Line in the sand
Question:
There are other sources of research dollars other than the pharmaceutical companies. And it’s very unrealistic to think that the pharm. companies would spend money to research something with no benefit to them. After all, would chiropractic concerns research drugs? They wouldn’t have any reason to. Michele
– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Why haven’t Chiropractors tested the Subluxation(tm) theory with modern > science? After 106 years of Chiropractic has nobody gotten around to it? > It takes $$$$ to do research, why don’t you ask the pharmaceutical co. for > some and see what they say. > Would they fund research that might cause them to lose money? > — > DR. ROLAND HICKS > Doctor of Chiropractic > Certified Chiropractic Sports Practitioner > Iligitimi non carborundum
Response:
> Would Toyota fund advertising for McDonalds? > — > ROLAND HICKS
Actually, the last time I looked at the Toyota race car in the Formula 1 races, It had all manner of advertising on it. So I guess Toyota does do research into ads for things like McDonald’s and Burger King and Marlboro and …… Yet another strawman argument killed. rich — "The power of accurate observation is called cynicism by those who have not got it." – George Bernard Shaw
Response:
> x-no-archive: yes >Perhaps Andrew this is *your* problem. >Lying constantly and belittling is a sure sign of both low self esteem and no >dignity. > You’re 100% correct, Jan. Andrew’s online behavior is > reprehensible and makes his own profession look bad.
that’s where I.L.S.A comes in, y’all. it’s AK’s (rather pisspoor) attempt to anonymize. ((sorry for saying ‘y’all’. it’s what i do. cuz i’m from the south, you know. i’m Southern.)) <<<G>>> really, y’all should give up the beast. it’s forked, already. do your own billy goat thing and leave the troll to rot under the bridge, i say. — You can pretend to be serious; you can’t pretend to be witty. Sacha Guitry Clothes make the man. Naked people have little or no influence on society. Mark Twain (1835 – 1910)
Response:
<snip> >This will bring esteem and dignity to your profession.
Not a problem! Chiropractic already has this. Perhaps Andrew this is *your* problem. Lying constantly and belittling is a sure sign of both low self esteem and no dignity. Jan The world cares very little about what a person knows; it is what the person is able to do that counts. Booker T Washington
Response:
> Why haven’t Chiropractors tested the Subluxation(tm) theory with modern > science? After 106 years of Chiropractic has nobody gotten around to it?
It takes $$$$ to do research, why don’t you ask the pharmaceutical co. for some and see what they say. Would they fund research that might cause them to lose money? — DR. ROLAND HICKS Doctor of Chiropractic Certified Chiropractic Sports Practitioner Iligitimi non carborundum
Response:
> Why haven’t Chiropractors tested the Subluxation(tm) theory with modern > science? After 106 years of Chiropractic has nobody gotten around to it? > It takes $$$$ to do research, why don’t you ask the pharmaceutical co. for > some and see what they say.
Why should the pharmaceutical industry, the restaurant industry, the steel industry, or any other non-chiropractic group fund chiropractic research? There is chiropractic research money available through the chiropractic colleges. Additionally, there is money available for research through the government and also through private foundations, some of which are actively promoting "alternative" medicine. The amount of money required to develop a new drug is far more than the amount required to fund data collection on chiropractic techniques. You will have to trump up a new excuse, this one is so old and empty that it creaks. > Would they fund research that might cause them to lose money?
Would Toyota fund advertising for McDonalds? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> — > DR. ROLAND HICKS > Doctor of Chiropractic > Certified Chiropractic Sports Practitioner > Iligitimi non carborundum
Response:
>> Why haven’t Chiropractors tested the Subluxation(tm) theory with modern > science? After 106 years of Chiropractic has nobody gotten around to it? >It takes $$$$ to do research, why don’t you ask the pharmaceutical co. for >some and see what they say. >Would they fund research that might cause them to lose money? >– >DR. ROLAND HICKS
Strawman, Roland. The Chiropractic Colleges do research, so why don’t they test the subluxation(tm) theory with science? Is science so odious to Chiropractors that they don’t want to contaminate Chiropractic with it? This is a fair question, one that has nothing to do with the pharm industry. How expensive is it to do a science based test of Chiropractic, anyway?
Response:
>I do not support the NACM, because they are an extremist fringe group. I am >just sorry that the Consumer Reports was duped by this group. They do have >some good points, I am in total favor of standards however, I do not make a >habit of throwing out the baby with the bath water. >The chiropractic >"subluxation" theory may not stand as written or conceived, but my >experience tells me that there will be some important ideas behind the >theory which will be proven sound.
No, it would not stand as written nor conceived. It sounds like there is little if ANY baby in Palmer bathwater. > I can not and will not renounce and idea >that has not been properly or adequately tested by modern science.
But you can and will treat patients as if it were a scientific fact. Why haven’t Chiropractors tested the Subluxation(tm) theory with modern science? After 106 years of Chiropractic has nobody gotten around to it? >That >would not be sound judgement considering that I see the results of >chiropractic care on a daily basis.
See above. >It is funny that many renounce chiropractic, yet in my practice over 60% of >the care provided is not strict chiropractic care. >I use medical techniques, massage therapy, physical therapy techniques and >modalities, rehabilitative exercises and nutrition to name just a few.
Very good! If >you renounce the care of a chiropractor, like myself, you renounce the vast >majority of physical medicine.
No, I renounce the chiropractic mythos of subluxation. I do not doubt that adjustments may help with some musculoskeletal disorders. I also applaud the use of PT, massage, and other modalities which have efficacy. >The care provided in most chiropractor’s office is much more expansive than >solely smashing people in their backs.
In SOME chiropractor’s offices. Especially these guys: www.chiromed.org
Response:
Lets draw a line in the sand. Any one who thinks that chiropractic has little redeeming value and is far over-utilized, sign in below and indicate such. Those of you who think that chiropractic has value which exceeds the musculoskeletal model of treatment, do the same. Those of you who think that only medical care should be available because they have all the necessary answers, sign below and indicate such. Those of you who think that there is a happy middle ground sigh in below and indicate your position. I hope this creates some meaningful discussion. I prefer the happy middle ground. I have witnessed both medical’s and chiropractic’s care help patients. I have seen that when both are used that the results are greater than when only one is used. — DR. ROLAND HICKS Doctor of Chiropractic Certified Chiropractic Sports Practitioner Iligitimi non carborundum
Response:
>Lets draw a line in the sand.
If you must, Mr Qaddaffi! >Any one who thinks that chiropractic has little redeeming value and is far >over-utilized, sign in below and indicate such.
I believe that it has some redeeming value. See www.chiromed.org I think these guys have the right idea. >Those of you who think that chiropractic has value which exceeds the >musculoskeletal model of treatment, do the same.
They would the fundamentalist BELIEVERS, because there is no credible evidence of this. Even Atlas addmitted that no peer-reviewed, controlled studies demonstrate chiropractic efficacy for anything other than SOME musculoskeletal disorders. >I prefer the happy middle ground. I have witnessed both medical’s and >chiropractic’s care help patients. I have seen that when both are used that >the results are greater than when only one is used.
The middle ground would be for chiropractors to join in with the folks at www.chiromed.org and renounce the subluxation(tm) myth. This will bring esteem and dignity to your profession.
Response:
The only "line in the sand" as far as I am concerned came from Colonel Travis at the Alamo in San Antonio, TX, my hometown. It is a saying which separates the men from the boys. I do not support any of the terrorists freaks. I do not support the NACM, because they are an extremist fringe group. I am just sorry that the Consumer Reports was duped by this group. They do have some good points, I am in total favor of standards however, I do not make a habit of throwing out the baby with the bath water. The chiropractic "subluxation" theory may not stand as written or conceived, but my experience tells me that there will be some important ideas behind the theory which will be proven sound. I can not and will not renounce and idea that has not been properly or adequately tested by modern science. That would not be sound judgement considering that I see the results of chiropractic care on a daily basis. It is funny that many renounce chiropractic, yet in my practice over 60% of the care provided is not strict chiropractic care. I use medical techniques, massage therapy, physical therapy techniques and modalities, rehabilitative exercises and nutrition to name just a few. If you renounce the care of a chiropractor, like myself, you renounce the vast majority of physical medicine. The care provided in most chiropractor’s office is much more expansive than solely smashing people in their backs. — DR. ROLAND HICKS Doctor of Chiropractic Certified Chiropractic Sports Practitioner Iligitimi non carborundum
Response:
Related Posts