The thread of movie titles and absence of badges. In previous episodes, it was signs you're getting older, chiropractic vs. medicine, atheism vs. Mormonism and religion vs. science with no existentialism nor philosophy thrown in
-
Just because a bunch of quacks eventually turned a field of professionals after hundreds of years, does not mean that quackery is useful today.
-
Tell me please, what is your stance on vaccinating children against life threatening diseases?
-
Just because a bunch of quacks eventually turned a field of professionals after hundreds of years, does not mean that quackery is useful today.
You seem to be saying that chiropractic is inherently quackery and cannot possibly help anyone. Is that assessment correct?
-
Which means none at all.
-
Chiropractic | Science-Based Medicine
OverviewIndex of SBM PostsOutside ResourcesKey Research The ScienceBasedMedicine.org Reference Pages are reviews of topics relevant to science and medicine. Each consists of a
"There is good evidence that spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) is effective for some patients with low back pain but that it is not superior to other treatments. "
"In their book Trick or Treatment, Simon Singh and Edzard Ernst reviewed the evidence for chiropractic and concluded: “Chiropractors… might compete with physiotherapists in terms of treating some back problems, but all their other claims are beyond belief and can carry a range of significant risks.”
-
Which means none at all.
Welcome! We haven't had a really good troll here in a long time.
-
No we haven't even though the establishment have been trying their best.
-
I do what I can but I'm no expert.
-
Are you being intentionally or accidentally obtuse?
Not that I'm aware of. Serious question...what did I say that indicated I had a "twisted view" of science?
-
-
Tell me please, what is your stance on vaccinating children against life threatening diseases?
Against it, when the vaccine itself threatens my child. This was already hashed quite thoroughly in another thread, I am not going to re-hash it again.
-
Against it, when the vaccine itself threatens my child. This was already hashed quite thoroughly in another thread, I am not going to re-hash it again.
Yeah, I know. I was in that thread. With all due respect (you do seem quite nice as a person), when you are against vaccination you lose all credibility with me to weigh in on anything medical. Have a good evening.
-
does not mean that quackery is useful today.
Quackery isn't useful to anyone except the criminal "practicing" it. Period. On this I think we agree.
Asserting Chiropractic is quackery: this I will not agree with.
As I stated above, it is worthy of further scientific research. I would not trust a medical professional to conduct that research though - and most of the "quackery" allegations on Chiropractic come down from all the publicity the medical establishment was broadcasting a few decades ago alleging this, until the court case I referenced above stopped it in its tracks.
-
With all due respect (you do seem quite nice as a person)
BTW, I should have started the earlier debate with @abarker that way. Hope I did not offend you sir.
-
@abarker said:
But I can't speak to how people actually react.
Which is the bit that matters.Ironically, that was post 666 in this thread.
I believe that God is all powerful. I also believe that he allows us to exercise our agency[1] as much as possible. In the case under discussion, he chose not to intervene in forcing the civil rights movement on the world. I suppose because the world wasn't yet ready.
[1] ability to choose
I suspect God exercises a Prime Directive similar to that in Star Trek: TNG. This, of course, leads to a condition of seemingly lack of proof of His existence. Makes for a convenient argument either way, probably much to His amusement.
Do you know how fucking circular that is. Men are saying that God says that Women aren't worthy persons yet and those are the same men who are in charge of things ...
You sure it just isn't blokes saying that blokes should always be in control?
That's almost certainly a condition of "blokes saying that blokes should always be in control," given the self-serving condition that involves. Anything that self-serving, or approach of: "I'm right, you shut up!" is a strong indicator of someone with a weak position.Like the argument for/against chiropractic|immunization|{insert controversial topic here}, some critical thinking and examination of the {available} evidence is required by the person looking into this to determine for themselves what's true. Inevitably, that interpretation is going to be colored by one's own experiences, good or bad.
-
I would not trust a medical professional to conduct that research though
What about an academic physiologist? They're not doctors, and actually (if it's their specialism) know a lot about what's really going on in spines.
-
I was going to bow out, but there is just too much baseless crap in here. So...basically...I am being this guy:
For thousands of years the medical field used "tools" like bloodletting to try to heal their patients. Surgeries were performed for thousands of years before basic things like using SOAP came into practice. Were they quacks? By your own argument, yes. So why should I trust a medical doctor today?
This is the actual strawman argument. Seriously. That was the best they had at the time, and they thought they had evidence to support it working. They were wrong, they stopped using it. Most of your arguments on anything medically related seem to stem from your predisposition to believe what you wish, despite evidence or lack of it.
Doctors yesterday were wrong about some (quite a bit) of things, so I should not trust doctors today despite massive leaps forward in technology and understanding?
But the medical field eventually evolved into a useful science. Despite that, there are still incompetents in that field as well. Do I treat them all as quacks because of some bad apples? No. I do what we all do: if the results aren't there, I stop going. I go where results can be obtained.
This is kind of the definition of "confirmation bias". I mean, really, that is pretty much it in a nutshell right there. I get what you are trying to say, and you may have just stated it really poorly? But the fact is, you completely ignore the placebo effect. The placebo effect can be both helpful and harmful, but without double-blind studies you have no chance of isolating it. Hell, it can be difficult to isolate with it. But the point is, a sample of one is worth fuck-all and just because you feel better does not mean you are better.
Writing that off as anecdotal evidence (either for medical or chiropractic) is sidestepping the real issue: does the treatment you're getting get results for you? Because in the end, that's what matters.
No, it isn't. There are lots of variables at play here. One of those is the rate of negative incident. It is technically called the "Number needed to harm" and it has to be taken in to consideration along with the "Number needed to treat". I would really suggest you look up these two terms and how they are inter-related, co-dependent, and excellent determinators of whether or not a treatment should be used. It is not enough that you get results, why did you get results? I would be willing to wager that it is all placebo effect. Why? Because there is no freaking reason why it should work. It has become akin to religion, which is why it was so apt that it caused a flare-up in here along with the earlier religious debate. "It helped me! So you cannot question the efficacy!" Fuck that. People get "helped" by faith-healers also. That doesn't mean it works.
Also, you may not be aware, but Chiropractors sued the AMA - and won.
So what? Anytime someone wins a lawsuit they are in the right? In civil court? Pfffffbt. Let me tell you something, that means fuck-all. Precisely fuck-all. The burden of proof is a lot lower in civil court. That is why people can be acquitted of criminal charges, yet sued and lose.
This only means that further research into the area is warranted, since there are millions who receive benefit from Chiropractic, regardless of any opinions you or I carry.
Millions receive benefit from placebo. It proves nothing.
But it is obvious the medical field (at least at the time) does not desire a competitor in the field of health care.
No, when "alternative medicine" is proven to work, it is just called medicine. Chiropractors cannot prove that their particular brand of tomfoolery works, so it is still in the "alternative medicine" column. There is no vast conspiracy here. There is just a complete and utter lack of evidence. I hope I do not need to remind you that the plural of "anecdote" is not "data". Without a detailed meta-analysis on a double-blind study, which they will never consent to, you are left with nothing but anecdotes.
The truly sad thing is, I know you consider anecdotes to be equal to data and nothing will change your mind. I know this because there is reams and reams of data that unequivocally proves that vaccinations are an absolute, overwhelming, net positive and that the "Number needed to harm" is absolutely astronomically high, yet you still chose to not vaccinate your children. I really, really, try to not pass judgment on other parents, but that is just wrong and it harms more than just your family.
-
Quackery isn't useful to anyone except the criminal "practicing" it. Period. On this I think we agree.
No we don't. Placebo effect is very strong. That does not mean that it is real, long-lasting, or would work as well as or better than conventional treatments.
I would not trust a medical professional to conduct that research though
Then who would you trust? The chiropractor's version of Jenny McCarthy? People who do not understand biology, chemistry and anatomy? Those who do not understand the medical profession at all? Who would you have do the study? Common plebes? By definition, medical professionals are the only ones qualified to do the research.
and most of the "quackery" allegations on Chiropractic come down from all the publicity the medical establishment was broadcasting a few decades ago alleging this, until the court case I referenced above stopped it in its tracks.
So, when someone litigates against freedom of speech and gets the equivalent of a gag order placed on a group of professionals, that person or group of people is automatically correct? That is not the way that truth works. It is not a matter of democracy and it is not a matter of victory in civil court. The truth is the truth and if the chiropractors had overwhelming truth on their side, they would not have needed the courts. They don't, so they went that way.
-
Anything that self-serving, or approach of: "I'm right, you shut up!" is a strong indicator of someone with a weak position.
But...isn't that basically the position of anti-vaccination people, or chiropractors for that matter?
-
Chiropractors cannot prove that their particular brand of tomfoolery works, so it is still in the "alternative medicine" column.
I cannot help but think that any time you use the word, "chiropractor," I read something different than what you're trying to say, Every description you use is completely alien to me.
-
I cannot help but think that any time you use the word, "chiropractor," I read something different than what you're trying to say, Every description you use is completely alien to me.
Can we agree on "Spinal Manipulation Therapist" then?
-
Can we agree on "Spinal Manipulation Therapist" then?
I'm...not sure that helps, unless you're not calling them "quacks" or "alternate medicine." I've said it before (or very similar) that they're more like a massage therapist than a doctor. They've never told me their stuff will do anything miraculous or non-obvious.
-
I'm...not sure that helps, unless you're not calling them "quacks" or "alternate medicine."
Spinal Manipulation Therapists (let's just call them SMT's) are quacks. I have a problem with them in that they get to diagnose and treat their own, potentially serious, issues. They should not be able to do both.
When I had severe spinal issues, I took it upon my own to go see a surgeon without a referral. It took a bit of doing to even get that accomplished, and it should. After he had diagnosed me, I had to then find other physicians for a second opinion before he could do surgery, etc. Terribly efficient? Yes and no. It slowed down my treatment some, but such oversights tend to stop a LOT more unnecessary procedures than any harm they might cause. It was frustrating, but I see why such oversight is put in place.
Chiropractors that see themselves as being able to treat musculoskeletal issues and other things, have absolutely no oversight. Hell, if @redwizard can be believed about that lawsuit, doctors are apparently not even allowed to speak out against them for fear of civil court reprisal. Chiropractors that get to diagnose, treat, and judge the efficacy of their own procedures have an interesting little cartel put in place for themselves. As a businessman, I can see how that would be a hell of an advantageous place to be... Not exactly congruent with providing good patient care, or making sure that people get proper treatment though...
On the other hand, if chiroprators hold themselves out to be:
more like a massage therapist than a doctor
I have no problem with that. They should just call themselves massage therapists though. I would be more likely to see them. Even more likely to see them if they are also female and attractive, but that is a different story... ;)
-
So what? Anytime someone wins a lawsuit they are in the right? In civil court? Pfffffbt. Let me tell you something, that means fuck-all. Precisely fuck-all. The burden of proof is a lot lower in civil court. That is why people can be acquitted of criminal charges, yet sued and lose.
The burden of proof was put on the AMA - and they couldn't. Read that article again.
Not going to respond to all of that, not worth my time.
-
Not that I'm aware of. Serious question...what did I say that indicated I had a "twisted view" of science?
Was looking over the feces-storm that happened in /t/1000 and saw where you called me out. I forgot about this.
Did you not say that intelligent design was not incompatible with science?
-
-
Who is Jean-Claude Seagal? Wikipedia has nothing...
-
Jean-Claude Seagal
The long lost brother of Brice Lee. Like any good ninja, you won't find him if you look for him.
-
I would actually give them a ticket to heaven for their donations.
Reminds me of this
Chiropractors sued the AMA - and won
They also sued Simon Singh - and lost
-
That's the kind of rubbish approach and documentation they did/used in the UK? That's nothing like what's seen here in the USA.
@Polygeekery and @lucas, my sincere condolences. I'd be mad as hell too.
-
I may be whooshing badly here, but I seriously have no idea what you're talking about.
I'll just leave this quote from the Wikipedia article here:
Notably, the report concludes that the evidence does not support claims that chiropractic treatment is effective for childhood colic, bed-wetting, ear infections or asthma, the very claims that Singh was sued for describing as "bogus".
-
Even more likely to see them if they are also female and attractive, but that is a different story.
There is one at the office I go to, but she's not strong enough for good adjustments.
-
Did you not say that intelligent design was not incompatible with science?
Yes, I said that ID doesn't necessarily contradict science. Obviously, I'm not including stuff like young earth creationism there. But nothing we believe we know about the history of the universe contradicts the idea that something like God set everything up to happen the way it did.
You might also recall that I also said that it wasn't science.
-
Is your definition of ID here "evolution, but set in progress/monitored by God"? Because that isn't incompatible with science per se, it's just not something that should be considered in the scientific study of evolution (and therefore not taught in science classes)
-
it's just not something that should be considered in the scientific study of evolution
Yes, that's what I said.
-
I suppose I should have quoted that part too to show I'd read and agreed with it. Wasn't entirely sure whether your idea of ID was evolution-with-God or creationism-with-sciencey-sounding-words, which changes how strongly I'd respond
-
This was in response to @Polygeekery saying that lots of people want to stop science or something, and this was what I assumed he was talking about. Still not sure if that was right.
Maybe he forgot, and is simply acting out his signs instead of posting about them now.
-
Just because you don't want to, doesn't mean there aren't a lot of people who do. There is a pretty vocal movement focussed on getting Creationist flavoured ID into science lessons
-
I think we're quibbling over what we mean by "a lot" right now. And there are plenty of other people advocating some other anti-science stuff about other things that have nothing to do with religion. As I said before, we fight against stuff that doesn't confirm our beliefs, of whatever sort.
-
Yes, I said that ID doesn't necessarily contradict science.
True, but it does contradict Science (If you've read that moldbug guy, you'll know what I mean by the capitalization; if not, see his rant about AGW).
-
If you've read that moldbug guy, you'll know what I mean by the capitalization; if not, see his rant about AGW)
I've not read enough of him, but I'm familiar enough with it. Guys like Phil Plait bug the shit out of me, though he tones it down a bit on How the Universe Works that he isn't totally annoying. Apparently, he had a shit fit over Ted Cruz being put in charge of the Subcommittee on Space, Science, and Competitiveness. I don't read Slate, but Judith Curry did, so I don't have to. One of her comments:
Bottom line: There is nothing irrational or particularly incorrect about Senator Cruz’s statement. Phil Plait (Bad Astronomer) who wrote the Slate piece made more incorrect statements than did Cruz.
-
Yes, I said that ID doesn't necessarily contradict science.
Yeah, that is something that sounds entirely reasonable to say, and at first glance it is hard for most people to pick out what is wrong with that statement. It would be like saying, "X does not necessarily contradict Economics" where X is something that has nothing to even do with Economics and is not even observable.
Intelligent Design does not necessarily contradict science, because ID is religion rolled up in pseudoscience. Religion should not be taught in public schools, which has been a debate that we have been having as of late for some silly reason.
Sorry, my responses are going to be spotty at best today. I have a deployment that is falling through and I will be on and off the phone all day.
-
Yeah, that is something that sounds entirely reasonable to say, and at first glance it is hard for most people to pick out what is wrong with that statement.
This is a problem generally with statements that start, "X is consistent with..." You may have noticed that this is a climate scientist's favorite dodge when presented with new data.
Intelligent Design does not necessarily contradict science, because ID is religion rolled up in pseudoscience. Religion should not be taught in public schools, which has been a debate that we have been having as of late for some silly reason.
Yes. Well, I guess it's possibly presented as pseudoscience by some.
-
Yes. Well, I guess it's possibly presented as pseudoscience by some.
Yes. For sources, see the state of Kansas. ;)
-
Yes. For sources, see the state of Kansas.
Yes, I know what sort of stuff you're talking about. But that's not the only place where people are talking / writing about ID. That's just people trying to use it for their own purposes.
-
What does the fox say?
Answered.
-
This just makes me think that....
If someone goes to a faith healer, and there is demonstrable evidence that the cancer is in remission, and your argument is that there is a powerful placebo effect in effect....
then you're agreeing with the chiropracty quackery that says the body has the power to heal itself?
and if the body has this power, and it most certainly needs to have working nerves to effectively communicate and coordinate these effects
then chiropracty is actually correct?
-
-
-
I know its circular. But you created the circle.
Placebos aren't magic. The body has to do something to have the effect that placebos cause.
In the case of pain or such, the placebo effect is just covering the symptom, accomplishing the same thing pain medicine would do, and thus not solving the problem. In other words, placebos that inhibit pain do not healing.
However, if the cause of cancer remission was triggered by a placebo effect masked as faith healing, then this is true healing. In this case, the only source of the healing is the body. If the placebo effect enhanced the natural healing process, then the body is capable of the healing described by chiropractors.
Compound this with the fact that correcting pressure against the nerves actually has a positive effect, and straightening the back actually has a positive effect, I really don't understand why you are so determined to dismiss every chiropractor because there are a few that don't know what they are doing.
The most you've proven is that the chiropractic field is not peer-reviewed as well as the rest of the medical field.
The fact that you are certain that every chiropractic provider is a quack is your own sense of self-confirmation bias, which is worse than what you are accusing the field of doing.
