GaWd: At no point did I insult you. You refuse to provide anything remotely resembling controlled, peer reviewed studies to support the opinions you formed from personal experience. This is anecdotal evidence. It’s not an insult, it is statement of fact. You chose to submit your opinion, no one beat it out of you with a rubber hose, and you know damn well that people not sharing your opinion on this board will ask you to support it.
That you have an opinion is fine and dandy. That you feel it should be accepted at face value with no further support from you is silly.
Waverly, at no time did I say people ought to take my opinion as fact. That’s your call. I said I’d offer my opinion, and that’d be the end of it. I followed through with that.
As I said in my last post, give me a day and an E-mail account and I’ll provide you all the non-anecdotal data your heart desires. Unfortunately, this thread touches on two subjects that are extremely serious to me, and they are subjects that I refuse to get into details on a messageboard…but I’ll certainly do it in private.
My address is in my profile GaWd, but to be honest I’m not apt to be interested in a singles competition debate. Perhaps I’m a bit of a voyeur, perhaps I just like getting input from several people, but I feel the SDMB is fine venue for a discussion.
If you disagree, even if only on these specific topics, you probably should not have stepped in and offered what you must have known would be a controversial opinion.
I started this thread to openly discuss Lamar Mundane’s assertion that Quackwatch was biased and unreliable. I want a public airing, not a private show-and-tell.
I retract all opinions I’ve stated. Quackwatch isn’t biased, all vaccinations are good, no matter the consequences, and Chiropractors are complete shite.
It was a mistake to air any opinions/anecdotes/beliefs in this thread. Sorry for wasting your time.
Oh, and fuck you JDeMobray. If there was genuine interest, I would’ve done the legwork, but since there isn’t, I find no reason to dust off books and articles and scour the internet.
**How thoroughly shocking. Can you see my face? I am legitimately shocked. Who could possibly have imagined such a response?
Why . . . I mean if we didn’t all know any better, of course . . . Someone could almost theorize. . . not that anybody would do such a thing . . . That you never had any intention of sharing these “documents.” But that would be crazy.
I would imagine such documents exist in the same goofy quasi-verse as Manhattan’s $10,000 cashiers check.
So you theorize that rather than reading such things in peer-review type publications that I’ve fashioned them all in my head? That there’s no way that Chiropractic has ever had a successful study completed with positive findings, right?
Who’s the “froot loop” here? The one who pretends that these are “secret documents”, and that they can’t possibly exist? or the ones that do in fact exist, and have been published in NEJM, JAMA, and other assorted Chiropractic rags? :rolleyes:
The original question was whether the site is unbiased and reliable. How would you skeptics feel about a site that posted all the studies implicating the negatives of pharmaceuticals (Fen-Phen, Rezulin, liver damage from aspirin and other NSAIDs) and labelled them with titles like “freaky physicians” or “dubious doctors”? I am contrasting these titles with examples from the Quackwatch site like “Ayurvedic mumbo-jumbo” and “How chiropractors oversell themselves” for two examples. He also rails against organic foods, C-sections and Hysterectomies.
It is obvious that this guy has an agenda and an axe to grind. He is hardly unbiased. The point is, quit relying on this site as a source of contrary information. Cite JAMA or Lancet oe NE Journal of Med. if you like, but this guy gives you no credibility.
You haven’t so much wasted my time, GaWd, as you have disappointed me. Publicly proclaiming to have such wonderful evidence, and then stipulating that it can only be shared in private… why I am to be the sole benefactor of your wisdom?
Dr. Barrett, or perhaps Cecil himself, may be reading this thread thinking, “Dammit, I want to know the straight dope on chiropractors, but that sage GaWd will only elucidate via email to that ingrate Waverly!”
I think you are too intelligent to base your beliefs on an appeal to a supernatural / invisible authority, but that certainly is how you are coming across.
That’s just not true. QuackWatch is pretty hard on chiropractors only when they overstate their abilities, which, alas, seems to be fairly common. QuackWatch acknowledges that chiropractic can have benefits for certain ailments and that these benefits are well documented.
One problem that chiropractors can have real success with is certain types of lower back pain. In fact I went to a chiropractor to help me deal with some back problems, but before I went I stopped by QuackWatch to help me recognize when the sales pitch began.And if anyone cares, I’m feeling much better now, thank you very much.
**I do not wish to engage in a debate over the eficacy of Chiropractic, or whether Vaccines are safe/reliable on a public messageboard. **
It’s simple, really. I’ve done it before, and I almost did it again today. These are 2 subjects I wish not to broach. I feel strongly about both subjects, and all it does is get bloody and raw around here. It brings assholes like JD out who purposely try to misconstrue the contents of my words, and it’s not worth it at all.
The data I could share with you, privately, or with the board, publicly are available for all to see. There is no secret data as JD the asshole seems to accuse me of. Search online references, and check out Chiropractic rags on occasion, they’re always full of information that is good to know.
I apologize if I wasn’t clear before, Waverly.
I have this feeling that this won’t be the last time I mention it, but don’t worry nobody is accusing you of doing any such thing.
". . . In spite of which, I’m still here talking rather than enjoying the wonders of a chiropractic massage and rebalancing my qui.
Trust me, we all know that there’s no secret data. I thought I made that abundantly clear from the get-go.
**Where do the brilliant publish their medical papers? The New England Journal of Medicine? Nature? The Archives of Otolaryngology? Nope, they publish in vanity magazines with total subscription numbers in the low 30’s. Charming. :wally
Sorry to drag you into that, no offense meant.
