Are chiropractors physicians?

"Chotii" wrote in
:

I do understand it. That doesn't mean that just because I have never
been part of a study, wherein I was randomly assigned to have
back/neck pain treated by medications/rest, or chiropractic
adjustment, that my own personal experiences, or the observed
experiences of people in my life, mean nothing to me. I realise they
mean nothing to *you*. But why would they?

But the important point is that your personal experience doesn't convey any
information as to whether some third party would benefit from adjustment.
Nobody's challenging your belief that you felt better; unless a person is
plainly delusional, denying something that they experienced is just being
pigheaded. *But*, and this is a *big* but, there is a *big* difference
between one's knowledge that one has experienced something and one's
attributions of *why* they experienced it. And it is *very* well known
that even the smartest, sanest, best educated people will *very often* get
those attributions wrong.

The problem is that our brains work by detecting patterns, and they're
tuned for sensitivity (avoiding missing a pattern that's really there)
rather than specificity (avoiding detecting a pattern that really isn't
there). Our brains will try to fill in the noise from a seashell held to
our ear with "voices" because they're looking for patterns. Very few
people will actually *believe* that those "sounds" are real voices, but our
brains do the *same* thing when one receives a treatment and then feels
better; they'll fill in a perceived "connection" regardless of whether or
not there really was one. We all have all kinds of biases like that, and
it takes *conscious effort* to counteract them. Most of the methods of
science are just formal ways of putting in this effort.

That's why conventional medicine uses formal studies. The point of the
studies is to find out if people's perceived (or even actual) improvement
after a treatment is *typical*. Because if it isn't, then there's no basis
for recommending it to anyone if it costs money or carries a non-trivial
level of risk. "Try this, even though I have no idea if it will work for
you" is a sign of desperation, and hardly a basis for routine treatment of
anything (especially in cases where there *are* treatments that have been
*shown* not to be long shots, i.e. in cases where the unproven treatment
is being presented as an "alternative").


If I get my shoulder or my hip joint knocked out of place, nobody in
their right mind would suggest any other course of treatment but that
the ball should be slipped back into the socket. If such joints can
become misaligned through trauma, why is it so impossible to believe
that other joints, such as vertebral or pelvis joints, can similarly
become misaligned through trauma - childbirth, or the impact of a car
crash or a football tackle, and so on? But ah, no: "subluxations do
not exist". Period. Ever. Regardless of circumstance. Right?

You've just illustrated one of the most important differences between real
science and pathological science. You're entirely correct that the idea of
vertebral joints going out of alignment is *plausible*. It's not a notion
that requires violating the laws of physics, or inconsistent with what we
know about human anatomy. Both real science and pathological science start
out with plausible ideas.

The difference is what happens afterwards. In real science, we know that a
lot of plausible ideas wind up not panning out, so we *test* the idea.
Using reason and knowledge, we make up two lists. The first is a list of
what observations we'd expect to see if the idea were correct. The second,
which is even more important than the first, is a list of what observations
we would expect *not* to see if the idea were correct.

We then make *systematic* observations, either by setting up an experiment
or by conducting an observational study, and see how they compare to our
lists. If any of them are on our second list, we know right away that
there's a problem with the idea. If many of the possible observations on
our first list weren't actually made, then we also know that there's a
problem. If we see nothing on the second list, and most of what was on the
first list, then we *tentatively* accept the idea.

Ideally what happens then is that we describe our idea and the methods we
used to test it in sufficient detail that someone else can repeat the test
under different circumstances. If they get the same results we did, we can
accept the idea more strongly, though we still have to be open to the
possibility that it's wrong. If other people get quite different results,
then once again there are problems with the idea.

If there are problems, we try to modify the idea to make it consistent with
our findings, and then repeat the cycle. If there's no way to get
consistent findings, or if most of the idea has to be stripped away leaving
something trivial, then we abandon the idea.

Pathological science skips all these steps. It accepts the idea merely
because it's plausible and doesn't test it. In our case, if vertebral
misalignment actually occurred, it would be possible to use various imaging
techniques to detect it. But nobody has ever seen a "subluxation" on an X-
ray or MRI image, even though we *can* see the other types of joint
misalignment you mentioned. In real science, that means the idea of
"subluxations" has to be modified or discarded. But in pathological
science it can be clung to as dogma.

If a real scientist is doing his job correctly, one of the most frequent
statements coming out of his mouth is going to be "I was wrong about that."
It's just the way real science works. The pathological scientist, OTOH,
frequently finds himself saying "I can't possibly be wrong about that."
Unfortunately, another of those mental biases I mentioned above is a
tendency to weight statements according to the certainty with which the
speaker expresses them. And that puts the real scientist at a
disadvantage, because the pathological scientist is *more* certain of his
statements, even though he can't back them up. Yet all research shows that
competence is *inversely* related to self-certainty, so this bias makes us
favor the incompetent over the competent when we don't fully understand the
subject being discussed.

--

"Eric Bohlman" wrote in message
...
"Chotii" wrote in
:

I do understand it. That doesn't mean that just because I have never
been part of a study, wherein I was randomly assigned to have
back/neck pain treated by medications/rest, or chiropractic
adjustment, that my own personal experiences, or the observed
experiences of people in my life, mean nothing to me. I realise they
mean nothing to *you*. But why would they?

But the important point is that your personal experience doesn't convey
any
information as to whether some third party would benefit from adjustment.
Nobody's challenging your belief that you felt better; unless a person is
plainly delusional, denying something that they experienced is just being
pigheaded. *But*, and this is a *big* but, there is a *big* difference
between one's knowledge that one has experienced something and one's
attributions of *why* they experienced it. And it is *very* well known
that even the smartest, sanest, best educated people will *very often* get
those attributions wrong.

The problem is that our brains work by detecting patterns, and they're
tuned for sensitivity (avoiding missing a pattern that's really there)
rather than specificity (avoiding detecting a pattern that really isn't
there). Our brains will try to fill in the noise from a seashell held to
our ear with "voices" because they're looking for patterns. Very few
people will actually *believe* that those "sounds" are real voices, but
our
brains do the *same* thing when one receives a treatment and then feels
better; they'll fill in a perceived "connection" regardless of whether or
not there really was one. We all have all kinds of biases like that, and
it takes *conscious effort* to counteract them. Most of the methods of
science are just formal ways of putting in this effort.

That's why conventional medicine uses formal studies. The point of the
studies is to find out if people's perceived (or even actual) improvement
after a treatment is *typical*. Because if it isn't, then there's no
basis
for recommending it to anyone if it costs money or carries a non-trivial
level of risk. "Try this, even though I have no idea if it will work for
you" is a sign of desperation, and hardly a basis for routine treatment of
anything (especially in cases where there *are* treatments that have been
*shown* not to be long shots, i.e. in cases where the unproven treatment
is being presented as an "alternative").


If I get my shoulder or my hip joint knocked out of place, nobody in
their right mind would suggest any other course of treatment but that
the ball should be slipped back into the socket. If such joints can
become misaligned through trauma, why is it so impossible to believe
that other joints, such as vertebral or pelvis joints, can similarly
become misaligned through trauma - childbirth, or the impact of a car
crash or a football tackle, and so on? But ah, no: "subluxations do
not exist". Period. Ever. Regardless of circumstance. Right?

You've just illustrated one of the most important differences between real
science and pathological science. You're entirely correct that the idea
of
vertebral joints going out of alignment is *plausible*. It's not a notion
that requires violating the laws of physics, or inconsistent with what we
know about human anatomy. Both real science and pathological science
start
out with plausible ideas.

The difference is what happens afterwards. In real science, we know that
a
lot of plausible ideas wind up not panning out, so we *test* the idea.
Using reason and knowledge, we make up two lists. The first is a list of
what observations we'd expect to see if the idea were correct. The
second,
which is even more important than the first, is a list of what
observations
we would expect *not* to see if the idea were correct.

We then make *systematic* observations, either by setting up an experiment
or by conducting an observational study, and see how they compare to our
lists. If any of them are on our second list, we know right away that
there's a problem with the idea. If many of the possible observations on
our first list weren't actually made, then we also know that there's a
problem. If we see nothing on the second list, and most of what was on
the
first list, then we *tentatively* accept the idea.

Ideally what happens then is that we describe our idea and the methods we
used to test it in sufficient detail that someone else can repeat the test
under different circumstances. If they get the same results we did, we
can
accept the idea more strongly, though we still have to be open to the
possibility that it's wrong. If other people get quite different results,
then once again there are problems with the idea.

If there are problems, we try to modify the idea to make it consistent
with
our findings, and then repeat the cycle. If there's no way to get
consistent findings, or if most of the idea has to be stripped away
leaving
something trivial, then we abandon the idea.

Pathological science skips all these steps. It accepts the idea merely
because it's plausible and doesn't test it. In our case, if vertebral
misalignment actually occurred, it would be possible to use various
imaging
techniques to detect it. But nobody has ever seen a "subluxation" on an
X-
ray or MRI image, even though we *can* see the other types of joint
misalignment you mentioned. In real science, that means the idea of
"subluxations" has to be modified or discarded. But in pathological
science it can be clung to as dogma.

If a real scientist is doing his job correctly, one of the most frequent
statements coming out of his mouth is going to be "I was wrong about
that."
It's just the way real science works. The pathological scientist, OTOH,
frequently finds himself saying "I can't possibly be wrong about that."
Unfortunately, another of those mental biases I mentioned above is a
tendency to weight statements according to the certainty with which the
speaker expresses them. And that puts the real scientist at a
disadvantage, because the pathological scientist is *more* certain of his
statements, even though he can't back them up. Yet all research shows
that
competence is *inversely* related to self-certainty, so this bias makes us
favor the incompetent over the competent when we don't fully understand
the
subject being discussed.

This is an elegant explanation of scientific method. Thank you.

--Rich -- Science is a system by which we prevent our lying to
ourselves.

"Chotii" wrote in message
...
(...)

I'm quite aware that the plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'.

With all do respect, you don't act like you really understand this.

I do understand it. That doesn't mean that just because I have never been
part of a study, wherein I was randomly assigned to have back/neck pain
treated by medications/rest, or chiropractic adjustment, that my own
personal experiences, or the observed experiences of people in my life,
mean
nothing to me. I realise they mean nothing to *you*. But why would they?

Why should they?

On the other hand, I see you making claims about chiropractors that
are
sweeping and overgeneralising. Absolutely, some of them are absolute
nutcases, making absurd claims to be able to do things they *can't*
do.
Like cure a heart attack. That's why phrases like 'caveat emptor'
exist.
That doesn't mean they're all nutcases, nor that they all make such
claims.

--angela

The problem is chiropractic is that theoretical framework that it is
built
on is wrong. Sublaxations do not exist. So if their entire system is
based
on a flawed system, why would you think any of them are any good?

If I get my shoulder or my hip joint knocked out of place, nobody in their
right mind would suggest any other course of treatment but that the ball
should be slipped back into the socket. If such joints can become
misaligned through trauma, why is it so impossible to believe that other
joints, such as vertebral or pelvis joints, can similarly become
misaligned
through trauma - childbirth, or the impact of a car crash or a football
tackle, and so on? But ah, no: "subluxations do not exist". Period. Ever.
Regardless of circumstance. Right?

Show me the peer-reviewed study that shows that chiropractors, when
examining the same patients, come to the same conclusions about where the su
bluxations are.

Show me the peer-reviewed study that shows that you can see subluxations on
X-Ray, CT-scan or MRI.

When you are able to show me these things, I will be more inclined to
beleive that subluxations exist.


After my daughter was born 6 weeks ago, I found I could not lie flat on my
back without pain. Something was wrong in my pelvis or sacrum. I didn't
know
what, but it hurt. I went to my chiropractor, he made one adjustment that
day, and another the next. I could lie flat without much discomfort
*immediately* after the first adjustment; completely without pain after
the
second. After the second adjustment he said "See you back in a month."
No
requirement that I come in three times a week for the rest of my life. We
addressed the immediate problem and let my body sort out the rest. Which
it
did.

You could have gotton the exact same treatement from a physical therapist.
Because the chiropractor was able to adjust your back does not mean
subluxations exist. If you go and read my previous posts about
chiropractors, you will see that I have often said that chiropractic does
work on back pain. Howver, that does not make their theories correct or make
them any better than PTs or other health care providers or make them
phsyicans.

With personal experiences like this, I don't care if it's hogwash, snake
oil, poppycock, horsefeathers, or plain and simple placebo: lack of pain -
and not having to take drugs to achieve that state - is good.

I agree. That does not make chiropractors physicians or their theory right
either. Or mean that they aren't quacks. Chiropractic has been proven to
treat back pain. That's it. Not asthma or ADHD or other things the quacks
claim to treat.

And I don't
need a study to tell me my pain was all in my head, or an MD to tell me to
take muscle-relaxers indefinitely, or to just learn to live with it. Not
when I can at least *try* to address specific problems more directly.

--angela

But you do need proof that their underlying theories are correct. There is
plenty of proof that they aren't correct.

Jeff

"MarkR" wrote in message
...
In article . net,
says...

"MarkR" wrote in message
...
In article ,
says...

"MarkR" wrote in message
...
In article et,
says...

"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"Sean" wrote in message
om...

Howie ,Howie, Howie,
You really are hilarious, that was one entertaining post as
usual.
Nothing personal but I think your reason has been developing
in
sour
cream for the last 20 years or so. Your sterotype of the
Chiropractic
profession is what is lame. It may be true for a small
portion
of
the
profession, but not for the majority.I am sorry you have
such a
despicable point of view. I hate to tell you this Howie but
the
Chiropractic profession is growing and gaining more and more
acceptance and support every day. That is why people like
you
feel
the
need to attack. You obviously feel threatened.
Chiropractors(Howie
did
you get that spelling, I wouldn't feel right letting you
continue to
make the same spelling errors in your posts.)are also not
swayed
by
outside interests like the medical profession.(ie- drug
companies,
kickbacks etc.)
Howie you are hanging on to a drowning ship, and that is why
you
are
so frightened. My heart goes out to you buddy.Take some
zoloft
and
have good one!


Your attempts to validate chiropractic by projecting fear,
envy,
threat,
whatever..are pathetically transparent, sport. Clearly you are
running
out
of tools to defend a "profession" that is generally composed
of
charlatans
hawking bogus nostrums to the desperate and unwary.

By all means, keep flailing away in this thread, but it should
be
apparent
to you that no one is buying it, except maybe David, and he's,
well....David. His verbal tool box is even more empty than
yours.
He
doesn't
even try to argue, just resorts to name calling...a tactic I
see
you
are
on
the verge of as you run out of gas here.

HMc


Howito, I don't suppose that you and a few others like you are
not
worth
more than what you get here? You have shown that you wish the
world
would
stay where you are. But, like it or not, Chiropractic and other
Alternatives
ARE growing, taking $$$ from the old school, and generally
making it
hard to
feel good about yourself.

Yep, money is what it's all about. Chiropractic is really nothing
more
than a scam to separate idiots from their money.
So? tell us that you do not use money. Tell us that you do not
receive
money
for whatever you do.

I don't sell snake oil for money; I'm not a scam artist.
Chiropractors
cannot make similar claims without lying.
So what do you do for your money? Do you make it from "medicine"?

Nope.
Didn't think so.

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
. net...

"David" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Orac" wrote in message
news
In article ,
"Chotii" wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Funny how you keeping calling what I say "BS", yet you offer no
proof
that
I
am incorrect.

Except multiple firsthand accounts.

Really? What first-hand accounts? Be specific, please.


But I guess personal experience doesn't
mean anything to you?

It does, but one has to know its proper place within the hierarchy of
evidence. Alties don't.
You are a BULL**** ARTIST. You claimed that you wrote and published.
That
is
BULL****. You never published anything unless you call you postings to
Usenet "publishing". And yet you are still here blathering on as though
anyone should believe you. You are not a Doctor, though you claim to be.
I hope you get caught and go to prison.

Orac, under his real name, was published in January, May, August and
September of 2003, for starters.

BTW, I found his pic on line.


Till he posts it, I will not believe it.

"Howard McCollister" wrote in message
...

"David" wrote in message
ink.net...

You are a BULL**** ARTIST. You claimed that you wrote and published.
That
is
BULL****. You never published anything unless you call you postings to
Usenet "publishing". And yet you are still here blathering on as though
anyone should believe you. You are not a Doctor, though you claim to be.
I hope you get caught and go to prison.


Looks like David is finally starting to lose it...

Actually, I'm surprised he lasted this long. Clearly, he is a moron.

HMc


Uh huh..........

Still waiting for any of you conv jokers to post anything {studies} that
shows UT to not work. You sure make a lot of noise about it. You talk big,
but you cannot back it up.
Once again, post some of your precious studies, showing that UT will not
cure.
"David Wright" wrote in message
m...
In article ,
Orac wrote:
In article ,
(David Wright) wrote:

In article ,
Howard McCollister wrote:

"David" wrote in message
link.net...

You are a BULL**** ARTIST. You claimed that you wrote and published.
That
is
BULL****. You never published anything unless you call you postings
to
Usenet "publishing". And yet you are still here blathering on as
though
anyone should believe you. You are not a Doctor, though you claim to
be.
I hope you get caught and go to prison.


Looks like David is finally starting to lose it...

Actually, I'm surprised he lasted this long. Clearly, he is a moron.

Be kind -- he may be suffering from urine autointoxication.

Well, that could happen if he drank enough of his own urine.

That's my point -- he's the guy who likes to trumpet the virtues of
urine as medicine (both topical and ingested).

-- David Wright :: alphabeta at prodigy.net
These are my opinions only, but they're almost always correct.
"If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants
were standing on my shoulders." (Hal Abelson, MIT)

"Chotii" wrote in message
...

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Funny how you keeping calling what I say "BS", yet you offer no proof
that
I
am incorrect.

Except multiple firsthand accounts. But I guess personal experience
doesn't
mean anything to you?

One of the least reliable forms of evidence in criminal trials is eyewitness
testimony.

Anecdotes can be made up. In fact, a recent study showed that 77.23% of all
anecdotes are either made up or embellished.

"David" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Mark Probert" wrote in message
. net...

"David" wrote in message
ink.net...

"Orac" wrote in message
news In article ,
"Chotii" wrote:

"Jeff" wrote in message
...
Funny how you keeping calling what I say "BS", yet you offer no
proof
that
I
am incorrect.

Except multiple firsthand accounts.

Really? What first-hand accounts? Be specific, please.


But I guess personal experience doesn't
mean anything to you?

It does, but one has to know its proper place within the hierarchy
of
evidence. Alties don't.
You are a BULL**** ARTIST. You claimed that you wrote and published.
That
is
BULL****. You never published anything unless you call you postings to
Usenet "publishing". And yet you are still here blathering on as
though
anyone should believe you. You are not a Doctor, though you claim to
be.
I hope you get caught and go to prison.

Orac, under his real name, was published in January, May, August and
September of 2003, for starters.

BTW, I found his pic on line.


Till he posts it, I will not believe it.

A little Google searching my help you find his real name as it has been
posted in m.h.a. a few times.

You would be amazed at what you have in common.

--

"David" wrote in message
ink.net...
Still waiting for any of you conv jokers to post anything {studies} that
shows UT to not work. You sure make a lot of noise about it. You talk big,
but you cannot back it up.
Once again, post some of your precious studies, showing that UT will not
cure.

If pressed, I could probably produce evidence that topical urine is not
therapeutic for infant diaper rash or for pressure ulcers (bedsores) in the
bedridden.

;o) Rich