…and this is a 
It looks like an admission of guilt to me. The McTimoney Association, a British chiropractic group, has sent out mail to its members urging them to immediately shut down all of their websites. Why? Because, as a result of the Simon Singh fracas, people are becoming aware that chiropractors are making "claims for treatment that cannot be substantiated with … research", so they're trying to make the quackery go away fast. (By the way, my ellipsis removed the word "chiropractic"; I would not trust chiropractic research, but they can't even provide that). It's a hilarious message — they flat out admit that common claims made on chiropractic websites put them at risk for prosecution.
About time! Now we just need something to trigger American watchdog groups to clamp down on the quacks over here.
(via Phil Plait)
Comments
Posted by: Naughtius Maximus | June 10, 2009 2:46 PM
Somewhat related
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20090610/ap_on_he_me/us_med_unproven_remedies_research
Posted by: catgirl | June 10, 2009 2:47 PM
Someone should hurry up and take screen shots or somehow archive their current websites, before they delete everything
Posted by: Sven DiMilo | June 10, 2009 2:52 PM
...not to mention their backs!
Get it? Chropracters covering their backs?
Oh, OK...'asses.'
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 10, 2009 2:57 PM
This has got to be good news for Simon Singh's case, surely?
From the letter:
Unholy crap, that's pretty awesome!
Ok, your secret is safe with us!
Posted by: Dahan | June 10, 2009 2:57 PM
My friend of over 20 years who has been living in Chicago is currently dying of level four breast cancer. She had been talked into seeing a Chiropractor instead of a "western medicine doctor" by another friend, for her bad back.
It turns out that her back was bad because it was riddled with cancer. Four months later, when an intervention took place and a real doctor took a look, they saw that over half of the discs were shot through with cancer. The Chiropractor had taken x-rays, etc but apparently all he saw was a need to push and pull at her spine and have her come back repeatedly so he could make some more cash.
Had my friend gone to a real doctor they might have caught the cancer in time to save her life. My friends and I have alerted authorities about the situation and are trying to bring up charges against the Chiropractor. Wish us luck. I can't spit enough venom to describe how I feel about this. As far as I'm concerned that man helped kill her.
Posted by: Krisko
|
June 10, 2009 2:58 PM
I admit, I've seen a chiropractor, and half a dozen holistic "healers." When you get sick enough, you get desperate enough. Of course, the entire time I was thinking "this is complete and utter bullshit," but I still gave it a try. Any port in a storm, as they say.
Posted by: Krisko
|
June 10, 2009 3:00 PM
I admit, I've seen a chiropractor, and half a dozen holistic "healers." When you get sick enough, you get desperate enough. Of course, the entire time I was thinking "this is complete and utter bullshit," but I still gave it a try. Any port in a storm, as they say.
Posted by: Salamander | June 10, 2009 3:02 PM
I will say this for chiropractors: they talk absolute nonsense but it does feel fantastic to have your spine manipulated. All those endorphins... And it does relieve tension although I can easily believe that it is ultimately bad for one's spine.
Posted by: Krisko
|
June 10, 2009 3:02 PM
I admit, I've seen a chiropractor, and half a dozen holistic "healers." When you get sick enough, you get desperate enough. Of course, the entire time I was thinking "this is complete and utter bullshit," but I still gave it a try. Any port in a storm, as they say.
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 10, 2009 3:04 PM
Not for nothin', but doesn't this backpedaling entirely undercut the recent finding that Singh's use of "bogus" was libelous? I mean, haven't they just admitted that many of their claims are in fact, in the strictest legal sense, <Car Talk Guys>Bo-o-o-o-o-o-o-gus!</Car Talk Guys>?
Posted by: Don | June 10, 2009 3:05 PM
Oh, this is fun. Happy monkey.
Unfortunately not the same mob that are going after Singh, but the Quick, shred everything response is clear evidence that they know they are liars.
(Sites cached at http://yaxu.org/tmp/chiros.html)
Posted by: Sili
|
June 10, 2009 3:09 PM
Can't they just declare themselves a religion in the US? They're halfway there anyway, and I'm sure they'd relish the taxexemption.
Posted by: raven | June 10, 2009 3:11 PM
I thought nothing ever really disappeared off the internet. Aren't there archives and other means of retrieving old info which no longer has a current website?
Posted by: Bill Dauphin, OM | June 10, 2009 3:12 PM
Arrgh! HTML FAIL! I could've sworn I'd closed those tags.
Posted by: Brain Hertz | June 10, 2009 3:16 PM
That depends how the websites were built; it is possible to construct a website such that it doesn't show up in any of the common archives. Of course, you can't apply that retroactively...
So in this case if there is a widespread takedown of claims, it's going to look awfully suspicious.
Posted by: turtle | June 10, 2009 3:16 PM
As someone with a close friend who is dying of leukemia, I am utterly disgusted by the sheer coldness of these hunters who prey on the weak and deseparate. My friend was told to go to a holistic dentist (whatever that means)...after several visits and tens of thousands of dollars later, she almost bled to death in his office. He had not only removed all the metal from her mouth (yah..one of those whackos) but also had hold on crystals while tapping on them to diagnose her. From the "energy machines" to the costly "anti-oxidant" juices and supplements, to the new-age retreats...Sometimes I don't know who to blame more, the predator or the prey.
Posted by: Ryan | June 10, 2009 3:17 PM
I mean, Chiropractic has therapeutic uses. It sure has heck isn't a miracle fix for whatever ails you but... it feels good to have your back adjusted, especially for people with lower back problems. I mean, I'm not going to hope that getting my neck cracked is going to make my cancer go away and honestly anybody who does think like that should have to pay the stupid tax that their chiropractor is charging them.
Posted by: Kris | June 10, 2009 3:23 PM
www.archive.org will sort that out!
Posted by: MikeTheInfidel | June 10, 2009 3:23 PM
Ryan:
People with spinal problems should NOT seek out chiropractic for therapeutic reaons. Spinal pain and pinched nerves are COUNTERindications to spinal adjustment. Chiropractic can cause permanent damage to people with these sorts of problems.
Pretty big price to pay to risk the chance for temporary pain relief.
Posted by: Otto | June 10, 2009 3:25 PM
Quite some time ago I gave chiropracters a try, I had carpal tunnel problems and they claimed that this is a problem they know how to deal with. The carpal tunnel was not affected at all but I noticed a minor back pain had developed. After 2 month I stopped the treatment and 10 days later the back pain was gone.
The pain in my wrists went away after some time on its own,
Oh, and I did try acupuncture too. Didn't work either.
Posted by: Pat | June 10, 2009 3:29 PM
@Don 11: Happy Monkey indeed.
http://yaxu.org/tmp/chiros.html
(fixed it, no end-parenthesis)
Posted by: Onkel Bob | June 10, 2009 3:30 PM
Don't read your fellow SciBlings? One comment over there, qetzal wrote this has the hoax smell all over it. E-mail? Cheney et al, showed how to keep a conspiracy under wraps: no e-mail! As slimy as the chiropractic community, did they really need to descend to that level?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 10, 2009 3:38 PM
If you must go to a chiropractor whatever you do do NOT let them manipulate your neck vertebrae. There are documented cases of people dying and being disabled after neck chiropractic resulted in ruptured vertebral arteries.
In addition they are well known as pushers of anti vaccination literature and need you to keep coming back for more and bring the family. Go see a physiotherapist it will likely cost you less and they discharge you once you are fit. They also have proper regulation and have an evidence base which is something chiropractic does not have.
The reality of many bad backs is that they will get better on their own and the best thing you can do for your back is be active and keep active. I have beaten my bad back that way.
Posted by: David Wiener
|
June 10, 2009 3:38 PM
Geeze, I hate to say it, but for some things chiropractic works. I have (had) a very bad back due to an on-the-job injury when I was about 20. It was never treated, and my back would just go out on me (pinched nerve). Docs just gave me some heat pads and ibuprofen.
I finally went to a chiropractor after I'd been stuck on the ground, unable to move, for more than two days. I overcame my fear (mom's an RN, grandad is an MD) and when to a chiropractor who just did adjustments. He did not pretend to cure colds or redirect energy. He did explain how what he did fixes pinched nerves. And then he did it - and it worked. My life has been greatly enhanced by his work.
In every profession their are liars and cheats, and perhaps chiropractic has way more than its fair share. However, do not throw the baby out with the bathwater.
Oh - and the doc gave me some simple exercises to keep things in place, and I've been fine ever since.
I agree the onus is on chiropractors to weed out the snake oil salesmen and prove, with studies, that what they do works. But, for back pain at least, I have found it very effective.
Just sayin...
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 3:39 PM
#22
Except, you know, how it was also pointed out on the same page that content is rapidly disappearing from chiro websites.
Now why would such information start disappearing en masse, and quickly?
Hm...
Smells like panic to me.
Posted by: Eduardo Padoan | June 10, 2009 3:42 PM
Even if their evil plan made any sense, we still have Web Archive.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 3:43 PM
#22
Except for the small problem, also mentioned on the same page you linked, of how huge chunks of the data mentioned in the email is being pulled from the MCA's website, and from other chiro sites.
En masse and rapid takedowns of content?
Smells like panic to me.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 3:45 PM
Okay, I hit the back button and reloaded the page several times to make sure my comment was there, didn't see it, retyped, and now the original is here, along with the other. WTF????
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 10, 2009 3:46 PM
Back in one particularly shitty job I had after moving back east I worked for a network and computer shop that serviced small businesses. We had 3 or 4o Chiros as clients and every single one had anti-vax and more strange than normal Christian lit in their lobbies.
Anecdotal, yes. But still strange.
Posted by: shecky | June 10, 2009 3:46 PM
Now if we can just get pharmaceutical companies in this country to quit making inflated claims and inappropriately advertising their wares on TV.
Posted by: littlejohn | June 10, 2009 3:48 PM
Some years ago I was astonished that my employer-supplied health insurance covered chiropractors. The insurance companies could put an end to that easily enough. And maybe a law to prohibit chiros from calling themselves "doctor."
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 10, 2009 3:49 PM
that would be 3 or 4 not 40
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 10, 2009 3:50 PM
@David Wiener #24
Did it not occur to you to try a physiotherapist? Why put yourself in the hands of a dangerous snake oil salesmen when there are educated, evidence based professionals with proper registration and regulation needing patients?
BTW Chiropractors are keen to wear the title 'doctor' but not many have doctorates. You were fooled and your wallet is lighter than it needed to be. I'm glad your back is better, they get better on their own too and they get better when people who do not endanger you with ignorance get to work on it too.
Posted by: turtle | June 10, 2009 3:51 PM
As someone with a close friend who is dying of leukemia, I am utterly disgusted by the sheer coldness of these hunters who prey on the weak and deseparate. My friend was told to go to a holistic dentist (whatever that means)...after several visits and tens of thousands of dollars later, she almost bled to death in his office. He had not only removed all the metal from her mouth (yah..one of those whackos) but also had hold on crystals while tapping on them to diagnose her. From the "energy machines" to the costly "anti-oxidant" juices and supplements, to the new-age retreats...Sometimes I don't know who to blame more, the predator or the prey.
Posted by: SEF | June 10, 2009 3:53 PM
The "Wayback Machine" (aka Internet Archive) may well have preserved some of the evidence trail:
http://www.archive.org/
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 10, 2009 3:55 PM
Oh and David, the plural of anecdote is not data. All the big properly controlled trials show chiropractic has minimal benefit on back pain and that is the best result for it on anything they claim to be able to do. Physical therapy and exercise is slightly better but the truth is we have no good therapies for bad backs, my take on this is that we humans are not fully bipedal yet. Also as I said, a chiropractor can injure or kill you. Why take the risk?
Posted by: balagan
|
June 10, 2009 3:56 PM
It can do wonders for some species though.....check out this little fella
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rLdQ3UhLoD4
Posted by: Christopher | June 10, 2009 3:57 PM
My girlfriend has back pain under her right shoulder that is probably do to repetitive motion at work. She sees a chiropractor who, as far as I can tell, is among the more legitimate in the field, and she has felt better since seeing him.
I am still very skeptical though, and I worry sometimes that the work he is doing is temporary relief and a bigger problem might be going untreated. What do you guys think, is this something I should be worried about, or if her pain is being treated should I just let it be?
Posted by: Enkidu | June 10, 2009 4:01 PM
A quick check I did shows most (all but one) chiropractic up and running. Something's odd here.
Posted by: HenryS
|
June 10, 2009 4:02 PM
JVSR.com
Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research
A Peer-Reviewed Scientific Journal
https://www.jvsr.com/abstracts/index.asp?id=383
This is there idea of "research", it makes me dizzy reading their jibberish!!
Posted by: Kathleen | June 10, 2009 4:07 PM
Actually in Dr. Singh's book, he states that studies show some efficacy for back problems. He does emphasize that you should *never* let a chiropractor touch your neck. The book is very good. Aside from stating the obvious (alternative treatments are usually bunk), there is a nice history of evidence-based medicine at the beginning of the book.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 4:08 PM
Enkidu
Uh--hello? The chiros are removing certain pages, or contents from pages, not pulling their websites entirely. You do realize that you can change pages without removing an entire site, right?
Posted by: DavidCOG
|
June 10, 2009 4:10 PM
Excellent news! The charlatans are on the run.
Note that The McTimoney Association have shut down their own website. Taking a look at the archives brings up this gem:
> Chiropractic began in 1895 when Harvey Lillard, janitor of the Ryan Building, where Daniel David Palmer, a practitioner of 'magnetic healing' had his office. Palmer began questioning Lillard about his condition, Lillard explained that 17 years before he had been stooping when he felt something give in his back; almost immediately, he'd lost his hearing.
> On examining Lillard, he found a painful and prominent vertebra in his upper spine. Yes, said Lillard, that was the place that had hurt when he'd lost his hearing. Palmer asked him to lie face down on the treatment table, and exerted an energetic manual thrust on the vertebra in question.
Heh. A magnet-wielding quack dreamt it up after ramming a protruding vertebrae in to the back of some hapless janitor! The comedy writes itself.
And their impressive menu of claims to efficacy are available for all at http://web.archive.org/web/20080201042751/www.mctimoney-chiropractic.org/treat_intro.htm
Posted by: Dustin | June 10, 2009 4:11 PM
OMIGAWD like, fershuur. I so totally saw that on Tyra!
Posted by: David Wiener
|
June 10, 2009 4:15 PM
Peter@33
I had that problem for 20 years and did go to several doctors. Did what they said. Did not work. My chiropractor admitted that there were fools in his profession, but he was very straight with me. I did not do this lightly, but I had therapy and it did not do jack. The chiropractor ended twenty years of bad back pain in two sessions.
As I also said - they need to get their house in order. However, there seems to be an over-reaction here. Even if it is 90% straight up bullshit - the %10 that is effective is worth preserving.
I am not any fan of woo. I am very empirical, show-me-I'm-from-Missouri type of person. I admit my story is anecdotal - but so are all the horror stories that others are posting.
Posted by: Evolving Squid
|
June 10, 2009 4:16 PM
I guess they've never heard of the wayback machine.
Posted by: corn | June 10, 2009 4:18 PM
The best chiropractic is nothing more than unlicensed physiotherapy. The rest of it is quackery, plain and simple. I'll take my PT specialist degreed and licensed, thank you very much.
Posted by: Roland Branconnier | June 10, 2009 4:28 PM
Chiros just another form of quackery to manipulate (pun intended) you away from your money. Richard Dawkins'"Enemies of Reason" video is on the mark about quacks. Watch it, wake up and smell the coffee.
Posted by: D. C. Sessions | June 10, 2009 4:29 PM
Oh, it might.
Search sciencebasedmedicine.org for "vertebral artery dissection."
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 4:30 PM
#44
What the fuck are you on about, mate?
Piss off, you smug little wanker.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 10, 2009 4:31 PM
Dave Weiner writes:
Geeze, I hate to say it, but for some things chiropractic works
Yes; if you have too much money, it's a good way of making sure you have less.
Posted by: Paul Lundgren | June 10, 2009 4:39 PM
My massage therapist says her trade union here in Iowa has been lobbying for mandatory massage therapy coverage for any insurance company that covers chiro. THAT would be a premium worth paying.Posted by: genesgalore | June 10, 2009 4:40 PM
ya, those osteopaths who practice manipulation have never helped any one out.....it is the practice of medicine: practice, practice, practice.
Posted by: Aquaria | June 10, 2009 4:44 PM
#53
And practicing manipulation (not medicine) is better than practicing medicine?
Congratulations on your EPIC FAIL.
Posted by: Moggie
|
June 10, 2009 4:45 PM
#52:
Yes, let's hope for a happy ending.
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 10, 2009 4:46 PM
If anyone is looking for a good chiropractor try mine.
Posted by: genesgalore | June 10, 2009 4:49 PM
aquaria 54, rotf, don't be so quick to put your ignorance on the table.
Posted by: Crackpoty Training | June 10, 2009 4:51 PM
Have a look at this:
http://en.citizendium.org/wiki/Chiropractic
It was "Approved" by Citizendium's "Experts"
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 10, 2009 4:52 PM
That doesn't surprise me a bit Randy
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 10, 2009 4:58 PM
This comes up every time PZ writes about chiropractry: there was and is a 'split' among chiropractors. As David COG points out in #43, the origins of chiropractry were unscientific and based on vitalism: adjusting the "subluxations" was supposed to cure everything from backache to allergies to cancer. Over the years, however, some chiropractors began to confine their practice to back problems, throwing off the woo and becoming more or less the same as physical therapists -- and equally effective. Some are excellent.
Traditional, Palmer-style chiropractors are heavily into woo. "Reformed" chiropractors have no woo. Many (perhaps most) are mixtures of the two -- a little woo. If you have found one of the reasonable kind, and your back is either better or at least not any worse, then might as well stick with it.
But if I was starting out, I would not begin by searching for a 'good' chiropractor. It would be hard enough to find a good physical therapist -- why put extra hurdles in my way?
Posted by: george.w | June 10, 2009 4:59 PM
Having your spine manipulated "feels good"? It wouldn't surprise me that a half-hour massage three times a month would do more good than three 5-minute Chiro sessions. And the massage therapist isn't claiming to cure everything under the sun.
Posted by: Richard Harris
|
June 10, 2009 5:02 PM
I'm just curious. How did The Quackometer get hold of the mail from The McTimoney Association? I'd've thought it was highly confidential.
Anyway, after Chiropractic, the next target should be Homeopathy. Our cats' goddam veterinarian pushes chiropractic treatments. One of them is as fey as her New Age sounding name, but the other seems to be a sensible, straightforward woman. Are there any British veterinarians here? I thought I read that they aren't allowed, by their professional body, to prescribe homeopathic 'treatment'.
Posted by: Andy Lewis | June 10, 2009 5:05 PM
Hey!
There is a really important free speech issue in the UK related to this.
Please sign the statement in support of Simon Singh.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/
Posted by: Intelligent Designer | June 10, 2009 5:06 PM
I was going there to help with back pain -- not to cure cancer or something. I haven't been there for quite a while because I learned quite a bit about how to take care of my back both in terms of exercise and do's and don'ts.
Posted by: Andy Lewis | June 10, 2009 5:08 PM
Hey!
There is a really important free speech issue in the UK related to this.
Please sign the statement in support of Simon Singh.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/
Posted by: Andy Lewis | June 10, 2009 5:14 PM
Hey!
There is a really important free speech issue in the UK related to this.
Please sign the statement in support of Simon Singh.
http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/333/
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 10, 2009 5:19 PM
@David Weiner
This is not a scare story, it is good solid science:
http://www.cmaj.ca/cgi/content/full/166/1/40
Look at the data, chiropractic is NOT safe.
Again you say you went to a doctor, did you go to a physio? did you ask the doctor to refer you to a physio? in my experience doctors are generally useless when it comes to musculoskeletal strains and pains. Physios are the specialists. Back in the Med School I did my degrees in (BSc, PhD) the medics were only allowed to do shoulder and hip on the cadavers in Anatomy, no further. All the rest was reserved for the physiotherapy students who did them in fine detail (Face and jaw was the Dentist's province). Now answer the question: did you see a physio?
Posted by: AwesomeRobot | June 10, 2009 5:22 PM
#4 "This has got to be good news for Simon Singh's case, surely?"
Not entirely, this is not the BCA, the group that sued Singh. Also, we don't just want Singh to win on a technicality anymore. We want everyone to see how bad British Libel law is for free speech, so it will be changed.
Posted by: Kat | June 10, 2009 5:22 PM
Well 6 neurologist couldn't figure out why my sciatica was so bad, even when shown x-rays that my Chiropractor took of my "S" shaped spine to show that the nerve had been pitched when injured & thanks to him, I was able to walk again.
Any doctor you go to, you need to research them to be sure you have a good doctor.
Trust me, I've seen plenty of bad MD's as well.
Always do your homework before & if they make you feel uncomfortable, remember one thing...you pay them, that's how they get a paycheck.
Sometimes we need to speak up to a doctor, because not all of them are great.
You know some of them got their degrees from the gum-ball machine! :P
"Just My Opinion" Much Love & Peace, Kat ;D
Posted by: DPSisler | June 10, 2009 5:23 PM
The missing websites can be found here: http://yaxu.org/tmp/chiros.html All of the chiros websites have been snapped shot before the chiros changed their websites. Provides a nice before / after for the Judge, eh?
Posted by: Peter Ashby | June 10, 2009 6:09 PM
@Kat #69
The alternative to medics, most of whom do not know their anatomy (orthopedics excepted), is not a woo merchant. It is a qualified, registered physiotherapist.
BTW I know I sound like an evangelist for physio, just so there is no misunderstanding I am not a physio, not married to a physio, my kids are not physios, I'm not having an affair with a physio and none of my relatives are physios (or chiros for that matter). I just have experience of how well educated they are and they have kept me together and put me back together more times than I care to remember (I'm a distance runner). I would trust them for either reason, together its a no brainer. Add in that chiropractic is woo and dangerous and you have to be mad to see a chiro instead of a physio.
Just because your anecdote was that it helped you and you did not die does not invalidate the data, it just makes you lucky. BTW you dont' go to a neurologist for sciatica type pain, that's what orthopedics is for. Appropriate specialists people.
Posted by: Zeno | June 10, 2009 6:10 PM
Hi and great to see this getting covered everywhere!
It was my complaint against 523 chiros that the MCA mentioned in their extraordinary email and that has caused all the running around like headless chickens!
Read all about it on my blog at www.zenosblog.com.
The MCA called this a witch-hunt, but they are wrong: all I want is for chiros to only claim what there is good evidence for. Once the GCC start enforcing their own rules, I'll be a bit happier.
There is a certain momentum here in the UK: the sceptical bloggers have started something and I think we can keep this going. I'd like to look at the osteopaths next, but it is Homeopathy Awareness Week next week!
Posted by: Asa | June 10, 2009 6:21 PM
Dr. Myers,
Are you claiming that chiropractic care is in general not based on science, or that you just disagree with the outrageous claims of many chiropractors? My chiropractor claims that his treatment will help your nervous system function better, but he doesn't promise anything like the BCA.
That said, I think that suing Simon Singh over that statement was very pitiful and childish (even IF Singh was wrong).
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 10, 2009 6:23 PM
Hell yeah Zeno!
Posted by: Asa | June 10, 2009 6:25 PM
Dr. Myers,
Are you claiming that chiropractic care is in general not based on science, or that you just disagree with the outrageous claims of many chiropractors? My chiropractor claims that his treatment will help your nervous system function better, but he doesn't promise anything like the BCA.
That said, I think that suing Simon Singh over that statement was very pitiful and childish (even IF Singh was wrong).
Posted by: Asa | June 10, 2009 6:40 PM
Dr. Myers,
Are you claiming that chiropractic care is in general not based on science, or that you just disagree with the outrageous claims of many chiropractors? My chiropractor claims that his treatment will help your nervous system function better, but he doesn't promise anything like the BCA.
That said, I think that suing Simon Singh over that statement was very pitiful and childish (even IF Singh was wrong).
Posted by: Sastra
|
June 10, 2009 6:54 PM
Asa #76 wrote:
There is no scientific support for the claim that spinal manipulation will help the nervous system function better.
http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html
I suspect PZ would agree with this summary.
Posted by: Marcus Ranum | June 10, 2009 8:31 PM
Zeno writes:
There is a certain momentum here in the UK: the sceptical bloggers have started something and I think we can keep this going.
It's amazing! Thanks for doing this.
I wonder what would happen if someone spent a few $thousand on amazon mechanical turk to have people make lists of chiropractic websites (and maybe acupuncturists, too, while we're at it) that make actionable claims, and write letters to the FDA and FTC.
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 10, 2009 8:37 PM
Fortunately there are still some real and courageous doctors left to stand up to them! I would like to personally shake this doctor's hand!
Posted by: Fred the Hun
|
June 10, 2009 8:41 PM
Oops wrong post.
Posted by: Enkidu | June 10, 2009 9:00 PM
Aquaria,
Yes I do. However, the pages I checked included prenatal care, postnatal and pediatric, allergies, etc., the very things that they were advised to take down.
Posted by: frog | June 10, 2009 9:05 PM
Well, if we shut down all unsubstantiated medical treatments, there won't be much left. Most MD treatments are only "scientifically substantiated" in the fevered minds of marketeers and students -- since anything beyond the acute is usually unsubstantiatable. Too many damn variables.
That will probably be a good thing. Everyone will save lots on all the pills they'll stop taking, stop wasting time with woo, and probably be much healthier. Only go to the doctor with a broken bone, a cancer or a busted ticker -- the class of things you can actually make testable treatments on.
Posted by: GaryB, FCD | June 10, 2009 9:09 PM
Chiropracty does work, incredibly well. My Grandmother went to a Chiropractor for decades on a regular basis. For the same problem.
Did I mention she went repeatedly? For decades? All for the same problem? For decades? On a regular basis? Did I?
Yup, Chiro fixed her up good.
Posted by: Richard Simons | June 10, 2009 9:11 PM
Asa (#76) said:
Perhaps someone with better knowledge could think of a possible mechanism, but I can't think of any way in which manipulation could help the nervous system to function better. Does the chiropractor make any claims as to what is going on and, indeed, does he elaborate on what exactly he means by 'function better'?
Posted by: Kristin | June 10, 2009 9:14 PM
Rate and review chiropractors at tinkn.com.
Posted by: Dr. Bryan Grieg Fry | June 10, 2009 9:20 PM
Wow. I saw a chiropractor and several physiotherapists after a brutal carwreck. They did a magnificent job of putting my back and neck together again. Which is the exact description of their job. Nothing less and, more importantly, nothing more!! Within its scope, chiropracty is very scientific. But it seems to attract a serious degree of woo-woo fuckwits who expand it well beyond this scope!
Posted by: frog | June 10, 2009 9:24 PM
Simons: Perhaps someone with better knowledge could think of a possible mechanism, but I can't think of any way in which manipulation could help the nervous system to function better.
You ain't very imaginative, are you? For the sake of argument, we can imagine that the manipulations will lead to muscle relaxation, thereby decreasing chronic stress at certain locations that lead to low grade inflammation. Now, certain classes of nerves are very sensitive to low-grade inflammation -- everything called "pain" neurons are basically inflammation sensors.
A chronic overactivation of these neurons, even at low levels could lead to a number of upstream cascades, could threaten cell death of the pain neurons themselves, and could even imaginably increase the risk of excitotoxic death or the sensitivity to transient ischemia's.
It's easy to imagine mechanisms. It's very, very difficult to actually test any mechanism to the level you could have confidence in it as scientifically valid. That's true with most treatments of chronic but mild dysfunction -- you essentially want to make subtle changes that propagate through a very high dimensional system in some predictable way. That's like trying to manage a forest by breeding insects -- either you do too little to be of any consequence, or you risk destroying the entire system.
Posted by: tariqata | June 10, 2009 9:28 PM
I don't disagree at all, but I wonder if part of the issue, at least in some areas, is a shortage of qualified physiotherapists? I seem to remember that it was a bit of an issue when my younger brother broke his arm and needed PT, and we didn't exactly live in a small town. Chiropractors, on the other hand, seem to be all over the place, and it seems like a lot people have back/neck pain that they want treated.
Posted by: Rich | June 10, 2009 9:29 PM
I had bone cancer many years ago which caused my legs to become substantially different in length. This spinal inbalance causes my back to crack out of alignment on a DAILY basis. There are exercises I do to keep it relatively in check but there is nothing I can do to keep it permanently aligned. Chiropractors are a necessity to keep me moving and walking - no other doctors that I have been to (and I've been to a ton of them, including osteopaths and physiotherapists) are willing to "get in there" and make me right and, like I said, it's the ONLY thing that is keeping me mobile and I've lived with this condition going on twenty years now.
That said, I agree that there are a LOT of quacks out there (selling a lot of "woo") that I would never go to or have walked out of, so you have to be well informed before you visit one. But, as a poster above pointed out, this seems like people are throwing the baby out with the bathwater. Not all of these people are quacks, and some of them really DO know what they are doing. Also, anyone who goes to a chiropractor and gets an adjustment just to "feel good" and has no medical need for it is just crazy. Just like I wouldn't recommend getting a root canal for the endorphin rush, I wouldn't suggest this either.
This also goes for massage therapists too - some are awful but a few really know what they are doing. Please don't be so blind in your dismissal of anything "alternative" that you miss the kernel of good things that it has to offer.
Posted by: Asa | June 10, 2009 9:43 PM
@Richard Simons #84
Well, one example would be readjusting your spine over time so that your nerves are not being pinched. That is what increases your body's function.
I don't know about the 'spinal alignment increases energy' argument. I do know from doing yoga that your spine is
Anyways, just to be clear I think chiropractors are very helpful for correcting skeletal injuries but I don't see how they provide other health benefits any more than yoga does (unless the problem has to do specifically with pinched nerves...etc.). I agree with the other commenters that there are a lot of quacks out there and strongly disagree with the BCA and their dishonest conduct (Why else would they ask their members to pull their sites down?).
Also, I apologize for posting the same comment 3 times. I waited, hit the back button, and it was not there. Next time I will wait 30 minutes before posting again.
Posted by: mybhl
|
June 10, 2009 10:23 PM
This is a great story! The roaches dive for cover when the light is turned on them.
I can only hope that this is the push-back from the Simon Singh affair.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 10, 2009 10:31 PM
@ 86,
What scope,and in what way scientific?
Intriguing how many errors one can pack into a single sentence.
Posted by: Paula Helm Murray | June 10, 2009 11:39 PM
I HAD a chiropracter that made no claims except to make your joints and muscles work better IF IT WAS A PROBLEM SHE COULD FIX. If she checked you out and she thought it was something else, she'd say 'go to your doctor, come back when he fixes what's wrong with you."
A friend had a bad fall and went to her first. She did her initial touch/light feel and asked him some questions. Then she took him directly to the ER nearest her office. The intern tried to argue with her because 'you're just a chiropracter and you didn't get an x-ray" , the resident said, "let's x-ray this because if she brings him here because she thinks there is a problem, there is likely a problem."
He had a femur fracture. I respected her, we all loved her. She killed herself for reasons totally unknown to any of us and I still wish she were here.
Again, she never made claims that she could do anything but make sure your joints, bones and muscles were lined up okay.
And I also respected her because she did not use x-rays. I had a problem that started with infancy and had a chest x-ray every time I was admitted to the hospital from probably 1 year old until 12-13 years old. AT least once a year.
Posted by: cyan
|
June 10, 2009 11:43 PM
It has always made my mind burn that some of the money I pay into my insurance plan goes into the pockets of chiro quacks.
Physicians do not touch a patient except to diagnose.
Having someone touch you with assurances that it will help you heal is very successful psychology. Couching the assurances in terminology that sounds scientific is the cherry on the whipped cream.
If massage therapists formed a lobby like that of chiropractics, pushing that those two techniques be followed by all members, they would eventually put chiros out of business.
Not that I want massage therapists to do those unethical things, but if the only other thing is that in the US the chiros get to keep inferring that they cure and prevent abnormal conditions, then I'd rather have my insurance money cover massage therapy than chiropractic.
Posted by: frog | June 11, 2009 12:00 AM
cyan: Physicians do not touch a patient except to diagnose.
Well, you probably have there a significant cause of medical failure.
You do know that touch is one of the few things that you can show to improve overall health in the long-term, don't you?
And you do know that "psychology" is simply a term describing successfully changing neural tissue, right? So, "psychology" would be one term for noninvasive neurology, right?
Posted by: cyan
|
June 11, 2009 12:57 AM
I should have said "is a very successful application of psychology", rather than "a very successful psychology".
frog wrote:
"And you do know that "psychology" is simply a term describing successfully changing neural tissue, right?"
No, I didn't.
definition of psychology from wikipedia:
"Psychology (Greek: Ψυχολογία, lit. "study of the mind", from ψυχή psykhē "breath, spirit, soul"; and -λογία, -logia "study of"[1]) is an academic and applied discipline involving the systematic, and often scientific, study of human mental functions and behavior."
Your definition of psychology does not equate to this.
definition of neurology from wikipedia:
"Neurology (from Greek νεῦρον, neuron, "nerve"; and -λογία, -logia) is a medical specialty dealing with disorders of the nervous system. Specifically, it deals with the diagnosis and treatment of all categories of disease involving the central, peripheral, and autonomic nervous systems, including their coverings, blood vessels, and all effector tissue, such as muscle."
Psychology is not a term for non-invasive neurology. Not all neurology is invasive; psychology is not a term for non-invasive neurology, either.
Posted by: Dr. P | June 11, 2009 2:14 AM
Happeh, is that you?Posted by: Porco Dio
|
June 11, 2009 3:25 AM
Simon is a legend...
i wish him luck...
and i wish he would write more books on science...
Posted by: Timelord | June 11, 2009 4:03 AM
Oh but they have forgotten about the all seeing eye of the google cache:
http://tinyurl.com/lgkjuo
Posted by: Dave Child | June 11, 2009 4:43 AM
I thought I'd take a look at a couple of local practitioners, and the first I found seems to have taken the advice to heart ...
http://www.brightonchiropractic.co.uk/
Of course, that site is still available through the wayback machine ...
http://web.archive.org/web/20070216124929/http://www.brightonchiropractic.co.uk/index.html
Posted by: John Morales | June 11, 2009 5:11 AM
Imperfect Designer@64:
I guess, Randy, you're admitting the "intelligence" behind the putative design of your back and of your cellular apoptosis is somewhat less than perfect.Or, perhaps, there is none, and it's just an evolutionary hack.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 11, 2009 5:12 AM
Say what?
When did we figure out how to "change neural tissue" ?
What a load of crap !
Posted by: burak | June 11, 2009 5:13 AM
thanksssssssssssssssssssssssss
http://yeniliginadresi.blogcu.com
Posted by: John Morales | June 11, 2009 5:17 AM
Rorschach, it's just extreme pedantry. Clearly, establishing memories requires neural change.
It's vacuous, though, inasmuch as it could be said to apply to any stimulus whatsoever, and thus provides no insight.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 11, 2009 5:36 AM
I dont think anyone has figured out how we store memories yet,other than it involves changes on the molecular level and ion channels somehow.
Certainly not changing of neural cells from one kind to another.
(Maybe Im too pedantic LOL)
Posted by: John Morales | June 11, 2009 5:51 AM
Rorschach, no such thing as too pedantic around here. <g>
I'll defer to you on the actual neurophysiology, but just pointing out, trite as it may be, that as monists (ie. not dualists) we must imagine memory storage (awareness of self, even!) and access involves physical changes.
The original claim that psychotherapy is, in essence, equivalent to neurosurgery at heart is wildly hyperbolic, of course, and you've called it.
Well, not unless the therapist is Hannibal Lecter, anyway...
Posted by: Kendo | June 11, 2009 5:59 AM
"Also, I apologize for posting the same comment 3 times. I waited, hit the back button, and it was not there. "
You don't have to hit the back button. Just refresh the very same page from which you posted the comment
Posted by: Rorschach | June 11, 2009 6:06 AM
There is 2 messages coming up now,one that says "your comment got through,click here to refresh" and the other Im still getting is the "submission timeout" one.
Which tells me SB techs still have no clue what's causing the problem or how to fix it,and have put up a quick fix to reduce the number of multiple submissions for the time being.
The other SB I go to seem to be working fine btw.
Posted by: Richard Eis | June 11, 2009 6:08 AM
It's a conspiracy against us that people will sue because we falsely advertised what we could do and used the term doctor when we are not doctors...a conspiracy i tell you.
I think Simon Singh has just been handed chiropractic butt on a plate, served up with butter. Clear proof that a chiropractic organisation knew full well about the BOGUS (ie. lying cheating scum) claims of it's advocates.
Posted by: Kendo | June 11, 2009 6:20 AM
I've never seen either message (not that I'm a frequent poster). Someone commented recently that you just have to wait a little while (count to ten) and then reload the page. I tested that by making a couple of postings and it works for me (I'll test it again with this comment. If I don't report back it means that I counted to ten, hit reload and it worked).Posted by: Kendo | June 11, 2009 6:26 AM
heh! Although on the other hand, my absence of a report cannot be evidence of success. (It worked.)
Posted by: Mojo | June 11, 2009 6:44 AM
@turtle:
The tooth, the whole tooth, and nothing but the tooth, perhaps?
Seriously, though, the word "holistic" has been so diluted by its use by homoeopaths and others that it has become an almost meaningless buzz word. Most of the therapies described as "holistic" in fact concentrate on some very narrow aspect of the patient (reflexology? iridology? Even homoeopathy regards the patient as nothing more than a collection of symptoms). It seems to be part of a "big lie" strategy to imply that real medicine is not holistic, when in fact it is.
See also "ethical".
Posted by: Of10rot10 | June 11, 2009 11:44 AM
My dad was a chiropractor and a damn good one! We lived in a small town and even though there was an MD in town he was also a drunk. The people in our town came to rely on my dad more than the MD. Dad never made any claims he could cure everything from the cold to cancer, he was just in the business of easing back problems. He accepted payment in things like jams and jellys, cuts of meat or mechanical work. He would personally drive some one to the nearest hospital who would show up at the office any time day or night and was injured or ill beyond his training or basic first aid until he was able to get the funding for an ambulance service in our community. He was even it's first EMT and trained the ones that followed after until his death. He was a firm believer in immunizations and even had a party when Small Pox had been declared eradicated. It wasn't just people, he and the local Vet would sponser a Rabies drive every spring and was also known to have given a few cows and horses some shots. As far as I know the only humans he ever gave shots to were his father and grandfather near the end of their lives for pain from cancer with their MDs approval. He was highly respected by everyone in our community and is still remembered fondly.
Posted by: Steven Sullivan | June 11, 2009 11:47 AM
Anyone here interested in medical quackery should read Pope Brock's 'Charlatan: America's Most Dangerous Huckster, the Man Who Pursued Him, and the Age of Flimflam ', the fascinating and horrifying story of 'Dr.' Joel Brinkley, who implanted goat testicles into thousands of gullible patients between the two World Wars. He was finally brought down by the editor of JAMA.
http://www.amazon.com/Charlatan-Americas-Dangerous-Huckster-Flimflam/dp/0307339882
Posted by: Steve | June 11, 2009 2:18 PM
What I don't understand, is why more of these quacks aren't taken out by malpractice lawsuits.
Posted by: frog | June 11, 2009 5:19 PM
Rorshach: Say what?
When did we figure out how to "change neural tissue" ?
What a load of crap !
When you learned to talk, moron. How the hell else do you think talking and thinking work? By some kind of spiritual exchange of essences, or activity in the realm of the pleroma.
It's not pedantic, or lacking in insight, except to those who themselves lack any depth of understanding or those who throw strawmen around of "neurosurgery" since neurology includes a hell of a lot more than just surgery.
We know that among the elderly, for example, giving someone a pet has a huge effect -- as large as taking any pills, with a lot less side-effects. Now, is that some magical change, or actual real changes in neurons, synaptic boutons, and dendrite-axon connections? If the effects are large, mustn't they reflect significant effects on the organization of brain tissue?
Why are people stuck in the Christian fantasy of a soul plane and an organic plane? Why don't they see what is sitting right in their damn faces, that people change a lot in response to communications, particularly over the long term, and that those changes must be isomorphic with changes in neural tissue?
That there's no difference between say "organic" depression and "psychological" depression, other than possibly as a short-hand for the scale of the disturbance?
Why do we have so many idiot atheists who continue to think like 3rd century barbarians, in ghosts and spirits? Some folks are more sophisticated, realizing that their dualism is a bit silly -- but yet, in practice, they act as if they were in a dualist world ("dualism/monism" being just pedantic and lacking in insight!!!).
If you're depressed, it doesn't make a hell of a lot of difference whether this is due to a "genetic" failure causing a disruption in neurotransmitter receptors, or whether a series of events has changed the distribution of neurotransmitter receptors -- except in the most radical cases of a receptor being missing, the treatment is basically the same, using drugs to manipulate receptor levels grossly, and using communications to manipulate receptor levels at fine grain.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 12, 2009 4:15 AM
frog the namecaller not paying attention to whats being said:
My original post,if you had any reading comprehension,was regarding psychology,namely this claim :
And no,learning to talk,or thinking,or memorization,does not work by changing one kind of neural tissue into another,which is what the original claim was.
Which you could have known,had you bothered to properly read whats being said instead of running off and hauling insults.
Moron.
Posted by: Rorschach | June 12, 2009 4:20 AM
frog not knowing what he is talking about:
I spell it out for you moron :
Neurotransmitter disturbance(what I called changes on the molecular level upthread had you bothered to read) =|= change in neural tissue
Posted by: John Morales | June 12, 2009 6:52 AM
When I consider the fate of old web content, the worrier in me wonders about Google's net near-omniscience, and the, um, leverage it could in theory afford for all sort of accommodations.
Posted by: crs | June 12, 2009 7:59 AM
My dentist is also an M.D. and we chatted regarding "alternative" medicine. I was surprised that he advocated most of it, and informed me of "respected" chiropractors and acupuncturists on staff at two of our major university hospitals. One is rated as a top 10 national hospital. I was speechless.
Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | June 12, 2009 8:09 AM
Interesting read on the history of Chiropractic.
This is a snippet, read the rest.
Posted by: Knockgoats | June 12, 2009 8:39 AM
Only go to the doctor with a broken bone, a cancer or a busted ticker -- the class of things you can actually make testable treatments on. - frog
frog, you usually talk sense, but this is crap. Beetroot and lemon juice for AIDS rather than HAART, anyone? Death from septicemia or TB rather than taking antibiotics? From diabetes rather than injecting insulin? Etc, etc, etc.
Posted by: Sarah | June 12, 2009 12:10 PM
I will not tolerate quackery. However, chiropractic when resposibly practiced is good for a number of things. I spent years in pain from a lower back injury (at 14). I went to med doctors and all they did was give me muscle relaxants (yes, age 14) and some very bad excercises (my chiro later told me I was making things worse and even explained exactly why). At age 22 I finally went to a well recommended chiropracter, he didn't just manipulate my spine, he also gave me good physical therapy exercises. After 6 months I had no back pain. I have been for shoulder issues, carpal tunnel and hip problems. He works on my, gives me physical therapy exercises (you have to do these daily, no pills to fix you) and I get better. This is what chiro is really good for, if your chiro is good at it.
The only time I went for back pain and he couldn't help me, he sent me to the hospital right away because I had a severe kidney infection.
As with medical doctors (I've had more than my share of bad ones) there are good and bad chiropracters. It is quite possible to use your critical thinking skills and your bullshit detector to determine who is what. I don't accept everything he's into (homeopathy is not worth it) and he doesn't push it, but then again, my medical doctor has tried to pull some serious bullshit too. Attacking all chiros because one or two suck isn't any better than doing the same thing to MD's. Certainly deal with the quacks, but don't throw the baby out...
Posted by: Bernard Bumner
|
June 12, 2009 12:25 PM
So, you will tolerate quackery - chiropractic - for the sake of getting effective therapy - physio.
Chiropractic may have some practical use, but the philosophy which underlies it is decidely quack. Some of the physical therapy which accompanies the essential "spinal manipulation" may be helpful, and there is certainly a powerful placebo effect at work. However, the core tennets of the practice are archaic, demonstrably wrong, and fail to live up to the rigorous standards that expect of modern, evidence-based medicine.
That you've experienced success with the physical therapeutic elements of the treatment simply attests to the efficacy of those things, in your case. But then, physio and appropriate exercise are well-evidenced treatments for chronic skeletomuscular compaints. This is not good evidence for the other, frankly outlandish, elements of chiropratic.
It is quackery.
Posted by: kabin | June 12, 2009 1:41 PM
thankkkkkssssssssssssssssss
Kabin
Posted by: Don | June 14, 2009 9:48 AM
A lot of chiros actually have a very good grounding in physiology and for some conditions their manipulations may well be effective.
But, even so, if I went to my GP and he prescribed an appropriate dose of an appropriate antibiotic then I would accept that I had been given effective treatment. However, if he went on to say that the tablets must be taken at midnight, in a churchyard after walking seven times widdershins around a freshly killed hare while muttering incantations, I'd be looking for another doctor.
Posted by: Gene | June 14, 2009 6:24 PM
There's a lot of venom here against chiropractors. And with good reason. On the other hand, there are some good chiropractors. And much of what many of them do is virtually identical to what an osteopath (a "real" doctor) would do. As with most things, it's caveat emptor. Not all chiropractors are created equal. Training, skill, approach (wacky woo vs. thoughtful realism) are all critical. I've used chiropractors to great effect, at times. At other times, their remedies were nonsense and a good surgeon was required. I've gotten relieve from both. The right tool for the job, etc.
Posted by: SEF | June 15, 2009 3:54 AM
No, and osteopath is not a real doctor. Osteopathy is almost exactly the same as chiropracty - just a slightly different flavour of woo. Their main overlap and only valid treatment is in the few worthwhile bits of physiotherapy masquerading as part of the woo.
The thing is, osteopaths were around before physiotherapy was available as a mainstream thing - much as Hahnemann (the founder of the homeopathy brand of woo) was around before the medical profession had noticed that basic cleanliness, rest and leaving the patient alone was actually more effective than most of the existing interventions. So the woo groups have tended to have large market shares despite being utter nutters - and dangerous ones at that.
Posted by: William Taylor | June 17, 2009 5:12 AM
It is interesting that the term real doctor is used. I am a chiropractor and I had three recent cases. One was where the original GP diagnosed the patient with diverticulitis, I noticed she had hip pain as well, I suggested she go to a different GP and get the abdomen and hip reassesed as they may be related, it turns out she had secondaries from the lung. The second case was a patient who had seen a physiotherapist and a GP over a period of three months, the patient was still getting worse. The x-rays presented by the patient where cleared by the radiologist and both the GP and physiotherapist looked only at the x-ray report. I had a look at the films and noticed an absent pedicle at L2 with what looked like punched out lesions in the vertebral body. I was correct he had multiple myeloma. A third case recently a patient saw a GP for leg/hip pain. The GP could not find the cause of the pain, I ordered a hip and lumbar film (plain x-ray) the images came back clear. I noticed myself some patchy calcification near the neck of the femur which upon dicussion with the radiologist further declared to me it was nothing. I was not convinced and asked to assess a bit further below the edge of the film. It turns out there was a large expansile bone tumour present. The whole point is stop making sweeping generalisations as to what or how a chiropractor practices. The patients who saw me were appreciative in the end that they saw somebody besides a real doctor. I was just glad I could help to determine the cause of there problems.
Posted by: chiropractor | June 18, 2009 1:47 AM
Thank you so much for this post. I really loved it.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 4:58 AM
but not the almost identical osteopaths - who are still making bogus claims in flyers and online.
Someone should recheck any chiropractic site they previously looked at because it seems to me (on a few spot checks, from that archived list, but without knowing which ones were temporarily wiped) that they're not generally blank any more. Though they might possibly have removed some of their more obvious lies to avoid easy prosecution for fraud.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 5:33 AM
PS I fed that website page into "the quackometer" and got a rating of 10 canards for it:
For comparison purposes, I also fed it the front page of pharyngula ... and got a rating of zero!
I'm not sure I should risk the TimeCube website on it. That might break their meter.
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 5:56 AM
SEF, yikes! Just looked at their page on cranial osteopathy and I'm appalled.
Remolding babies' skulls?
A 30 minute child session is £28?
Just... wow.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 6:29 AM
Exactly. They're not merely delusional/fraudulent, they're dangerously delusional/fraudulent. { Aside: that's vaguely reminiscent of the revolting M&S adverts! }
I found one of the chiropracty sites, from the list, which was still making significant quantities of similar unevidenced claims on a visible page. The quackometer says 10 again. I'm beginning to wonder if it can produce any numbers in between zero and ten but my sample size isn't very large yet!
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 6:37 AM
Aha - a different score: 5. That was for another of the listed sites which seems to me to make many of the same highly dodgy (ie not merely physiotherapy) claims, viz:
So I don't yet get the metric by which the quackometer is judging that one less harshly. Perhaps it's getting brownie points for weasel words like "may" (context being important when considering the weaseliness).
Posted by: John Morales | July 16, 2009 6:44 AM
SEF, it's covered in their "about" page:
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 6:52 AM
At least this one (which seems to be extremely comprehensive in its quackery - barely missing a con-trick to be had) was back to scoring 10.
Interestingly, this one, which was being far more coy about what it could actually treat but did try to pretend to having science on its side (or at least the defective medical cargo-cultish version of that), also scored 10.
Posted by: SEF | July 16, 2009 7:05 AM
If it's (still) only about what's in, and not the context nor what's missing, then I can see some respectable research papers on phonons etc easily falling afoul of the "energy", "vibrations" and "quantum" test. Rather obviously it also fails to address the subtleties of false medical information. But I guess it's an amusing starting point.
On my original assumption that it was purely a word list (unless it cheated by having a special exemption site list even if it didn't have a known quack list) I was expecting Pharyngula to hit at least a few canards - purely because this blog fairly regularly talks about the quack stuff.