re: strange coincidence...

[Guest guest]

Dr. Burke:

re: "probability factor of approximately 5,048:1 that Jack Pedersen

exists only as a religious or philosophical icon, i.e.,

an article or canon of faith. QED ".....

well now.....you seem to be implying that's a _BAD_ thing....which is just the notoriety I've been hoping for these many jahrens....thanks!!

and of course that isn't the issue since my affiliation with both "UFO" and the others in your cohort list has been largely over stated and misreported....by not only intellectual mendicants but supplicating minions as well....neither of which I suspected you had ties with....until now....

Further, you have not made ANY connection between the first FOUR on your reference list, and me, the current subject of your ill-fated efforts to avoid following the Path of the Sacred but NON Cultic Scientific Blastphemeric Punditry....one of the hallmarks of which, is the continual 'updating' with 'closer observations' which often lead to a complete reversal of both explanation of as well as clinical recommendations for various clinical protocols. Not that that's a bad thing either. Just why is it called 'Science' and held triumphantly before an adoring crowd, when in fact it is often little more than a sequential revision akin to auto body stylings and the fluctuations of the Paris fashion industry?

Using the same non-correlative information format you provided, I found the listing of :

1,830,000 as "J. Burke, DC"

6,650,000 as "J. Burke" would indicate whatever "J. Burke" may be, when he is a "DC" he is less notable by a THREEFOLD factor....

On the other hand, "Jack Pedersen DC" increases to 141,000 hits in .22....a tremendous boost to your provisional notion the ephemeral qualities you attribute to MY name by factor of 100!!! I suppose based on this data set one conclusion is while your common namesake may represent a veritable unwashed internet horde, when "DC" is involved their electron~ viability is slashed 66%....while the relative obscurity of MY namesake is augmented a hundred fold when "DC" is involved.... and this correlation would appear to support the notion your 'DC' looses something while my 'DC' gains something---ah, the travails of philosophic canonry....(sigh)...such a LARGE job but someone has to do it HAR!!

None the less, your careful construction of the prior instance only begs the question others seem to raise that you continue to ignore....just what is it about the term "subluxation" that annoys you so much?

And what of those who offer what seems to be 'scientifice evidence', such as Joe Fleischa, who have their footnotes ignored so pointedly by the Chancelry on Scientific Dogma?

yours in health,

J. Pedersen DC

Virtual Icon

[Guest guest]

Jack,

Well, you certainly took me down about 4,800,000 pegs. I am humbled in the

shadow of

your iconic presence.

Nonetheless, I intend to post more writing on chiropractic research,

subluxations, etc in

the near future.

In the meantime, I would ask you and others who have claimed the existence of

research

that proves the subluxation concept to please provide citations. I have been

searching for

papers published by Dr. Suh, whom you mentioned in a recent post. I will present

my

considered meta-analysis in a forthcoming e-missive.

(aka J. Burke, D.C. to only a very select group of privileged

individuals)

Date: Thu, 13 Oct 2005 16:48:54 -0700

From: JPedersenDC <chirodoc1@...>

Subject: re: strange coincidence...

Dr. Burke:

re: " probability factor of approximately 5,048:1 that Jack Pedersen

exists only as a religious or philosophical icon, i.e.,

an article or canon of faith. QED " .....

well now.....you seem to be implying that's a _BAD_ thing....which is just the

notoriety I've

been hoping for these many jahrens....thanks!!

and of course that isn't the issue since my affiliation with both " UFO " and the

others in

your cohort list has been largely over stated and misreported....by not only

intellectual

mendicants but supplicating minions as well....neither of which I suspected you

had ties

with....until now....

Further, you have not made ANY connection between the first FOUR on your

reference list,

and me, the current subject of your ill-fated efforts to avoid following the

Path of the

Sacred but NON Cultic Scientific Blastphemeric Punditry....one of the hallmarks

of which, is

the continual 'updating' with 'closer observations' which often lead to a

complete reversal

of both explanation of as well as clinical recommendations for various clinical

protocols.

Not that that's a bad thing either. Just why is it called 'Science' and held

triumphantly

before an adoring crowd, when in fact it is often little more than a sequential

revision akin

to auto body stylings and the fluctuations of the Paris fashion industry?

Using the same non-correlative information format you provided, I found the

listing of :

1,830,000 as " J. Burke, DC "

6,650,000 as " J. Burke " would indicate whatever " J. Burke " may

be, when

he is a " DC " he is less notable by a THREEFOLD factor....

On the other hand, " Jack Pedersen DC " increases to 141,000 hits in .22....a

tremendous

boost to your provisional notion the ephemeral qualities you attribute to MY

name by

factor of 100!!! I suppose based on this data set one conclusion is while your

common

namesake may represent a veritable unwashed internet horde, when " DC " is

involved their

electron~ viability is slashed 66%....while the relative obscurity of MY

namesake is

augmented a hundred fold when " DC " is involved.... and this correlation would

appear to

support the notion your 'DC' looses something while my 'DC' gains

something---ah, the

travails of philosophic canonry....(sigh)...such a LARGE job but someone has to

do it HAR!!

None the less, your careful construction of the prior instance only begs the

question

others seem to raise that you continue to ignore....just what is it about the

term

" subluxation " that annoys you so much?

And what of those who offer what seems to be 'scientifice evidence', such as Joe

Fleischa,

who have their footnotes ignored so pointedly by the Chancelry on Scientific

Dogma?

yours in health,

J. Pedersen DC

Virtual Icon

J. Burke, D.C.

Tigard, Oregon

Sent by Medscape Mail: Free Portable E-mail for Professionals on the Move

http://www.medscape.com

[Guest guest]

OR DCs,

Les F is right on about the limitations of “science”,

RCTs, etc. And I certainly agree that, in Les’s words “The point isn’t that research isn’t a good idea, only

that it has limitations.” Amen.

A reasoned and balanced view of EBP (evidence based

practice) by Bob Mootz is at http://download.journals.elsevierhealth.com/pdfs/journals/0161-4754/PIIS0161475405002265.pdf

It is in the recent JMPT and this article is free.

Chuck Simpson