“Dr” Brian Moravec is a chiropractor from the US; he has a website where he describes himself and his skills as follows: I attended Chiropractic College and I am a graduate of Palmer College of Chiropractic in Davenport Iowa. I earned a Bachelor of Science degree as well as my Doctor of Chiropractic degree from Palmer College, which is the first chiropractic college in the world and the origin of our profession. I also attend continuing education seminars designed to keep doctors current with regard to clinical chiropractic, technique and nutrition.
The key to overall health and wellness is to have a healthy nervous system and that is what I do as a chiropractor – I make sure that your spine is functioning at its best so that your nervous system functions at its best. When the nervous system is functioning at 100%, you are a healthier individual that experiences a higher quality of life and health. I know this to be true in myself, my family and my patients.
I go to great lengths to provide my patients with the best chiropractic care I can give. I work with my patients to design a treatment plan that will be effective for their particular condition and specific to their needs. We utilize manual and low force techniques (safe and effective for newborns to seniors), to correct sublaxations in the spine. Chiropractic adjustments remove nerve interference, which allows the body to perform at its best again. I also am available for consultations on nutrition and diet, dietary supplementation and how to minimize the wear and tear on your spine.
[Emphases are mine]What he does not state is the fact that he also is a nifty e-mail writer!
To my great surprise, I received an e-mail from him which is far too good to be kept for myself. So I decided to share it with my readers; here it is in its full and unabbreviated beauty:
its interesting to see someone with your education, and is a self proclaimed “expert” on alternative medicine, promote so much misinformation with regard to chiropractic care. fortunately you look old. and soon will be gone. I always refer to the few of you anti chiropractic fools left here as “dinosaurs”. the proof is in the pudding my “friend”. chiropractic works and will continue to be here for centuries more. you and others with much much more power than you (the AMA for example) have tried to perpetuate lies and squash chiropractic. you fail, and they failed, because whatever better serves mankind will stand the test of time. you’re a dying breed edzard. thank God.
yours in health,
brian moravec d.c.
I am encouraged to see that he recognises my education but do wonder why his upbringing obviously failed so dismally teach him even a minimum of politeness, tact, or critical thinking. It is disappointing, I think, that he does not even mention what he perceives as my lies about his beloved chiropractic. So sad, I am sure it would have been fun to debate with him.
49 Responses to Some chiropractors quite simply adore me!!!
Leave a Reply to Pete 628 Cancel reply
This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.
Just discovered your wonderful blog. I expect in most of your posts you are preaching to the converted.
I admire your appetite for discussion and your patience in listening to the like of Moravec.
I like argument but would not have the patience to argue with such as he – but it makes an interesting post!
many thanks.
it is good to see that I am not doing all this in vain.
moravec said:
Even in this, the evidence isn’t looking good for him as a chiropractor. One study found:
I understand these issues are complex and I also understand the chiropractic profession including myself have had our differences and that you have rightly brought certain individuals and claims made within our profesion to book. I would respectfully add however, that the substantial majority of chiropractic clinicans I have taught and know do not subscribe to extreme, evidence bereft views about what we do or can do within the MSK arena. In an outside hope of yourself and others genuinely standing up for rational dialouge and an evidence base to clinical claims I would ask you to perhaps recognise the attempts of the majority of our profession to stand up to and counter the frankly lunatic claims of the few. We do not agree with them, their views do not represent our views or convictions and we will stand in confrontation of them and in support of the rational, professional and evidence infomed clinical approach that the great majority of our profession use to help and support 1000s of patinets day after day in alieviating or supporting mangemnt of their painful MSK conditions. Here is a link to an internal conflict we are having and I wonder if you might at the very least acknowledge that some of us stand for good, rational medical care. Heres in hope and with the greatest respect. Dave Newell
EICCHALLENGE.WEEBLY.COM
I have tweeted about the EICCHALLENGE already days ago.
I would ask you 2 things:
1) do you condone the email above?
2) when you sat “genuinely standing up for rational dialouge and an evidence base to clinical claims”, what claims do you mean exactly?
Many thanks for the re tweet. It is genuinely appreciated
Concerning the e mail I belive it might have been better put, yes, given that we are all going to grow old, if we are lucky, it comes over as a somewaht personal attack. However, given the often heated debate and the passion with which some folks defend their views, and their chosen life career, I can somewhat sympathise with his emotions, albiet articulated in what you migt feel to be a personal and hurtful way. I am sure I have done the same in the past when my amgdyla overode my reason, but I guess in all honesty we all have at some point, including you Edzard, lost our reason. Saying that, both my lack of best langauge in the past over some exchanges and his are to be discouraged.
On the issue of evidence.
There are a number of instances in the literature that have examined the purported effects of manipulation but for example, the paper below goes some way toward articulating (excuse the pun) what sort of effects manipulation may have. Another, a recent meta-analysis, suggest short to long term clinically relevant analgesic effects of manipulation for pain.
1. The mechanisms of manual therapy in the treatment of musculoskeletal pain: a comprehensive model. Man Ther. Oct 2009; 14(5): 531–538.
2. Is manipulative therapy more effective than sham manipulation in adults?: a systematic review and meta-analysis Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 2013, 21:34
Now…….for what it’s worth is my view on what the evidence supports concerning mechanism.
Local spinal effects associated with manipulation together with supra-spinal effects that include context, expectation therapeutic alliance, removal of barriers to recovery, psychological support, exercise advice and rehabilitation and movement training and encouragement etc, etc all individualised to a patient can successfully and consistently support individuals through and successfully out the other end of an MSK crisis or ongoing problem, or at the very least help them live better lives with their conditions.
Not only does this take a fair degree of education and skill but it aligns itself as an approach to policies such as the recent ARUCK position paper ‘Musculoskeltal Health: A Public Health Approach, and also much of the physiotherapeutic papers concerning nmanipualtion that suggest such an approach is relevant.
Furthermore, not only does this approach offer more choice (and perhaps renewed hope when other approaches have failed) amongst a range of other effective choices for MSK patients (Patient choice being an important modern health care expectation endorsed by most government health policies) but is, in my view, a reasonably complete package of MSK care amongst MSK support approaches available.
This is what the predominant part of the profession does day in day out and I would contend given our 5 years of education culminating in a Masters qualifiaction, with then subsequent registration with the regulator for the profession (General Chiropractic Council) that one might contend these skills and approaches help a pretty large number of people cope with or emerge from debilitating conditions like LBP and neck pain. I believe , having worked in this profession for 25 years, notwithstanding the rather small pseudoreligious contingent in our midst that chiropractic care is delivered by skilled, evidence informed, patient centred individuals that spend a decent amount of time (4 years minimum) at university, learning medical science subjects along with manual skills, psychological insight and knowledge and medical diagnostics that means they know who to care for and how, and who to refer to other health care professions.
These clinicians also value and love what they do and spend a good amount of quality time with their patients thinking about their patients’ lives as well as their pain.
Wrap local and central neurological effects up with skillful reassurance and along with all the tool box of skills mentioned above and I think we have a defendable and rational explanation of the skills employed by a particular profession that works as well as a range of other approaches for many patients’ MSK problems and for some patients potentially much better (see the STaRT back tool literature)
Given that MSK is constituting an increasing epidemiological tidal wave of disability and costs that health services will need other professions outside of hospital and GP medicine to help shoulder, I would contend that given a chance for the majority of rational groups within the profession to sit at the table and be allowed to articulate the potential contribution they could make to such a large societal need, would at the very least be a consideration.
I guess that how I see it……I would ask that we might be judged a litle more by the best of the profession rather than the worst, some of whom, as you know, reside in the dark corners of most professions. Kindest regards. Dave Newell
“it might have been better put”…”it comes over as a somewaht personal attack”… ARE YOU SERIOUS?
”notwithstanding the rather small pseudoreligious contingent in our midst”
It’s clear that there are many rational chiropractors practising competent musculoskeletal care, but I would suggest that the subluxationists are by no means a small minority. A quick scan of websites shows the standard ”subbie” explanation of often, and many chiros are ”adjusting” babies for supposed ”birth trauma”, and children for normal falls during play.
It would be great to see these people weeded out from within the profession, rather than having to be called out from outside. The rational chiros seem to quietly go about their business and perhaps don’t even realise what their ”subbie” colleagues are doing or saying.
IT SEEMS WORTH LOOKING AT SOME OF YOUR REFERENCES, E. G. No2:
“In total 965 references were screened for eligibility and 19 RCTs (n = 1080) met the selection criteria. Eight studies were considered of low risk of bias. There is moderate level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief immediately after treatment (standardized mean difference [SMD] – 0.68, 95% confidence interval (-1.06 to -0.31). There is low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has a significant effect in adults on pain relief (SMD – 0.37, -0.69 to -0.04) at short- term follow-up. In patients with musculoskeletal disorders, we found moderate level of evidence for pain relief (SMD – 0.73, -1.21 to -0.25) immediate after treatment and low level of evidence for pain relief (SMD – 0.52, -0.87 to -0.17) at short term-follow-up. We found very low level of evidence that manipulative therapy has no statistically significant effect on disability and perceived (asthma) recovery. Sensitivity analyses did not change the main findings”
NOT A PROOF OF EFFECACY IN MY BOOK!
IN ANY CASE, COCHRANE REVIEWS ARE CONSIDERED TO BE MORE RELIABLE; HERE IS WHAT THE CURRENT COCHRANE REVIEW [http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22972127] CONCLUDES:
“SMT is no more effective in participants with acute low-back pain than inert interventions, sham SMT, or when added to another intervention. SMT also appears to be no better than other recommended therapies.”
Dear Edzard. Thank you for posting my comment
I wonder from you rely whether you feel there is NO argument at all or even any broad defence of using manipulation along with a personalised package of care for patinets that choose to go to see chiropractors.
In the round then, do you see no place for us at all, despite many practicing ethically and professionally and within guidelines that in many European countries already suggest manipulation may be offered as an alternative for low back pain.
No place at all, despite simliar approaches including manipulation being used by many other professions including physiotherapists, osteopaths and the occasional GP for managing MKS conditions.
Are you saying there is no place for osteopaths and manipulative physiotherapist too?
I believe that as a package of care wrapped up as it is with all the skills and approaches mentioned in my first comment, there IS a place for such an approach. I freely admit that for some patients it may be no better than other approaches, for some perhaps not the best route. But for some it seems such an approach may indeed be a good if not the best choice for some patients.
I’m not really saying that practitoners such as these that employ manipultion skillfully and embeded within a rounded packege of evdidenced informed care should treat all MSK patients, or god forbid like some, take over the world.
I’m just saying that given the huge global health burden of MSK recently articulated in the Lancet and articulated so well at the Bone and Joint Decade call for MSK to be higher on the politial agneda earlier this month by the likes of ARMA and ARUK, that there migt be a place for the majority of rational, evdeince informed and dedicated practioners, including chiropractors to have a role in helping shoulder the burden and costs of such a large problem. Simply that.
and I am saying here mainly 2 things:
1) debate about these issues has to adhere to the basic rules of politeness [you have not condemned the above email yet, I think].
2) I want to see the evidence that proves that SMT is doing more good than harm.
As a DC, I do not condone the above e-mail, if that is of any worth. I believe Dr. Newell’s responses over all are well written and thoughtful. I pose the same question to you though Dr. Ernst, I want to see the evidence that proves SMT is doing harm at a rate greater than chance OR greater than any other interventions for MSK pain syndromes. Preferably, evidence that has not been gathered or written by yourself. I believe one point that Dr. Newell was alluding to was the fact that that there is no ‘one’ effective treatment for LBP. Overall, if you ask, “What works for LBP?”, my answer is, “nothing”. If you ask me, does spinal manipulation work for all LBP, my answer is no. LBP is not homogenous as you well know. Now, if you ask what works for a subgroup of LBP patients, there are several good options, of which include spinal manipulation for certain populations.
there is plenty of evidence for harm; just read the previous posts on this blog; they link to studies which are not mine too.
I really wonder how “Dr” Moravec feels about the fools who continue to pay money for his special kind of quackery.
A little off topic, but rude behavior, e.g. being disrespectful and ignorant, really seems to be a requirement for becoming a member of any kind of organized esoteric quackery, c.f. anti-vaxxers, beautiful food people – or people shilling for that life-endangering inventor of useless anti-neowhatever, the cancer charlatan in Texas.
I don’t know how you stay calm with so vicious an attack. How can anyone who purports to provide care to people say anything so rude and ridiculous ? That is apart from the real and rational arguments concerning this strange practice.
Also I always thought the magic-requiring spinal problems were called ‘subluxations’ not anything ‘lax’, but perhaps I’ve been wrong all this time.
Keep up the great work!
Moravec has provided a wonderful demonstration of precisely what alt-med is so desperately and creepily trying to integrate with medicine: patronizing superiority combined with a total disregard for the quality of life of everyone other than the practitioner.
If he ever met me in public he would find me to be a ferocious dinosaur that he would very much hope would soon become extinct after I’d verbally ripped him a new a–hole.
Hint to Brian Moravec, this is how you engage the critics:
http://edzardernst.com/2014/10/the-chiropractic-attempt-to-have-the-cake-and-eat-it-has-failed/#comment-62043
That email achieves nothing and just portrays the profession in a poor light. Every profession needs its critics, both internally and externally. People like Prof Ernst and Sam Homola are a valuable resource for the profession as they facilitate dialogue and reasoned debate that leads to change. That is called progress!
Ad Hominem and personal attacks do not facilitate this process. (Prof Ernst did call me “non-Thinking Chiro” once but I will not hold that against him. 😉 ).
In reply to EE:
“genuinely standing up for rational dialouge and an evidence base to clinical claims”
See link above!
Appreciate both your work, Prof Ernst and Dave Newel, keep it up!
When I saw the headline, “Some chiropractors quite simply adore me!!!”, I immediately thought that you might have had some chiropractor scat to clean from your doorstep 😀
http://reasonablehank.com/2014/10/29/shit-on-the-door-step-of-immunisation-providers-urge-newcastles-healing-wave-chiropractors/
‘Dr Brian’ seems to have been taking lessons from the ‘Dr’ Ogi Ressel school of intimidation and aggression towards medical doctors:
QUOTE
“I’ve had a ton of phone calls lately from doctors who are having the local MD in their
town rain on their parade …Here is how to remedy this situation so that it NEVER happens again…I suggest you say:
… I am willing to forgive and forget that this happened THIS time. But, should I hear a repeat
performance, I want to you know that I will lodge a formal complaint against you with your State Board for unprofessional conduct, and you will be investigated (and you know that your Board is under mandate to investigate all complaints). I am certain that you would not want to see your name in the headlines of our local paper: “Local Doctor Under Investigation”. Whether you are found to be right or wrong makes no difference – you were investigated. Can’t be good. So, please consult with me in the future. Thank you for your time.”
The incident is closed by having your attorney then send the offending medic a letter reiterating
your position.”
Ref: Medics Who Rain On Your Parade (full text)
http://www.practiceevolution.com/thots.php?action=view&thotID=209
It would seem that the unprofessional behaviours of ‘Dr’ Brian and ‘Dr’ Ogi are designed to scare off those who are inclined to repeatedly expose lucrative chiropractic quackery on a public stage. However, thanks to the internet age, it simply sees the chiropractic house of cards wobbling a bit more.
In reply to Blue Wode:
25+ years ago I got many anti referrals from the local doctors when I started practice. “Don’t see a chiropractor, I’ll refer you to a physio instead”. I used this as an opportunity to open dialogue with them. I send them a report on the patient in question (after getting the patients consent) and follow it up with a phone call. The anti referrals stopped fairly quickly, but I didn’t get referrals either, but over time they sussed me out and referrals (usually difficult horror backs) started to trickle in. The whole process gradually built up pace to the point where I am now involved in the local medical network, present at meetings and communicate constantly with doctors.
This is the future for chiropractic!
That’s highly commendable, Thinking_Chiro. However, there appears to be a huge difference between you and ‘Dr’ Ogi in terms of integrity. I would venture that your relationships with local MDs revolve around genuine healthcare interventions in the best interests of patients, whereas ‘Dr’ Ogi’s style of practice seems to be about reaping spoils. For example:
Here he explains the importance of being a chiroprACTOR
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMT_BEGa0Pc
And here he is on ‘How to make the subluxation real’ (aka scaremongering)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tMT_BEGa0Pc
All theatrics, IMO.
But wait, Blue Wode. You are not a ‘Dr.’ are you?
I find your “misinformation” to be in line with that of Dr. Preston Long whose book you may have mentioned. The legitimate scope of practice for chiropractic is limited. This demands that practitioners must have additional profit centers to stay in business. Being in such a situation is not good for mental health and the e-mail is evidence of that. It is probably even worse for homeopaths.
DavidCT said:
What is ‘the legitimate scope for chiropractic’?
In my limited but somewhat informed understanding of the hypothetico deductive paradigm, I believe that Karl Popper has already shown that given our limited ability to observe an infinite number of instances it is impossible to ‘prove’ any conjecture. In mathematics of course this may be the case but certainly not when it comes to treatment effects. In this regard I think given the papers I have already offered and your offer previously that you feel there may be some evidence for manipulation in managing low back pain (I can find that somewhere, bear with me) , that there might be a place for this approach along with exercise and movement ( evidenced), and psychological support ( evidenced) amongst others for managing patients who might choose such an approach, to do good.
Concerning harm. Do you have any good evidence that manipulation of the lumbar spine causes serious harm, like the harm for example that paracetamol might cause ( and I’m not against it as an alternative , took 2 this morning) but if we’re talking harm, or NSAIDs ( gut bleeds kill significant numbers ). And before you talk about neck manipulation despite your critique I think the Cassidy Case Control and cross over case control DO provide evidence of lack of causation of neck manipulation and stroke and other evidence that suggests that other serious side effects are vanishingly rare.
So I reiterate. In the round do you feel that professions that use manipulation amongst other evidence based management and interventions individualised to a patient that chooses this approach, professions such as Osteopathy Physiotherapy and chiropractic, have NO place in the management of MSK care. I feel you might be very harsh and somewhat severe on the evidence applied to the world of messy clinical care at the interface of an individual patient, to not see, even marginally, some argument for these clinicians to help shoulder the huge MSK problem.
Concerning condemning. Is that the word you want me to say? Well OK. I condemn it and all personal attacks within what should be a balanced discussion BUT I will then willingly condemn myself for being less than calm and collected and thoughtful for what I have said when I felt passionate about something and felt attacked. And I would condemn myself willingly many times a week for such weakness. In this respect I can only apologise for being human.
based on the evidence you have shown us, I cannot recommend SMT for MSK
Then I guess we I’ll have to differ. I respect what you do. Calling out crazy claims is a moral duty of any profession. I just somewhat differ in my interpretation of the evidence as do significant numbers of other researchers and clinical guidelines. Thank you for your considered responses during out debate. They are appreciated Kind regards. Dave Newell
http://edzardernst.com/2014/10/the-chiropractic-attempt-to-have-the-cake-and-eat-it-has-failed/#comment-62043
This is all getting a little bit silly.
“I freely admit that for some patients it may be no better than other approaches, for some perhaps not the best route. But for some it seems such an approach may indeed be a good if not the best choice for some patients.”
Exactly the same argument applies to Unicruro therapy. In this the patient stands for five minutes, first on one leg, then for five minutes on the other. The theory behind this therapeutic modality is that standing one-legged provides postural relief for unilateral ossiconeural stresses in the lower body. By alternating the one-legged stance, a balance is achieved that restores to normal even minor dysfunctions at the points where nerves pass by or through bones.
The approach may be no better than other approaches, and for some not even the best route. But for some, Unicruro therapy may be a good or even the best choice. What better evidence could possibly be required?
“Karl Popper has already shown that given our limited ability to observe an infinite number of instances it is impossible to ‘prove’ any conjecture.”
Sadly, Karl Popper was an arm-waving philosopher, not a statistician or — for sure — a realist. You don’t have to have observed every single aeroplane to acknowledge we have proved that flight in heavier-than-air machines is a reality. Nor do you have to have observed every case of sepsis caused by bacteria susceptible to a particular antibiotic to acknowledge we have proved that antibiotic effects cures in most cases of sepsis. In both instances, failures happen, but they don’t disprove the basic reasoning from a limited number of cases.
I’ve a medical collague who’s fond of saying “You don’t need a prospective, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial to tell the difference between chocolate and faeces”. That’s fine as far as it goes, but when the colour, odour and taste of chocolate and faeces become near-indistinguishable, the scientific trial is the only way you can hope to achieve meaningful proof.
Sorry Dave, but you have clearly taken what Karl Popper said far beyond the breaking point of what he actually meant.
The impossibility of totally proving any conjecture is only a hypothesis, which does not fare well under evidence-based scrutiny. Furthermore, this hypothesized impossibility in no way grants a licence to proffer alternative yet-to-be-substantiated hypotheses as being equally viable alternatives.
Dicking around with philosophy and the pure sciences will get you well and truly plonked in any of the domains of mission-critical applied science, especially medicine!
You seem to be failing, abysmally, to understand two points:
1) The fundamental difference between probability density functions and the severe limitations of small sample size probability mass functions.
2) The burden of proof for establishing risk-benefit ratio lies with the proponent, not with skeptics, and definitely not with unwitting patients/clients.
Note: This is my interpretation of your comment. By all means demonstrate that I’m wrong.
Thank you for your response Pete…I guess we must agree to differ on both the philisophical interpreation and the evidence. Apologies for the brvity bu I have a lecture to finish and deliver. Work calls eh…..no pice for the wicked.
Kind reagrds\\
D
ps..and sorry for the appaling spelling :>)
Believer become agressive when you expose rational argument to confront their belief. Because of one simple reason : cognitive dissonance. They are left clueless with no counter rational argument, they know you may be right (or at least, you have something they can’t deny) and it’s very hard to them. So they use insult or fallacy (or both).
Edzard, you can say that you have won the debate without saying one word this time !
@Quark
Yes exactly. The fervor is because they feel hurt but do not understand why and their mind cannot analyse the problem rationally due to the dissonance block that is ubiquitous with altmed aficionados.
The attacks take a bit to get used to but after two or three furious ad hominem attacks, which most people who see or hear them realise are irrational, you start relaxing about it and using it to your advantage in the debate.
I prefer a critical scientific debate with references. The whole process is rather enjoyable!
I thought Dr. Moravec’s email was rather polite, considering that you and the others here are filled with radical anti-chiropractic hate-centric extremism and spend your waking hours trying to create a world free of chiropractic health care and any other approaches that don’t involve drugs. True, the remarks about EE soon being gone was in poor taste. I, for one, EE, wish you a long and healthy life, preferably doing something like needlepoint or something else in your cottage by the sea. But I will say, that perhaps Dr. Moravec thinks you are old because of your unflattering (IMO) photo. The shiny, bald look adds years to a person’s looks, especially in photos. It is the old glass half-empty or half-full debate. IOW, have you lost hair or have you gained face? The mustache is so fifties, too. The perpetual scowl, however, does suit you rather well. Just sayin’.
@ SkepdocProf
I see that you continue to feel very threatened by the mighty Professor Ernst.
Right, Blue. Hey, Blue, I like it! How’s this:
Come all without, come all within.
You’ll not see nothing like the mighty Ernst.
The relentless demolition of chiropractic’s reputation by chiropractors
http://edzardernst.com/2014/11/the-relentless-demolition-of-chiropractics-reputation-by-chiropractors/
Seems that you’re wholly complicit in the above, SkepdocProf.
Well, to paraphrase that old Bible reference: Judge not lest ye be judged. I am sure you have heard this as a child.
But, thank you, Blue Wode, for giving me so much credit!
The only one who could ever reach me
Was the son of a preacher man
The only boy who could ever teach me
Was the son of a preacher man
Yes he was, he was
Ooh, yes he was.
Dusty Springfield
As chiropractors we have to accept that we are not a modality in the same manner that medicine is not a drug. Both (technically speaking) are professions involved in the process of decision making and as much as we would like to dissociate from imperfect procedures, holes in evidence for x,y,z, etc we can not. Even the argument that “we’re not all like Sinnott, etc” is just sour grapes and the argument “we have lots of evidence” is simplistic at best. Evidence for what? Who? When? We ‘own’ the Sinnotts and we are ultimately responsible for the idiots whose zeal outweighs their intellect just as medicine ‘owns’ Dr Oz. So Dr Ernst – fire away, it’s good for us all.
Dr Newell. We should care less that ‘manipulation’ doesn’t ‘work’. We are not a modality. If we are evidence based then that is all that matters. If tomorrow a study appears which confirms the danger of it who cares except we leave it behind, and anyway it is not a modality unique to us.
In my experience discussions regarding the efficacy of spinal manipulation are not about that at all. They appear to be logical fallacies which amount to this – a priory medicine (and medical practitioners) is bad therefore anything they do is bad. I believe they do X therefore X is bad. No good skeptic would stand for such poor ideation.
There are good critics and poor ones. The good ones have the honesty and maturity not to approach complex issues with a broad brush.
Regards
Doug
In addition, science continually gets a bad rap – “I don’t like science because scientists say…..blah” It’s the same ridiculous argument. Science isn’t scientists but if it were we would have to reject the entirety of science due to the presence of Francis Collins (genome project) and his remarkable ability to commit, as Sam Harris once remarked, intellectual suicide as soon as he puts evangelical pen to paper. Frankly I despise anyone dishonest enough to not bother trying to eviscerate their own ideas and assumptions first, before launching off into the abyss of absolutism. It is confirmation of our collective ability to partition our minds, acting rationally over here and like ideological zealots over there, whilst remaining blind to our own self deception.
My landlady – also a graduate of Palmer College – threw me into the streets, with two spinal injuries that occurred at the same time, because I didn’t jump at a chance for her to “treat” me. She told me she’d send over a pack of Hell’s Angels if I didn’t get out immediately. I’ve been homeless for almost a year.
Along with a grasp of reality, I also doubt Palmer College teaches compassion,…
Is there any work discussing the motivation of people who enter professions?
All things being equal, how many students of chiropractic colleges would have chosen to enter orthodox medicine (and then perhaps specialised in spinal manipulation, life style advice, nutrition etc.)?
I know that around 70% of dental students to whom I taught anatomy would have preferred to have studied medicine, but turned to dentistry because all things were not equal for them.
interesting question!
sadly, I do not know the answer.
does anyone reading this?
An interesting study from last year:
An investigation into the demographics and motivations of students studying for a chiropractic degree
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3791904/
QUOTE
“The results suggested that students were coming to chiropractic to “do” chiropractic, rather than doing the course in lieu of other healthcare or academic courses. This is reflected by the 54.5% (n = 66) of students who said that they had chosen chiropractic so that they could help others. In contrast with medical students, very few (2.5%, n = 3) had chosen the course because of parental expectations and only 5.8% (n = 7) had a parent who was a chiropractor. In line with the previous findings of Byfield, the most common factor (55.4%, n = 67) to have influenced students to study chiropractic was the help they had received previously from chiropractic. With only 13.2% (n = 16) of students saying that they had always wanted to be a chiropractor, it is possible that chiropractic treatment influenced the others. In fact 22.3% (n = 27) said chiropractic had “changed their life.” The results also showed that 44.6% (n = 54) of students were attracted by chiropractic’s holistic, drugless approach to health, which again is in agreement with the findings of previous work.”
A probably more precise answer to Richard Rawlins Question would be from the study quoted by Blue Wode
“Respondents were asked to select other courses that they had considered before starting a chiropractic course. Most respondents considered physiotherapy (35.5%, n = 43) and this was followed closely by those who had not considered any other course (34.7%, n = 42). The next popular choice was osteopathy (32.2%, n = 39), followed by conventional medical, dental, or nursing degrees (14.0%, n = 17). The remainder was made up of massage (13.2%, n = 16), homoeopathy (5.0%, n = 6), other complementary and alternative medicine courses (10.7%, n = 13), and mental health courses (5.0%, n = 6). One respondent had previously considered a nonhealthcare-based course.”
SkepdocProf wrote on Saturday 01 November 2014 at 22:44: “Well, to paraphrase that old Bible reference: Judge not lest ye be judged. I am sure you have heard this as a child.”
Yes, I did, and was taught that that passage in Matthew was not forbidding judgment but hypocrisy.
Now, SkepdocProf, what was that you were saying about Professor Ernst’s ‘shiny, bald look adding years to a person’s looks’, and it being “the old glass half-empty or half-full debate…have you lost hair or have you gained face? The mustache is so fifties, too. The perpetual scowl, however, does suit you rather well.”
Hypocrisy much?