• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Help With Rebutting Chiropracty

Lianad

Scholar
L
Joined
Sep 3, 2006
Messages
52
I was wondering if anyone had any links to good summaries of why Chiropracty is pure junk and nonsense that they could share. I know I've read a few things here in the past and being an avid P&T fan, saw their ******** episode on it. But I was looking for more information and summaries of the general concessus here. I have quite a few people I work with who are always ranting and raving about their chiropractor and up until this point have remained silent about it because I didn't have enough facts to back up my belief on it being pure garbage.

Any help appreciated.
 
I have the Chiropractic degree but have chosen to not practise because of many of the reasons you already know yourself. I would like to post links to some sites, however since I am new here I have to wait until my 15th post in order to post links.

Yet you can google the following:

Chirotalk: This is a discussion forum that is dedicated to exposing quackery in chiropractic, controversial practises and gets a lot of contribution from former chiropractors who have left the profession because they realized they were sitting on a pile of woo.

Chirobase: This site has a lot of articles on specific topics about chiropractic, and takes a skeptical view of chiropractic from many different angles.
 
Lianad, if you PM me your email address, I have a factsheet I can send you. It's not published yet but if you need it now that's no problem.
 
The following comparison comes from the chirotalk discussion group:

The Scientific Method of investigation Versus The Chiropractic Method of investigation


The Scientific Method of investigation

1. Initial Observation of Phenomena
From an initial observation of a phenomena, A shortcoming in knowledge is identified.

2. Data acquisition
Measurement, Observation, Evidence,
Collect any data that has any bearing on the phenomena under investigation.

3. Formulate Hypothesis
Formulate multiple hypotheses that explain the observed phenomena.

4. Test Hypothesis
Each hypothesis must be tested against the evidence. Various experiments can be devised to try to disprove and prove each hypothesis.

5. Reject, Modify or retain Hypothesis

Any hypothesis that:fails to explain the phenomena
is contradicted by the evidence fails experimental scrutiny
is rejected.

Contradictory evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure there is a valid contradiction and not just an explainable exception. Supporting evidence should also be scrutinised to ensure the supporting evidence is not just an exception. Experiments are scrutinised for the validity of their results.
A hypothesis may be refined or modified at any time so that it is consistent with the observed phenomena and the observed evidence. A hypothesis that explains the Phenomena and is consistent with the evidence may now be presented as a theory. More than one hypothesis may fulfil both these criteria therefore there can be more than one theory for any one phenomena.

6. Theory
The Hypothesis that best fits the observed evidence is presented as the explanation of a phenomena . This is known as a Theory.

7. Ongoing Testing of theory
The Theory is published and all interested parties are invited to test the Theory to destruction.
The theory is used to make predictions. These predictions are tested by experiments or further observations. This is an ongoing process.

8. Reject, Modify or Retain Theory.
During testing and investigation, new evidence may come to light that indicates the theory may be incorrect or subject to constraints. The Theory can be either rejected or corrected to make it consistent with all the evidence. Go back to step 7


Chiropractic Method of investigation

1. Start with a Conclusion (Subluxations are the underlying cause disease)

2. Propose Theory.
Only theories that support the conclusion should be considered. Little or no attempt should be made to test or disprove the proposed theory.

3. Collect Supporting Evidence
One single example of supporting evidence is sufficient, even if there are thousands of examples of evidence that do not support or contradict the theory. Only "supporting" evidence is considered.

4. Reject Modify or Retain Evidence.
If the evidence is undeniably proved to be faulty, then reject it and find some evidence that does support the Theory. The Theory is not normally rejected at this point because only one example of supporting evidence is required to justify the theory. Contradictory evidence is ignored.

If forced to abandon a theory then claim that you didn't believe it all along and that false Chiropractors proposed it. Propose another Theory that supports your conclusion. Go to step 2

Golden Rule:- Conclusion is always the same regardless of evidence or the theory.

Corollary:- For Straight Chiropractors. No evidence at all is required to support a conclusion.


The Scientific method is designed to discover the truth and eliminate falsehoods, lies, ignorance and misunderstanding.

The Chiropractic method is self delusional. It can never uncover a falsehood or prove a truth. It only reinforces existing perceptions of the truth.

The Chiropractic Method is simply Blind Faith and has no bearing on truth whatsoever.



The scientific method: - base your conclusions on observations/evidence.
The chiropractic method: - base your observations/evidence on your conclusions.
 
Sagger, that's great, but if you show that to the average layperson, they will fall asleep.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Tkingdoll,

You raise a good point. My post was definitely better suited to preaching to the choir. One thing you need to be prepared for: chiropractic enthusiasts are not very receptive to skeptical views on chiropractic. Arguing with them can be an uphill battle. Their reason for choosing chiropractic can often be partly driven by a desire to thumb their nose at established medical options, by placing their chips on the alt-med roulette table.
 
Sagger said:
Tkingdoll,

You raise a good point. My post was definitely better suited to preaching to the choir. One thing you need to be prepared for: chiropractic enthusiasts are not very receptive to skeptical views on chiropractic. Arguing with them can be an uphill battle. Their reason for choosing chiropractic can often be partly driven by a desire to thumb their nose at established medical options, by placing their chips on the alt-med roulette table.
Click to expand...

I agree, which is why the factsheet takes a very neutral standpoint. It explains what chiropractic is in layman's terms without being preachy. However, an awful lot of people go to chiropractors thinking they are medically qualified, and it's important to dispel that myth too. I guess that only the middle-ground folk will be convinced by any sort of reasoning. A die-hard chiro fanatic may not be interested in hearing another viewpoint, and there's not much you can do in that case.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
There is at least some movement at chiropractic colleges to focus only of that which has a basis in anatomy and can be tested and measured. A chiropracter in my business group, for example, states catagorically that she does not believe in subluxation (in the chiropractic sense) and was not taught it in school.

Still, a movement among chiropracters to formalize the profession is a little like saying there's a movement among psychics to never put words into the mouths of the dead - it's a step but a small one.

Visit www.Quackwatch.Org for more info on chiropractic.
 
I'll be keeping an eye on this, as I'm very confused. I didn't realize there was any woo going on about it at all. I know people who swear by it, but they are people with chronic back problems, not anyone with any sort of disease or something that they claim is being treated by it. I went to one once, though I have a near-phobia of popping joints besides my knuckles. It was awful, and I'll never go back. But it's sort of like sushi. I tell people what happened and they say, "Ohhh, but you haven't had a GOOD chiropractor(sushi)." But I guess I haven't run into what's being discussed here. It's always been related to me that it's similar to massage, in sensations and results.
Thanks,
C
 
Last edited:
sillyhead said:
I'll be keeping an eye on this, as I'm very confused. I didn't realize there was any woo going on about it at all.
Click to expand...

This is one of the problems with chiropractic. Since it’s not in the profession’s interests to define and limit itself much of the information that reaches the public is vague and misleading. It should be the job of the regulators to clarify the confusion, however all they seem to do is to lend a veneer of respectability to a myriad of unscientific chiropractic practices. John Jackson of UK Skeptics addressed many of chiropractic’s problems in this great article:
http://www.skeptics.org.uk/article.php?dir=articles&article=chiropractic.php

In the UK, Chiropractors are regulated by the General Chiropractic Council (GCC). It is illegal to practise as a Chiropractor in the UK without being registered with the GCC. This form of regulation is important as it sets standards, has a complaints procedure and has regulatory powers which will hopefully repel the more unscrupulous types who are attracted by the moneymaking potential of alternative medicine.

The main drawback with this type of regulation is that it does not question the validity of that which it is designed to regulate. For example, a Chiropractor who manipulates a baby's spine, who routinely advises against immunisation, or who x-rays children in the search for a subluxation, is not breaking the basic tenets of Chiropractic, and will not be considered to have done wrong by the regulatory body.

Qualification and regulation is welcome and should offer some consumer protection; however, they do nothing to prove that Chiropractic is a useful treatment.

The following questions should be considered: How can you be qualified in something that can't be shown to work? How can truly effective regulation be achieved in a pseudoscience, by proponents of that pseudoscience?
Click to expand...
That last paragraph is particularly pertinent. There are at least two subluxation-based chiropractic associations in the UK and four of their members currently sit on the General Chiropractic Council’s committees:

http://www.united-chiropractic.org/modules/content/index.php?id=5

http://www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/mca_objectives.htm

Sagger, here’s your Chirotalk link (mainly addresses the problems with chiropractic in the USA):
http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/

Lianad, more good information here:

‘The value of chiropractic’ by Professor Edzard Ernst (takes a look at the evidence base for chiropractic spinal manipulation):
http://journals.medicinescomplete.com/journals/fact/current/fact1002a02t01.htm

A scientific critique of chiropractic by Harriet Hall, MD
(PowerPoint presentation):
http://drspinello.com/chiropractic

June 2006 JREF thread on chiropractic:
http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=58682&highlight=chiropracty


Tkingdoll, please let us know when your chiropractic factsheet is eventually published.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Somewhat off topic:

Chiropractors sue AMA for antitrust - Wilk v. American Medical Association, 895 F.2d 352 (7th Cir. 1990)
[1] UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SEVENTH CIRCUIT
[2] Nos. 87-2672, 87-2777
[3] 1990.C07.41521
Click to expand...

Decision here

1987, the Wilk v. American Medical Association case ended with U.S. District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner deciding the AMA violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of trade directed at chiropractors (895 F.2d 352).
 
Questioninggeller said:
1987, the Wilk v. American Medical Association case ended with U.S. District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner deciding the AMA violated § 1 of the Sherman Act, 15 U.S.C. § 1, by conducting an illegal boycott in restraint of trade directed at chiropractors (895 F.2d 352).
Click to expand...

A little more information on that case:

In 1987, federal court judge Susan Getzendanner concluded that during the 1960s "there was a lot of material available to the AMA Committee on Quackery that supported its belief that all chiropractic was unscientific and deleterious." The judge also noted that chiropractors still took too many x-rays. However, she ruled that the AMA had engaged in an illegal boycott. She concluded that the dominant reason for the AMA's antichiropractic campaign was the belief that chiropractic was not in the best interest of patients. But she ruled that this did not justify attempting to contain and eliminate an entire licensed profession without first demonstrating that a less restrictive campaign could not succeed in protecting the public. Although chiropractors trumpet the antitrust ruling as an endorsement of their effectiveness, the case was decided on narrow legal grounds (restraint of trade) and was not an evaluation of chiropractic methods.
Click to expand...
Full details here:
http://www.chirobase.org/08Legal/AT/at00.html
 
sillyhead said:
I'll be keeping an eye on this, as I'm very confused. I didn't realize there was any woo going on about it at all. I know people who swear by it, but they are people with chronic back problems, not anyone with any sort of disease or something that they claim is being treated by it. I went to one once, though I have a near-phobia of popping joints besides my knuckles. It was awful, and I'll never go back. But it's sort of like sushi. I tell people what happened and they say, "Ohhh, but you haven't had a GOOD chiropractor(sushi)." But I guess I haven't run into what's being discussed here. It's always been related to me that it's similar to massage, in sensations and results.
Thanks,
C
Click to expand...

Some aspects of it are OK. And then there's the whole "we don't believe in germs" thing...
 
Just wanted to thank everyone for all the information, I will have a lot to go through! Thanks a lot.
 
I've visited a chiropractor after a car accident. My neck and shoulders felt much better afterwards. I didn't ask for the theory behind it. I only cared that I was in less pain.

Neck still looks funny, sort of like my Grandma's did.
 
LotusMegami said:
I've visited a chiropractor after a car accident. My neck and shoulders felt much better afterwards. I didn't ask for the theory behind it. I only cared that I was in less pain.

Neck still looks funny, sort of like my Grandma's did.
Click to expand...

An important thing that we all have to thank chiropractcy for is the ellimination of deafness as a problem in society.
 
Lianad.
A word of caution. I have defended chiropractic here before, (to the horror of several posters), because I had Chiro treatment for a back problem of many years' standing and it worked, where several GPs prescriptions for drugs and physiotherapists' exercises had not.

My point is simply and solely this:- There are specific spinal problems which can be helped by manipulation. So long as the chiro claims no more than this, I have no criticism at all. Many physiotherapists will tell you the same and that they lack experience in manipulation which a chiro should have. ( I do not doubt that there are many bad ones).
The question of which specific problems are amenable is one I leave for anatomists of whatever persuasion and for the appropriate regulatory bodies.

As for chiro theory or it's more outlandish claims, those may be fair game. I encountered nothing in my treatment which seemed at all irrational or unscientific. That , I fully recognise, is one anecdote and I may have been unusually fortunate. There are many who tell a different tale.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom