Re: Re: New chiropractic offensive: UK

[Guest guest]

Wouldn't you just love to have this moron debate Malik Slosberg? And what about the total lack of journalistic sleuthing on the part of Mr. Nigel Hawkes? At last count Malik had over 1500 literature references supporting the validity of the Chiropractic adjustment. Reminds me of Orthopedists and some of our less educated DC IME colleagues spouting off about how whiplash injuries are benign and heal in 6-12 weeks.

Keep reading with a critical eye, question dogma, and keep finding and fixing subluxations.

Dr. Ray

Graduate of The Art Croft School of Commandos

8118 SW Hall Blvd

Beaverton, OR 97008

503-469-9824

-------------- Original message -------------- From: "hillcrestchiro" <hillcrestchiro@...> I love number crunchers. You can manipulate (no pun intended) any number to fit any situation. The two things I've come to learn about healthcare as a whole are: 1. Nothing works statistically and 2. Everything works statistically.It all comes down to 50.5% vs. 49.5%. Which side of the fence are you on?Thousands of years of manipulation, 100+ years of organized Chiropractic, and millions upon millions of satisfied patients cannot be wrong. , DC, LLC>> Health news> > > The Times> March 22, 2006> > Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment> By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor> > THERE is no evidence that spinal manipulation, a technique practised by > 16,000 chiropractors in Britain, works, according to a study published > yesterday.> > A review of the evidence by Professor Edzard Ernst and Canter, > experts on alternative medicine, finds no convincing data to support > claims that the technique is effective. With the possible exception of > the relief of back pain — where spinal manipulation is as good but no > better than conventional treatments — the technique is worthless, the > review in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concludes....> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2097779,00.html> > other reviews of same "research":> > http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?> in_article_id=380655 & in_page_id=1774> > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article352839.ece> > > National clinical practice guidelines, based on much more and better > research than the studies this article has selected, has come to > exactly the opposite conclusion > > > British Chiropractic Association statement> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4824594.stm> > Sears> PDX>

[Guest guest]

" There are three forms of lies: Lies, Damned Lies and Statistics "

Mark Twain

Christian Mathisen, DC

3650 S Pacific Hwy

Medford, OR

cmathdc@...

Re: New chiropractic offensive: UK

> I love number crunchers. You can manipulate (no pun intended) any

> number to fit any situation.

>

> The two things I've come to learn about healthcare as a whole are:

> 1. Nothing works statistically and 2. Everything works statistically.

>

> It all comes down to 50.5% vs. 49.5%. Which side of the fence are

> you on?

>

> Thousands of years of manipulation, 100+ years of organized

> Chiropractic, and millions upon millions of satisfied patients cannot

> be wrong.

>

> , DC, LLC

>

>

>

> >

> > Health news

> >

> >

> > The Times

> > March 22, 2006

> >

> > Chiropractors are offering 'worthless' form of treatment

> > By Nigel Hawkes, Health Editor

> >

> > THERE is no evidence that spinal manipulation, a technique

> practised by

> > 16,000 chiropractors in Britain, works, according to a study

> published

> > yesterday.

> >

> > A review of the evidence by Professor Edzard Ernst and

> Canter,

> > experts on alternative medicine, finds no convincing data to

> support

> > claims that the technique is effective. With the possible exception

> of

> > the relief of back pain - where spinal manipulation is as good but

> no

> > better than conventional treatments - the technique is worthless,

> the

> > review in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concludes....

> > http://www.timesonline.co.uk/article/0,,8122-2097779,00.html

> >

> > other reviews of same " research " :

> >

> >

> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/health/healthmain.html?

>

> > in_article_id=380655 & in_page_id=1774

> >

> > http://news.independent.co.uk/uk/health_medical/article352839.ece

> >

> >

> > National clinical practice guidelines, based on much more and

> better

> > research than the studies this article has selected, has come to

> > exactly the opposite conclusion

> >

> >

> > British Chiropractic Association statement

> > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/4824594.stm

> >

> > Sears

> > PDX

> >

>

>

>

>

>

>

> OregonDCs rules:

> 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve

members will be tolerated.

> 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

> 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere.

However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward,

or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without his

or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

>