MD, PhD, FMedSci, FRSB, FRCP, FRCPEd

THE CHRONICLE OF CHIROPRACTIC is not a publication I usually read, I have to admit. But perhaps I should, because this article from its latest edition is truly fascinating. Here are the crucial excerpts:

“A so called “debate” on vertebral subluxation was held at the recent chiropractic educational conference held by the controlling factions of the Chiropractic Cartel: The World Federation of Chiropractic, the Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the American Chiropractic Association. Every few years this faction of the profession makes an attempt to disparage vertebral subluxation and those who practice in a subluxation model by trotting out its long list of Subluxation Deniers.

This year was no different.

David Newell, who is a Senior Lecturer at the Anglo European College of Chiropractic, made a number of unsubstantiated claims and engaged in logical fallacies that would shock even the casual observer. As an example, Newell made the statement:

“The subluxation as vitalistic concept, an impediment in and of itself to health and well being, impeding the expression of higher intelligence is not only entirely bereft of any evidence whatsoever but is a complete non starter even as a scientific question.”

…Newell claimed that what is dangerous about the use of vertebral subluxation are concepts and behavior associated with its use. Newell stated that subluxations are used by some in the profession to “scare or misinform patients” and gave the following examples of claims he has issues with:

  • You cannot be healthy with them
  • They will lead to serious disease
  • Chiropractors are the only ones that can help
  • A chiropractic manipulation is unique
  • You need to come back for the rest of your life
  • You need to bring your children otherwise they will not develop properly

Newell claimed that such statements are “confusing, un-evidenced and detrimental to our standing as a profession in the outside world” and that “at worse, sometimes used to justify approaches to care and practice models that are unacceptable both inside and outside of the profession.”

Newell … continued his tirade against his perceived threat to public health stating vertebral subluxation and the concepts attached to it are: “. . . used to generate dependancy through fear or coercion. Here, use of such words and concepts essentially as smoke screens for a model of care dominated by a coercive business ethic are strongly reputationally damaging and are not OK.” …Newell further claimed that the concept of ” . . . subluxation as an impediment to innate intelligence is bereft of science and evidence” and that “. . . this approach will be inadmissible to characterise a modern healthcare profession. Describing the profession in such language will further isolate and marginalise.”…”The irony” he states “. . . is of course that there are much better explanations, concepts and terms. Much of what is seen in practice can be explained by sound science and scientific language and so a subluxation model isn’t even needed.”

He went on to engage in further expressions of logical fallacies by stating: “Even on a simple level, science has yet to answer questions as to what a subluxation is as a defined entity, can it be validly and reliably identified, can it be validly and reliably shown to have gone post manipulation and is such disappearance associated with meaningful clinical change in patients.”

In reality, there is a rich evidence base that demonstrates the validity and reliability of numerous methods of measurements focused on the various components of vertebral subluxation as well as evidence demonstrating reduction or correction of it with resulting positive health outcomes.

Unfortunately, most simply go along with statements such as Newell’s either out of ignorance, simple aquiesence or collegiality.

Imagine the plight of students in a chiropractic program being exposed to Newell’s dogma, scientism and denial of even the existence of vertebral subluxation. That he is even given a stage and an audience is a failure of leadership within the ranks of those who purport to embrace the vitalistic concept of vertebral subluxation.

We laugh and mock those who contend the Earth is flat, yet Subluxation Deniers are given voice by schools and political organizations along with a role in determining the subluxation research agenda. And its the leadership on the traditional, conservative side of the profession that does this – as evidenced by his even being entertained at an educational conference billed as the largest and most important gathering of chiropractic educators and researchers.

Not a single objection to his, or any other Deniers, participation by the leadership in the vitalistic faction. In fact, quite the opposite – he was given the opportunity to spew his Flat Earth nonsense to a wide audience who educate the future of this profession.

Imagine a meeting at NASA where a Flat Earther is given a voice and a vote on the Mars Mission.

This was and is a failure of leadership within the vitalistic, conservative, traditional faction of the chiropractic profession.”

END OF EXCERTS

On this blog, we have heard again and again that the chiropractic profession is in the middle of a fundamental reform, that it has given up the idiotic concepts of its founders, that it has joined the 21st century, that it is becoming evidence-based, that progress is being made etc. etc. However, sceptics have always doubted these claims and pointed out that chiropractic minus its traditional concepts would merely become a limited type of physiotherapy.

From the above article, I get the impression that the notion of reform might be a bit optimistic. The old guard seems to be as alive and powerful as ever, fighting as fiercely as always to preserve chiropractic’s nonsensical cult.

Some will, of course, claim that the above article shows exactly the opposite of what I just stated. They will try to persuade us that it is evidence for the struggle of the new generation of chiropractors instilling reason into their brain-dead peers. It is evidence, they will claim, for the fact that there is a healthy discussion within the profession.

Yet this is simply not true: The maligned Mr Newell is NOT a chiropractor!

To me, the above article suggests that, for the foreseeable future, chiropractic will remain where it always has been: firmly anchored in the realm of quackery.

44 Responses to Chiropractors behaving badly

  • Well done Dr Newell!
    From the prospectus of the Anglo-European College of Chiropractic:
    “Newell, David – BSc, MSc, PhD, FRCC (Hon), FEAC – Reader, Director of Research.”

    Quite why he was appointed DoR when he has no qualification as a chiropractor (unless FEAC counts? What is FAEC?) – is for the AECC to explain, but “Since September 2005 our academic programmes have been validated by Bournemouth University.”!

    So, if BU are satisfied all is well is it not? Or is BU a disgrace to the academic community?

  • From the web:
    ‘The FEAC® Institute, prides itself on being THE Certification Institution for Enterprise Architects. Since opening in 2002, FEAC has graduated over 1500 Certified Architects’.

    So, FEAC is a registered trade mark for architects!
    Oh dear.

  • “The maligned Mr Newell is NOT a chiropractor!”

    Nor does he have any integrity to bother his conscience. Mr Newell and I crossed swords some a short time ago. While he makes such statements about chiro, he is in the employ of chiro and is so entrenched in the nonsense, he can’t and won’t bring himself to say the obvious; chiro is a nonsense and a fraud.

    “This was and is a failure of leadership within the vitalistic, conservative, traditional faction of the chiropractic profession.”

    This is usually where that silly chiro from Sydney pops up to spiel about the “great reform” of chiro and spout the expected nonsense. How he will explain this crap will be even more amusing than his normal comical pronouncements. A prime A-grade, pretentious dill, if there ever was one. This is also where that other buffoon L-B puts up his zeppelin sized ego, so green with envy with that his wife is a PT and his daughter is a real doctor, and condemns that which he does not know. No wonder he is an embarrassment to his family.

    “engaged in logical fallacies that would shock even the casual observer”

    These clowns talk about logical fallacies yet don’t understand them. Their cognitive dissonance is so great they don’t realise they are using the most egregious of fallacies, the Fallacy Fallacy, as they fall over themselves to condemn others on the most specious grounds.

    • It was enjoyable to again read Frank’s insult-imbued drivel about me; it’s obvious that he is so enraged at his failures in past discussions with me to cogently prove his farcical views that he is now insulting me before I have even commented on this post. Obviously my having exposed his clearly identified incompetence on matters of modern chiropractice have “gotten into his head” (plenty of potential space there, for sure!).

      Good ol’ Frank here has continued posting drivel about things about which he knows little or nothing. Just for you, Frank, I will post in very elementary verbiage to expose both your blatant anti-chiro bias and your currently infinitesimal knowledge of chiropractice relative to mainstream treatment of patients in the USA. I personally believe that the chiropractic subluxation is mythical; I’m saddened that the term and its vitalist(to use CC’s descriptor) concepts still exist in some areas. However, if you compare the profession today with that of 40 years ago, positive reform has blatantly occurred.

      I apprecieate your angst (psychological torment from being unable to win an argument regarding mainstream chiropractice and fallacies) relative to logical fallacies allegedly proposed by me. You obviously have been flummoxed and disheartened when, in past threads, I noted that you and many other usual actors on this site have committed such fallacies regularly; multiple examples have been presented. I expect that your head will explode when you here read my admission of using Tu Quo Que in this instance via pointing out YOUR blatant past use of fallacies. Do enjoy the painful “blast” of neuronal activity as you scurry to craft one of your typically cretin-esque rebuttals; feel free to use Tylenol as needed while you compose it.

      I’ve described many times what occurs in my practice; there’s nothing bogus or unprofessional. You allege that chiro is a nonsense and a fraud, yet the vast majority of mainstream DC’s observe the same rehab protocols(used by PT’s and PM&R’s) supported by the literature and also have the training and licenses to diagnose and provide SMT. In fact, diagnosis is required in most states for the chiropractic physician to obtain a license. In other words, my dear, good ol’ Frank, for you to be correct in your judgments about the profession would mean that thousands of credentialing specialists, Medicare/insurance/Medicaid policy-makers and researchers, and the millions of patients who benefit from chiro services would be wrong. Now Frank, you seem to think a lot of your reasoning skills (I can’t understand why), so why don’t you apply some Bayesian reasoning to this matter?

      There are millions of professionals and patients who disagree with your thoughts on this matter. Your preconsideration creedance level regarding mainstream chiropractice should outweigh your prejudice, although you may account for both in your calculation. When you consider the diagnostic and treatment services offered by mainstream chiro offices, it would be difficult even for you to not question your meritless positions. Yours is only a biased, sub-cogent(regarding chiro) voice from a septic tank of CAMEDICS and you don’t seem interested in the least to learn anything about chiropractice other than that which seems to support your personal world view, and to generate a few “laughs,” “Way to go!,” encouragements from other CAMEDICS on this site.

      You also have in the past refused to explain why many situations in medicine. which are analagous to your complaints about chiropractic, are not despicable and are not considered nonsense or fraud. I wonder if your middle initial is “H” for hypocrite? Would you care to share?

    • Frank Collins wrote in response to ‘the maligned Mr Newell is NOT a chiropractor’: “Nor does he have any integrity to bother his conscience. Mr Newell and I crossed swords some a short time ago. While he makes such statements about chiro, he is in the employ of chiro and is so entrenched in the nonsense, he can’t and won’t bring himself to say the obvious; chiro is a nonsense and a fraud.”

      @ Frank Collins

      FYI, Dave Newell has just been appointed to the position of Senior Research Fellow at the Department of Primary Care and Population Sciences (PCPS), Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton. Chair of Trustees of the Chiropractic Research Council (CRC), Elisabeth Angier commented: “This exciting initiative will help to significantly develop the UK chiropractic research capacity in the medium to long term, and aims to establish a cadre of researchers with appropriate skills and experience to launch an impactful program of research relevant to the chiropractic profession over the next five years.”

      Some further snippets:

      “Dave will join a research group at UoS that has a longstanding and influential national and international reputation in primary-care research, with impressive results in the higher education Research Excellence Framework exercise, and influential collaborations with many other universities, including Oxford and Keele…Following a rigorous recruitment and interview process, conducted by the Faculty of Medicine at the University of Southampton, Dave Newell will commence as a Senior Research Fellow for 2 days a week in September 2017. He will continue in his role as Research Director at AECC, enabling unique collaborative research opportunities between the chiropractic profession and the wider healthcare research and primary care community…To fulfil one of the CRC’s goals of building long term research capacity, an association with a high quality primary care research team will provide credibility, impact and potential for future joint grant and fellowship applications. The CRC sees this initiative as beginning of a long-term research initiative that will make a significant contribution to chiropractic patient care and the development of enhanced evidence-based care in the wider context of healthcare in the UK.”

      Details: http://www.crc-uk.org/senior-research-fellow-appointed-leading-uk-university/

      Meanwhile, 82.9% of the 1,000+ strong Alliance of UK Chiropractors believe in the bogus Vertebral Subluxation Complex: http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AUKC_Oct_Newsletter.pdf – and that’s the UK chiropractors who are prepared to admit that they are mired in unscientific beliefs.

      @ Richard Rawlins

      Is it confirmed that David Newell’s background is in architecture?

      ______________________________________________________________________

      “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”
      Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

  • Professor Ernst wrote: “On this blog, we have heard again and again that the chiropractic profession is in the middle of a fundamental reform…From the above article, I get the impression that the notion of reform might be a bit optimistic. The old guard seems to be as alive and powerful as ever, fighting as fiercely as always to preserve chiropractic’s nonsensical cult.”

    Indeed. For example, I still haven’t had a satisfactory answer from the UK profession regarding:

    1.) When its regulator is going to outlaw The Scotland College of Chiropractic
    http://www.zenosblog.com/2016/02/the-scotland-college-of-chiropractic-out-of-kilter-with-science/

    2.) Why its regulator isn’t publicly condemning the Alliance of UK Chiropractors (AUKC)
    http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AUKC_Oct_Newsletter.pdf

    Readers may be interested to know that only a handful of chiropractors have been removed from the UK General Chiropractic Council’s Register since 2010, with only one being removed in 2016:
    http://www.gcc-uk.org/UserFiles/Docs/Council%20Meetings/2017/March%202017%20open%20papers.pdf (p.78)

    However, given that 82.9% of the 1000+ strong AUKC believe in the Vertebral Subluxation Complex
    http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AUKC_Oct_Newsletter.pdf why several hundred UK chiropractors haven’t been removed from the Register for long contravening sections C1 & S3.6 of The Code http://www.gcc-uk.org/UserFiles/Docs/G20.006%20CofP_stage%203%20hyperlinks%202708.pdf is a mystery.

    IMO, it shows that the General Chiropractic Council isn’t fit for purpose.

    ___________________________________________________________________________________________

    “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.” Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

    • @ Blue Wode

      I would love to hear your thoughts on the recent Professional Standards Authority review on the General Chiropractic Council and how it compares to the other regulatory bodies?

    • @Blue

      I’ve never heard of the Scotland CC or the AUKC; I doubt that more than a few chiropractic physicians in the US have. I did take the time to read the links you posted and admit they left me shaking my head in frustration. Still, your and Edzard’s baseless claims that chiropractic has not been in the midst of reformative/evlutionary progression toward science-based practice and EbM is chimerical at best, purposefully misinformative at worst. One must simply observe the literature published about chiropractic/rehabilitation over the last 40 years to conclude a marked positive change in practice guidelines, methods, research, and documentation of outcomes. The fact that there are still some groups in the world which harbor non-contemporaneous concepts about why chiropractice is effective does not mean that the profession is not progressing.

      Of course CAMEDICS such as yourself abstain from shining light on this truth, choosing instead to highlight the profession’s still-obvious deficiencies. Instead of providing the whole story, you choose to provide the side which fits your preconceptions. You, along with your stablemate Geir, simply have chosen to damn us all for perceived failings of some. Geir, for example, stated about surgeons in a previous thread, “You can find bungling amateurs with MD-degrees all over the world.” I wonder why “modern medicine” has not acted on this dire threat to public health and safety. Why has there not been reform within medicine significant enough to have eradicated the permissability of hapless MD surgeons’ operating on patients? Of course, other CAMEDICS on this site have impotently bibbled that “modern medicine” weeds out bad drugs and subutilitarian procedures/programs via scientific evaluation of them. Yet there apparently has not been adequate, ongoing reform to have rid the public of “bungling amateur” sugeons’ wreaking havoc on innocent patients.

      Reform is certainly occurring within chiropractic and such can easily be seen if one were to earnestly look for it. Of course, “earnest looking” is not what you do, is it Blue?

      PS: I always enjoy your including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when you post. It appears that you are ignorant of the fact that referencing him as some type of implicit countenance for your comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

      • Logos-Bios wrote: “The fact that there are still some groups in the world which harbor non-contemporaneous concepts about why chiropractice is effective does not mean that the profession is not progressing. Of course CAMEDICS such as yourself abstain from shining light on this truth, choosing instead to highlight the profession’s still-obvious deficiencies. Instead of providing the whole story…”

        @ Logos-Bios

        The whole story is what chiropractors like to keep under wraps for fear that it will negatively impact on their incomes and deter new recruits (who are needed to keep the whole charade going). Fortunately, Professor Ernst repeatedly switches the floodlights on the truth about chiropractic. Indeed, here he is earlier this year in a blog post that is worth publishing again in full:

        [ERNST QUOTE]
        At a recent conference in Montréal (October 2016), the WFC (World Federation of Chiropractic) and the ACC (Association of Chiropractic Colleges) reached a consensus on chiropractic education which they published online… https://www.wfc.org/website/images/wfc/qwr/QWR_2016D.pdf …recommendations were produced that offer 12 key ‘take away messages’. I take the liberty of reproducing these statements entitled ‘Training Tomorrow’s Spine Care Experts’ (the square brackets were inserted by me and refer to brief comments I made below).

        START OF WFC/ACC QUOTE
        1. Chiropractic educational institutions have a responsibility to equip students with the skills and attributes necessary to become future spinal health care experts. This includes a commitment to astute diagnostic ability, a comprehensive knowledge of spine-related disorders [1], appreciation for the contributions of other health professionals and a commitment to collaborative, patient-centered and evidence-informed care [2].
        2. Technological advances [3] provide an opportunity for the chiropractic profession to enhance, evolve and standardize core education and practice. This is relevant to the teaching of chiropractic skills, sharing of learning resources and assessment of performance. Emerging technologies that support the development of clinically-competent practitioners should be embedded within chiropractic programs.
        3. The teaching and learning of specialized manual assessment and treatment skills should remain a key distinguishing element of chiropractic curricula.
        4. Surveys of the public have a demonstrated a desire for consistency in the provision of chiropractic services. Such consistency need not compromise the identities of individual institutions but will cultivate public trust and cultural authority [4].
        5. Globally consistent educational and practice standards will facilitate international portability [5] and promote greater health equity in the delivery of spine care.
        6. Chiropractic programs should espouse innovation and leadership in the context of ethical [6], sustainable business [7] practices.
        7. Chiropractic educational curricula should reflect current evidence [8] and high quality guidelines [9], and be subjected to regular review to ensure that students are prepared to work in collaborative health care environments.
        8. The training of tomorrow’ s spine care experts should incorporate current best practices in education.
        9. Interdisciplinary collaboration and strategic partnerships present opportunities to position chiropractors as leaders [10] and integral team players in global spine care.
        10. Chiropractic educational institutions should champion the integration of evidence informed clinical practice [11], including clinical practice guidelines, in order to optimize patient outcomes. This will in turn foster principles of lifelong learning and willingness to adapt practice methods in the light of emerging evidence [12].
        11. Students, faculty, staff and administrators must all contribute to a learning environment that fosters cultural diversity, critical thinking [13], academic responsibility and scholarly activity.
        12. Resources should be dedicated to embed and promote educational research activity in all chiropractic institutions.
        END OF WFC/ACC QUOTE

        And here are my brief comments:

        [1] Some chiropractors believe that all or most human conditions are ‘spine-related disorders’. We would need a clear statement here whether the WFC/ACC do support or reject this notion and what conditions we are actually talking about.
        [2] ‘Evidence-informed’??? I have come across this term before; it is used more and more by quacks of all types. It is clearly not synonymous with ‘evidence-based’, but aims at providing a veneer of respectability by creation an association with EBM. In concrete terms, asthma, for instance, might, in the eyes of some chiropractors, be an evidence-informed indication for chiropractic. In other words, ‘evidence-informed’ is merely a card blanch for promoting all sorts of nonsense.
        [3] It would be good to know which technical advances they are thinking of.
        [4] Public trust is best cultivated by demonstrating that chiropractic is doing more good than harm; by itself, this point sounds a bit like PR for maximising income. Sorry, I am not sure what they mean by ‘cultural authority’ – chiropractic as a cult?
        [5] ‘International portability’ – nice term, but what does it mean?
        [6] I get the impression that many chiropractors do not know what is meant by the term ‘ethics’.
        [7] But they certainly know much about business!
        [8] That is, I think, the most relevant statement in the entire text – see below.
        [9] Like those by NICE which no longer recommend chiropractic for back pain? No? They are not ‘high quality’? I see, only those that recommend chiropractic fulfil this criterion!
        [10] Chiropractors as leaders? Really? With their (largely ineffective) manipulations as the main contribution to the field? You have to be a chiropractor to find this realistic, I guess.
        [11] Again ‘evidence-informed’ instead of ‘evidence-based’ – who are they trying to kid?
        [12] The evidence that has been emerging since many years is that chiropractic manipulations fail to generate more good than harm.
        [13] In the past, I got the impression that critical thinking and chiropractic are a bit like fire and water.

        MY CONCLUSION FROM ALL THIS

        What we have here is, in my view, little more than a mixture between politically correct drivel and wishful thinking. If chiropractors truly want chiropractic educational curricula to “reflect current evidence”, they need to teach the following main tenets:

        • Chiropractic manipulations have not been shown to be effective for any of the conditions they are currently used for.
        • Other forms of treatment are invariably preferable.
        • Subluxation, as defined by chiropractors, is a myth.
        • Spine-related disorders, as taught in many chiropractic colleges, are a myth.
        • ‘Evidence-informed’ is a term that has no meaning; the proper word is ‘evidence-based’ – and evidence-based chiropractic is a contradiction in terms.

        Finally, chiropractors need to be aware of the fact that any curriculum for future clinicians must include the core elements of critical assessment and medical ethics. The two combined would automatically discontinue the worst excesses of chiropractic abuse, such as the promotion of bogus claims or the financial exploitation of the public.

        But, of course, none of this is ever going to happen! Why? Because it would mean teaching students that they need to find a different profession. And this is why I feel that statements like the above are politically correct drivel which can serve only one purpose: to distract everyone from the fundamental problems in that profession.
        [/END OF ERNST QUOTE]

        Ref http://edzardernst.com/2017/01/educating-chiros/

        Logos-Bios wrote: “PS: I always enjoy your including a quoted diss by Geir”

        To keep you happy…
        _____________________________________________________________________

        “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

        Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

        • @Blue

          How much time did it take you to cut-and-paste your comments, Blue? Why do you imply that the “12 takeaways” from the Montreal conference are undesirable? Please specifiy what you believe is objectionable about each statement.

          I note you failed to address my counterpoint to your bogus claim that chiropractic is not in the midst of reform. You also circumvented my comment regarding the lack of apparent reform of “modern medicine’s” allowing “bungling amateur surgeons” (per the Icelander) to continue to convey morbidity, or worse, on innocent patients. You have consistently avoided the discussing of why you fail to complain, or at least explain, why procedures/programs within “modern medicine,” such as IMATCH(discussed in previous threads) are tacitly carried out despite at-best limited evidence for its use; $30 K or more for the program suggests that medicine knows more about profiting in business than does the chiropractic profession. It would be easy to compose a narrative about “modern medicine” regarding purposeful lies about drug research which have resulted in copious deaths, hugely profitable programs with squat for evidence, etc.; in fact, such a narrative could be factually true, yet “spun” to give the reader a negative perception of medicine at large. I don’t believe that such would be an honorable pursuit, however. Of course you are aware of such literary tactics as you seek to agrandize yourself among your fellow CAMEDICS by attempting to author anti-chiropractic hit pieces without evincing a “tell.” You’re simply not a good enough writer to pull this off, though…your bias reeks from your posts. Here’s betting that you avoid attempting to justify IMATCH or profit-driven drug-company research corruption.

          Mainstream chiropractice in the USA includes diagnosis, physical therapy/rehab, SMT, and other physician duties as mandated by law and authorized per licensure. As much as you would like to spin the narrative otherwise, the main contribution of DC’s is not limited to SMT thus your baseless assertion that they can’t be leaders is mendacious. Are Dr. Cassidy(world famous researcher) and Dr. Moreau(medical director for Team USA) not leaders? The majority of your comments in this recent post of yours are so one-sided and biased that they render as likely dubious even some of your less contentious points.

          PS: I always enjoy your including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when you post. It appears that you are ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for your comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

          • Logos-Bios wrote: “How much time did it take you to cut-and-paste your comments, Blue?”

            About five minutes.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “Why do you imply that the “12 takeaways” from the Montreal conference are undesirable? Please specifiy what you believe is objectionable about each statement.”

            See above for Professor Ernst’s perceptive objections about them. I am in complete agreement with him.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “I note you failed to address my counterpoint to your bogus claim that chiropractic is not in the midst of reform.”

            It was addressed in Professor Ernst’s long quote and also in my previous comments.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “Here’s betting that you avoid attempting to justify IMATCH or profit-driven drug-company research corruption.”

            Why should I justify it? The topic here is chiropractic. I refuse to be derailed by tu quoque diversionary tactics.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “Mainstream chiropractice in the USA includes diagnosis, physical therapy/rehab, SMT, and other physician duties as mandated by law and authorized per licensure.”

            Let’s have a look at that law a little more closely:

            QUOTE
            “In the United States, state laws and chiropractic publications define chiropractic as a method of correcting vertebral subluxations to restore and maintain health. A 2010 publication of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE), Practice Analysis of Chiropractic, states that “The specific focus of chiropractic practice is known as the chiropractic subluxation or joint dysfunction. A subluxation is a health concern that manifests in the skeletal joints, and, through complex anatomical and physiologic relationships, affects the nervous system and may lead to reduced function, disability, or illness.” This definition of chiropractic is in keeping with a paradigm formulated by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) in 1996, signed by 16 North American chiropractic college presidents: “Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation.”
            When the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) published its proposed 2012 Accreditation Standards for chiropractic colleges, reference to the word “subluxation” was omitted. The American Chiropractic Association (ACA) responded, in part, arguing that “The elimination of any reference to this term in the proposed standards will be viewed by many within the profession as a counter productive action that will, in the long-term, likely weaken the profession’s collaborative strength and historical identity.“ The CCE compromised by using the nebulous phrase “subluxation/neuro-biomechanical dysfunction” in the final 2012 Standards in order to satisfy advocates of the vertebral subluxation theory. (An open letter to the profession from CCE, Nov 22-11) Obviously, the factory of the chiropractic profession has not discarded subluxation theory. Chiropractic associations continue to reflect the views of the majority, even if such views are based on a belief system … It will not be enough for chiropractors and chiropractic colleges to substitute such words and phrases as “joint dysfunction,” “vertebral subluxation complex,” and “subluxation/neuro-biomechanical dysfunction” for the word “subluxation” if they continue to imply that such disturbances can affect the nervous system to cause illness. A chiropractic subluxation by any other name is still a chiropractic subluxation … There is no reason to believe that the subluxation theory will ever be discarded by all chiropractors. Unable to demonstrate that real orthopedic subluxations can cause organic disease, some chiropractors refer to a “vertebral subluxation complex,” another name for a chiropractic subluxation that is asymptomatic and undetectable. Belief systems cannot be eradicated by scientific presentations, especially subluxation-based chiropractic which finds support in the pseudoscience of alternative medicine.”

            Ref: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/subluxation-theory-a-belief-system-that-continues-to-define-the-practice-of-chiropractic/

            Logos-Bios wrote: “As much as you would like to spin the narrative otherwise, the main contribution of DC’s [sic] is not limited to SMT”

            Please list the ways in which (the few) reformist chiropractors differ from physiotherapists.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “Are Dr. Cassidy (world famous researcher) and Dr. Moreau (medical director for Team USA) not leaders?

            Some might call David Cassidy, PhD, an infamous leader. For example, a large study of his, which has long been fêted by chirorpactors, was fatally flawed:
            http://edzardernst.com/2015/01/chiropractic-neck-manipulation-can-cause-stroke/

            It’s also interesting to read what Björn Geir Leifsson, MD, has to say:

            QUOTE:
            “In a hearing before the Connecticut State Board of Chiropractic Examiners Cassidy admitted upon a direct question, that a patient of his suffered stroke after spinal manipulation. He was asked whether he considered the manipulation to have caused the stroke. His reply was to the effect that he did think so at first but after researching the matter he no longer did.
            This fact does cast a different light on the whole matter and should be kept in mind when considering his choice of study subjects, designs and conclusions and when evaluating his results against other researcher’s findings. I certainly find it easier to understand some rather peculiar aspects of his study designs and deductive reasoning.
            I would not blame any therapist or clinician who has faced such a terrible adverse outcome in someone who placed their trust in his hands, if they looked for and tried to find support for the notion that they or their vocation were not to blame.
            David Cassidy has certainly pursued the question with ardour and an admirable academic arsenal, but has the incident, which must have been tormenting, affected his work and his deductive reasoning? I am inclined to suspect it did.”

            and…

            QUOTE
            “Cassidy 2008 and other similar attempts at estimating away the risk of CAD after SMT has been reevaluated in later work and the mistakes analysed. Here is an excerpt from “Case Misclassification in Studies of Spinal Manipulation and Arterial Dissection” Xuemei Cai, MD, Ali Razmara, MD, PhD, Jessica K. Paulus, ScD, Karen Switkowski, MS, MPH, Pari J. Fariborz, Sergey D. Goryachev, MS, Leonard D’Avolio, MS, PhD, Edward Feldmann, MD, David E. Thaler, MD, PhD DOI: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jstrokecerebrovasdis.2014.03.007

            The earlier studies omitted the dissection-specific codes (443.xx) in their case definition because they were not in use in Ontario at the time (personal communication, Navin Goocool, April 30, 2013). The population in our study did have these codes available, and therefore, to avoid an overestimation of case misclassification, we included the 3 additional dissection codes in our initial EMR query (‘‘modified Rothwell/Cassidy strategy’’).
            Cassidy et al [2008] suggested that the association between cases and PCP/SMT exposure was because of patients with pre-existing dissections seeking care for neck pain (reverse causation). However, if the ICD-9 code positive predictive value measured in the VA database is generalizable to the Ontario health system data, then the Cassidy study actually found an association between PCP visits and patients with conventional strokes due to atherosclerotic and cardioembolic mechanisms. This association is well known and has been described before. It is because of the frequent clinical
            visits needed to manage established vascular risk factors.10 Our sensitivity analysis suggests that the ORs for the association between SMT and CAD would be very large with accurately identified cases. Lastly, the misclassification may disproportionately affect ORs for those less than 45 years of age—a group of patients with a lower prevalence of atherosclerosis-related infarcts and a higher prevalence of strokes due to dissections.16 Given the small numbers of true cases, ORs within age strata could not be calculated, but our sensitivity analysis suggests the association between SMT and CAD in younger patients is markedly stronger after adjusting for case misclassification

            And what do they mean by “large” ? Among the subgroup of the population less than 45 years of age and applying the above assumptions, those with a chiropractor visit within 30 days of their stroke would have nearly 7 times the odds of CAD (OR 5 6.91, 95% CI 2.59-13.74).

            That means that the risk is most likely about seven fold and there is 95% chance that the true odds ratio is about between 2,6 to 13.7. That is nothing less than horrendous if correct.”

            Ref: http://edzardernst.com/2017/02/upper-neck-manipulations-by-chiropractors-regularly-cause-serious-harm-why-is-it-still-used/

            As for William Moreau, DC, Medical director for Team USA, an MD commenter on this blog recently shared some interesting thoughts about him…

            QUOTE
            “…[Moreau is] not a legitimate medical director since he has no medical training. Like others, those who chose him were misinformed about the difference in DC and MD, as the chiro world has conned their way into health care. Now I understand why Michael Phelps was persuaded to use and proselytize the ridiculous and fraudulent cupping treatment during the [Olympic] games. This sounds like something a non medical alternative guru would support and likely recommend.”

            Logos-Bios wrote: “The majority of your comments in this recent post of yours are so one-sided and biased that they render as likely dubious even some of your less contentious points.”

            Projection much? Unlike you, where possible I am adhering to what the scientific data tell us. Also, I am not a chiropractor.

            Logos-Bios wrote: “PS: I always enjoy your including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when you post. It appears that you are ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for your comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!”

            Ernst’s Law alert: ‘If you are researching complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) and you are not hated by the CAM world, you’re not doing it right.’
            http://edzardernst.com/2013/11/ernsts-law/

            Also see ‘Ad-hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason’
            http://edzardernst.com/2012/12/ad-hominem-attacks-are-signs-of-victories-of-reason-over-unreason/

            _____________________________________________________________________

            “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

            Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

          • @Blue

            I knew you would deflect from the reality that you point out admitted flaws within professions you dislike and give a pass to the same within “modern medicine.” I note that you have not proven that reform is not occurring within Chiropractic. BTW, opinion statements from Edzard do little to bolster confidence in anything you post about paramedical professions. It would bolster your arguments if you would occasionally present bonafide, original substantiation. Try harder!

            You refuse to be derailed? What a hoot! The only goal from which you refuse to be derailed is pointing a hypocritical finger at professions about which you post only parts of the truth.

            Regarding your half-baked, copy-and-paste “definition” of chiropractic, I addressed this comprehensively in a previous post as to why the subluxation language had to be included. Medicare law REQUIRES the use of the term for chiropractic physicians to be remunerated for medically necessary services. If there is a diagnosis of cervical strain, the associated dysfunction(if present) must be coded as the primary diagnosis. Furthermore, the diagnosis and treatment plan must be found to be medically necessary for reimbursement to occur. So it seems that you, in your haste to darken the eye of USA mainstream chiropractice by ignorantly tying “subluxation” to its identity without knowing the historical evolution of Medicare law relative to it, have appealed to Medicare as being the ostensible arbiter of what Chiropractice entails; since you have taken such a foolish position, you must also own the fact that Medicare also countenances chiropractic services to be medically necessary.

            PS: I always enjoy your including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when you post. It appears that you are ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for your comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

        • Blue wrote,” Also see ‘Ad-hominem attacks are signs of victories of reason over unreason,” apparently regarding my reference to Geir. He apparently is touting such verbiage as a victory of some sort due to a(er, my) logical fallacy. Blue’s hypocrisy is again on full display as he failed to admonish Frank earlier in this thread when he proffered just such an ad hominem to me. Frank stated, “This is also where that other buffoon L-B puts up his zeppelin sized ego, so green with envy with that his wife is a PT and his daughter is a real doctor, and condemns that which he does not know. No wonder he is an embarrassment to his family.”

          Blue’s penchant for chastising paramedical professions for the same alleged sins committed daily within “modern medicine,” and with the latter carrying more severe mortality/morbidity ramifications to patients, is the epitome of hypocrisy. This hypocrisy has now been further exemplified by his attempting to defame me regarding a personal attack while letting Frank’s more egregious insult toward me pass by him sans a rebuke; no surprises from this CAMEDIC! Blue sees what he wants to see and comments only on the selected tidbits of news which fit his meta-narrative….and he is unable to recognize it.

          PS: I always enjoy Blue’s including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when he posts. It appears that he is ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for his comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

          • Logos-Bios wrote: “Blue’s hypocrisy is again on full display as he failed to admonish Frank earlier in this thread when he proffered just such an ad hominem to me.”

            I think it’s time to remind *all* posters to this blog about Professor Ernst’s Rules, especially this one…

            “I do like clearly expressed views and intend to be as outspoken as politeness allows. I hope that commentators will do the same, no matter whether they agree or disagree with me. Yet a few, simple, principles should be observed by everyone commenting on my blog.”

            More: http://edzardernst.com/rules/

            @ Logos-Bios

            Now, would you please answer the question I asked here:
            http://edzardernst.com/2017/03/chiropractors-behaving-badly/#comment-88445

            _____________________________________________________________________

            “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”
            Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

        • Blue again deflects……nothing new here!

          YAWN………

  • So scientism is a bad thing? Taken to it’s most derogatory extent, perhaps, but I see the dismissal of Mr. Newell’s argument as “scientism” being a much greater stain on those aligned against him.

  • Well done Dave Newell.
    @Frank Collins
    This is where Frank does the usual carpet bombing. You really are incapable of supporting reform and reformers like Dave Newell. You are as much a part of the problem as the fringe vitalist true believers when it comes to reform.

    McCoy press and McCoy himself are a joke. Chiropractors rip into him and he does not respond well.

  • I am trying to ascertain what Dr Newell’s qualification as ‘FEAC’ is supposed to imply.

    I am in fact giving a talk in Bournemouth on June 28th – so may get to meet some real live chiropractors.

    ‘The Magic of Alternative Medicine’, 7 p.m. at The Green House, 4 Grove Road, for the Dorset Humanists.
    All will be welcome! No tickets needed.
    (A follow up to a talk a couple of years ago on ‘Real Secrets of Alternative Medicine’ – conveniently, the title of my book which you can get from Amazon!)

    I will be revealing a magicians trick employed by some chiropractors to create the illusion that they have reduced those pesky subluxations.

    Woo!

    Richard Rawlins FRCS MMC
    Fellow, Royal College of Surgeons. Member of the Magic Circle.

    • Hi Richard Rawlings. I hope your talk in Bournemouth went very well.

      FEAC stands for Fellow of the European Academy of Chiropractic, a subcommittee of the European Chiropractors Union.

      I have recently it seems become yet again the target of the loony fringe of the profession for having the temerity to point out that the inappropriate use of x ray to find the ‘magic’ subluxations as supported by Matthew McCoy’s Chronicle of Chiropractic (Narnia) has no basis in reality.http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/151438

      The fact of the matter is that conservative care as delivered by chiropractors in that it is a package of care that included exercise advice, movement advice, psychological support, manual interventions and the construction of appropriate contextual cues is entirely supported by evidence and international guidelines as a first port of call for simple low back pain. Expert, highly trained, ethical and regulated chiropractors deliver this care to millions of patients in the UK including those in the NHS. This part of the profession constitutes the vast majority but it remains the duty of those in the profession including clinicians on the ground, regulators, representative bodies and indeed academics such as myself to strongly and consistently call out the unsubstantiated rhetoric, regressive and unacceptable behaviour of the few that do not hold to the vision of modernity that most of us do. This is what we will continue to do as is the duty of any professional regardless of the specialism they align to. Whether we garner the support of our critics such as Edward, Blue, Frank and others is as Edward and Blue have pointed out many times not necessarily our concern or their job. Its the professions job and we will continue to do that job to the best of ability first and foremost to provide the best possible choices of care to the chiropractic profession’s patients and secondarily to properly represent our committed and excellent students and the 1000’s of UK and indeed globally practicing chiropractors that expertly and ethically care for their patients every day.

      • Would be interesting to have a dozen or two chiropractors read the same set of roentgenograms and see how well they agree.

      • @DN:
        What makes no sense to me is seen in an analogy to Christianity….IF it was proven to the vast majority that the resurrection was a hoax and Jesus was no Christ just another guy bloviating about stuff he had no more understanding of than any of his contemporaries, WHY maintain “Christianity” (other than to perpetuate a lucrative financial endeavor) WHAT would it be offering other than another ‘human’ undertaking?

        As with Chiropractic, IF the entire concept of ‘intervertebral subluxation’ (or any such mecho-neurological vitalistic interference via the spinal-bones moving ‘out-of-place’) and its inexplicable and ineluctable connection to the Chiropractic ‘doctor’….WHAT point IS IT? It has NO foundation on which to corral patients, no paradigm or “hook” to captivate a patient into thinking there is a different “cause” to their pain….a cause missed by the “uninformed, uninitiated” PTs and MDs.

        None of the Chiropractic ‘proponents’ EVER tell us skeptics WTF ‘Chiropractic’ is supposedly offering IF the subluxation concept is extirpated. “A package” delivered by fake-doctors with no hospital-training in competition with those with defined and specific training, infinitely better positioned to deliver ‘exercise & movement’ advice WITHOUT the inevitable baggage of gnosticism.
        And THAT leads us to recognize that the Chiropractic profession’s connection to the “subluxation” in all its vitalist-glory ain’t going anywhere.

  • I don’t think the subluxation concept is anywhere near going to disappear. I did think that “vitalistic” is like a swear word, but these people use it beaming with pride:

    “Dedicated to the Founding Principles & Tenets of the Chiropractic Profession
    The mission of the Foundation is to advocate for and advance the founding principles and tenets of the chiropractic profession in the area of vertebral subluxation through research, education, policy and service.  A sick and suffering humanity needs us … …

    Vertebral Subluxation Research & Scholarship Initiative
    This research agenda seeks to validate the profession and position chiropractic as a vitalistic, scientific, evidence-informed clinical practice. … … It is imperative to make these new research advancements available to the public, other health professions, and to legislators in order to promote and to systematically advance the field of subluxation centered chiropractic through the initiation of favorable public health policy.”
    (https://www.vertebralsubluxation.org/research)

  • Further, they are strongly supporting the anti-vaccine delusion. On the cited Chronicle’s website there is a big link and a prompt to “Support The National Vaccine Information Center” http://www.nvic.org/.

    What do chiropractors know about immunology? Nil. This is just another way of distancing themselves from evidence based health care and painting themselves further into the woo corner. Sad, sad indeed. And potentially dangerous.

  • Edzard quoting Matthew McCoy on chiropractic is like quoting Burzynski on medicine. The guy is a juvenile dick head (Pardon my choice of words but for McCoy they are necessary). Pity you are not privy to some of his exchanges with chiropractic critics. He is so pathetic that he has even been fired from subluxation central Life College. That says it all.

  • Logos-Bios wrote on Sunday 02 April 2017 at 18:47: “It would bolster your arguments if you would occasionally present bonafide, original substantiation.”

    I do that enough. See https://twitter.com/hashtag/singhbca

    Logos-Bios wrote on Sunday 02 April 2017 at 18:47 : “Regarding your half-baked, copy-and-paste “definition” of chiropractic … Medicare law REQUIRES the use of the term for chiropractic physicians to be remunerated for medically necessary services … So it seems that you, in your haste to darken the eye of USA mainstream chiropractice by ignorantly tying “subluxation” to its identity without knowing the historical evolution of Medicare law relative to it, have appealed to Medicare as being the ostensible arbiter of what Chiropractice entails; since you have taken such a foolish position, you must also own the fact that Medicare also countenances chiropractic services to be medically necessary.”

    So, what diagnostic word do the many vitalist U.S. chiropractors use in order to adhere to what you have previously claimed are Medicare’s “strict standards which require documentation of the medical necessity of treatments of conditions amenable to chiropractic treatment”?
    Ref: http://edzardernst.com/2017/01/educating-chiros/#comment-85367

    Does Medicare know that chiropractic ‘subluxation correction’ by vitalist chiropractors is based on pseudoscientific beliefs and is, therefore, medically unnecessary?

    _____________________________________________________________________

    “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

    Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

  • Logos-Bios asked in the comments above if ‘Dr. Moreau’ (medical director for Team USA) ‘was not a leader?’, clearly believing that he was.

    I replied that an MD commenter on this blog had recently shared the following interesting thoughts about William Moreau, DC:

    QUOTE
    “…[Moreau is] not a legitimate medical director since he has no medical training. Like others, those who chose him were misinformed about the difference in DC and MD, as the chiro world has conned their way into health care. Now I understand why Michael Phelps was persuaded to use and proselytize the ridiculous and fraudulent cupping treatment during the [Olympic] games. This sounds like something a non medical alternative guru would support and likely recommend.”

    Readers might be interested to find out more about cupping from Kevin Rindal, a chiropractor and member of the U.S. Olympic swim team’s medical staff:
    http://wrvo.org/post/cupping-treatment-behind-those-circle-bruises (3 mins)

    ______________________________________________________________________

    “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

    Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

    • Again Blue has shown an unwillingness or inability to directly answer queries. Regarding Dr. Moreau, Blue passed off on commenting relative to Team USA’s Medical Director’s leadership abilities. If real-life occurrences don’t fit Blue’s life view, he withdraws quickly and instead injects unrelated quotes from other posters; such is typical of ol’ Blue.

      A fine example of Blue’s reluctance to engage in sensitive(for him) topics such as Dr. Moreau’s medical leadership of the world’s most dominant Olympic team, he reverts to proffering a citation on cupping, as though cupping was relevant to Dr. Moreau’s leadership skills; what a blatantly juvenile canard. Such deflective techniques are indigenous to much of the pablum he posts. Ol’ Blue still has not discussed or defended his hypocrisy relative to criticisms of his alleged lack of essentially “ironclad” research countenance regarding chiropractice and that which is lacking in the IMATCH medical program. His inellectual cowardice is on full display as he retreats, like a meretricious politician pandering to his base, from attempting to justify his hypocrisy, instead working feverishly to change the subject. Priceless!

      • An addendum for Ol’ Blue’s assimilation:

        I always enjoy Blue’s including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when he posts. It appears that he is ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for his comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

        • Logos-Bios wrote: “A fine example of Blue’s reluctance to engage in sensitive(for him) topics such as Dr. Moreau’s medical leadership of the world’s most dominant Olympic team, he reverts to proffering a citation on cupping, as though cupping was relevant to Dr. Moreau’s leadership skills”

          @ Logos-Bios

          If William Moreau DC was a true medical leader then he would outlaw cupping for the quackery it is.

          Moreover, one would think that his prestigious leadership role would demand that his chosen field of chiropractic sports was supported by robust, favourable research, but it’s just not there: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.2042-7166.2011.01111.x/full

          That’s really quite embarrassing for an ‘evidence-based’ chiropractor.

          Still on the topic of the Olympics, given that there is no standardisation or reliable adverse event reporting throughout the chiropractic industry, here are some likely results that we’ll never hear about:

          MEDAL EVENT WINNER

          Gold – Vertebral Arterial Dissection Chiropractic
          Gold – Needless Irradiation Chiropractic
          Gold – Fractures In Osteoporotics Chiropractic
          Gold – Restoration of Innate Intelligence Chiropractic
          Silver – Advising Against Vaccination (Gold = Homeopaths)

          Ref: http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/04/chiropractors-cash-in-on-olympics.html#comment-9725

          As a matter of interest, the shareholders of AC Milan football club entrusted the position of Head of Medical Facility to a chiropractor called J. P. Meeserman. Meeserman was also 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.”

          Ref: http://www.registerchiropractor.nl/Chiro-Guidelines.pdf

          Apparently Meeserman implemented a non-medical, chiropractic approach for AC Milan just after he was appointed. However, it has to be asked: would we have seen any difference in the team’s performance 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 same goes for William Moreau.

          BTW, the famous golfers, Tiger Woods and Colin Montgomerie, also rely on chiropractic, but unlike Woods, Montgomerie has never won a major.

          Anyway, Logos-Bios, be as wordy as you like here, but always remember there’s no escaping the fact that ‘evidence-based chiropractic’ is an oxymoron.

          ______________________________________________________________________

          “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

          Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

          • Again Ol’ Blue has circumvented the direct addressing of my comments. Tu Quo Que abounded in his abysmally composed “rebuttal” and he failed to prove that Dr. Moreau’s leadership abilities were less than exceptional. He obviously is flummoxed by the fact that a chiropractic physician, albeit a brilliant one, was selected to lead Team USA’s medical staff…and that he performed OUTSTANDINGLY! One might surmise that Ol’ Blue would hope (pray?) for all DC’s in positions of great responsibility to fail….quite a sad thought, and one that Blue’s child might think to be quite juvenile(even moreso than a poster’s referencing Ol’ Blue as Blue Wad).

            BTW, I’m still awaiting Blue’s explanation regarding his apparently different research-justification standards for chiropractice and IMATCH. Until such a plausible explanation is presented, Blue would necessarily be considered a hypocrite by any neutral parties reading this blog.

          • @BW
            “‘evidence-based chiropractic’ is an oxymoron.”
            After all our enjoyable exchanges Blue. Naughty Boy now go sit in the time out corner. 😉

  • Logos-Bios wrote on Sunday 02 April 2017 at 18:47 : “Medicare law REQUIRES the use of the term [subluxation] for chiropractic physicians to be remunerated for medically necessary services … So it seems that you, in your haste to darken the eye of USA mainstream chiropractice by ignorantly tying “subluxation” to its identity without knowing the historical evolution of Medicare law relative to it, have appealed to Medicare as being the ostensible arbiter of what Chiropractice entails; since you have taken such a foolish position, you must also own the fact that Medicare also countenances chiropractic services to be medically necessary.”

    Given that “chiropractic associations continue to reflect the views of the majority, even if such views are based on a belief system”* can any chiropractors clarify what diagnostic word the many vitalist U.S. chiropractors use in order to adhere to what Logos-Bios has also previously claimed are Medicare’s “strict standards which require documentation of the medical necessity of treatments of conditions amenable to chiropractic treatment”?
    Ref: http://edzardernst.com/2017/01/educating-chiros/#comment-85367

    Further, does Medicare acknowledge that chiropractic ‘subluxation correction’ by vitalist chiropractors is based on pseudoscientific beliefs and is, therefore, medically unnecessary?

    *Ref: https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/subluxation-theory-a-belief-system-that-continues-to-define-the-practice-of-chiropractic/
    _____________________________________________________________________

    “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

    Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

    • Blue is working hard to avoid directly answering my questions. It seems as though he wants to conceal his hypocrisy; too late…non-CAMEDICS on this site have already identified it. Deflection is Blue’s primary pursuit in this discussion. As such, he is becoming boring.

      PS: I always enjoy Blue’s including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when he posts. It appears that he is ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for his comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

      • Logos-Bios wrote on Sunday 02 April 2017 at 14:28 “You have consistently avoided the discussing of why you fail to complain, or at least explain, why procedures/programs within “modern medicine,” such as IMATCH (discussed in previous threads) are tacitly carried out despite at-best limited evidence for its use” … Here’s betting that you avoid attempting to justify IMATCH”

        @ Logos-Bios

        As far as I can see, The Cleveland Clinic’s IMATCH program, for the most part, seems to be offering valuable support to patients in the form of coping tactics:

        QUOTE
        “IMATCH is a three-week, full-day program that begins with a half-day multidisciplinary evaluation by a neurologist, physical therapist and psychologist. The team then formulates a joint treatment plan with input from you, which is used to guide the remainder of treatment. While some reduction in pain is common, treatment focuses on improving your ability to function in the face of pain, rather than on completely eliminating pain. We also strive to convert your daily headache into a more episodic pattern. By encouraging the resumption of normal activities, the program places you in charge of your own recovery, and seeks to break the passive, crisis-and-rescue focus of prior care.”

        For those interested, the IMATCH Fact Sheet can be downloaded at the end of this link:
        https://my.clevelandclinic.org/health/articles/imatch

        Here’s something else that caught my eye: In Table 4.16 (Clinical pearls on headache and dissection) of The Cleveland Clinic’s Manual of Headache Therapy, it has ‘chiropractic manipulation’ listed under risk factors. Below the table, the text says “Clinical suspicion should be raised if the patient endorses a recent history of known provocative factors such as chiropractic manipulation”

        Ref. http://dlib.bpums.ac.ir/multiMediaFile/20774872-4-1.pdf;jsessionid=0f1fcf80e95be8b2e2a0c7afa93948e98f87fe925cc8d717cd6a17f114a61607

        Logos-Bios, have I found the real reason why IMATCH irritates you so much?

        _____________________________________________________________________

        “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

        Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

        • Blue still is avoiding the explaining of his hypocrisy of blasting the alleged lack of absolute research countenance of chiropractic procedures but giving a congenial pass to those within “modern medicine.” Here he discusses irrelevant factoids about IMATCH and deliberately avoids the pith of my claim that he is a hypocrite: IMATCH is supported by minimal evidence, yet it exists and makes profits for “modern medicine.”

          The IMATCH program is generating up to $30K for a 3-week program for “modern medicine” clinics and hospitals across the USA. “Elizabeth Loder, MD, chief, Division of Headache and Pain, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said the approach to treatment offered by the IMATCH program “has promise(despite limited evidence).”

          “Comprehensive multimodality treatment is likely (weasel word, according to Edzard in past threads) to be the best approach for severely disabled headache patients, but evidence to support that assumption is LIMITED,” said Dr Loder. “The improvements in outcome for patients who completed this study are encouraging (yet evidence is still limited).”

          She pointed out, however, that “a substantial amount of information about outcomes is missing and that could affect the findings.”

          Also, she said, without a control group, “it’s not possible to know how much of the improvement is due to the intervention itself or other factors such as natural improvement over time or expectation or belief.”(These words are similar to those Edzard has written myriad times relative to paramedical research).

          Dr Loder agreed that, as with all studies that evaluate complex interventions, it is not possible to study the contribution of individual treatment components.” Yet “modern medicine” has continued to utilize IMATCH protocol despite a lack of evidence for its use….and is profiting handsomely. Go figure!

          I can’t wait to read more of Ol’ Blue’s tangential-to-the-topic, deflective linguistic machinations as he attempts to give answers to questions not asked.

          PS: I always enjoy Blue’s including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when he posts. It appears that he is ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for his comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

          • Logos-Bios wrote/quoted in the comment above:

            “Elizabeth Loder, MD, chief, Division of Headache and Pain, Department of Neurology, Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, Massachusetts, said the approach to treatment offered by the IMATCH program “has promise (despite limited evidence).”…She pointed out, however, that “a substantial amount of information about outcomes is missing and that could affect the findings.”…Also, she said, without a control group, “it’s not possible to know how much of the improvement is due to the intervention itself or other factors such as natural improvement over time or expectation or belief.”…Dr Loder agreed that, as with all studies that evaluate complex interventions, it is not possible to study the contribution of individual treatment components.” Yet “modern medicine” has continued to utilize IMATCH protocol despite a lack of evidence for its use….and is profiting handsomely.”

            @ Logos-Bios

            Elizabeth Loder, MD, is being entirely open and honest when she informs us that any outcomes in IMATCH patients could be non-specific. Therefore, there’s every possibility that the IMATCH program will be discarded further down the line in favour of better interventions.

            Compare that with chiropractic:

            Do we see the chiropractic community admitting that outcomes in their patients could be due to the placebo effect?

            Do we see chiropractors universally discarding interventions that don’t work?

            Do we see chiropractors ‘treating’ only patients who are suffering from real, disabling pain?

            Answers: No, no, and no.

            Do we see chiropractors profiting handsomely from ‘treating’ patients (many of whom are asymptomatic)?

            Answer: Yes.

            See http://edzardernst.com/2016/10/most-if-not-all-of-the-money-spent-on-chiropractic-is-wasted/

            Now who’s the hypocrite?

            ___________________________________________________________

            “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

            Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

        • And…….how many years has IMATCH been treating patients with protocol which is backed by minimal evidence? How many years of glomming patients’ and insurers’ dollars will “modern medicine” allow before the program either proves itself or not? Hypocrisy is imbued in your apparent proclivity to tolerate medical programs and procedures which have little evidence to support their use, but to condemn paramedical disciplines for alleged similar failings. To answer your question…YOU, Blue, are the hypocrite!

          PS: I always enjoy Blue’s including a quoted diss by Geir (practically vacuous of veridical, practical knowledge regarding chiropractice) when he posts. It appears that he is ignorant of the fact that referencing the dullard as some type of implicit countenance for his comments represents a logical fallacy (argumentum ad vericundiam). Priceless!

          • Logos-Bios asked: “how many years has IMATCH been treating patients with protocol which is backed by minimal evidence?”

            I don’t know, but I suspect that it’ll be less than 124 years
            https://www.acatoday.org/About/History-of-Chiropractic

            ____________________________________________________________________

            “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

            Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

  • Regarding my assertion that ‘evidence-based chiropractic’ is an oxymoron, Critical_Chiro wrote on Wednesday 12 April 2017 at 06:43 : “After all our enjoyable exchanges Blue. Naughty Boy now go sit in the time out corner.”

    @ Critical_Chiro

    Why?

    ____________________________________________________________________

    “Chiropractic is the correct term for the collection of deceptions DD Palmer invented.”

    Björn Geir Leifsson, MD

  • David Newell wrote on Sunday 10 September 2017 at 09:26: “FEAC stands for Fellow of the European Academy of Chiropractic, a subcommittee of the European Chiropractors [sic] Union.”

    Is that the same European Chiropractors’ Union (ECU) that is pinning its hopes on the profession “acting” in a unified way as a result of some very dubious compromises which have, so far (due to “significant difference in opinion”), not included discussions about the Vertebral Subluxation Complex and vaccination?

    QUOTE
    “Last year [2016] the ECU received numerous reports from students, faculty and field practitioners who were frustrated over the aggressive language used in social media, at seminars and conferences, between the vitalistic and nonvitalistic groups of chiropractors. Preparations for open-trench warfare were being drawn up with a front line across chiropractic Europe. In the ECU Executive we were clear that we must act. There were basically three options: We could stick our head in the sand and wait for the storm to blow itself out (a storm which has lasted for more than a hundred years). We could choose open conflict. But we concluded that such a reaction would risk attracting unwelcome comment in the media and would quickly escalate into unrestrained vitriol in social media. The outcome would be destructive and potentially embarrassing for both parties. Or the third alternative would be to start a dialogue between the parties. We judged that the resulting decreased level of conflict would benefit both parties. During last summer, ECU representatives (ECU Treasurer Vasileios Gkolfinopoulos and ECU Secretary-General Ian Beesley) met with Guy Riekeman and Gerry Clum of Life University to explore if there was enough common ground for the two parties to collaborate and conduct a meaningful conversation. Draft statements were then scrutinised and amended in a meeting in Geneva in August where the whole Rubicon Group was present together with the ECU Executive Council. The Executive Council believes that these statements are the first stepping-stones to a situation where the profession can act in a unified way. They are a result of negotiation and compromise. If one of the parties had written the statements themselves, they would have looked different. They reflect where we found common ground. So far, the discussions have not covered areas like the subluxation complex, vaccination, the use of drugs and patient management, where we know there is a significant difference in opinion between the two groups. Those areas and many more can be visited in the future.”

    Ref: https://www.chiropractic-ecu.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/03/01-32-Backspace-Mar17-to-print.pdf (page 3)

    David Newell wrote on Sunday 10 September 2017 at 09:26: “I have recently it seems become yet again the target of the loony fringe of the profession for having the temerity to point out that the inappropriate use of x ray to find the ‘magic’ subluxations as supported by Matthew McCoy’s Chronicle of Chiropractic (Narnia) has no basis in reality.”

    How would a patient know to avoid that “loony fringe”? In the UK, the General Chiropractic Council doesn’t help the public to distinguish between quack chiropractors and those who follow evidence-based practice.

    David Newell wrote on Sunday 10 September 2017 at 09:26: “The fact of the matter is that conservative care as delivered by chiropractors in that it is a package of care that included exercise advice, movement advice, psychological support, manual interventions and the construction of appropriate contextual cues is entirely supported by evidence and international guidelines as a first port of call for simple low back pain.”

    But that’s not chiropractic that you describe. It’s physiotherapy.

    David Newell wrote on Sunday 10 September 2017 at 09:26: “… it remains the duty of those in the profession including clinicians on the ground, regulators, representative bodies and indeed academics such as myself to strongly and consistently call out the unsubstantiated rhetoric, regressive and unacceptable behaviour of the few that do not hold to the vision of modernity that most of us do. This is what we will continue to do as is the duty of any professional regardless of the specialism they align to.”

    It’s not “a few” who make up the loony fringe, it’s at least a third of UK chiropractors, most of whom are declared members of the Alliance of UK Chiropractors. See 5.14 of the link at the foot of this page: http://www.professionalstandards.org.uk/latest-news/latest-news/detail/2017/03/06/the-authority-publishes-its-review-of-the-general-chiropractic-council's-performance-for-2015-16

    Readers can learn more about the ‘beliefs’ of the Alliance of UK Chiropractors here:
    http://www.zenosblog.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/11/AUKC_Oct_Newsletter.pdf

    David Newell wrote on Sunday 10 September 2017 at 09:26: “Whether we garner the support of our critics such as Edward [sic], Blue, Frank and others is as Edward [sic] and Blue have pointed out many times not necessarily our concern or their job. Its [sic] the professions [sic] job and we will continue to do that job to the best of ability…”

    Then why does the President of the British Chiropractic Association contradict your claims? In December 2016, he announced that “unity need not mean uniformity”? See:
    http://www.mccoypress.net/i/bca_bennett_letter_december_2016.jpg

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Gravityscan Badge

Recent Comments

Note that comments can be edited for up to five minutes after they are first submitted.


Click here for a comprehensive list of recent comments.

Categories