John Badanes' incisive comments

Subject: Re: [healthfraud] From the Archives of Internal Medicine
From: jbadanes
Date: Thu, 14 Oct 2004 08:51:24 -0400
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

> Dr. Stephen Perle, DC:
> The response to research should not be anecdotal examples of
> stupidity, it tends to weaken ones argument.

That would depend on what your argument is, actually, and what exactly has been ... er ... researched. It's not like chiropractors are busy, busy, busy, defining and documenting the stupid things they think, say, and do. That's part of the problem, isn't it. Whenever anyone points to these chickens sitting on the top of the profession's head, the reply from the chiropractic peanut gallery is invariably, "What chicken?"

For example, are you now going on the record publicly to say the five chiropractors who replied to the question posed by a colleague (and the colleague as well) are, to the person -- "examples of [chiropractic] stupidity?" If so, WHAT makes them so stupid in your opinion? Aren't they just diagnosing spinal "boo-boos" as they see them and "Adjusting" the patient accordingly -- what any chiropractor would do, INCLUDING those chiropractors featured in the Annals of Internal Medicine study?

If they're NOT stupid, doesn't _that_ weaken the argument you've been trying to float here -- that chiropractors really CAN think their way out of paper bag despite the chiropractic chicken we see being advertised and sold out of nearly every chiropractor's pot?

In any case, I'm anxious to forward your written opinion to your colleagues. I'm sure you'll have plenty of support for it, too, since, as you've argued here, this sort of chiropractic stupidity (Gonstead, Activator, SOT, Vertebral Dysfunction, "check the legs," "check L5," "check the TMJ" can't be too careful "chiropractic") is NOT the mainstream -- at least not mainstream like all those chiropractors whom you suggested are busy ordering MRIs, conducting contrast exams in the spinal canal, and injecting into the spinal canal :'

Mike Frustaci couldn't be more on the money when he reminds us to consider the considerably larger chiropractic context in which the discussion of the Annals of Internal Medicine study takes place. Why? Because "calculating" the c-value from a p-value is like wondering how a tie looks on you when standing naked in front of a mirror. Given this picture, are you really in a position to ask if the tie looks any good or if the knot is tied correctly?

That's not to say you can't FIND a half-decent looking tie in chiropractic's wardrobe. But, what about the pants (for starters) and the rest of the outfit ? :')

~TEO.


***********

John Badanes, DC, PharmD, no longer practices as a chiropractor, and is a very sharp-witted and harsh critic of chiropractic as it now exists. He takes no prisoners, using sharp satire and sarcasm to expose the problems in chiropractic.


Here is more about him

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/hotline/hbedanes.htm
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/segments/1210-3.htm

He can be viewed and heard here. Just go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section and click the "Play Video" link:
http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm

(I have taken the liberty to correct an obvious typographical error. - PL)


More

"Turf war," my tush! - John Badanes, DC, PharmD

Some Guidelines for Choosing a Chiropractor - John Badanes, DC, DPharm

Chiropractic Education - John Badanes, DC, DPharm

Other posts on the Healthfraud Discussion List by Dr. Badanes


*************************************

For a no-nonsense look at chiroquackery

ChiroLinks

Chirotalk(SM): The Skeptical Chiropractic Discussion Forum