250 different sorts of chiropractors?

Question:

number So what, Insurance Companies pay for Chiropractic care and since I am unable to find an insurance company that is a charitable organization of great benevolence must conclude that it works. Point two, there are over 300 flavors of Buddhism each with it’s own meditative technique. The one I chose works for me. Point three. My experience proves to me the only people who say prayer does not work are those who NOT have tried enough of it. LOL P.S. The Chiropractors who treated me from 1993 to 1995 were honest and ethical enough to discharge me when nothing further could be done for me by further Chiropractic treatment. I did NOT require Chiropractic care from 1936 to 1993 and have NOT used it since 1995. — John Basham AKA VAK Before you buy.

Response:

Atlas is preparing for an embarrassing result, don’t you think?

No, not really. He now says that "There’s over 250 known chiropractic techniques." I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, will not claim that it’s a spurious number he pulled out of midair, and therefore will not ask that he list them. Yet.

I tell you what, Dick Tracy. Why don’t you find them yourself? After all, you want everybody here to think of you as Captain Science. With your world class sleuthing skills, surely you will be able to find the names of all of them (including data surrounding the techniques – which includes research, info on the founder of the technique, outcome criteria, and methodology). I won’t hold my breath waiting for your report. He says that my proposed trial makes no sense unless each patient visits practitioners that use the same techniques.

Yep. Take your case to 10 CBP docs (or even 100 CBP docs), and you’ll end up with the same conclusions. The first part of the trial, however, is diagnosis.

Are you asking for the individual chiropractors to show evidense of vertebral subluxation – based on their own technique’s methodology? All 250 of those therapeutic techniques depend upon subluxations — the absolute foundation of chiropractic. If it’s a science, it’s reasonable to expect that all chiropractors, regardless of their Gonsteadism or Nuccaphilia, will find either no subluxations or the same subluxation in the same place.

Not really. There is not a universal definition for the word subluxation within chiropractic. There exists many models. But I’m sure you’re already familiar with all of them, right? You’ve read The Mercy Document. You’ve read Gatterman’s text. You’ve read the research by Korr, Harrison, Plaugher, etc…? That is, of course, if there is such a thing. A simple test that’s easy to grade: PASS or FRAUD.

Do all drugs do the same thing, Henry? Should we apply your little test to the pharm industry? Let’s say we take an antibiotic. We’ll then apply the antibiotic for regulating hypertension, or as an anti-cancer agent, or for controlling glaucoma. That wouldn’t make sense either, would it? He accuses me of narrow-mindedness.

I think it goes beyond a simple accusation. I think I demonstrated this beyond a shadow of a doubt. That was not the case till I read some of the materials he suggested, and then went looking for opposing opinions.

Interestingly, the reason why I contacted Henry in the first place is because he penned a scalding – and throughly unfounded attack on chiropractic. He already had his mind made up LONG before he ever heard of me – OR read any of the materials I suggested. Thus, he clearly demonstrated a predisposed negative bias. The web is a wonderful information resource:

The web has a lot of data. Most of which is not refereed. That’s why I gave you reference after reference after reference of published data (in independently peer reviewed, scientific journals). You refused to look at the data (because it would upset your own belief system). after only a few days’ work, my conclusion was and is that chiropractic was founded as a deception, and (except for a few physical therapists with "DC" after their names) is still one.

I doubt that you even gave it a few days work. In fact, I doubt that you actually bothered to read ANY of the data which I had given you. None of it. Zero. Zippo. Nada. It’s not narrow-mindedness, Atlas, but focus.

No, it’s close-mindedness coupled with predisposed negative bias, and unwillingness to even look at the data. Here’s a mantra that I want you to say 10 times each morning when you wake up: "Condemnation without proper investigation is an unattractive trait." I haven’t paid enough attention to you folks… and thank you for swinging the searchlight around to illuminate the dark places in your trade.

I have nothing to hide. Feel free to investigate to your heart’s content. Actually, what I should have said is: Feel free to actually START investigating anytime you wish. Because so far, you haven’t lifted a finger to look at the data. To the extent copyright law will allow me, I have every intention of putting some chiropractic texts, pamphlets, and other training materials on the web.

Be my guest. Make sure that you include current data. Unlike your opinions, chiropractic has progressed in the last 32 years. You’d best call your colleagues, Atlas, and ensure that they don’t let their copyrights lapse – because whatever has fallen into the public domain is about to get re-published, and NOT to the insiders for whom it was originally intended.

I’ll tell ‘em that Henry is coming to get ‘em! How’s that? Does it kind of encapsulate your mindset? Atlas – if you still have "The Yet Technique" I’d really appreciate a xerox of it. These kind folks would really enjoy that one!

Never heard of it. So, if anyone else has any of those materials tucked away, please contact me and I’ll tell you where to send it. I’d like to build a representative collection.

Why don’t you just contact Stephen Barrett? He still has all of the AMA’s smear-tactic materials (which they used during their illegal campaign to "contain and eliminate chiropractic" starting in 1962, and ending when the supreme court ruled in favor of the chiropractors). Please don’t generalize from what I’ve published here. I am absolutely NOT opposed to alternative therapies in principle, but to fraud in particular. That is especially so when the deceptive practice diverts the sufferer’s money, time, and attention when it would be more productively spent otherwise. I have nothing against any speculative therapy, unless its proponents perpetuate fraud for profit.

Far be it for us to follow in your own footsteps of gross generalization, perpetuating ignorance, and refusing to look at the data.

Response:

HLE IS A TROLL AND QUACKWATCH WANNABE!!!! — Dr. Roland R. Hicks Doctor of Chiropractic All good things come from above-down-inside-out Natural Alternative to Celebrex/Vioxx: http://drhicks.joint-pain.com/ Internet Marketing to Win: http://www.aboutimw.com/drhicks.html Nutrition Products and Information: http://freelife.com/Sites/drhicks/redir.cfm?page=/info/welcome/welcom… fm toll free (877) 791-8686

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – Atlas is preparing for an embarrassing result, don’t you think? He now says that "There’s over 250 known chiropractic techniques." I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, will not claim that it’s a spurious number he pulled out of midair, and therefore will not ask that he list them. Yet. He says that my proposed trial makes no sense unless each patient visits practitioners that use the same techniques. The first part of the trial, however, is diagnosis. All 250 of those therapeutic techniques depend upon subluxations — the absolute foundation of chiropractic. If it’s a science, it’s reasonable to expect that all chiropractors, regardless of their Gonsteadism or Nuccaphilia, will find either no subluxations or the same subluxation in the same place. That is, of course, if there is such a thing. A simple test that’s easy to grade: PASS or FRAUD. He accuses me of narrow-mindedness. That was not the case till I read some of the materials he suggested, and then went looking for opposing opinions. The web is a wonderful information resource: after only a few days’ work, my conclusion was and is that chiropractic was founded as a deception, and (except for a few physical therapists with "DC" after their names) is still one. It’s not narrow-mindedness, Atlas, but focus. I haven’t paid enough attention to you folks… and thank you for swinging the searchlight around to illuminate the dark places in your trade. To the extent copyright law will allow me, I have every intention of putting some chiropractic texts, pamphlets, and other training materials on the web. You’d best call your colleagues, Atlas, and ensure that they don’t let their copyrights lapse – because whatever has fallen into the public domain is about to get re-published, and NOT to the insiders for whom it was originally intended. Atlas – if you still have "The Yet Technique" I’d really appreciate a xerox of it. These kind folks would really enjoy that one! So, if anyone else has any of those materials tucked away, please contact me and I’ll tell you where to send it. I’d like to build a representative collection. Please don’t generalize from what I’ve published here. I am absolutely NOT opposed to alternative therapies in principle, but to fraud in particular. That is especially so when the deceptive practice diverts the sufferer’s money, time, and attention when it would be more productively spent otherwise. I have nothing against any speculative therapy, unless its proponents perpetuate fraud for profit.

Response:

Atlas is preparing for an embarrassing result, don’t you think? He now says that "There’s over 250 known chiropractic techniques." I’ll give him the benefit of the doubt, will not claim that it’s a spurious number he pulled out of midair, and therefore will not ask that he list them. Yet. He says that my proposed trial makes no sense unless each patient visits practitioners that use the same techniques. The first part of the trial, however, is diagnosis. All 250 of those therapeutic techniques depend upon subluxations — the absolute foundation of chiropractic. If it’s a science, it’s reasonable to expect that all chiropractors, regardless of their Gonsteadism or Nuccaphilia, will find either no subluxations or the same subluxation in the same place. That is, of course, if there is such a thing. A simple test that’s easy to grade: PASS or FRAUD. He accuses me of narrow-mindedness. That was not the case till I read some of the materials he suggested, and then went looking for opposing opinions. The web is a wonderful information resource: after only a few days’ work, my conclusion was and is that chiropractic was founded as a deception, and (except for a few physical therapists with "DC" after their names) is still one. It’s not narrow-mindedness, Atlas, but focus. I haven’t paid enough attention to you folks… and thank you for swinging the searchlight around to illuminate the dark places in your trade. To the extent copyright law will allow me, I have every intention of putting some chiropractic texts, pamphlets, and other training materials on the web. You’d best call your colleagues, Atlas, and ensure that they don’t let their copyrights lapse – because whatever has fallen into the public domain is about to get re-published, and NOT to the insiders for whom it was originally intended. Atlas – if you still have "The Yet Technique" I’d really appreciate a xerox of it. These kind folks would really enjoy that one! So, if anyone else has any of those materials tucked away, please contact me and I’ll tell you where to send it. I’d like to build a representative collection. Please don’t generalize from what I’ve published here. I am absolutely NOT opposed to alternative therapies in principle, but to fraud in particular. That is especially so when the deceptive practice diverts the sufferer’s money, time, and attention when it would be more productively spent otherwise. I have nothing against any speculative therapy, unless its proponents perpetuate fraud for profit.

Glaucoma Disease

Information about Glaucoma

Glaucoma

250 different sorts of chiropractors?

Question:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Response:

Related Posts

Write a comment