Poll: Belief in pseudoscience/paranormal phenomena

You seem to disagree with them after listening to a single interview. Your're simply 'poisoning the well' based on your disagreement... "they disagree with me, so they must be bias with some agenda."

It's actually quite funny since they actually refer to organisations and sources such as JAMA and PubMed. They objectivly critique claims based on evidence and studies.

Scepticism, which is a core aspect of the scientific method, is merely refraining from accepting claims until their veracity has been demonstrated. A majority of CAM has yet to be demonstrated, therefore one has a rational basis for being sceptical of the claims made. You seem to have a problem with this.
 
The point is she should stick to my arguments, not me or my credentials. So yes, it was an ad hominem.
 
Naw... completely different... when I z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z-z it's because it's a universal truth. Whereas your Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z-Z was recognized as a response to a comment that touched close enough to home to ruffle your feathers.
 
This is typical for you, every time someone disagrees with you, you start crying "ad hominem".

And for the record, I've read the webpage of NESS. Not impressed in the slightest. So, no, my opinion is NOT based on "one podcast".
 
In the context of medicine and treating patients your arguments are completely wrong. And yes, you are speaking like someone who hasn't the first clue about treating patients. So how exactly should I take your opinion on matters that are so clearly out of your pervue? Should I really ignore over a year's worth of training (and more to come) simply because you have an over inflated sense of trust in the pharmaceuticals?
 
/me hands wry a cookie of her choice.

Well said, now if only people would recognize that when it comes to the legal debates around here... *grrrr*
 
Again, this works both ways topher, there are negative studies that are done, then positive studies done on the same thing showing different results. You should follow your own advice and also be ready to accept the positive as well as the negative. I have never spouted that acupuncture or alternative therapies are "cure alls" I don't believe they are, however, to quote my teacher's grandfater:
"When all you have in your toolbox is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Western MDs usually only have a hammer."
So in short, the more you know that can help people the better. Bottom line, people that are in the healthcare industry should not dismiss anything that helps patients. They should have the compassion to swallow their own pride and realize that some alternative therapies are working and able to help people.
 
I have been reading this post and feel that I may have something to contribute, since I do both alternative (complimentary medicine) and traditional medicine. I am an american D.O. I graduated from Michigan State University, where I did a pre-clinical fellowship in osteopathic manipulation and I am board certified in adult internal medicine. Instead of stating so and so is wrong, or vice versa, I though maybe I could just tell of some of my experiences using manipulation.

I have always felt that my manipulation is an "adjunct" to my medicine. I treat a lot of chronic pain and use my manipulation in conjunction with medication (narcotic and non-narcotic), bio-feedback, physical therapy, and psychological therapies. On a "whole" I find that if I am able to treat not only with my prescription pad, but with my hands, my patients do have a quicker recovery time and pain seems to be better tolerated. Now, if you want to get into scientific research, the department of biomechanics at MSU works very closely with the department of manual medicine, and there has been studies done to show the effectiveness of manipulation in a biomechanical model. That being said, there is never going to be the tell-all study to say...."yes, this works and here is x proof" But on the same token, lets say you take a motrin for your headache. One hour later your head aches is gone. Is is gone because the ibuprofen worked on the Coxx-1 inflaofftopictory pathway taking away any inflamation that may be causing your headache, or is it just gone because you took a pain pill and you expect it to work? The same goes for infection, if you come into the doctor's office with a sore throat, 9 out of ten times it is going to be viral, however the doctor gives you a prescription for amoxicillin, and the next day you feel better. The amoxicillin is doing absolutely nothing for the infection, however, taking the pill that is supposed to "fix" you makes your symptoms better.

My father was wheel chair bound with chronic back pain, when I started my fellowship, I volunteered my father to come up to East Lansing and be our "guinea pig" after a couple of months of treatment, he was actually able to move much better, and was no longer wheel chair bound. Was this placebo effect? Could be, my allopathic counterparts would probably argue for that, but all I know is that my dad's back felt different after a manipulation treatment, and when it felt different, he walked better. I can't just write that off to placebo effect. But I also have had people where I have done some treatment on them and I swear there has been no difference in tissue changes, range of motion, etc that I can see or feel, but they swear they feel better, placebo effect? Yeah, probably. But also vice versa, I fix something, but there is no difference in the pain.

So in a long winded way, I feel that if something you are doing is making you feel better, whether it is manipulation, herbal remedies, shiatsu, meditation, prayer, whatever......if it makes a difference in your life, by all means keep doing it. I'm just glad that insurance companies are starting to embrace alternative treatments more. It helps pay the bills!
 
No, this is not what I am doing. Did you even read what I wrote? As I said, we have to look at ALL the studies done and then we can determine whether there is a significant positive outcome, but we don’t find this. What we find is that there is a general negative outcome across all the studies. It is this I am basis my views on.
If a specific claim were to be repeatedly demonstrated to be effective, I would happily endorse it.


Placebo effect is likely to be a large reason behind it, but confirmation bias is also likely (i.e. taking something else, or even allow time itself to take effect, and then crediting the homeopathic substance with causing the healing.) There doesn’t seem to be another known mechanism by which it can work. Maybe there is, I don’t know, but it has not been demonstrated.


Sure, if it can be demonstrated, even the placebo. If it can be shown that the placebo provides a significant effect then maybe it can play a role. I think we need to study how the placebo actually works… can it be influenced manually, controlled etc. If this is could be known and done they great, we would have discovered a new means of treatment.



Well this is a baseless claim. You merely assume that since the study is negative is must have been done by someone who doesn’t want it to be proven. Sceptics and MDs are often the best people to do such studies since they can remain impartial (don’t just assume a sceptic is out purely to ‘debunk,’ they are in fact aiming to establish the truth of a claim, nothing more), while someone who has invested their career in what is being tested and already believes it would have an emotional investment and to some extent need or desire some scientific basis to support their treatment. As I said, you tend to find that the better designed the test; the more likely it is to be negative.


I never said this wasn’t the case. However I would think that scientific sceptics tend to be more impartial for the reason I stated above. James Randi is a good example… any test he does on pseudoscience or the paranormal must be agreed by both parties (in fact the test is often designed by the claimant themselves, and they also decide what constitutes a pass and a fail).


And how does it work? How is it done? Has it been undergone a double-blind test?
 
Good question, and I hope I can answer it. Mind you, this is a DO talking and not a chiropracter.

First off, let me explain that I would probable fit into your "scientific chiropractor" category. Let me give you a brief history of chiropractic as compared to osteopathy. Palmer, the guy who developed chiropractic, saw Dr. Still, our founder of osteopathy, performing some of his techniques and then took what he saw and developed the first school and philosophy surrounding chiropractic medicine. It's kind of like bjj, the gracies were taught judo and then developed it into todays bjj. So when I tell people I do manipulation, they alway say "like a chiropracter?" and my answer if, no like an osteopath, chiropracters kind of stole our shtick....

Anyway, the subluxation theory of chiropractic medicine, in a nutshell, and if I am wrong, someone please correct me, but the basics are that most problems arise from a "subluxation" of a vertebrae, or a misallignment, causing dysfunction of the organ that the particular nerve inervated. Therefore, if you correct the subluxation, you allow the nerve to function fully and therefore cause resolution of the problems. Kind of like a rubber band cutting off your circulation, remove the rubber band and the blood flows.

I do not believe in this line of thinking. There is too much physiology being ignored. Lets look at coronary artery disease, all the manipulation in the world will not lower your bad cholesterol, correct high blood pressure, and reverse the damage smoking dose to the intimal layers of your coronary arteries. Type 1 diabetes is caused from the pancreas not producing insulin, manipulation is not going to change that.

Osteopathy on the other hand, believes that the musckuloskeletal portion of the body comprises over 60% of the human body, and the body has the inate ability to heal itself. And therefore, proper allignment of the musckuloskeletal system allows the body to function properly to always go to the homeostasis of health. That being said, most DOs today, don't prescribe to that line of thinking, most likely because we have been accepted as "full service" physicians that can prescribe medications, as well as do surgery. So a lot of the original osteopathic principles, althought are taught, but not necessarily followed. A lot of DO are now doing MD residencies, so the core priniciples are not emphasized.

My overall feeling are this, when all you have is a hammer, everythink looks like a nail. Chiropracters only have manipulation for treatment options, so therefore, they emphasize what they can do, for pain relief, PMS, IBS, etc. They can't prescribe medications, so a lot of chiropracters are into natural remedies and herbal treatments. But that is in the line of their teaching.

I am not anti-chiropractic, and I do feel that they provide a lot of relief, and in some cases, I do believe that manipulation can help somatic problems, PMS, IBS, fibromyalgia, etc...going back to the osteopathic prinicples, the body is going into good allignment, so health can be restored, not so much veterbrae out of whack, me fix and you better. But when it comes to infant manipulation, manipulation instead of vaccination, I am definatley opposed to that. However, I have seem some good resolution of chronic ear aches in children and gentle myofascial treatment, not the cracking, done by Dr. Viola Freeman, a DO in I believe california. Can't explain how it works, but I have seen it done. But again, some chiropracters claim treatment for ADD, and ADHD will work, and again I don't subscribe to that point of view.

Man, that is a long winded answer to your question, but I hope it helps.
 
doc97, Thanks for the information.

I actually think those scientific Chiropractors should actually branch off into mainstream medicine, loose the name 'Chiropractic' and just call themselves something else. Are there any significant similarities between scientific Chiro and Osteopathy? Could they be combined?

Also, I talked about scientific Chiropractic and mainstream Chiropractic however I should have been more specific. As I understand it, you have what is called “straight Chiropractic” which is entirely based on subluxation theory/life force philosophy and thus entirely pseudoscientific nonsense. There is also “mixed Chiropractic” which runs along a spectrum from those who generally accept subluxation theory to some degree (these people are the mainstream Chiropractors) through to those who completely reject subluxation, which are the scientific Chiropractors (who are a very small minority).


Apparently the guy developed Chiropractic after manipulating a deaf persons neck and the person apparently regained hearing (of course, he didn’t realise that the pathway for hearing doesn’t pass through the neck), and from this he formulated the ‘theory’ that diseases could be cured via spinal manipulation.


This is basically as I understanding it, however, the subluxation theory itself is based on something else, a divine life force, derived from god, which enters our body via the brain and travels through our body nervous the system, and it is this life force which keeps us/our organs healthy, so consequently, a subluxation or misalignment of the spin affects the life force, which is turn is responsible for the illnesses/diseases. Therefore, correcting the spine will correct the life force and hence curing the illness.


Yes, I’ve read some bad things about this. Most obvious is that their bones are still developing to manipulating them is certainly not good. Also, some Chiropractors think they can treat what’s callled colic (basically, a crying baby) which they say is caused by a pinched nerve (despite the fact that babies bones are still quite flexible making it unlikely to for there to be a pinched nerve). In fact, neurologists actually advise against getting spinal manipulation if you have a pinched nerve since you’ll likely cause further damage to the nerve so the idea of Chiropractic resolving this is itself problematic. Apparently before someone receives physical therapy or spinal manipulation they should be cleared to make sure they don’t have a pinched nerve.
 
There are definatly instances where manipualtion is contraindicated. One of
my biggest pet peeves is when I am sent a consult with a chief complaint of numbness in the arms or legs without getting at least a cat scan to show if there is any pathology I need to worry about. If there is a serious nerve impingment in the neck or low back, the last think I want to do is to start thrusting the vertebrates around it.

I'm not sure about the whole "life force" thing, not too keen to chiropractic principles, and not sure how that is taught. However, the main instructor that taught me did something called myofascial relief, or I think it's now called integrative neuromuscular releasing. That is a technique I use in the above situation, and it's really hard to discuss by just writing and not showing. Suffice to say, I release the tension in the muscles and the fascia, if you release those, then the vertebraes,etc can return to it's normal position. It's a real nice, gently techinque that I use for people with herniation, plus I know I'm not going to get into trouble.

I do know of physicians, both chiropractic and oseopathic that have made a quadrapalegic after doing a high velocity technique to the cervical spine. I almost did that, I had a patient who I was seeing as a resident, who hard severe pain, he keep telling me, "just really crack it good!" Well, I tried, but there was so much muscle spasms in the area, I decided to get a cat scan, and low and behold, he had literally about 3mm of bone left and the rest of the vertebraes were eaten away by tumor (multiple myloma if you want to get technical) If I were to have really thrusted the area, I would have killed him. Needless to say, I was very lucky, not to mention the patient was extremely lucky.

But for a "life force" I do admit I believe there is "something" in our body other that just bones, muscle, blood and tissues that make us function, but then that gets into more of a religous and philosophical debate.

Topher, it's been nice discussing this with you, I haven't had the chiropractic talk in a long time!!
 
That is NOT the definition of scepticism (at least the way it has been presented). A sceptic is someone who merely questions the veracity of a claim and suspends belief in said claim until its veracity has been established.

”In ordinary usage, skepticism or scepticism (Greek: skeptomai, to look about, to consider; see also spelling differences) refers to:
1. an attitude of doubt or a disposition to incredulity either in general or toward a particular object,
2. the doctrine that true knowledge or knowledge in a particular area is uncertain, or
3. the method of suspended judgment, systematic doubt, or criticism that is characteristic of skeptics (Merriam–Webster).
….
A scientific (or empirical) skeptic is one who questions the reliability of certain kinds of claims by subjecting them to a systematic investigation. The scientific method details the specific process by which this investigation of reality is conducted. Considering the rigor of the scientific method, science itself may simply be thought of as an organized form of skepticism. This does not mean that the scientific skeptic is necessarily a scientist who conducts live experiments (though this may be the case), but that the skeptic generally accepts claims that are in his/her view likely to be true based on testable hypotheses and critical thinking.

Common topics that scientifically-skeptical literature questions include health claims surrounding certain foods, procedures, and medicines, such as homeopathy, Reiki, Thought Field Therapy (TFT), vertebral subluxations; the plausibility of supernatural entities (such as ghosts, poltergeists, angels, and gods); as well as the existence of ESP/telekinesis, psychic powers, and telepathy (and thus the credibility of parapsychology); topics in cryptozoology, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, alien visitations, UFOs, crop circles, astrology, repressed memories, creationism, dowsing, conspiracy theories, and other claims the skeptic sees as unlikely to be true on scientific grounds.”
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skepticism

Please see this link: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_skepticism

Scepticism therefore is the most rational position to take: to question claims, always seek evidence, and refrain from believing or accepting them before they have been verified. Everyone does this, we all question claims most of the time, however someone calling themselves a sceptic will tend to be more conscious in doing so.


No. An MDs career would not be worried since if a alternative therapy were to be proven they would have no problem adopting it. It would be, after all, another proven means of helping patients.

As for cost: a) if the country has social healthcare such as the UK then it would actually be free (while the alternative practitioner would still have to charge, hence it would be their career that would be in danger) and b) in non social healthcare countries like the US, if an alternative therapy were to be scientifically proven, the alternative practitioner could and probably would charge much more.


Forgive me for thinking this is complete nonsense.


Simple. Get 5 people, one of which has a particular illness and get the TCM ‘doctor’ to identify the illness and the correct patient just by checking the pulse. Or alternatively, you could have 5 people each with a different illness and get them to identify each illness for each person. If they are really making the diagnosis by the pulse alone then this shouldn’t be a problem.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top