Event A causes reaction B. That can be determined statistically without any understaning of *HOW* A caused B. Since I have seen multiple reports of this type, I don't think we can simply dismiss it as having no evidence.Loren repeated:
And what I’m saying (which you’re somehow not understanding) is that this has nothing to do with the case at hand unless you can show that he said it was “impossible” as opposed to “unproven.”
Get it?
LurkerS sez:
Nope. But if he was to pick up a paper claiming medieval Japanese sword steel was really an early form of polyester–which would be quite an extraordinary claim–he could probably figure out whether the evidence starts to back up the claim, at least.
It’s also one that’s been trying to become more scientific. Acupuncture, on the other hand, seems to spend a lot of time rejecting science.
Not anymore, they’re not. Not alone, anyway. From Durand and Barlow’s Abnormal Psychology (full ref on request):
In other words, psychiatry itself recognized that the Rorschach had problems as a scientific test, and changed to account for them. Has acupuncture?
LurkerS further says:
Yep, but that’s another one that’s changed as science took hold of psychiatry. It isn’t used except in extreme cases, where medication isn’t working. According to Durand and Barlow, we know it works, but because we don’t know how, it isn’t used except in desparate cases.
Nope! I’ve got a copy of the DSM-IV right here (dunno why, I’m an electrical engineer myself). Each entry contains a set of criteria that define an illness, and almost all of them contain a criterion like this:
In other words, if it’s not bothering you, and it’s not causing you real problems, you’re not sick.
Not quite. Drugs are used for some ailments, but not nearly all or for all people. If Durand and Barlow are to be believed, drugs are almost always used with some other form of therapy. Even the psychiatrists admit that drugs don’t usually work all by themselves, which is why they have things like cognitive therapy. Drugs have an immediate effect, but cognitive therapy has a longer-lasting one.
A quick side question, merely out of curiosity: are you a Scientologist, LurkerS? This sounds a LOT like their version of psychiatry.
Not to hijack the discussion, but I have a real problem with websites like quackwatch and chirobase.
While their intent is good, they always seem to pick the people that are the furthest out in the fringe. What they end up showing is not the dangers of a specific method/modality/science etc., but the people with the wildest, most unfounded claims.
This is not a true representation of the field they attack most times, and I believe it hurts more than helps because it would give people a very skewed view of, say, Chiropractic(I saw this because my mother has been one for over 20 years now).
Most sites claim that Chiropractic is bad, or evil or wrong, and downright dangerous. They often site the fringe as claiming to alleviate peri-natal diseases and such, but that is the fringe. I know countless chiros, and not one of them claims the above.
The long and short of it–I think these people take it all too far, and misconstrue the facts they have in their possession to make an entire field look bad.
I’m sorry, but I have to guess you aren’t entirely familiar with the field. I can point to advertisements in my local paper where chiropractors claim they can cure pretty much anything. I just went to a holistic health fair where one guy told me his machine uses chiropractic methods to cure cancer. I could go on and on about the various bizarre things they said, but if you think it’s just the fringe, you’re just plain wrong. I wish it were just the fringe, but far too many people are falling for this baloney.
Remember, these are not “balanced information” sites, but consumer protection sites. They do not hide that fact. It is their job to point out the pitfalls consumers should be aware of. They are purposely biased, providing the “other side of the coin”. And who better to do the job than reform chiropractors who know what’s happening in their own field? These chiropractors are brave people.
As far as “most sites” go: Chiropractic sites selling chiropractic are by far the most available and visible. The few sites presenting the other side are definitely in the minority, and are in a style adapted to quick downloading of information, not in a style designed to dazzle and sell a product.
I can understand why chiropractors don’t like such sites. But if the profession would quit educating these bad apples, it would help the profession’s reputation. But since the profession was started by a quack, what can you expect?
When the profession openly renounces “subluxation” based practice, it’ll have a chance. But not before then.
Check out these links: http://www.canoe.ca/ChiroYork/ http://www.chirobase.org/ http://www.chiromed.org/ http://www.quackwatch.com/ http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/qlinks.html
Paul Lee, PT
Denmark
E-mail: healthbase@post.tele.dk
HF List Intro: http://www.hcrc.org/wwwboard/messages/197.shtml
The Quack-Files: http://www.geocities.com/healthbase
PS: “The Quack-Files” has gotten a face. Brace yourself folks! http://www.geocities.com/healthbase/aboutpl.html
David,
Being familiar with the profession for 20 some years, I can certainly say I am familiar with the field.
“Holistic health fairs” are full of quacks, so what do you expect? My mother made the mistake of attending one this year.
So there she is with her group of doctors(pretty normal, non-fringe docs), and they were surrounded by freaks! There were places to buy re-oxygenated water, you could have you Aura read(there was something about penis reading too, but we won’t go there…).
So yes there are fringe doctors, but I contend that a large majority of them aren’t the type of chiros you speak of.
Paul, I’m sure one day on this board, you and I will get deep on this subject, but not in this thread, and not right now.
Sam
Chiros are definitely broken up into two groups – those who realize that they can only help the neck/back, and those who still think they can heal everything. Unfortunately, those in the latter group are not so much in the fringe as you have stated. And, as I noted already, neither are many other quacks. We can’t just ignore the “fringers” and hope they go away – they won’t. Indeed, more and more people have been turning to alternative medicine. It is not the fringe, but the science is still just as bad.
Hi Cecil,
I’m an acupncturist. Just wanted to say that
I tried surgery once. It didn’t work so I recommend to my patients that they save their money.
Jingmaster
Once doesn't prove anything.Mr. Balensi? You say that your surgery didn’t “work”. What type of surgery was it?
With advice like the type you dispense, I suspect that it was a frontal lobotomy, and that it was quite successful.
Eagles may soar free and proud, but weasels never get sucked into jet engines.
Guys, guys, guys. I’m pretty sure that was a troll.