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