Barrett was leader of one sub-groups to the committee of quackery.They were on to dirty business.
dougsmith says: “As for the notorious case you reference attacking the American Medical Association, it is very old news. I suggest you familiarize yourself with it. It had nothing to do with evaluating Chiropractic as effective treatment. See also Brennen McKenzie’s piece HERE: “the court was “persuaded that the dominant factor [in the AMA’s efforts] was patient care and the AMA’s subjective belief that chiropractic was not in the best interests of patients.””
You totally miss the point. How did AMA intend to wipe out chiropractic?
They had a plan. During the discovery phase of the trail the chiropractors lawyers get their hands on the plan. Directly from AMA.:
The Committee on Quackery´s master plan for the demise of chiropractichad been developed by an attorney who originally represented the Iowa Iowa Medical Society, Robert B. Throckmorton. He was concerned about the rapid growth of chiropractic in Iowa and the possible threat it posed to the practices of physicians and surgeons.
Speaking before the regional North Central Medical Conference in Minneapolis on November 11, 1962 , he had addressed what he called a menace to chiropractic, labeled the profession a cult and called for a “positive program of containment.” (3) He urged a national crusade against chiropractic. The outline of his plan included a broad list of proposals designed to destroy chiropractic both from within - through encoring ” chiropractic disunity ” and “stifling chiropractic schools” - and from without , by encouraging ethical complaints against chiropractors ,
prohibiting chiropractic care in hospitals, and opposing the workwers´compensation programs , medicare , and labor union health plans. Further , he cautioned that this should be done covertly:” Any action undertaken by the medical profession should be… behind the Scenes whenever possible.” And he gave one absolute directive for medical doctors :” Never give processional recognition to chiropractors . “(4)
After his impassioned specech in Minepolis, Throckmorton was hired as the general counsel for the AMA, and as they say, the rest was history.”
Cooperating with the AMA in its antichiroprarctic campaign were some opinionated characters whi claimed to be protecting consumers, but in fact were spreading outrageously distorted information.”
Kiropraktorerna vann och AMA fick betala. Hur mycket det var krävde AMA, att det skulle hemlighållas.
1. American medical Assocation Committee on Quackery, memorandum to the American Medical Assocation Board of Trustees, 4 Januari 1971. Also Plaintiff´s Exhibit 1338 in Wilk v. AMA
Barrett is still working in the same way, as then he was the leader of one of the committees sub-groups.
Mark Crislip wrote :”
Table 3 has the smoking gun. The highest odds ratio (14) for a stroke is 12, 4 times any other, in the age less than 45 in the first 24 hours after a visit to a chiropractor. ”
That is stupidity.
Because the study did show that the risk was the same to get a VBA stroke after a visit to a MD as after visiting a DC. With such a small numbers of cases, of course the cases will not be evenly distributed among the months days.
Then Mark Crislip speculated , that because it was 14 cases the first day of the month that it meant that they were caused by chiropractors. That is so incredible stupid because that would mean the other days were it more risky to visit a MD. But no one say that MDs cause strokes. No, the risk was the same to get a stroke after visiting a MD, as after visiting aDC, because the patients visited a MD or a DC because they had an ongoing VBA dissection which give head or neck pain.
If the DCs had caused VBA dissections that later led to a stroke the risk should have been bigger for strokes after visiting a DC then after visiting a MD. But it was not.
So you are obviously not familiar with the subject.
If you want to learn anything about chiropractic you have to study chiropractic, and not the old lies from S Barrett. Most people do understand that but not the so called Skeptics. That are not skeptics at all they are believers.