3 of 4
3
Maximized Living? or Maximized Fraud?
Posted: 14 January 2016 04:06 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 31 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2016-01-11

that is a good point. i don’t mind discussion around the topic of chiropractic care. We are stuck inside most of the time up here on the frozen tundra and tend to take more time in the winter to discuss these things in these types of forums…
stay safe on the road…!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 January 2016 04:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 32 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
sidney1 - 14 January 2016 04:06 PM

that is a good point. i don’t mind discussion around the topic of chiropractic care. We are stuck inside most of the time up here on the frozen tundra and tend to take more time in the winter to discuss these things in these types of forums…
stay safe on the road…!

Yeah, it would have been nice for you to have a decent discussion..instead you were assaulted. Typical.
You even sifted out the garbage pertaining to the original topic…Maximized Living or whatever the hell that is.

Where are you in Canada?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 08:36 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 33 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

As usual, VYAZMA, you having nothing useful or of substance to say, just silly personal attacks on those you don’t like about a subject you admit to knowing nothing about. How is it an “assault” to highlight the scientific evidence sidney1 is wrong? How is it not an “assault” to call people robots and say nothing about the actual topic of debate? Just stirring the pot for the fun of it even when you have no stake in the debate and no knowledge or information on the subject. Not very productive or helpful.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 09:00 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 34 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14

No McKenzie I was actually trying to get someone new to stick around and possibly branch out into other topics.
But you can relax, the 7-9 person echo-chamber is intact.

You and I exchanged insults just now in this thread. Your insults had zero impact on me.
It was exactly what I expected.  Literally.

Truth hurts.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 09:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 35 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2016-01-11

manitoba…yeah…not sure how this conversation denigrated from a discussion about maximized living to a general attack on chiropractic…but no worries. I enjoy speaking about chiropractic care….

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 09:33 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 36 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
sidney1 - 15 January 2016 09:09 AM

manitoba…yeah…not sure how this conversation denigrated from a discussion about maximized living to a general attack on chiropractic…but no worries. I enjoy speaking about chiropractic care….

Cool. I spent some time in Saskatchewan. I know that’s not Manitoba.

Sid, I explained exactly why the conversation de-generated into a general attack on chiropractory.

They have good points to make. Don’t get me wrong. But I think you do to.
That could have developed into a decent discussion or polite debate…instead you were ostracized in one minute.

Stick around anyways. There’s other topics. Who knows?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 09:37 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 37 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2016-01-11

mckenzie….

Here are a few studies for you to no doubt find fault with which point to efficacy of chiropractic…and before you get on your soapbox about an explanation of how chiropractic actually works, consider that the vast majority of medical interventions are either poorly understood or not understood at all. so which standard are you measuring chiropractic by? because if its’ the one set by modern medicine then either you are a hypocrite or just blind to the truth about the “gold” standard that medicine sets…

Spine (Phila Pa 1976) 2003 (Jul 15);  28 (14):  1490–1502

  J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2005 (Jan);  28 (1):  3–11

http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/ABSTRACTS/Adding_Chiropractic_Manipulative_Therapy.shtml

BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2012 (Aug 28);  13:  162 ~

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:04 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 38 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

sidney1,

Yes, you will be able to find studies that suggest chiro works for back pain. I will be able to find studies that show it does not. The best evidence, which is systematic review-level evaluation of all such studies that takes risk of bias into account, is the Cochrane review I’ve already cited, which shows that overall the literature supports only minimal benefit from chiro for lower back pain, comparable with massage or rest. This is how medical science works, and the problem with it, of course, is that anyone who doesn’t like the conclusion is free to ignore it and claim the treatment works no matter what the research says. Things a lot less reasonable than chrio, like homeopathy, reiki, and prayer, all have studies which their proponents claim show they work. Do you believe everything if there are any positive studies? If not, how do you decide which to believe and which not to believe? Personal experience? Plausible theoretical mechanism? How do you make these decisions?

As for the mechanism, that is a somewhat separate issue from whether or not the therapy works, which is why I listed them separately. It is clear that there is no established mechanism to explain chiro, since the VSC is a fiction. That doesn’t mean chiro doesn’t work, and if there were robust clinical trial evidence showing it did, then we could decide that without having a mechanism. This is true for some well-established therapies, though nothing like the “vast majority” as you claim. However, the absence of a mechanism IS a weakness of claims for chiro, and combined with the balance of the clinical trial literature being against it, I think it is unlikely to be much more than an expensive massage with a lot of, as even you admit, nonsense attached to it (such as the large number of DCs who oppose vaccination, for example, or the subset who recommend colon cleansing, herbs, and all sorts of other quackery).

Bottom line is if people want to see a DC, that’s their business, If they care what science says, they will find that there’s little reason to think it will help them, but not everyone care what science has to say.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 39 ]
Moderator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4231
Joined  2006-11-28

VYAMA,

Huh? What truth hurts whom? And what the hell is the “7-9 person echo chamber?” Your posts just get stranger and stranger.

I’m actually having a discussion with the OP writer, so I don’t know how you think my posts are shutting that down.

It seems to me that your comments here represent the deep and time-honored strain of anti-intellectualism in American culture. You have an opinion on the subject even where you have no information, and you dislike it people who have spent years of their lives studying and practicing medical science try to point out why your opinion is wrong. Being simultaneously opinionated and ignorant is somehow seen as a virtue, and being a professional trying to argue the case using scientific evidence somehow makes me and MacGyver “The Establishment” or some kind of elitist bogeyman. Everyone is entitled to an opinion, of course. And if you can back that opinion up with evidence, then it deserves just as serious consideration as the opinion of scientists, doctors, and anyone else. But that’s not at all what you do in these discussions. You just share your beliefs and then insult anyone who doesn’t accept them.

 Signature 

The SkeptVet Blog
You cannot reason a person out of a position he did not reason himself into in the first place. 
Johnathan Swift

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 40 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
sidney1 - 15 January 2016 09:37 AM

consider that the vast majority of medical interventions are either poorly understood or not understood at all…

Perhaps you would like to site your sources for this statement. Modern traditional medicine is based on solid scientific principals of chemistry, biology, genetics, and biochemistry. Chiropractic treatments are based on flawed theories that have no basis in science.

Traditional medicine has evolved over the past hundred years such that there are some treatments which were developed prior to the advent of what is today called Evidence Based Medicine or EBM. In recent years many of these older techniques have been tested and challenged in controlled trials. Those that stand up to the rigorous scrutiny continue to be used while others which don’t (ie. doing radical mastectomies in all breast cancer patients, taking out tonsils in many young children who had more than one strep infection) have been modified or discarded. It would be a gross misstatement however to say that majority of treatments are poorly understood or not understood at all. You would have a difficult time finding a single medical treatment (much less the thousands required to support your “majority” statement) for which we don’t have a a good understanding of the basic science and mechanism.

The difference with Chiropractic treatments is that they don’t subject their own treatments to this sort of objective scientific analysis because like any other religion, their belief system is based on dogma and faith, not rational scientific inquiry. The mark of any valid area of scientific pursuit is the willingness to replace an idea or theory if the weight of the evidence suggests it is false. I’m sure it would be difficult to find ANY treatments that the national chiropractic societies have discarded because they were found to be ineffective.

[ Edited: 15 January 2016 04:17 PM by macgyver ]
 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:34 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 41 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  13
Joined  2016-01-11

mckenzie

the reality is, some MD’s would have people believe we need protection from everything and everyone except them. As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.

the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system. In my hometown for instance, Doctors of Chiropractic have begun working alongside MD’s in provincially funded clinics and are paid at the same hourly wage.

It’s not the 1960’s anymore. You aren’t the first crusader against chiropractic and you won’t be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:50 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 42 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
mckenzievmd - 15 January 2016 04:10 PM

VYAMA,


I’m actually having a discussion with the OP writer, so I don’t know how you think my posts are shutting that down.

Oh ok. Good for you.

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 04:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 43 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
mckenzievmd - 15 January 2016 04:10 PM

But that’s not at all what you do in these discussions. You just share your beliefs and then insult anyone who doesn’t accept them.

What was my belief here? Or my opinion?
That you’re an automaton? That’s true, that is opinion.
What other beliefs or opinions did I espouse?

[ Edited: 15 January 2016 04:56 PM by VYAZMA ]
 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 05:10 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 44 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5506
Joined  2008-08-14
sidney1 - 15 January 2016 04:34 PM

mckenzie

the reality is, some MD’s would have people believe we need protection from everything and everyone except them. As for your allegation that you can refute efficacy of most chiropractic interventions with competing studies consider this. Most research trials on pharma interventions are funded by drug companies so the outcome of many of those studies might be forgone conclusion because, well, that’s how the game is played. The chiropractic research world has no such luxury of drug companies funding studies.

the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system. In my hometown for instance, Doctors of Chiropractic have begun working alongside MD’s in provincially funded clinics and are paid at the same hourly wage.

It’s not the 1960’s anymore. You aren’t the first crusader against chiropractic and you won’t be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.

That’s right and lot’s of employers insurance companies have chiro visits built into them.
Must be some kind of efficacy going on there…them sunsabitches are tight with the money!
It’s all about efficacy. That’s the name of the game.
Or is that opinion too?

 Signature 

Now with 20% more surfactants!

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 January 2016 08:09 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 45 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2901
Joined  2007-04-26
sidney1 - 15 January 2016 04:34 PM

mckenzie
the reality, my friend, is that chiropractic care is growing in use among the population and Chiropractors are increasingly being integrated into the mainstream health care system….

It’s not the 1960’s anymore. You aren’t the first crusader against chiropractic and you won’t be the last. But know this. You are fighting a losing battle.

The discussion here was not about the popularity of chiropractic care but about its benefits and scientific validity or lack thereof.

People believe in and participate in all sorts of silly things from homeopathy to faith healing. The fact that a small percentage ( 8.5% in the U.S.) use chiropractic care is proof only that there will always be some people who will get better no matter what you do to them, even if the treatment is entirely ineffecive. That’s what we call the placebo effect. That’s why the only measure of the value of a treatment is when it is properly studied and measured against a placebo control group. That’s also why there are hundreds of entirely useless and just as successful products sold in health food stores and alternative medicine shops in every country.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
   
3 of 4
3