White Coat Underground

I’ve been a bit remiss in my coverage of the Simon Singh case, reviewed in detail by Phil Plait, among others. As many of my readers already know, respected science writer Simon Singh is being sued for libel in England by the British Chiroquacktic Association (BCA) because he described some of their treatments as “bogus”. Despite the fact that he underplayed his hand, he is still getting his legal ass whooped over in the motherland, thanks to their idiotic libel laws.

Be that as it may, the BCA wasn’t complaining about Singh being wrong, but about him being mean. You see, “bogus” seemed to imply not just that they were a bunch a stupid twits, but that they were dishonest stupid twits, and that’s just too naughty.

But as stupid twits often will, they are no longer able to hold back. They are now insisting on showing off just how stupid, twittish, and wrong they really are. In a response to L’affaire Singh, the BCA has posted a broadsheet defending their particular type of prescientific quackery.

(As an aside, I would like to remind my readers about my thoughts on “quackery from ignorance”. Just because a quack believes in what they do does not exculpate them from the wrong they are doing. They have taken on a special responsibility, a grave responsibility to people in pain, and to honor this, they must be extra vigilant, sort of like real doctors. Ignorance is not a viable excuse for bad medicine.)

Anyway, since the arrogance of ignorance has trumped common sense, let’s take a look at what the BCA is offering us.

This broadsheet contains a list of studies that supposedly support their most egregious malpractices. For example, asthma. Chiropractic has no place in the treatment of asthma. There’s no reason to think that chiropractic should help. Asthma is a disease of the airways in the lungs, characterized by spasm of the breathing passages, and by inflammation leading to chronic obstruction and damage to the lungs. Playing with the spine is irrelevant, unless you hold pre-scientific beliefs about “subluxations” and disease.

Anyway, this was a pilot study to see if it was even feasible to study the question. What was the question?

The first objective was to determine if chiropractic spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) in addition to optimal medical management resulted in clinically important changes in asthma-related outcomes in children. The second objective was to assess the feasibility of conducting a full-scale, randomized clinical trial in terms of recruitment, evaluation, treatment, and ability to deliver a sham SMT procedure.

A small pilot study like this should not be seen to support any wider generalizations about treatment, and in fact the authors did not claim any wider application of their findings. That didn’t stop the quacks at the BCA from using this study to bolster support for their clearly bogus therapies.

CONCLUSION: After 3 months of combining chiropractic SMT with optimal medical management for pediatric asthma, the children rated their quality of life substantially higher and their asthma severity substantially lower. These improvements were maintained at the 1-year follow-up assessment. There were no important changes in lung function or hyperresponsiveness at any time. The observed improvements are unlikely as a result of the specific effects of chiropractic SMT alone, but other aspects of the clinical encounter that should not be dismissed readily. Further research is needed to assess which components of the chiropractic encounter are responsible for important improvements in patient-oriented outcomes so that they may be incorporated into the care of all patients with asthma. (emphasis mine)

Pretty dumb article. Kids were treated with standard care for asthma, and also received either “real” or “sham” chiropractic. All objective measures of asthma control were unchanged.

If this is typical of the evidence the BCA is supporting, they should probably be investigated as a criminal enterprise. That this type of clearly deceptive and harmful quackery is allowed to go on, and science writers who expose it are sanctioned speaks ill of our society (er…of their society—we seceded a while back).

Hang in their Simon. Eventually someone will sue these quacks for an asthma death or a vertebral artery dissection. Until then, at least on this side of the ocean, we’ll call a quack a quack.

Comments

#1 tl
June 19, 2009

I think Singh should sue for libel over the following statements:

“Since his day in Court whent the decision went against him we now see Dr Singh arguing for what he wished he had said, rather than what he did say”

“Dr Singh should not have published statements which he either know to be untrue or which he could not be bothered to check as true”
#2 Tito
June 19, 2009

PalmMD,

Your article is rubbish and, full of straw men arguments and logical fallacies.

First, manipulative therapy isn’t to “cure” diseases or to “fix” subluxations, it’s to improve joint function. However, given than musculoskeletal medicine isn’t your expertise, it’s not surprising that you don’t understand the role of manual medicine for asthma.

So, the rationale for manipulative therapy in asthmatics? Improve costovertebral joint BIOMECHANICAL function. As most skeptics, ignore any and all contemporary developments in chiropractic medicine, and, in turn, produce ignorant and nonsensical arguments.

Considering that a recent paper demonstrated that Harvard-educated medical students had a 7% passing rate in BASIC musculoskeletal examination it’s easy to see how you don’t get the role of chiropractic COMPLEMENTING pharmaceutical interventions.
#3 D. C. Sessions
June 19, 2009

Never interrupt your enemy in the course of making a mistake.
#4 PalMD
June 19, 2009

Oh, c’mon DC…please?

So, the rationale for manipulative therapy in asthmatics? Improve costovertebral joint BIOMECHANICAL function.

res ipsa loquitor
#5 MonkeyPox
June 19, 2009

Tito, you’re a fucking idiot. How the fuck is messing with the back “COMPLEMENTING pharmaceutical interventions?”

Your comment is senseless, brainless, and fucking idiotic (and that’s not an ad hom cuz it’s RIGHT!)
#6 D. C. Sessions
June 19, 2009

Doctor, are we talking past each other?

It certainly appears to me as though the BCA is working to make Dr. Singh’s point: that they know their treatments are ineffective.
#7 ERV
June 19, 2009

So, the rationale for manipulative therapy in asthmatics? Improve costovertebral joint BIOMECHANICAL function.
Connect ‘costovertebral joint BIOMECHANICAL function’ to the pathophysiology of asthma. Dont worry if you need to use jargon– Im getting a PhD in immunology and I wont have trouble following you.

*go!*
#8 Zeno
June 19, 2009

The number of times they have shot themselves in the foot is incredible.

I do wonder if the chiroquacktors are just not aware that many of the bloggers who have fisked the BCA’s nonsense are actually pretty capable, intelligent people! Perhaps they thought they were just some ignorant geeks with too much to say…

Anyway, my 500 odd complaints to the GCC are being considered…check my blog for progress.
#9 Ramel
June 19, 2009

@d.c. – What, even if the interuptions are really entertaing?

@zeno – 500 complaints? Now that is some serious dedication to making a nuisence of your self, fantastic!

layscience has a good break down of the papers cited as evidence by the BCA http://www.layscience.net/node/598
#10 Joe
June 19, 2009

See also http://www.ministryoftruth.me.uk/2009/06/18/examining-the-bcas-plethora-of-evidence/ for an anlysis of the BCA claims.
#11 ERV
June 19, 2009

Where did Tito go?

*sad panda*
#12 HolfordWatch
June 20, 2009

There is a full look at the asthma papers, the ones that the BCA included as well as the ones that (curiously) they didn’t.
#13 Howard Boos
June 20, 2009

Dear Folks,
I respect everyone’s commitment on this blog to providing care to help the sick and suffering. That’s what this whole discussion is about, right?
I hope so.
I have practiced chiropractic for 30 years. I am just a man in an office caring for spines. Admittedly, I rarely review the current literature to find out if the care I am offering is considered “scientific”. I do frequently attend chiropractic seminars to find out from fellow chiropractors what they have found to work. Certainly not at all what you would consider a “scientific” approach. I just know that I have seen countless cases over the years as parents have brought in their children between “scientific” visits to the hospital because they were suffering from an asthma attack. Hospital visits that sometimes last 5 to 7 days while their son or daughter is given massive doses of “scientific” steroids. During those visits the child will generally lose 5% of their body weight. The parents and child will all come in to my office looking worn out. The child’s obviously worn out because it’s extremely difficult to sleep when they have to fight just to breath; the parents looking equally worn out because it’s extremely hard to sleep knowing your child is suffering. And, when these parents entrust me with the care of their I child, and I gently adjust the vertebra of the mid-thoracic spine, releasing the incredible tension the child carries, it eases. They relax. They smile. The parents smile. I then adjust the segments of the upper cervical spine because I believe (whether it’s passes what you would consider a double blind study or not) that segments are interfering with the child’s nerve system and then we all watch as the child gets better. Not once, or twice, but over and over again, I see suffering children respond and get better in my office. Does every child respond? No, but the vast majority in my office do. Does the asthma ever return? Yes. Do the asthma attacks return at the same frequency? No, most of the time they don’t. Most of the time they no longer require the use of steroids. I’ve seen this. I know this from direct experience. Yes, I know this is “merely anecdotal”. But, knowing what I know, I won’t and can’t refuse care to those children that suffer until some type of study can be done so I can get the rest of the world’s approval. I would rather see them respond “anecdotally” than suffer “scientifically”. What’s odd is that what I do is considered “bogus” for those that I’ve helped, while the “scientific” community can prescribe all the antibiotics and surgically implant countless tubes in the ears of children that fail a vast majority of the time. The bottom line is that if the practice of “scientific” medicine held all the answers parents wouldn’t continue to carry their children into my office for care. So, until then, I want to use my time in helping the sick and suffering.
Again, I respect your intentions of providing what you believe the best health care to humanity. I would appreciate, but after 30 years I don’t anticipate, that same respect. We have evolved as a society to where we know it’s wrong to libel someone because of their skin color, but it’s still fine to libel someone because of they see a different approach to health care.
Sincerely & regretfully,
Dr. Howard Boos
Tulsa, OK
#14 Silvia01
June 20, 2009

Hi,

We have just added your latest post “Chiropractic, quackery, and moral bankruptcy” to our Directory of Debt Consolidation . You can check the inclusion of the post here . We are delighted to invite you to submit all your future posts to the directory and get a huge base of visitors to your website.

Warm Regards

Debtconsolidatio-n.infoTeam

http://www.debtconsolidatio-n.info
#15 Whitecoat Tales
June 20, 2009

Not once, or twice, but over and over again, I see suffering children respond and get better in my office. Does every child respond? No, but the vast majority in my office do. Does the asthma ever return? Yes. Do the asthma attacks return at the same frequency? No, most of the time they don’t. Most of the time they no longer require the use of steroids. I’ve seen this. I know this from direct experience.

See heres the problem. You’re saying this is anecdotal. But then the reason it’s valid in your eyes is the numbers. “a vast majority respond” the attacks don’t “return at the same frequency”, they no long require steroids. But you’re admitting that you didn’t count those numbers.
You don’t know how many needed steroids. You don’t know how many of the kids you didn’t treat needed steroids. You don’t know how many would of gotten better on their own, you haven’t counted how many got worse. You haven’t said what other medications they used and how those got changed.

If you wanted to take it as an article of faith that you help people, thats fine. It’s wrong. it’s unethical. But it’s honest.

Here, you’re using the layperson language of science, without the numbers.

When we run the numbers, we find that you’re wrong on every particular there. That’s why anecdote isn’t good enough.

I’m suprised, because you seem to really want to help your clients. Yet you’ve missed the obvious next step. I can only assume this is a failure of imagination.

If you see that you think you’re helping your patients. Prove it. Start recording all that data. Thats how you decided you’re helping them anyway, the relative numbers. Now find the absolute numbers.

This is put up or shut up time though. If you run your own numbers and find out you don’t help people, than man up and say “ok I’m wrong.”
#16 Whitecoat Tales
June 20, 2009

Sorry about the sloppy blockquotes guys… I’ll use preview next time
#17 Tony Lloyd
June 20, 2009

@Howard Boos

You’re use of “libel” seems to be “say something nasty” and that “nasty” is confirmed by “disagreeing”.

“We have evolved as a society to where we know it’s wrong to libel someone because of their skin color, but it’s still fine to libel someone because of they see a different approach to health care.” Was it any different? Was there ever a time when you would be thought the less of because you had wrongly accused someone of being a snake oil salesman but you could defend yourself by saying “ah, but he’s black, so I can lie about him all I want”. Put “say something nasty about” into your sentence and it makes sense.

And what is the “something nasty” that Singh has said about Chiropracters? That they’re “all crooks”? That they’re all ugly? That they run pyramid schemes? No. What Singh has said is:
1. Chiropractic has evidence that it can help with back backs
2. There is no evidence to support its use for four other illnesses.
3. Treatments with no evidence to support them are “bogus”
4. The BCA “happily” promotes these treatments.

Where is the “libel”? Where is the insult? Where are the “nasty” words? “1″ is fine, “2″ is admitted by you to be true. “Bogus” and “happily” are the subjects of the current appeal, whether they imply dishonesty on the part of the BCA. Singh says he didn’t imply dishonesty, the Judge says that dishonesty can be inferred from the words used. If Singh is correct, so is “4″ and we come down to “3″. Singh thinks that treatments that are not scientifically supported are “bogus”. You do not.

That, as far as I can see it, is it. Singh’s “something nasty” is disagreeing with you. That’s all. The BCA appear to be of the same opinion, “you disagreed with us, we’re upset by that, so we’re suing”.

If the Judge is right and, despite Singh’s lack of intention, the words mean that he accused the BCA of being dishonest then Singh is “guilty” (in a non-legal sense) of mis-choosing his words. The BCA have already been offered free space in the newspaper that published Singh’s article to reply, together with a note of their position by the newspapers editorial staff elsewhere in the newspaper. That seems adequate to me.
#18 ERV
June 20, 2009

One might wonder why someone so disgusted by ‘science’ would have been attracted to the medical field in the first place, Mr. Boos.

Did you learn to hate science at Oral Roberts? Or did you just grow up learning ‘faith’ was more important than having evidence for your claims?

Yours in Christ,
Master Abbie Smith
Oklahoma City, OK
#19 ERV
June 20, 2009

Wow Howie! Dats some website you got der! *whistles*

Do you really know THE Markus Rothkranz??

LAAAAAAAAAAAAAUGH!!!!
#20 ERV
June 20, 2009

(funny Howie links caught in moderation Pal! Please release the lols!!!)
#21 bob
June 20, 2009

I like it when people put science in scare quotes. It’s a handy and quick indicator that what they’re writing isn’t worth reading. Howard’s spiel could be a case study in logical fallacies and “scientific” ignorance.
#22 Toaster
June 20, 2009

Doubty Quote Marks FTW! “Personally” I find their use here “ridic”, but you know you don’t “know” what I know so I can “use” them ad libitum.

Seriously, asthma is not driven by the nervous system. It’s all acute inflammatory action on lung tissues and airway smooth muscle.
#23 JLK
June 20, 2009

There was an episode of Penn & Teller’s Bullshit that was about alternative medicine that included a segment on chiropractors.

I watched a chiropractor perform an “adjustment” on a 5-month old baby.

Now besides all of the really obvious problems with that such as soft bones…..

HOW in the WORLD are you going to KNOW if you’re helping a 5-month old baby????

And WTF kind of parents think to themselves, “Man, she won’t stop crying….let’s take her to get her spine cracked!”
#24 D. C. Sessions
June 20, 2009

Seriously, asthma is not driven by the nervous system. It’s all acute inflammatory action on lung tissues and airway smooth muscle.

Sorta-true. Endocrine responses to stress and changes in breathing patterns can make a difference, but they’re decidedly secondary.
#25 Zed
June 21, 2009

“Dr.” Howard Boos You should be Arrested for Child Abuse
#26 daedalus2u
June 21, 2009

It looks like Dr Boos got the message to remove stuff from his website.

http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html

All the links to the “conditions” he treats are broken.

http://www.drboos.com/pl.html

Interesting he mentions treating ear infections in his comment, and there is a page on his website that says chiropractic can treat ear infections, but the link has been taken down. I guess he doesn’t have enough belief in his ear infection treatments to talk about them, but he does have enough belief to administer them to children and charge parents for them.

Moral bankruptcy is right.
#27 JD
June 22, 2009

…and “Dr” Boos has once again proven that chiropractors worldwide are completely incapable of discussing anything remotly connected to “science”.

Sure, we all understand that it must be heartbreaking to see us real scientists examine what you’ve done for all your life and come to the conclusion that it’s no better than voodoo. We all realize how sad you are.

But now it is time to wipe your tears, grow up and embrace the truth.
You can always flip burgers at McD.
Quack, quack.
#28 FanOScience
June 22, 2009

Just another annecodote here, but certainly something to think about.

My mother-in-law works as a physiotherapist at a small hospital in Canada. Three years ago she was in the UK visiting her mother. Her mother had some friends over for afternoon tea. During the course of conversation, one of the friends, John, asked for some physio advice about his sore neck. He had been seeing a chiropractor for several weeks but the treatment didn’t seem to be working. John described his neck pain to her along with a few other symptoms (which his chiropractor knew about but assured him would go away with chiropractic treatment).

The symptoms described immediately rang the alarm bells in my MIL’s head. Tea and conversation were stopped short and she accompanied John to the hospital. At the hospital he was examined and admitted. He had surgery a few days later for a cancerous tumour.

I know this is just one annecdote, but to me, it really underlines the problem with chiropractors and other alternative therapists. Their undertanding of the human body is not based on science, but on fairytale ideologies. Wouldn’t it be awesome if chiropractic was true? All of our problems just caused by sublexations that could be cured and prevented with regular treatments. Homeopathy is another good one – water cures everything!

John had a sore neck with a few other weird symptoms. Who do you go to if you have a sore neck or back? A chiropractor of course, afterall, they are doctors who specialise in the treatment of the spine, right? This common belief nearly killed John.

After this incident I asked my MIL what it was that tipped her off that there was something seriously wrong with this man. She just said that it was obvious that what John was describing was not a musculo-skeletal problem and his other “minor” symptoms indicated something far worse was happening in his body.

Now, physios aren’t doctors either. But why would a physio clue in on these symptoms but not a chiropractor? Perhaps because chiropractors base their treatment on fairytales and think they can fix everything? How often does a chiropractor tell their patient “I think you should go see a doctor”?
#29 James Pannozzi
June 22, 2009

@ Dr. Howard Boos

Well said comments, many thanks!

Your comment that:

“We have evolved as a society to where we know it’s wrong to libel someone because of their skin color, but it’s still fine to libel someone because of they see a different approach to health care.”

is cause for concern but this is by no means a universal viewpoint and a growing force of opposition has already risen against it.

Quite justifiably so.
#30 Calli Arcale
June 22, 2009

Precisely, FanOScience. Most chiropractors will miss problems unrelated to lack of flexibility in the spine. This is because they are the sort of people who (unwittingly) demonstrate the old maxim that “If you have a hammer, every problem looks like a nail.” Chiropractic adjustments are their hammer; “subluxations”* are the nail. If you present with back pain, you look very much like a nail to them, and they will believe they’ve helped you.

There are rational chiropractors out there. They are the ones who, unlike Dr Boos DC, actually *do* read what’s in the literature, because they care about making sure they’re doing what’s right. They don’t rely on word-of-mouth. They care too much about their patients for such a lazy method of self-education. Of course, such chirpractors tend not to be as successful as the ones who don’t bother with pesky things like evidence, because they end up turning away patients whom they know they can’t help.

*The quotes are not intended as scare quotes here, but rather to distinguish chiropractic subluxations from the ones regular doctors recognize. They define the term differently. (Indeed, chiropractic subluxations don’t seem to be diagnosable by anyone else, which is rather interesting.)
#31 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 23, 2009

Admittedly, I rarely review the current literature to find out if the care I am offering is considered “scientific”.

Terrifying
#32 madder
June 23, 2009

Yes, RBDC, it is terrifying. But that’s where we are now. Boos and others like him view the word “scientific” as just another adjective that can be applied to something, like “green” or “low-fat.” Since all opinions are equal in their eyes, and they’ll say that those pointy-headed scientists don’t have True Wisdom anyway, it really doesn’t matter to them whether a treatment carries that adjective.

They have no conception of science as either a body of knowledge or a method. They care not that if a treatment really works, it will do so in a trial set up to control for common effects like placebo and confirmation bias. It does not matter to them that even the newest, most radical, earthshaking scientific discoveries are consonant with at least some part of prior knowledge.

To them, we are merely brand partisans insisting on Chevy over Ford.
#33 Rev. BigDumbChimp
June 23, 2009

madder

PZ had a nice post about False Equivalence concerning Creationists claiming that they are just interpreting the data differently. It seems to apply quite well here as well.

There’s a good reason creationism [substitute chiropractic] is not regarded as a fair equivalent to the scientific point of view. It’s because the former fails to pay attention to the physical evidence, while the latter is built, not on presuppositions, but on that evidence.
#34 bob
June 23, 2009

Ah, postmodernism, don’t you love it? Not just killing *time* anymore, it’s moved onto killing people! One might say even go so far as to say that it has “evolved” …
#35 Interrobang
June 23, 2009

Hey, ERV, you wanna know the funniest thing about that linky? The pull-quote says something about a company in Toronto giving people a $1000 break to be used for fun, and then says it’s not to go into an IRA, which is a US specific term. Canadians don’t have IRAs; they have RRSPs or other suchlike thing. Makes me suspect the anecdote, like most other testimonials, is made up out of the whole cloth.

Hey, “Dr” Boos — when a non-medical, non-scientific person like Your Humble Narrator can drive a backhoe through the errors of fact on your website, you have an integrity problem. *snerk*

Also: Postmodernism is an analytical tool (not unlike Marxist analysis, feminist analysis, neoclassical economic analysis, or anything else), dammit, not a way of life… Hrmf.
#36 Bryan Elliott
June 24, 2009

Dr. Boos:
If you are indeed a doctor, you know as well as any of us that if you can show consistent improvement – that is, better results than a control group – from your treatments, the medical and scientific establishment /will/ look at your research and /will/ take it on board.

Do the research. Create a control group. Offer half-price to take part in your study.

If you want legitimacy, do the due diligence.

Otherwise, you’re just a quack, regardless of the efficacy of your treatments.
#37 Dianne
June 24, 2009

But, knowing what I know, I won’t and can’t refuse care to those children that suffer until some type of study can be done so I can get the rest of the world’s approval.

If you believe in the efficacy of your approach, why not start a study yourself? If I had an approach that i thought would reduce the number and severity of asthma attacks in children I would certainly be submitting randomized controlled trials to test whether it was effective.

To not do so is unethical in two ways: If it works you are depriving children not in your practice of an effective method of easing their pain and distress simply because you are unwilling to undertake the steps necessary to prove the benefit and therefore make it available to all.

If it does not work then you are providing unnecessary, probably expensive, and potentially dangerous care, something any ethical practitioner would obviously want to avoid.

So, how about it? If you lack the money to carry it out, NCAAM is always looking for more studies and their fund line is lower than most NIH centers.
#38 Citizen Deux
June 29, 2009

Taking a read through the Journal of Chiropractic Educaiton reveals the crux of the problem in chiro today. There are wildly unscientific things being taught it chiro school, chiros routinely offer treatments which are invalid or unproven and finally that chiro’s resist any reform or review of their underlying educaitonal process.

All of this from their own journal! Frankly, I see no further need to engage in any debate when their own educational review reports such devastating critiques.

Take the mote out of your own eye before removing the log in your neighbors (that to chiros everywhere)
#39 James Hanley
July 3, 2009

Heh, Dr. Boos’ comment reminds me of an old story about an eminent doctor giving a talk about his great new therapy, and in the back of the room, a quiet voice dares to ask whether he had a control group.

“Of course not,” the doctor thundered, “that would condemn half my patients to death.”

The quiet voice then asked, “Which half”?
#40 ERV
July 4, 2009

HAHAHAHAHA!

I bogarted ur wooer!
#41 Ethan
July 4, 2009

While you may not put much stock into what chiropractors do, it seems like some people in the medical profession do:

http://www.cancercenter.com/southwestern-hospital/doctors-clinicians/howard-boos.cfm
#42 LanceR, JSG
July 5, 2009

While you may not put much stock into what chiropractors do, it seems like some people in the medical profession do:

Yes. Other quacks, lunatics, and thieves. Any other questions?
#43 Denice Walter
July 5, 2009

@ LanceR,JSG: “While the cat’s away, the mice will play.” Thanks a lot for your excellent, er, mousing skills.
#44 Claire Boos-Griswold
July 5, 2009

My name is Claire and my father is Dr. Howard J. Boos from Tulsa, Oklahoma. Yes, he is a doctor. Yes, he went to school for longer than most of you can fathom. It wasn’t an online class, it wasn’t a correspondence course, it was an honest-to-God education. I dare anyone who reads this post to visit http://www.drburk.com/education.html. I know that most of you that have been using this blog will find 101 faults in the link I posted so I think I should answer a couple of your questions before you even have to ask them.

1. It doesn’t say anything about Chiropractors needing to know anything about prescribing drugs. Being able to prescribe drugs is what makes someone a “real” doctor! Right?!
*Chiropractors don’t WANT to put people on mind-numbing, pain-masking, addiction-forming, side effect-creating, drugs. DCs (Doctors of Chiropractic) prefer to heal naturally. They DO assist the body in healing itself naturally. I’ve been a patient my whole life. DOCTOR Boos adjusted me the moment I was born. I am a healthy, smart, and faithful individual. I am this way because of the way that DOCTOR Boos has helped my body function. I am a ChiroKid for life.

2. The so-called teachers at the Chiropractic Universities are probably “quacks” themselves. Right!?
*This one is easy. Check out Life Universities website at http://www.life.edu and just take a glance at the amazing doctors who are employed to teach our future Chiropractors. I am employed right alongside these individuals and my husband, the future Dr. Matt Griswold, is studying under them. At Life University, it is policy that its educators for basic science classes, such as biochemistry, pathology, diagnosis, orthopedics, etc. MUST be taught by educators that hold a Medical Doctorate or PhD. I’m sure this will surprise most of you to know that many of the educators that hold MDs also were, themselves, educated enough to want to also obtain a DC.

If I left any of your questions out, please email me at claire.boos@life.edu. I will respond to those who are respectful and actually have valid comments. I will not respond to those who use any four-letter words, or choose to disrespect my family, openly and without putting in their own effort to research their own questions first. Research meaning, actually looking at more than one website that doesn’t have an author with only a Bachelor’s Degree or the equivalent. I will sincerely do my best to answer questions between my work as a Chiropractic Recruiter for Life University. That’s right, I am so passionate about Chiropractic, that I have actually decided to recruite more individuals into the field. Smart, amazing, individuals who have a real honest future ahead of them.

-I also have a special comment for Master Abbie Smith from OKC. Did you REALLY think before you signed your post “Yours in Christ”? That’s all I’m going to say to you about what nail you just hammered in. Pray about it next time, maybe He will give you a reason not to hit “Post” when blogging something so mean and thoughtless for all His children to see and be weakened to do the same after reading.

-Sorry, one more. Just a shout-out to Zed! Hey Zed! Just a little hello from one of DOCTOR Boos’ children. He has more honest love and compassion coming out of him than you could ever dream of exuding. He would never do anything that would harm a living human being. He was taught to “love one another” and he follows and lives that on a daily basis. My amazing DOCTOR of a dad has done a pretty great job of just turning the other cheek about what the disgusting things that most, nevermind, ALL of you people have posted.

I really feel bad for the bloggers who will never reap the benefits of Chiropractic care. You could find yourself with a less painful, less dependant life. You might also find yourself with a better outlook on your health and in turn, your life. I also feel really bad for the bloggers who find it so necessary to be so very hateful in such a public way. Please teach your children to act differently in situations of diversity and differences of opinion. Please choose to be better role-models to everyone who may read your ugly messages. A little positivity goes a long way in life. I know my DOCTOR of a dad has already chosen to do this, but I have also chosen to love you all. I, by no means, like any of you. But I love you all, because I am obedient.
#45 LanceR, JSG
July 6, 2009

Concern troll is concerned.

If you really are “Dr” Boos’ daughter, how does he sleep at night? He is performing useless and dangerous “adjustments” that all-too-frequently kill, maim, paralyze and injure people with zero evidence that it has any beneficial effect at all. How does this make him different from a garden-variety sadist/psychopath? Did Daddy’s blood money buy you your position with “life.edu”? If so, how do you look at yourself in the mirror?

And would that be the “Life University” that is having so much trouble maintaining accreditation? And is being sued for fraud? And has the highest rate of default in the nation? Wow. Color me impressed.

Liars, Quacks and Thieves. That’s all chiropractors are. Every single one of them. *And* their sock puppet “daughters”.
#46 Matt
July 6, 2009

Wow Lance, you really have some great insight on the subject. I would love to hear some stats on the killing and maiming of patients. You probably already know this from your extensive studies of the anatomy and of Dr. Boos’ technique but, just in case, I will go ahead and tell you about the anatomy anyway. There is no way the Dr. Boos’ techique could ever cause such problems and I would love you to put together a list of people that have been killed, maimed, and paralyzed???? Back to the anatomy on the subject, grab that Netter’s Anatomy book off the shelf and take a look over where all the nerves run. Take a long hard look at the brachial plexus, the lumbar plexus, the sacral plexus; These are groups of nerves that run through bones. How can you think that something couldn’t be wrong with those bones or that they may not be out of place? Also, take a look and what all those nerves connect to. You may be surprised that they help to control most of the movements of your everyday life, even typing.
What do you really mean about “useless”. Let’s see, hmm, the brain runs the body and the brain gets all the messages for the body through the spinal cord which is in what? The SPINE!!!!!! If there is a problem with the spine then the message can’t get through…..how is removing the problem that is stopping the message “useless”?????? Since I am sure you did your research about Dr. Boos before you wrote something crazy, you probably also know that Dr. Boos uses a technique that requires no rotation of the head, no forcefull thrusting into the spine. Dr. Boos uses the least forceful technique that is avaiable to chiropractors, so the chance of all of these injuries are virtually impossible. Let’s do the math: There are about 200,000 chiropractors in the world and lets say these 200,000 DCs see 50 patients a day… That’s ten million adjustments in one day and still no one showing up dead, paralyzed, and/or maimed. Seems pretty safe to me.
#47 LanceR, JSG
July 6, 2009

Well, let’s just look and see if we can find anything…

Hmm. 1,200,000 hits. Might be something to this, after all?

Remember, a therapy with ZERO efficacy and ANY adverse effects, has a LOUSY risk/benefit ratio.

That’s ten million adjustments in one day and still no one showing up dead, paralyzed, and/or maimed. Seems pretty safe to me.

Liars, Frauds, Thieves. See, that would be one of those “lies”.
#48 daedalus2u
July 6, 2009

Although it is an anecdote, here is some pretty strong evidence that Chiropractic does prevent “colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying.”

This poor child will never have any of those problems ever again, as a direct result of the actions of a chiropractor. [/sarcasm]

http://www.ntvg.nl/publicatie/overleden-zuigeling-na-ocraniosacraleo-/volledig

(you can get a fair translation via google)

(warning, it is very disturbing)

This is the moral bankruptcy exhibited by chiropractors.
#49 Bryan Elliott
July 6, 2009

Claire, listen.

Chiropractic technique is not medical primarily because it is not tested according to the rigour required of other fields of medicine.

There are standards for these things, and Chiro has never been held to them. Thus, if chiropractors want to be considered legitimate, and have faith in their techniques, they should not only submit to efficacy studies, they should be running them.

Encourage your father to run a couple of scientifically valid double-blind studies. If he has any intellectual honesty at all, he will draw up the plans, invite volunteers, and create the records.
#50 antipodean
July 6, 2009

50 patients a day?

That’s one every 28.8 minutes and that’s if you don’t eat or sleep.

For a ten hour workday that’s one every 12 minutes.

But then since you get to skip diagnosis and treatment plans it’s a lot more time efficient.

The answer is cracking the back. What was the question again?
#51 Lynn Snell
July 8, 2009

Looks like a few have really given Dr. Boos quite a tongue lashing for his views. Yet if he’s all wrong and your all right, then why are so many medical schools beginning to incorporate Chiropractic in their curriculum.
#52 LanceR, JSG
July 8, 2009

why are so many medical schools beginning to incorporate Chiropractic in their curriculum.

Because it is profitable. Full stop. Not because it works, not because it is safe, not because it has any basis in reality. Simply because it is profitable.
#53 Prometheus
July 9, 2009

I just saw this….

“DOCTOR Boos adjusted me the moment I was born.”

That did it.

I was fine through Abbie’s whole poop post but that line did it.

I am now, fully nauseated.
#54 Lynn Snell
July 9, 2009

why are so many medical schools beginning to incorporate Chiropractic in their curriculum.

Because it is profitable. Full stop. Not because it works, not because it is safe, not because it has any basis in reality. Simply because it is profitable.

Posted by: LanceR, JSG | July 8, 2009 5:15 PM

So? Schools of Medicine are not concerned with being scientifically superior, just profiteers.
#55 LanceR, JSG
July 9, 2009

It constantly amazes me when someone will completely contradict themselves if you give them enough rope.

So? Schools of Medicine are not concerned with being scientifically superior, just profiteers.

Yes. *Some* medical schools are only concerned with turning a profit. The infiltration of woo into medical schooling is something we’ve been watching for quite some time, with varying levels of disgust.

Now, just because something is covered at a school, does not mean that it has any basis in fact. There are whole colleges devoted to astrology, theology, and a whole host of other made-up subjects. It does not mean that those have any real basis.

Arguing that because some medical schools teach courses in chiro means that chiro has some validity is simply the Argument from (false) Authority.

Thank you for playing.
#56 ideal kilo
July 10, 2009

These are groups of nerves that run through bones. How can you think that something couldn’t be wrong with those bones or that they may not be out of place? Also, take a look and what all those nerves connect to. You may be surprised that they help to control most of the movements of your everyday life, even typing.
#57 LanceR, JSG
July 10, 2009

These are groups of nerves that run through bones. How can you think that something couldn’t be wrong with those bones or that they may not be out of place? Also, take a look and what all those nerves connect to. You may be surprised that they help to control most of the movements of your everyday life, even typing.

All true. All good information. All screamingly irrelevant to chiropractic. Chiropractors claim to see these “subluxations” that no modern imaging can find, and go further to blame these mythical problems for “everything that ails you”. And of course, for a small recurring fee, we can manipulate your body to “fix” these mythical problems. Briefly. Then you’ll have to come back in and have it done again. Unless we kill or paralyze you. Then you’re out of luck.

Chiropractors are the modern-day descendants of the snake-oil salesmen who sold cheap brandy spiked with god-knows-what out of their wagons. Quacks, lunatics, and thieves.
#58 LanceR, JSG
July 10, 2009

@43 Denice:

Thank you! Sorry I missed this earlier… can I plead insanity? *grin*
#59 Whitecoat Tales
July 12, 2009

Yet if he’s all wrong and your all right, then why are so many medical schools beginning to incorporate Chiropractic in their curriculum.

WHoooooa hold on

Do you know of a single medical school (MD or DO, I don’t care about naturopathic schools, they aren’t doctors)that teaches students HOW TO DO chiropractic? Or are you saying that medical schools are teaching ABOUT chiropractic so that the students understand what our patients are getting themselves into.

Because if you know of a medical school that teaches their students how to do chiropractic spinal manipulation, please let me know. That’s really inappropriate, and I won’t believe that it’s true without a specific example.
#60 LanceR, JSG
July 12, 2009

Orac at Respectful Insolence has been tracking the infiltration of assorted woo into medical education. Unfortunately, there are some places with classes on performing the most ridiculous things.

Of course, just because someplace has allowed stupidity to be taught does not make it any less stupid.
#61 MonkeyPox
July 12, 2009

What do you call a medstudent who graduated last in his class?

“Doctor”

What do you call the one who didn’t get into medical school?

“Chiropractor”
#62 Whitecoat Tales
July 12, 2009

@LanceR

My medical school is on the list of schools Orac is berating there. But we don’t teach how to do any those things as standard curriculum. There is an offered elective in CAM in the clinical years, and we learn about Woo that our patients will be using.

Most of the lectures on Woo, were useful. Knowing what modalities to ask about because they may have an effect in your therapies was certainly important, and that was where I first learned that many chiropractors are anti-vaccine.

Only a few were pro-woo, but even then, it was “consider learning more about X” rather than teaching us how to do spinal manipulation.

I think there’s a difference. Though I’d much prefer they boot the woo practioners from those occaissonal lectures they give.
#63 LanceR, JSG
July 12, 2009

@Whitecoat Tales:

That *is* good news! We can only hope that most of the schools on that list do something similar. You would have to check with Orac for more information, though, as I have no affiliation with those schools.

I’m afraid that somewhere, some school *is* teaching crackpots to be better crackpots… and slapping an MD on said crackpots.
#64 Lynn Snell
July 13, 2009

Yet if he’s all wrong and your all right, then why are so many medical schools beginning to incorporate Chiropractic in their curriculum.
WHoooooa hold on

Do you know of a single medical school (MD or DO, I don’t care about naturopathic schools, they aren’t doctors)that teaches students HOW TO DO chiropractic? Or are you saying that medical schools are teaching ABOUT chiropractic so that the students understand what our patients are getting themselves into.

Because if you know of a medical school that teaches their students how to do chiropractic spinal manipulation, please let me know. That’s really inappropriate, and I won’t believe that it’s true without a specific example.

Posted by: Whitecoat Tales | July 12, 2009 10:31 AM

Ok, you have learned, Schools of Medicine do incorporate courses in spinal manipulation, be it in their regular curriculum, or an after hours elective. D.O.’s its part of regular curriculum. So I can assume you do not approve of D.O.’s. MD’s (real doctors) refer to Physical Therapists. Physical Therapists have for years in numerous states sought for their laws to include the right to spinal manipulation. So can I also assume you disapprove of physical therapy as perscribed by said real doctors.
#65 LanceR, JSG
July 13, 2009

That’s an awful lot of assumptions, Lynn. If I didn’t know better, I might think you were setting up a strawman argument.

Chiropractic kills, with no benefit to the patient.
#66 Howard Boos
July 16, 2009

Results are what counts. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.
#67 PalMD
July 16, 2009

Results are what counts. Stop drinking the Kool-Aid.

Precisely!

Since the preponderance of evidence (“results”) have shown chiropractic to be no better than placebo in most circumstances, res ipsa loquitur.
#68 ERV
July 16, 2009

Oh Boos *brought it* to ERV.

Wonder why he didnt just copypasta it like he did here/BadAstronomy before.