General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Re: Quackwatch attacks CBP (Attn: Kirk)

Started by Atlas · · Last activity · 3 posts · 297 views

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
12 December 2003
Last activity
13 December 2003
Original author
Atlas
Posts
3
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
297
Views / 30 days
0

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–3 of 3
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. x-no-archive: yes

    On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 23:52:31 GMT, Kirk Kolas <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Well its clinical relevance is questionable.

    The article at Quackwatch was ridiculous. I went through it
    point-by-point because I thought that you sincerely wanted to know
    what was what.

    I guess I should've seen it coming a mile away.

    Tell you what, Kirk. Obtain knowledge of spinal biomechanics.
    And then get back to me.

    Atlas

  2. Atlas said:
    Quoted message said:

    Well its clinical relevance is questionable.

    The article at Quackwatch was ridiculous. I went through it
    point-by-point because I thought that you sincerely wanted to know
    what was what.

    I guess I should've seen it coming a mile away.

    Tell you what, Kirk. Obtain knowledge of spinal biomechanics.
    And then get back to me.

    Your terse reply does not further the debate. I raised some very simple
    questions regarding a very basic concept, that of external validity.

    My knowledge (or yours) of spinal biomechanics is, in fact, irrelevant
    because it does not address this central problem with a diagnostic
    system like CBP.

    Creating and marketing a system such as CBP, as clever as it may be, and
    as sophisticated as the science behind it may appear, is irrelevant if
    it can not be shown to correlate well with clinical signs in patients in
    the real world (using proper studies, not the insistence of the
    practitioners). Similarly, if it can not be shown that the SMT
    performed to "correct" these less-than-ideal spines actually translates
    into clinically relevant changes in patients, then the whole system is
    an exercise in futility... much like many other "branded" systems in
    chiropractic.

    Your long list of studies by Harrison and others have not (yet)
    addressed these most important issues.

    --
    Kirk Kolas, DVM
    Toronto, Canada

  3. Quoted message said:
    Atlas said:
    Quoted message said:

    Well its clinical relevance is questionable.

    The article at Quackwatch was ridiculous. I went through it
    point-by-point because I thought that you sincerely wanted to know
    what was what.

    I guess I should've seen it coming a mile away.

    Tell you what, Kirk. Obtain knowledge of spinal biomechanics.
    And then get back to me.

    Your terse reply does not further the debate. I raised some very simple
    questions regarding a very basic concept, that of external validity.

    Kirk, you are interested in validity, Atlas is interested in scaremongering.
    He NEEDS a way to retain patients and he has chosen to do so by telling them
    that have DEVIANT spines. He tells them that horrible dis-eases will result
    from the many inherent Subluxations (tm) that naturally result from those
    DEVIATIONS.

    The use of x-rays and mumbo-jumbo are enough to frighten people into returning
    for non-symptomatic treatments and for treatment of non-musculoskeletal
    conditions. IOW, it is a form of fraud, wrapped in scaremongering, & acted out
    without the slightest bit of concience.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.