiropractic was more logistics, living near the college, already having a life and a job that would support my studies.

All I cared about was being in a healthcare profession which ticked all the boxes. Those boxes were – Getting patients better without drugs or surgery, being in charge of all aspects of the care at all stages, having a good thorough grounding in all the necessary medical sciences, and of course more lifestyle related criterion such as self-employment status and good quality of life.

You said you wished I’d seen a facet joint in a living patient. Sadly I have not had the privilege, I’ve only dissected cadavers while studying my first degree – Human Anatomy (or anatomical sciences), alongside the medical and dentistry students at Cardiff University where I studied before I did chiropractic.

By the way, not once did I mention innate intelligence. Nor do I believe I affect that. Maybe I do, if it exists, but it clearly doesn’t affect my practice whether I consider it or not. My patients get better, and I haven’t mentioned the word innate intelligence in the 3 and half years since graduating! So it makes no difference to me (or my patients clearly). You seem quite obsessed with these age-old chiropractic beliefs. In fact you probably know more about them than I do. It is possible to practice chiropractic without mentioning them throughout your career, if you want to.

I think one of the major questions you have is what makes me different to a physiotherapist?
I find this easier to answer than the classic “What’s the difference between a chiropractor and an osteopath?”

Well firstly we train for longer, our undergraduate education is to Masters level and a yearlonger. We are required to learn more, study more hours, and dedicate the vast majority of our practical skills training to palpation and manipulation of the spine.

Our education gears us up to be primary care practitioners. To be able to formulate a working diagnosis and to devise a plan of management and to implement it. We have more accountability for what we do. We do not get told by GPs “Mrs Smith has mechanical low back pain, please provide some relief and help her strengthen her back so she can return to work” blah blah blah.
That is a part of what we do. But I will say, and upset a few physios, that our education encompasses theirs, and adds a whole lot more. The fact of the matter is that we have a huge variety of techniques to relieve pain and improve function in the spine. We dedicate countless hours to the study of biomechanics to know the angulation of each joint, how each one moves individually and as part of a greater system. We spend years refining our extremely fast ability to manipulative, to deliver the cornerstone “High Velocity Low Amplitude manipulative adjustment” to the joint at exactly the right speed and vector to cause instantaneous improvement in joint function.
I’m sorry but physios just don’t train as much as we do, and they don’t manipulate as well or as confidently as we do. They have far fewer adjustments taught to them even at postgraduate level, and they don’t spend long enough honing these skills. They are trained and groomed to answer to the medial profession. We are doctors of chiropractic. We deserve this title and I use it proudly, though not misleadingly which is the key. A physiotherapist is a musculoskeletal generalist. We specialise in treating the spine. So personally if I had a spine problem I’d want to see the guy who had trained the most in treating the spine. Wouldn’t you?? Is it just me or would you agree that this is common sense.

Remember I work alongside physiotherapists at a multidisciplinary clinic in London. There our physios often refer their own patients to the chiropractic team for manipulation of joints that they themselves cannot release. They gladly admit this without feeling as though their egos are permanently damaged. They are professional and know their limits, as do I. I don’t treat everything that walks in to the clinic. I refer many people to Orthopods, neurologists, spinal surgeons and so forth.

The key is to know your limits and (as you said, and I often say myself) to know when to say no. A good chiropractor will know when to say, “I can’t treat this”. The word chiropractor can be substituted with a practitioner of any healthcare branch.

As professionals we all have egos, and the funny thing is that usually, inter-professional arguments about the validity of one treatment over another stem from ego-battles. Even you yourself started one post with a listing of your qualifications and esteemed job roles and privileges. It’s always about proving your worth and obtaining validation from others.

I’m not trying to boost my ego. I’m just passionate about what I do. I enjoy what I do. It’s not rocket science. It gets people better. It makes me happy. I practice honestly and ethically. I sleep well and without guilt each night.

you challenge using your status as a medical doctor and your experience in various roles to intimidate me but you fail. I could study medicine in 4 years with a graduate access course at Kings College London, or one of many other UK courses. I could do a PhD if I wanted to. All these things for what? to gain more credibility to be able to waffle my way through and win arguments about philosophy against other professionals???
What a waste of energy. I don’t need any of it. Because I’m logical, rational, open minded and passionate. I as many people am also able to see through the venom spewed on these websites as nothing more than thinly veiled jealousy and a send of threat. If Chiropractic didn’t threaten people in the medical community in any way, they wouldn’t feel the need to try to bring it down.

That is why you won’t succeed. Because your side of the fight is based on psychological feelings of inadequacy. Ours is fought from the side that what we do WORKS and we know it does and we are passionate about it. You need only ask the important person in this whole debate.

THE PATIENT.

Can I ask how many years of study it takes for astrology to be true?

Can you say something intelligent worthy of the effort of a reply, Andy?

And your name is?

Just because someone believes they have studied hard, does not mean that what they study is true.

I hope you understand this point.

Why do you call it the Royal College of Chiropractors?

http://www.chiropractic-uk.co.uk/college-of-chiropractors-granted-royal-charter-163-news.aspx

I see you’ve made the same basic mistake that many other chiros have made.

The College of Chiropractors are not entitled to call themselves the Royal anything; they simply now have a Royal Charter of Incorporation – it hands a lot of power over to the Privy Council and simply puts them on a par with the likes of:

London Homoeopathic Hospital
The Worshipful Company of Launderers
The Worshipful Company of International Bankers
Worshipful Company of Builders’ Merchants
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
Worshipful Company of Basketmakers
The Worshipful Company of Marketors
Basildon Borough
Girl Guides Association
The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers

No offence to members of these esteemed organisations.

Andy, this is quite important;

There seems to be a post missing here from Dr Quack. Has it been lost by the blog software?

I’m fairly sure it contained the following words.

“Yes, Alan, you are quite right. There is no such thing as a ‘Royal College of Chiropractors’ all we have is a charter that sets us on the same footing as some basketmakers.”

Do be a good chap and look for it. I would not want Dr Quack to appear ungracious and as if he has blithely ignored the correction Alan has made.

Alan, are you saying that the whole premise of the title of this blog post, “Royal College of Vestigial Victorian…” is false?

It took a bit of digging to fully understand the situation – Andy was no doubt going on what many chiros seemed to be claiming, but all the College of Chiropractors has been granted is a Royal Charter of Incorporation and that does not entitle them to call themselves the Royal College of Back-crackers Anonymous or anything else. No doubt proclamations such as:

This new award for the College of Chiropractors puts it on a similar footing to the other Royal Colleges in medicine and dentistry. (Source)

by Matthew Bennett, an officer of the College and Vice-President of the British Chiropractic Association, had a lot to do with the ‘misunderstanding’ that surrounded the announcement.

For further details, please see my blog post: A right Royal chiro cock-up.

Well at least this conversation ain’t going down the Iqbal/Mr A C Fontaine route.

As my idea of science is hitting rocks with a hammer (i know – a bit like the monkeys at the start of 2001) i am sure there are plenty of contributors who can better respond to the above.

Just one point. The chiropractic stand in the shopping mall at Walton-on-Thames offered me backquackery with no further discussion. That would have been another three superior endplate collapses.

You sound vaguely human – not all of your industry shares that quality.

Where do you stand on things like infant colic, ear ache, bed wetting etc.

LOL I am almost flattered John! I THINK you said something nice? Yes I am vaguely human, part human, part duck (hence my name). Sorry I’m just joining in with the whole ridiculousness of the site and its contributors, I lied about my duck ancestry.

I cannot STAND the stands at shopping centres. I abhor them, and agree with someone else above who said they look tacky and cheap. Personally if your business isn’t doing well enough on it’s own to bring in new patients, then you need to change your practice style and perhaps take a course in patient communication to boost referrals. I agree with you wholeheartedly that they are awful. And this would be an example in my opinion of unethical practice, to offer someone treatment without the necessary pre-screening procedures. I can assure you if you came to see me, you would not be manipulated or at risk.

This subject brings up the KEY fundamental problem here. This problem is not exclusive to chiropractic, but is present in mainstream medicine and all healthcare where there is MONEY involved. This is the difficult issue of ethics as a whole.

What needs to be addressed is UNETHICAL practice.

We shouldn’t aim to bring down a whole profession. We need to address this issue of unethical practice. How do we do this? What is unethical practice? how do you ensure that people practice ANY field ethically. We need to more closely and tightly regulate the profession in my opinion to stamp out the few who spoil it for the many of us who genuinely ARE ethical, honest and patient-centred.
Unfortunately some people become blinded by money and financial gain and the priority becomes generating wealth instead of improving people’s lives.

This is a hard issue to tackle, but it’s one I personally wish to support as fiercely as I can. Maybe then websites like this will cease to exist.

P.s. I don’t treat the conditions you mentioned, but I know many who do very successfully, we just need more research which is in progress so watch this space. Remember the World was flat once. Just saying 😉

Dr Quack wrote: “The risk of Arterial dissection, following manipulation has been found to be negligible. Are you aware of the Bone and joint Decade task force on neck pain? And it’s findings?”

I am, but I don’t think you are. That Cassidy et al study – that’s been so widely touted by chiropractors – was fatally flawed. See: http://tinyurl.com/bp7dkn3

What do you believe Bronfort adds to the evidence for chiropractic manipulations?

It looks like Dr Quack isn’t going to answer your question about Bronfort and the evidence for chiropractic. Put perhaps we shouldn’t be too surprised. After all, it seemed to cause the General Chiropractic Council to contradict itself:

“…the GCC can’t maintain that Hancock is irrelevant because it’s not about chiropractic manipulations, yet allow their prized Bronfort Report off the hook when it cites trials mainly not about chiropractic.

Once all those non-chiropractic manipulations have been removed from the Bronfort Report, what’s left?

Not a jot.”

http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/11/where-the-evidence-leads/

Dr Quack wrote: “The Anglo European College of Chiropractic
and Welsh Institute of Chiropractic, two of the colleges of
chiropractic education in the UK, have full and varied research
interests.” I think you’ll find the the Anglo European College of
Chiropractic (AECC) has a pretty dubious track record with regard
to research:
http://www.ebm-first.com/component/search/?searchword=anglo&searchphrase=all&Itemid=101
As for the Welsh Institute of Chiropractic, enquiries have been
made in the past regarding the science base for its teachings:
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/uk-chiropractic-issues/1556-an-email-to-the-university-of-glamorgan.html
I understand from the neuroscientist who made the enquiries that
they were met with evasive responses.

Watch out Mr Surgeon, the Gestapo are on to you!

He’s not 35 years old…he’s been a spinal surgeon for 35 years! I hope you are more thorough with your patient details

Sorry Dick, my friend 😉
Couldn’t resist!

Hope you don’t mind me calling you Dick? As in short for Richard of course!
I wouldn’t want anyone thinking I was calling people names on a “professional forum”

BTW, English spinal surgeon 35 years, just because some chiropractors don’t use the term ‘subluxation’ (the non-orthopaedic type) doesn’t mean that they don’t still buy into it. There are over 329 terms relating to it – more than enough to bamboozle patients…
http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=5404275&postcount=14

You are nothing but a TWAT

That is a serious point. Your patients may believe your bone crunching did them good. You may believe that too. But since lower bacl pain is a self-resolving issue why should you associate your actions with any improvement?

That is the central problem with all quackery.

If its self resolving as you claim, why did the NICE Guidelines in 2009 recommend smt for chronic low back pain? If its self resolving why do so many prescribe medication/ administer cortisone injections to ”resolve” this common ‘self-resolving’ complaint?

It puts it on a par with a couple of paracetamol. The truth is we do not know how to treat lower back pain effectively.

And as for chiropractic, NICE made some fundamental errors there.

http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1516

And whilst some things may reduce pain temporarily (possibly a back crack), we do not have any therapies that actually resolve most problems. Chiropractors admitting that would be a big thing.

Tell that to a patient that has had back pain for 30 years, no surgeon will touch them. Drugs don’t touch the pain. Do they not deserve a chance of being pain free?! Because this occurs on the daily basis. I could show you 1000 testimonial like this. They would tell you to fuck off! You have no idea what your talking about as your not a doctor!!!!! Fuck off… Ps your shift as asda starts in 10 minutes. Your website is shit. Your Jelious that you don’t get to help the thousands abandoned by medicine.

citation needed

Andy, take all the paracetamol you want…I’d rather keep my liver in tact an have an adjustment!

I have suffered from bad back pain. Keeping mobile, a few pain killers when required, and all resolved. I could easily have been suckered into spending £100’s of pounds with a spine wizard over many weeks of “treatment” and then “maintenance”, but fortunately, I had access to good information – which a chiro would never have given me.

I knew the postman would go without anyone barking.

And of course, you have still to explain what it is exactly you are ‘adjusting’. You have had 100 years to get to the bottom of that.

This is a rather unfair post! You are nothing but a T W A T

I believe the likes of David Beckham, Venus Williams, Tiger Woods, Andy Murray and Bradley Wiggins, to name but a few, have utilised regular chiropractic care to keep them at the top of their games. All of which have quoted the benefit of the treatment. I’m sure spending a few £100 pounds on care to get them earning a whole heap more and winning and being at the top of their chosen sport is of great value to them. I’d like you to challenge them on their decisions to have chiropractic treatment to keep them at their optimum…none of them were quoted stating ‘paracetamol kept me at the top of my game.’ On a smaller scale, the average Joe Bloggs who is told to ‘rest’ who relies on work to put bread on the table equally values the relief from chiropractic care they receive which allows gem to return to work as quickly as possible. In your opinion it may be temporary relief but surely that’s enough to get them back in their feet and earning again as statutory sick pay does not cover the average household monthly expenditure! I’m ire you feel spending £100s on chiropractic is a waste of money but for some its nothing to get them back to their normal activities!

I believe the likes of David Beckham, Venus Williams, Tiger Woods, Andy Murray and Bradley Wiggins, to name but a few, have utilised regular chiropractic care to keep them at the top of their games.

It’s no more convincing when you do this than it is when Dana Ullman does it.

Of course, there is no evidence whatsoever that chiropractic can help sports performance. I see it as nothing but a scam with the only mitigating factor being that the scam is often perpetuated by the unwitting.

Dr bored of this wrote: “I believe the likes of David Beckham, Venus Williams, Tiger Woods, Andy Murray and Bradley Wiggins, to name but a few, have utilised regular chiropractic care to keep them at the top of their games. All of which have quoted the benefit of the treatment.”

There is no conclusive evidence that chiropractic helps to treat or prevent sports injuries:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2011.01111.x/full

Remember, superstition is rife among athletes. If they thought a witchdoctor would boost their performance, they’d bring one in. Having a chiropractor on hand to crack a few joints could simply be another form of pulling on ‘lucky socks’.

Sports teams and professional dance companies are major employers of physiotherapists, not chiropractors. So in high performance physical disciplines where there is a lot of money at stake people choose what works, and that is generally physio. I’ve certainly never come across a professional dancer using chiropractic.

Of course dancers and athletes are going to do all the work that it takes to get themselves 100% back into shape, and that’s the main difference: for a completely passive approach to physical problems, see a chiropractor. But chiropractic will not fix the problem, just manage some symptoms, hence the interminable repeat visits which are the basis of the chiro business model.

Can you by see the evidence provided by myself and my colleagues above? The BMJ has also been quoted. If these sports people, who are far more successful than you believe it helps them then let them be. I believe dance groups and sports teams hire Physios because thy come at a much cheaper price. I believe that a few of the premier league teams in the Uk have started to utilise Chiropractic, physiotherapy, a course which takes 3 years to train in is beginning to show its true colours, anybody can dish out some exercises and stretches but sound ubderstanding of the complex musculoskeletal system takes a long time an continued commitment to be able to treat it. We are required every year to provide 30 hours of CPD, how many are Physios asked to do? I have relatives and friends in the medical profession who are shocked at the course requirement we as chiropractors go through, the same can also be said for osteopaths. It’s frightening how you back medicine which has less, positive evidence than us to be up with the gold standard. Don’t get me wrong, if I was hit by a bus, take me to A&E but for chronic conditions I wouldn’t be found within 10 miles of the place! Wasn’t there a famous quote along the lines of ‘whilst money can be made from cancer, there will never be a cure’ This somes up medicine for me…I’m leaving this forum now because all I see is narrow minds and the realisation has hit, you don’t want what’s best for the patient, you wan an ego boost, I couldn’t give two s***s who helps my patient, as long as they get the best result, and if I have to send them on for further investigation than I’m big enough to admit that…can the same be said for you?!

Alan wrote: “I do not see you providing good evidence that
shows that the risks of chiropractic treatment for low back pain
outweighing the benefits. Here’s some: Quote “Chiropractors view
the spine as an entity. Where they diagnose ‘subluxations’, they
will normally manipulate and ‘adjust’ them (11). And ‘subluxations’
will be diagnosed in the upper spine, even if the patient suffers
from back pain. Thus many, if not most back pain patients receive
upper spinal manipulations. It follows that the risks of this
treatment should be included in any adequate risk assessment.” Ref:
Spinal manipulation for the early management of persistent
non-specific low back pain — a critique of the recent NICE
guidelines, Edzard Ernst, Int J Clin Pract (18th August 2009)
Reference (11) is Ernst E. Chiropractic: a critical evaluation. J
Pain Sympt Man 2008; 35: 544–62. Page 6 of the paper mentions a
report that indicates that only 11% of all cervical manipulations
are “appropriate” and gives the reference Coulter I, Hurwitz E,
Adams A, et al. The appropriateness of manipulation and
mobilization of the cervical spine. Santa Monica, CA: RAND,
1996:18e43. Alan wrote: “So far your ‘evidence’ seems to mostly
consist of websites pointing out the flaws in chiropractic
research. Whilst there is no denying the importance of good
critique, this in itself does not constitute evidence to the
contrary.” Have you got anything better than the content of the
following two links?
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/research-and-efficacy.html
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/risks.html

Alan wrote: “Also the figure of 97% of chiropractors claiming to treat ‘subluxations’ (apologies, I could not find the proper reference above) is quoted as being worldwide. This statistic, therefore, is not valid when applied to UK chiropractors, whom I think have proven here are largely not of this persuasion.”

Wrong. Around 70% of UK chiropractors buy into vertebral subluxation theory. See here: http://tinyurl.com/avlwx3z

If you have any more recent figures, please provide them.

Thank you for your response, I find this better than what has been posted here previously. I do not have anything to add other than what has already been posted above. As clearly people on both sides of this argument are not going to change their minds, I don’t really have anything more to say. I’m just pleased that there is at least some research to back up some of the very critical comments directed towards chiropractic.

Chiropractors use techniques which may provide benefit.Fine. No problem. We can accept that. We can argue about the evidence, and the extent to which patients benefit, but let’s just accept that the manipulative techniques do provide some relief for some people. And can be provided also by osteopaths, doctors, physiotherapists.

Chiropractic is a “Primary healthcare profession”. That is, patients will attend a chiropractor in the first instance before being referred, if necessary, to secondary care. Chiropractors have to make an initial diagnosis, they will investigate, examine, and then devise a treatment programme. They are practicing medicine, albeit unlicensed by the GMC. Some even claim to be doctors.

They have entered the chiropractic profession because it entertains beliefs about subluxations, adjustments, distant somatic effects thereby, innate intellegence, vital spirits, metaphysical constructs and a distain for the principles of scientific research.

If they do not hold to those beliefs, they can hardly call themselves chiropractors – they are heretics. It would seem they have entered the wrong profession. Or failed to leave it.

We should help them all we can and not abuse them in their hour of need.Let us all try to move on. Science cannot prove non-sense is nonsense. We have to make a judgement about the likelihood any proposal is true. Most healthcare professionals who have looked at the claims advanced by chiropractors have judged them to be highly improbable, and therefore chiropractic is an alternative to regular orthodox medicine.

As long as patients understand that, and give informed consent, I have no problem. Put deceipt, deception, denial into the mix and we might have quacks. If they seek to gain pecuniary advantage thereby – possibly frauds. How are we to tell?

(Contingent phrases and words included to avoid claims of libel).

Bingo! First line, first fallacy. That, Alan, is the No True Scotsman. It’s one of my favourites.

Pray tell, what is wrong with that chiropractor.

Must go and walk the dogs. I’ll leave you to mull over an answer. Don’t run away now.

BSM: Have you counted the number and variety of fallacies in Miss Happy Patient’s comment?

Hmm…The wrongness strong in that one it is, yes.

For a bit of fun I’ve had a go. It can be quite hard to link every piece of wrongness with a specific fallacy type and some contain elements of more than one fallacy or have fallacies concatenated. It turns out that Miss Happy Patient said nothing that wasn’t fallacious in some way. This is not unique in SCAMsters but it does take some effort to say nothing of any merit.

Thanks to Wikipedia;

1. I had low back pain from my teenage years through to my mid twenties. I was a very active child, doing ballet and other dance several times a week from age 5, playing hockey for a team, swimming twice a week – to give you a background that I was very strong and flexible. I went to the GP when I was in my late teens, to be told to ‘stretch more’….!! So I just carried on as I was. My pain didn’t resolve, or ‘self-limit’, it continued, for years, and it affected my life. I know many people like this, whose pain doesn’t resolve naturally. Eventually, on a trip to LA my relative who lived there said to me ‘why don’t you just see a Chiro!?’ …’a what?’ I’d never heard of Chiro’s or Osteo’s before. So I went to see her Chiro, he was very nice, he did a thorough physical exam and adjusted me. I don’t remember any talk of ‘subluxation’ or ‘innate intelligence’, I remember a very mechanical explanation, the adjustment was comfortable if a little surprising, and GREATLY reduced my pain which remained improved.

Argument from anecdote
Post hoc, ergo propter hoc

2. That was about 15 years ago now. I’ve since seen other Chiro’s for headaches (again, they were a chronic problem that hadn’t resolved on their own) which I had great relief from,

Argument from anecdote
Post hoc, ergo Propter Hoc

3. and now every now ant then if I have a mechanical problem with my body. If you had a machanical problem with your car would you not rather get it fixed than just let it carry on and cause other problems?!

Begging the question.

4. I’ve always found them to be very competent, effective, ethical, and a very positive experience from which I get instant and lasting relief.

Appeal to authority
Post hoc

5. I find it very insulting to myself, and other patients who know their own body and own mind, when people insinuate that it’s nothing more than placebo or that it would have got better anyway, and that it’s all ‘quackery’.

Hasty generalisation
Special pleading
Wishful thinking

6. Really, we’re not that stupid!

Argumentum ad populum
Strawman

7. The Chiropractor has always answered my questions with mechanical and physiological explanations that make a lot of sense. I am practically minded, educated to degree level and run my own business in the conservation sector, so I repeat, I’m really not particularly stupid!

Appeal to authority
Dunning-Kruger Effect

8. Friends and family who’ve followed my advice to ‘just go and see someone’ have also been very happy, and grateful (usually saying to me ‘I should have done this ages ago’) for the treatment.

Post hoc
Argumentum ad populum

9. They are also not stupid people.

Strawman
But actually Dunning-Kruger Effect

10. I find it sad that people who could potentially get help are put off trying something very positive and effective, and fundamentally basic (it’s restricted, lets get it moving, it’s tight, lets relax it), by reviews such as this.

Causal Oversimplification

11. Reviews done under the guise of ‘informing potential patients’ but actually just seem to insult and nit-pick, going over the same old thing. Reading through all the comments I feel the Chiropractors have explained themselves well, the critics seem to be just repeating the same questions over and over again even though they have been answered.

Dunninbg-Kruger

12. I also find it very bizarre that people (the chiro critics I’m talking about here) can accept that other therapies don’t work for everyone, every time – such as medications, surgery, exercise, etc. – but seem to expect a 100% success rate for Chiropractors/Osteopaths/Acupuncturists/etc??!!

Strawman + Nirvana Fallacy

13. The human being is a very complex thing, on many levels, and to expect that one thing will work 100% for every type of case on every type of person with every type of upbringing/lifesyle is a little…. unrealistic?

Strawman

14. How about a little balance, kindness

Appeal to pity

15. and open-mindedness?

Ad hominem
Strawman

16. After all, the guy who fist had the idea of ‘germs’ – little pathogens that could be transported on our hands – and desperately tried to enforce the washing of hands in hospitals, ended his days in a mental asylum because all his contemporaries thought him mad for his crazy ideas!

Red herring

They laughed at Columbus, they laughed at Fulton, they laughed at the Wright brothers. But they also laughed at Bozo the Clown. Carl Sagan

Good grief! I didn’t really expect you to…but a good summary!

What is wrong with this chiropractor is that his method of diagnosis is, at best, a toy and his original diagnosis (an L5 subluxation) is a historical concept. My point being that, based on this one video, you cannot extrapolate your impression to all chiropractors. As I have already said elsewhere, it is the unethical chiropractors who like to hang around in shopping centres, using toys and gadgets to justify unnecessary treatment that should be held to account.

You make some good points, however I think you have taken literally what was intended to be a light hearted comment on diagnosing back pain by ‘pressing on the sore bit’. You have ignored the part about more thorough examination to stress different joints to more accurately identify the pain producing structure. Nobody thinks they are directly touching a facet joint, the same way nobody thinks that every low back complaint is related to facet joints.

I also find it interesting that you assume that you could not have a meaningful discussion with a man because of his claims about what happened when his students met Edzard Ernst. This does not make him incapable of discussion.

Alan

How would someone who was looking for a chiropractor know if he/she was one of these ‘ethical’ ones?

Who do you think should hold the ‘unethical’ ones to account?

Sorry, Alan, as soon as he claimed to have substituted a “biomechanical model” for the subluxation but could not define the former in any meaningful way, I decided that I preferred the ear-bleedingly loud music to exploring the nature of his students’ interactions with Prof Ernst.

In any case, I don’t feel I have missed out. Here are you lovely chiros to tell us all what you think you do.

P.S. You are welcome to pick up any of the substantive points I made.

Alan

Is the ‘Nervoscope’ a valid diagnostic tool?

Of course not, even it’s name sounds ridiculous!

Alan

Are the public being misled by a chiropractor who diagnoses using a nervoscope? If so, what is the profession doing to stamp out such unethical practices?

http://chirocity.com/nervo-scopenervoscope.aspx

The Nervo-Scope is used and respected for its efficient, informative and accurate results. These instruments are the most sensitive temperature measurement products available today. All of the competitive products compare themselves to the Nervo-Scope because, after 50 years, it still sets the standard for accurate and reliable results.

That’s the problem with pseudoscientific alternatives to medicine: there is no mechanism for discarding the obviously batshit insane.

WTF? $2,799.99 for a nervo-scope and recorder? Two thermocouples and a moving coil meter? They must have seen chiros coming…

Odd that it doesn’t say how accurate it is…

Great video.

Why is Arnie Schwarzenegger doing backcrackery.

If I was Justin I am buggered if I would let The Terminator twist my head around and crack my cervical vertebrae. Especially with his knee up my jacksie.

These Crackoscopes are not exactly cheap are they. No wonder Dr G had to milk Justin for two years. Merely confirms my belief that backcrackery is a self-justifying business and cash is the objective.

As an EBM comparison a kyphoplasty can offer immediate relief and mobility. It also eliminates the risk of stroke and daylight robbery.

“It also answers one of the quack comments above regarding Diclofenac. As far as I am aware doctors in the NHS no longer prescribe Diclofenac but prescribe Naproxen instead.”

“It makes me think that the alleged “GP” making that comment knows no more about medicine than I do (which may be neatly summarised as bugger all).”

so your making this comment without evidence and admitting you know bugger all about medicine? Your comments are useless then.

Diclofenac is still prescribed, thank god your not a GP eh?

Dave

I didn’t make the comment without evidence. I could provide you with a stack of evidence. I merely chose not to.

Fortunately even though I am not medically qualified I am able to understand the evidence and the statistical methods used to evaluate it.

My comments are no more useless than those of an MRI operator who is more than capable of using his scanner but probably has very little knowledge of nuclear physics.

That is why god invented statistics and experimental methodologies.

For the record your medical qualifications are what exactly.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “I have always told prospective patients to make sure you seek a reputable chiropractor, i.e one who is recommended to you (most patients do this anyway).”

Recommended by whom?

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Key signs to look out for are chiropractors who see more than one patient at a time or have a “high volume” of patients. They typically see a patient every 8 minutes. Watch out for a sales pitch – where you are encouraged to purchase vast amounts of treatments before hand. You should note some change in symptoms by the 4th visit (unless you have a particularly complex case, in which case a plan of management should be discussed, with expected outcomes and rehabilitative factors)”.

That’s as useless as the GCC’s answer to question 4 here:
http://www.gcc-uk.org/page.cfm?page_id=6

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Unethical practitioners are regularly brought before a conduct committee with the GCC. They are investigated and sentenced accordingly.”

Regularly? I think not. For example, the several hundred UK chiropractors who form the Alliance for UK Chiropractors haven’t been called to account for their unscientific practices.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “These cases are published on the GCC website. I do feel that those practices that partake in unethical practice will fail as patients realise the motives behind such practices.”

Why aren’t *all* those practices being stopped by the GCC right now? Is the GCC currently unaware of their “motives”?

I see that Dr Quackgood has displayed the usual frustrating behaviour of SCAMster posters here and has left this line of argument dangling while he tells us all about AC Milan.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Perhaps you should ask the share holders of AC Milan football club who entrust the position of the head of medical facility to a chiropractor? Go pay them a visit, you might bloody learn something about injury prevention.”

We might also learn about quackery. Wasn’t that entrusted chiropractor, J. P. Meeserman, a member of the panel that developed the WHO Guidelines on Basic Training and Safety in Chiropractic? Section 1.2 of the guidelines is quite revealing:

Quote:
“The concepts and principles that distinguish and differentiate the philosophy of chiropractic from other health care professions are of major significance to most chiropractors and strongly influence their attitude and approach towards health care. A majority of practitioners within the profession would maintain that the philosophy of chiropractic includes, but is not limited to, concepts of holism, vitalism, naturalism, conservatism, critical rationalism, humanism and ethics (9).”

Link: http://www.chiroeco.com/50/bonus/WHOguidelines.pdf

Apparently Meeserman implemented a non-medical, chiropractic approach for AC Milan just after he was appointed. But would we have seen any difference in the team if he had handed each player a lucky rabbit’s foot instead? IOW, can you prove that any improvement in the team was due to his philosophy?

The comment, “Or do we have to wait until the patient’s teeth are falling out to prescribe fresh fruit juice” also betrays a remarkable degree of ignorance about medicine. Does he seriously imagine that cancer patients are not advised, and assisted, to eat a balanced diet (or at least, as balanced as they are able).

That, or Dr Quackgood is attacking a strawman wrapped up in a false dilemma.

Ironically, fruit juice is a nutritional pariah these days, as it is one of the biggest contributors to tooth decay. It contains as much sugar as soft drinks and almost none of the nutrition of the whole fruit. And many many people are on drugs that proscribe grapefruit juice, for example. Most hospitals ban grapefruit juice altogether to prevent drug interactions.

Firstly, the foot of page 15 on the link provided does not refer to what you are alluding to. It is a 12 month suspension order for Dr Vatsadze for practicing without valid registration.

Regarding the quote “The GCC’s expert witness advised that the discovery of subluxations (areas of vertebral restriction in the spinal joints) is commonplace to the point of universality in patients”
May I repeat myself in distinguishing between a term used to describe a dysfunctional motion segment (prevalent in most people who are sedentary) and a historic pseudoscientific claim that a blockage in the spine leads to a decrease in innate intelligence. Again, I make the comparison with the word hysterectomy – still used to describe the surgical removal of the uterus (complete or partial) and the origin of this word for the treatment of hysteria. You could no more fault a surgeon for using the word hysterectomy than a chiropractor for using the word subluxation, given the context.

Quite clearly from the quote you provided, the McTimony chiropractors follow their own discourse and should (and have been) reprimanded as such.

For a more accurate answer to the question of chiropractic history, perhaps consult early graduates of institutions, or heads of department.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Firstly, the foot of page 15 on the link provided does not refer to what you are alluding to. It is a 12 month suspension order for Dr Vatsadze for practicing without valid registration.”

Please note that I said it was on page 15 *of the pdf*. (It’s on page 13 on the original document.)

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Regarding the quote “The GCC’s expert witness advised that the discovery of subluxations (areas of vertebral restriction in the spinal joints) is commonplace to the point of universality in patients” May I repeat myself in distinguishing between a term used to describe a dysfunctional motion segment (prevalent in most people who are sedentary) and a historic pseudoscientific claim that a blockage in the spine leads to a decrease in innate intelligence.”

But it’s not distinguishable at all. That’s the problem. The term is being abused by the many UK subluxation-based ‘philosopher’ chiropractors – IOW, it allows them to scam unwitting patients.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Quite clearly from the quote you provided, the McTimony chiropractors follow their own discourse and should (and have been) reprimanded as such.”

As already highlighted, many of the McTimoney chiropractors are members of the Alliance of UK chiropractors. Why haven’t their – and the rest of the AUKC’s – pseudoscientific practices been outlawed by the GCC?

Or dentists. Or podiatrists. Or dieticians? Or psychologists. Occupational therapists? Mid wives. Paramedics? Pharmacists? It’s not just someone who holds an MD that can provide primary healthcare Dr Rawlins. I cannot deny that I wouldn’t benefit from holding an MD, but most likely I would be repeating myself, as much of the syllabus of MChiro overlaps with MD. This has been demonstrated, and I would be willing to demonstrate the depth and breadth of my knowledge if questioned (except for pharmacology, which is not covered, for obvious reasons).

What you’re also suggesting that medical doctors are free to act as they please. Heaven forbid that a GP perform spinal manipulation. It takes years to master this skill. Countless hours of practice and honing a psychomotor skill. I would no more trust a butcher to perform an appendectomy and expect to live. As I’m sure a surgeon as prestigious as yourself would agree, you take great pride in your abilities. So do we. I urge you to visit my clinic and engage in what I do. Surely I cannot hide any insecurities then?

Please be careful not to misquote me. I said “at the forefront of noninvasive musculoskeletal medicine”. You make it sound as though I imply we are pioneers in general medicine, which we are not.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “Heaven forbid that a GP perform spinal manipulation. It takes years to master this skill.”

Oh? Here’s what Edward Rothman, DC, a senior lecturer at the UK’s Anglo European College of Chiropractic, had to say not so long ago about chiropractic manipulative therapy…

Quote:
“…it is my perception that there are very few rational chiropractors willing to leave, what I have termed, the ritual induced placebo of our manipulative techniques, the monotherapeutic nature of the profession, and the unethical practice building…I am an American currently working at a chiropractic school in England. For me, AECC has been a little utopia because of the talented and dedicated people I work with. However, in the four years I have been in England, I have seen a change come over the profession there as more and more people take on American practice building methods and are attracted to irrational, illogical techniques and treatment pursuits, e.g., “occipito-sacral decompression in chiropractic paediatrics” (don’t even try to understand that one).”

Link: http://tinyurl.com/32l9o5e

So, it takes years to master a ritual induced placebo?

You are very good at misquoting people Mr Wode! In this monologue, Edward Rothman was lamenting about “wacky technique gurus, DCs with fake PhDs, sleazy practice builders, and ridiculous “diagnostic” methodologies (subluxation station, sEMG
scanning)” from the States. It is these people that he describes having “ritual induced placebo of our manipulative techniques, the monotherapeutic nature of the profession, and the unethical practice building”

He acknowledges these individuals as what they are, and observes more and more of their strategies being used in the UK.

“in the four years I have been in England, I have seen a change come over the profession there as more and more people take on American practice building methods and are attracted to irrational, illogical techniques and treatment pursuits.”

I agree with him. But this is not the chiropractic we represent. This is imported bullshit in a nature of get rich quick american dreams.

Edward Rothman expresses his dispair in the same monologue “Some of us can ban together and discuss these issues but will chiropractic/chiropractors ever
change? What hope do we have of making the radical changes to the profession that is needed to attract rational scientific people into the field, considering the general state of the profession and the historical and current stance of the ACA?”

It is the rational scientific people in the field of chiropractic that are here to make the stand and represent what has been said on this comment thread.

So when I talk about the mastery of manipulation, I’m not talking about snap crackle and pop practices Mr Wode. I am talking about the application of manual thrust at the right place at the right time to a mechanical lesion, as determined by a thorough case history and examination.

Dr Quackgood,

I have not misquoted you.

You restate that you said “at the forefront of …medicine”

In the English language, adjectives such as “noninvasive” and musculoskeletal” do not alter the sense of the noun they describe. In this case “medicine”.

You could have said “…therapy”, but you didn’t. You said, and repeated, “medicine.”

There has been no mention of “pioneers”. I do not know where you got that from.

Now you use the old straw man switch and imply I was refering to “healthcare” – when I specifically took you up on your point that you claimed to be at the forefront of “medicine”.

I’m sorry to disappoint you, but there is no curriculum for an UK MD, nor MS, MCh. They are higher degrees awarded by a university after examination on an original thesis following research carried out under the supervision of a professor.

And yes, a GP can carry out a manipulation, (I am only quoting Bronfort)but at all times has to act within his/her sphere of competence. So obviously they would have to learn the techniques. But that does not ammount to professing any sort of special insight or arcane knowledge about the nature of disease and the ability of unblocked ‘innate’ to affect somatic organs and tissues.

I am still unclear why you did not, or do not, become a doctor. Then the world would be your oyster.

Or why you did not spend three years qualifying as a physiotherapist, and then two more specialising in various manipulative techniques.

Unless of course you subscribe to a philosophical world view and metaphysical construct which is an alternative to those of science-based healthcare professions.Which we have developed since the Enlightenment.

Should you wish to take this thread further, please explain in what way the practice of physiotherapy differs from chiropractice. Please do not say “we use short amplitude adjustments”. Any physiotherapist, or doctor, could in time learn them. So what is the fundamental difference?

Until that can be explained chiropractic will remain an alternative for folks who like that sort of therapy.

Fine. That’s OK. Get on with it.

But please do not confuse it with “medicine”.

It’s two thermocouples, but let’s not quibble.

Inflammation may cause a localised temperature increase, but so might other factors. But if it is so unreliable and outdated, why do so many chiros still seem to be relying on it? Do you think there is a place for a regulator to ensure the public are protected form unreliable methods?

Yes sorry, two thermocouples. You’re quite right.

There are, as you rightly point out, many reasons for localised temperature increase, which adds to this device’s unreliability. I don’t use it, we’re not taught to use it at university and the only chiropractors I know who use it are from America or do not rely solely on it for identifying a manipulable lesion.

Yes, I think there is a great need to regulate, or somewhat homogenise, chiropractic practice. The main issue here is that the GCC does not define a scope of practice, only the qualification and conduct of the practitioner. This makes it difficult to police who is practicing what and how. Then of course you have the egos within the profession itself. Who will decide what technique is the best etc. For the moment it is an impossible situation as Blue Wode has correctly pointed out. Our stance, that of my peers, is a system of peer review. We all communicate what we observe to be the most effective treatment strategy within our professional tool box. For example, an alumni is in place where chiropractors can post queries about difficult cases they are presented with, and help is provided from other practitioner’s clinical experience.

The university programs are producing excellent clinicians who are versed in patient centred care. Post graduate training is also encouraged by the College of Chiropractors and of course annual CPD is mandatory for registration. I think footholds are in place to protect the public as much as possible. I think there is a long way to go, but it all begins with educating the public, which is why we post on comment threads such as these.

Dr Quackgood said:

The main issue here is that the GCC does not define a scope of practice, only the qualification and conduct of the practitioner. This makes it difficult to police who is practicing what and how.

No, it’s very easy, but one step they seem unwilling to take. The GCC regulates training courses: they could very easily refuse to recognise any training that teaches bogus techniques. The GCC state:

The GCC promotes high standards of chiropractic education and training to ensure that students, upon graduation, can meet the requirements of the GCC’s Code of Practice and Standard of Proficiency. The Code and Standard set out for patients the quality of care they are entitled to receive from chiropractors. For chiropractors they are the benchmarks of conduct and practice. (Source)

If chiros are being taught bogus techniques and the GCC allow this, and they aiding and abetting the breach of their CoP and failing to protect the public. All the regulator is doing then is protecting its registrants.

Then of course you have the egos within the profession itself. Who will decide what technique is the best etc.

Again, very easy. Let the robust scientific evidence decide, not the whims of egos, no matter how massive..

So are heroin addicts.

Dr Quacgood said:

I know you dont accept anecdotes, but I do.

Ah. The nub of the problem.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “If I correct a problem the patient does get better.”

How do you know that you’ve “corrected” a problem and that it’s not other factors which are producing positive outcomes?

I’m talking about self-serving biases and demand characteristics (e.g. the customer is unwilling to admit to having experienced poor outcomes if a great deal of time and money has been invested); the possibility that the condition may have run its natural course (i.e. self-limiting or cyclical ailments regressing to the mean); spontaneous remission; the placebo effect (enhanced by touch); the possibility that some allegedly cured or relieved symptoms were probably psychosomatic to begin with; and misdiagnosis.

Dr Quackgood wrote: “If I correct a problem the patient does get better.”

How do you know that you’ve “corrected” a problem…

Because the patient gets better. 😉

Ooh, circly.

Why, after 100-odd years, isn’t there a substantial and compelling body of robust research evidence for chiropractic?

Chris wrote: “It’s interesting how you seem to always reference the US – a model of chiropractic that is largely disconnected with the uk profession and public opinion.”

The US model is not “largely disconnected” with the UK profession. As already illustrated, many UK chiropractors adhere to original chiropractic theory (some while pretending to have abandoned it). At the same time, a minority are scratching around in desperation for good evidence because they’ve seen the writing on the wall. As for public opinion, it is irrelevant to this discussion. What we’re interested in is scientific data.

“As for public opinion, it is irrelevant to this discussion. What we’re interested in is scientific data.”

Really? That’s strange. The attention grabbing article title and typical out-dated anti-chiropractic diatribe that follows seems specifically targeted to stir up public opinion.

Chris wrote: “The attention grabbing article title and typical out-dated anti-chiropractic diatribe that follows seems specifically targeted to stir up public opinion.”

The current discussion is about the future of chiropractic, the security of which lies ultimately with its evidence base – i.e. Scenario 2 described in ‘The Future of Chiropractic Revisited: 2005 to 2015’:

Quote [my comments in brackets]

The cost squeeze in healthcare pushes many chiropractors to the brink. Consumer demand falls and managed care removes even more chiropractic coverage from their plans. [Already happening in the UK – insurance companies are further limiting numbers of visits to chiropractors, and many GPs will not refer to chiropractors because of the controversy surrounding it.]

Standards of care fall, insurance fraud is common, and many chiropractors turn to unethical behavior to sustain their practices. [Evidently true, for the most part. Chiropractic quackery is rife in the UK, but the GCC appears to turn a blind eye to it.]

Simultaneously, serious malpractice cases involving missed and ignored diagnosis of serious illnesses by super straight chiropractors become major media stories. [Becoming increasingly common in the international press, especially where chiropractors have failed to recognise patients’ VBA dissection symptoms.]

By 2015, the evidence base for chiropractic effectiveness advances little over the limited indications where chiropractors had been proven effective in 2005. [Already happening – Ref. Cochrane Reviews.]

Other providers offer spinal manipulation for lower back, neck, and chronic pain. DPTs and massage therapists take over a large percentage of
the cash market for back pain. The remaining chiropractors fight over the declining number of “true believer” patients who have had positive previous experiences with chiropractic and can afford to pay out-of-pocket. [This is what is likely to happen in the UK as healthcare becomes increasingly privatised.]

http://www.altfutures.com/pubs/health/Future%20of%20Chiropractic%20Revisted%20v1.pdf

“The current discussion is about the future of chiropractic”

How convenient.

And yet again you quote a US study…

The UK health industry is a totally different animal to the states. One in which the nhs is systematically and slowly killing off any faith people may have in the medical profession.

Chris wrote: “All healthcare professions need to evolve no matter how long they’ve been established.”

But around 90% of chiropractors haven’t evolved. They’re still stuck in 1895.

Chris wrote: “And if back pain was such a narrow field, why is it still such an apparent enigma to the health profession – surely it would be sorted by now?”

I wasn’t talking about back pain. I was questioning your limited chiropractic “system” which you said was “growing and evolving”. How can that be true when, after 100+ years, around 90% of chiropractors continue to cling to outdated chiropractic subluxation theory (the only aspect of chiropractic that was ever unique)?

Chris wrote: “…the GCC are simply a regulator and they cannot sit and watch every chiropractor in the country. They ensure chiropractors are trained and insured and issue guidelines on how to practice…”

So why don’t those guidelines consign subluxation theory to the bin – or at the very least, not just claim that it is an historical concept, but that it’s also *not linked to health concerns*? See:
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/uk-chiropractic-issues/1825-subluxations-still-no-evidence.html

Chris wrote: “Are you saying that no chiropractic patients get better because of our treatments and advice? It’s all in people’s heads or simply gets better by itself? Bollocks is the only word that sums that up really.”

I think that it is likely that many positive outcomes are due to non-specific effects. Certainly, the more robust evidence that has emerged in recent times is increasingly suggesting that.

Chris wrote: “…chiropractors primarily specialise in the diagnosis and treatment of spinal complaints, using manipulation as their main tool.”

“the *treatment* of spinal complaints” Are you sure? There’s definitely not a consensus about that. I’ve lost count of the number of times that chiropractors have declared very vocally that they don’t “treat” anything.

Chris wrote: “How do you know it would save billions of pounds?” How do you know it wouldnt?”

You made the claim, so it’s up to you to provide sound evidence that it would.

I find it hilarious that people still actually quote Edzard as a reputable “fountain of knowledge” on all matters complimentary related!

It only takes a basic Masters level understanding of research and how to read a scientific paper to understand that not only are his papers often flawed, full of misuse of research (taking things completely out of context) and ultimately, the biggest mistake in research BIASED (quite transparently), but can you actually not see the HILARIOUS Irony in his EX-position of ‘self-appointed’ chair of Complimentary and alternative medicine, or whatever Throne he created for himself?

He is the biggest joke of this mission to bring down various therapies in the stupidest way. We don’t even care about what he has to say any more. it’s a case of eye-rolling and saying “oh here he goes again”, but really, we do not worry about whatever Ernst comes up with next.

Reason being is that philosophically he, like everyone else, is going about it the wrong way.

Let me offer a more logical solution for you guys, because clearly you can’t think for yourselves, even collectively, so I’m going to point out the obvious to you.

If you want to stop unethical practice in chiropractic, as in any healthcare profession (I hope you feel equally passionate about it in other professions as much as chiropractic of course, as I do), then you need to have a different approach.

Anyone can read your material and Ernst’s material and see it for what it is. Biased, NAME-CALLING and ultimately a little childish and unprofessional.

You are choosing to bad-mouth an ENTIRE branch of healthcare. Generalising hugely, making unsubstantiated claims and trying to portray everyone as the same.

EVERYONE knows that you can’t generalise about an entire population of people. You wouldn’t say that ALL doctors are incredible, or every policeman is honest, or that all teachers are inspiring, or that the weather is ALWAYS rainy. We ALL know through experience that there are exceptions to the rule.

So saying all Chiropractors adhere to archaic philosophies, no longer even taught in the UK, and are all sneaky, unethical, dangerous neck-snappers, simply Screams stupidity. And unfortunately being so wrapped up in your mission, you are blinkered to the fact that the general population is more intelligent than that, and most people know someone nowadays with a fantastic story to tell of their chiropractic experience.

This coupled with a failing NHS and disillusioned patients means one thing. More and More and MORE AND MORE patients will turn to us for the help and relief that we KEEP on providing.

Our service to the public goes above and WAY beyond what the NHS and “mainstream” medicine provides. We offer symptomatic relief and lifestyle advice which is tailored to the individual. Something the NHS can’t offer sadly, through no fault of their own.

Let me offer YOU some advice now.

Be a little cleverer.

Target specific Chiropractors. Try and do a little more research.

Find those who GENUINELY practice unethically.

Become superheroes protecting the public from these swines!!!

Catch the bad guys and make them suffer for prioritising money over patient health. Oh yes I said it, we are ALL aware it happens. As it does in private “mainstream” medicine too. In fact every day in ALL businesses!

Catch those naughty chiropractors and make them pay, get them struck off and stop them practicing.

I want this as much as you do, because THEN it will stop people like ME from getting a bad reputation. No longer then will we good guys have to read and listen to crap like this website and whatever Ernst has to say, though I admire his stamina! WOW not bad for an old man!

Anyway, just a suggestion.

I would like to elevate this honorable mission of yours to an above playground level, so that you may actually be effective in your task!

You’re not exactly getting very far at the moment sadly…….

Good luck though!

No thank you.

The entire philosophical,ethical and scientific basis of chiropractic is dubious and suspect. And while it is, we will continue to look at the entire profession.

Dr Quack wrote: “If you want to stop unethical practice in chiropractic…then you need to have a different approach.”

Isn’t stopping unethical practice the General Chiropractic Council’s job? It’s been nearly 12 years and we’re still waiting…

How about you have a look at General medicine. If you would bother just the tiniest bit to do some research, you’d figure out that half the treatments that GPs offer for which is no ESTABLISHED evidence base, are DETRIMENTAL to the health of the patient.

Chiropractic on the other hand RARELY harms patients. And you guys are the go-to guys on that right? Tell me, because i know you’ll be commenting, tell me the last accident of chiropractic treatment ?
(you do know what an accident is right? the difference with an incident? Go look it up, don’t let me catch you out, because it would be really, REALLY dumb of you to let me catch you out on something so utterly basic)

And then look up the last accident within General Medicine. I seem to recall the needless death of 13,000 patients whilst in hospital care. (Here, in case you draw a blank: http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/5012503/13000-patients-feared-to-have-needlessly-die-at-14-deathtrap-hospitals.html)

This discussion is too silly to further engage in. You sir, Andy Lewis, are a half brain. Speak to me after you bothered doing some research.

We know Who writes ‘the Quackometer’ is – Andy Lewis, who is really, Andy Lewis.

For the record, just who are you?

And since you ask, an ‘accident’ is a mishap. Do you mean that strokes after chiropractic manipulation are meant to happen?
Thought not.

So we are left with practitioners trying, and failing, to ‘adjust’ subluxations which no one save those of that faith have ever identified to exist and to free ‘innate intellengence’ which no one save those of that faith believe in.

Oh dear.

Keep the faith, my guess is that you need all you can get.

Talking of chiropractors with half a brain, you might enjoy this…

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/joke.html

lol841701254 said:

half the treatments that GPs offer for which is no ESTABLISHED evidence base, are DETRIMENTAL to the health of the patient.

That’s interesting. Where did you get it from?

I would argue that chiropractic itself in unethical even when the practitioners are not. They may whole heatedly belive on the efficacy of chiropractic but there is no evidence that it works on much other than lower back pain, so it carries dangers with very little reward.

Also could you please point out the instances that Edzard has had such poor and from what you have said downright dishonest in his research. I would like to see what you have to back that up

Your knowledge of research is obviously poor Carl. Both with regards to chiropractic research evidence for which there is a plethora and more being published all the time, including RCTs the “Gold Standard” in medical research.

With regards to Edzard, simply read his papers, if you know much about academic writing you will see he takes quotes out of context, often his references at the end of each paper have a large number of his own papers used, he doesn’t present a balanced argument. Any of these mistakes alone discredits his work, yet alone all in combination! Any scientist with an open mind can see that.

But his biggest faux pas in my opinion is his grave mistake in website content choice. Anyone who googles his name will be directed to his website. A collection of the ramblings of an old man, quite clearly on a mission to bring down CAM therapies almost completely. When you read some of his less academic writings, his informal blogs, tweets and articles. It takes a few sentences to see that he is a bitter and resentful man who is not open to the research facts under his own nose. Then upon reading his “academic work”, one can see these biases and traits permeating through under a thinly veiled (and poorly referenced) guise. He uses research as a means to fulfil a personal quest, which I personally believe seems to be led by some kind of negative feeling towards our profession. Perhaps he has bad experiences. Who knows?
But anyone who dedicates their time and energy to a task which is so negative, ultimately futile and done so in such a corrupt and manipulative way, preying on the naïvety of the general public, to me spells deep psychological problems.

Just my opinion of course…

Carlos, He is the editor of his own journals ….. He decides what gets published. As the kids say ROFLMFAO

It means with every of his publications, the scientific world is Rolling On The Floor, Laughing My F***ing Ass Off

😉 your guru, your hero. Is a self-proclaimed Ego-tripper. OR should I say, he publishes BOGUS statements? It seems to be a word he is rather hung up on.

Now Groupie, go and do something meaningfull with your life. And AFTER you have bothered to do some actual research, I’ll be interested in hearing your next genius statement. Perhaps start researching what the word “ethical” means.

You sir,carl, are also, a half brain. You have, half a brain. People don;t like that.

Dr Quak Quak,

With regards to his articulate-ness, Johann H Faust.

I guess like most critics, they are easily shut up by a well-phrased, down to earth comment. Just wished Edzard would bother to take a hint. If you look up stubborn in the oxford dictionary, you’d get his picture.

I checked the times because it seemed some posters were indeed in a different time zone, and therefore a different country. Which might, and I do say might, account for their often confused postings.

Only to find I was there as well!

The time is now 16:07!

In Quackometer-land it’s always British Summer Time.

Fancy a Pimms?

Richard Rawlins, I fail to see any value to your posts. Posts coming form a man who cannot figure out where the government publishes announcements.

I quote:
“Can anyone point me to a site or reference which offers independent corroboration of the ‘news’ the Queen has granted the CoC the right to use the title ‘Royal’?”

Seriously, if you would even bother to research this. It could be as simple as to ask google: UK law royal college of chiropractors. You will find the official documents and hence where they were published, quite immediately.

I am not surprised why you are struggling with timezones. Perhaps a magical adjustment to your brain would do the world some good.

I can do no better than repeat Alan Henness’ explanation that although the CoC has a Charter, it is NOT entitled to use the title ‘Royal’.

Alan Henness
January 12, 2013 at 1:09 pm

I see you’ve made the same basic mistake that many other chiros have made.

The College of Chiropractors are not entitled to call themselves the Royal anything; they simply now have a Royal Charter of Incorporation – it hands a lot of power over to the Privy Council and simply puts them on a par with the likes of:

London Homoeopathic Hospital
The Worshipful Company of Launderers
The Worshipful Company of International Bankers
Worshipful Company of Builders’ Merchants
Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge
Worshipful Company of Basketmakers
The Worshipful Company of Marketors
Basildon Borough
Girl Guides Association
The Worshipful Company of Tax Advisers

No offence to members of these esteemed organisations.

Quack said, “Whoever claimed to treat anything else??”

Over 500 chiros whose websites were the subject of complaints to the GCC a few years ago, for a start.

Dr Quack quack wrote: “I’ve never been busier professionally. I have just secured a number of contracts to look after some major hotels and central london businesses. On top of my clinic work. Word of mouth is an EXTREMELY powerful marketing tool it would appear.”

And marketing is all it is. Indeed, the physicist, Robert L. Park, put it well when he said “anecdotes have a very strong emotional impact, they serve to keep superstitious beliefs alive in an age of science”.

No doubt, Dr Quack quack, you’d like to see “it worked me” factored into scientific studies…
http://vicskeptics.files.wordpress.com/2012/02/biw4m-graphic-430w.jpg

What other ‘services’ do these hotels offer? Why would anyone with a medical problem go to a hotel?

Why won’t Dr Quack tell us his real name?

Just askin’

Are you serious Rich?

Obviously people aren’t going to the hotel because they have a medical problem, they are guests at the hotel who require treatment for various complaints. The hotel contacts me and I come and treat them. It’s proving far more popular than your standard GP advice and pills! It would seem people do not wish to take drugs to alleviate symptoms arising from joint dysfunction and muscle pain. Something about it not being very effective and just a short term fix, I believe?
People would rather have the dysfunction corrected, hence my popularity I suppose.

Quack said, “Sorry to disappoint you but I won’t even click on a link that leads to that website first of all.”

It’s the same website where, on Friday 01 March 2013 at 15:05, you left a nasty, ignorant comment – a comment which I challenged you to substantiate.

http://edzardernst.com/2013/03/what-is-next-a-royal-college-of-window-salesmen/#comment-13402

I’m not surprised you don’t want to go back.

Hmmmm Something actually tells me you’re not a doctor at all. You have a somewhat non-medical way of writing that hasn’t aroused suspicion in me until now. But let’s pretend you actually ARE medically trained and I will play along with your answer, ignoring how illogical it seems.

Here is the more rational answer to your comment regarding the way it works.

A hotel guest has symptoms, let’s say back pain.

He calls the concierge, and they perhaps have a conversation such as “Hi I have a pain in my back, do you know anyone who can visit my room to check me out and fix it?”

The concierge says “Yes, I know a lovely guy who gets amazing results every time he visits our guests here, he is a chiropractor”

FYI Rich, Chiropractors are more than qualified to take a full case history, rule out red and yellow flags, perform a musculoskeletal examination more thorough than most orthopaedic surgeons (of course owing to time constraints usually for poor NHS medics like yourself [apparently]), and give a pretty accurate diagnosis on the spot. We can then give a full report of findings with regards to the cause, the tissues involved, how to avoid further injury, what to do if further symptoms develop, and give lifestyle modification advice there and then to aid swift recovery.

The patient says GREAT!!! Now I don’t have to go to hospital and wait for hours only to be told I should take paracetemol and rest for a day but stay mobile (monkeys could give this advice, especially now they are being taught sign language!!).

“PLEASE give me his number, or could you ask him to come to room…”

Within 24 hours, I arrive at the room, perform the above typical first visit routine and proceed to immediately treat the patient and provide a level of service unattainable on the NHS, or indeed in mainstream medicine currently”.

The patient pays me and is immensely satisfied now he can proceed with his visit or business here in the city without wasting time in hospitals or taking pills that won’t help.

In answer to your comment

“How do they know they symptoms areise ‘from the musculo-skeletal system’ without taking a history and conducting an examination and assuring themselves that pain from secondary prostatic carcinoma or a cerebo-vascular incident (for example)should not be considered?”

I will be taking the history and examining the patient for all red flags. These are blindingly obvious to any first year chiropractic student!! Let alone a Doctor of Chiropractic, you’d have to be pretty incompetent to miss them Rich!

So never you worry my friend, the patient is probably better off and in safer hands with me than in a hospital, and if it’s a hospital they need, I will of course refer them immediately. After all, I can’t fix everything! Just most Neuromusculoskeletal complaints unfortunately!

But that’s enough to keep me busy!! Especially the way modern society is going in its ever increasingly sedentary manner!

Have a great week everyone!

🙂

Dr Quack wrote: “Within 24 hours, I arrive at the room, perform the above typical first visit routine and proceed to immediately treat the patient and provide a level of service unattainable on the NHS, or indeed in mainstream medicine currently.”

As a matter of interest, how much do you charge for that?

Quack said,

“Hmmmm Something actually tells me you’re not a doctor at all.”

I get the same feeling about you.

Fortunately, we don’t have to make barmy assumptions on the basis of someone’s ‘writing style’ because the GMC have very kindly made their register of medical doctors open to the public.

I happen to know Richard is a doctor . Your comment about both his and Edzard’s writing style

Sorry, meant to say your comment about both his and Edzard’s writing style is frankly bizarre.

Dr Quack wrote: “Are you saying that most people with back or neck pain should just get on with it Blue Wode?”

Yes, I am. If it’s really bothering them, a thorough evaluation by an MD would be in order, but otherwise they’d be best taking some OTC analgesia and staying active – IOW, toughing it out. Some people, however, have no patience and waste money on unnecessary treatment like chiropractic which has been scientifically proven to be unable to offer anything superior to taking a couple of paracetamol – an option which is more convenient, far cheaper, and probably safer:
http://www.ebm-first.com/chiropractic/research-and-efficacy.html

Dr Quack wrote: “And for the record, there is a SPA in most hotels offering “pampering” services. However as the concierge put it in her own words at a hotel I visited Saturday “we just don’t have any service that can offer pain relief like you do” Who needs research papers when people say things like that? FAR more powerful in the public’s eye.”

I’m not surprised that you buy into a concierge’s anecdotes instead of the scientific data. You have a livelihood (apparently very lucrative) to protect.

Like your Leader Mr Ernst, you are selecting the research that best suits your argument. Notice that I do not use research to support my arguments because I could do the same thing. I’d rather stick to the tangible facts, the proof in front of me, what I feel and see and hear with my own senses that often cannot be “researched” or subjected to testing.

I do not “BUY INTO” anything, unlike you Blue Wode who has bought into a narrow way of thinking. I listen to the anecdotes, but they don’t matter much to me, they are what they are, people like to talk, people like me, people get better. It’s great and it helps the profession to grow, as it always has and always will. There is no buying into things.

You “buy into” a WAY of thinking.
I have my own, I can think for myself quite easily… so I don’t need to buy into anything.

I charge £80 for the visit. You will find that commonly chiropractors will charge around £40 for a treatment, which lasts anywhere between 10-30 minutes.

I charge double that for twice the length of treatment time, and also the fact that I save the patient hours of travelling. They are MORE than happy in paying this. They also have the option to visit my home for treatment and pay just £30 for my convenience, or they can come to the clinic where I work and pay £44 for a treatment.

We are also in the process of applying for and getting an NHS contract. MANY of my colleagues in the Chiropractic world have already secured NHS contracts to provide FREE chiropractic on the NHS.

Were you aware of this? The new NHS AQP scheme??

So basically if you wish to chase a pathetic argument about costs, and how “lucrative” the profession is. Be my Guest. But the argument will be very short lived when you consider how much an orthopaedic surgeon will charge for a private consultation with NO treatment. And then how much they rape their patients for ACTUAL treatment.

I think in hindsight then £30-80 for immediate pain relief on the spot with no anaesthetic and no cutting open of patients and little or NO side effects is WELL worth the Money.

you are fighting a losing battle Mr Wode.

And may I ask what exactly it is you do yourself Mr Humble Samaritan. Let me guess? A crime fighting superhero? A Buddhist monk? A volunteer for numerous charities?

Dr Quack wrote: “Like your Leader Mr Ernst, you are selecting the research that best suits your argument.”

Do you have anything better than Cochrane systematic reviews which head up the page I linked to?

Dr Quack wrote: “Notice that I do not use research to support my arguments because I could do the same thing. I’d rather stick to the tangible facts, the proof in front of me, what I feel and see and hear with my own senses that often cannot be “researched” or subjected to testing. I do not “BUY INTO” anything, unlike you Blue Wode who has bought into a narrow way of thinking. I listen to the anecdotes, but they don’t matter much to me, they are what they are, people like to talk, people like me, people get better. It’s great and it helps the profession to grow, as it always has and always will.”

IOW, you follow a quack’s charter.

Dr Quack wrote: “I charge £80 for the visit. You will find that commonly chiropractors will charge around £40 for a treatment, which lasts anywhere between 10-30 minutes. I charge double that for twice the length of treatment time, and also the fact that I save the patient hours of travelling. They are MORE than happy in paying this. They also have the option to visit my home for treatment and pay just £30 for my convenience, or they can come to the clinic where I work and pay £44 for a treatment.”

That’s a nice earner. No wonder you don’t like to use research.

Dr Quack wrote: “We are also in the process of applying for and getting an NHS contract. MANY of my colleagues in the Chiropractic world have already secured NHS contracts to provide FREE chiropractic on the NHS. Were you aware of this? The new NHS AQP scheme??”

Yes, I am, and it’s scandalous that the chiropractic ‘bait and switch’ is being overlooked because it means that patients will be put at risk of being ensnared by quackery and receiving an intervention that could have lethal consequences:
http://www.dcscience.net/?p=1516

BTW, it’s ‘Professor’ Ernst, MD, PhD.