BTW, the posts Skepticat is talking about can be found on page 1 of the comments here:
http://www.zenosblog.com/2009/10/the-trouble-with-leaflets/comment-page-1/#comments

“I’m afraid that your tone betrays your motives for engaging in this post. I’m not sure which part of my contributions you regard as “mendacious” but it seems to me that, despite your beratement of Jackie W, you have contributed nothing of substance yourself, only abuse.”

Actually, what I contributed was a timely reminder that you hadn’t provided us with the scientific evidence for chiropractic. I also contributed some encouragement that you finally cut the crap and do so. But, in spite of coming back and postinging another 1500 words or so, you still have not done so.

In post 44 David said,

“I’m truly sorry that I don’t have the time to go through the list of references that provide the evidence for Spinal Manipulative Therapy (SMT), let alone chiropractic, for the management of various musculo-skeletal conditions right now; I am short of time.

However, for the moment, perhaps I can point you to Ernst and Canter’s paper, “A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation”, where even they had to concede that there was evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in the treatment of neck pain, back pain, headaches and dizziness. http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/reprint/99/4/192“

Out of all the references you think provide evidence, you choose that one? OK, let’s have a look. Here are a couple of extracts from the paper:

“…there are three systematic reviews of SM for headache.13–15 While Bronfort et al.13 concluded that SM is as effective as other interventions, the other two teams of reviewers14,15 did not find conclusive evidence in favour of SM. The evidence from the other systematic reviews of SM for non-spinal pain,16 dysmenorrhoea,17 infantile colic,18 asthma,19,20 cervicogenic dizziness and any condition21 is uniformly negative. Overall, the demonstrable benefit of SM seems to be minimal in the case of acute or chronic back pain; controversial in the case of headache; or absent for all other indications.”

“In conclusion, we have found no convincing evidence from systematic reviews to suggest that SM is a recommendable treatment option for any medical condition.

In case it’s not absolutely clear I will stress that, contrary to what David claims, nowhere in the paper do the authors “concede that there was evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation…”. In fact they conclude the very opposite:

Conclusions: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment.

I’m thinking perhaps David doesn’t know what the word ‘mendacious’ means but asserting that a paper says the very opposite of what it does, in fact, say would seem to be as good an illustration of its meaning as anything else he’s said.

David, I don’t know what kind of universe you inhabit, which leads you to describe comments challenging misinformation and bad arguments as ‘abuse’ but at least I don’t abuse the truth.

So what made the UK chiropractic industry continue to pursue statutory regulation when they knew that doing so would give McTimoney chiropractors seats on the council that would become responsible for policing chiropractic?

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:16 David wrote: …the GCC eventually reached the decision to recommend to the Privy Council that accreditation of the McTimoney course should be withdrawn. For reasons I can’t explain this action was averted by the McTimoney college, something that many found hard to believe.”

Could it have been undue influence from the McTimoney chiropractors who continue to have seats on the GCC?

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:16 David wrote: …the AECC and WIOC have also striven to raise the standard of training they offer and are producing highly proficient practitioners of musculo-skeletal healthcare.”

If that’s true, then why don’t Kenneth Vall DC, Principal of the AECC, and David Byfield DC, Head of the WIOC, issue a joint public statement confirming that their colleges do not train students in the vitalist/organic model of chiropractic, and that they do not believe that the chiropractic ‘subluxation’ is a real condition with known medical consequences?

Is there anything to prevent them from making such a declaration?

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:16 David wrote: ”Interestingly, there is a clause in the current Code of Conduct that states: “Chiropractors must respect and encourage the skills and contributions which others bring to the care of patients. Specifically chiropractors: F1.1 must not discriminate against, or unjustly criticise, a colleague or other health professional.”

And interestingly, as I informed you in another blog post, clause E1.3 of your Code of Practice (p.21 in the pdf, p.18 of the actual document) says:

E1 Chiropractors must act quickly if either their own, or another healthcare worker’s conduct, health or performance may place patients or colleagues at risk. Specifically chiropractors…

E1.3 must protect patients when they believe that the conduct, competence or health of another regulated healthcare practitioner (including a chiropractor) is a threat to patients. Before taking action, a chiropractor should do his/her best to verify the facts on which this belief is based. Then, if necessary, the chiropractor should report honestly to the practice principal/work colleagues of the other regulated healthcare practitioner (if s/he works with others) any concern about the conduct, competence or health of that healthcare practitioner. If the other person is a sole practitioner, or the practice principal/work colleagues of that other person have refused to take action, then a chiropractor must report his/her concerns to the relevant regulatory body.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/COPSOP_Dec05_WEB(with_glossary)07Jan09.pdf

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:17 David wrote: ”Ernst and Canter’s paper, “A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation”…they had to concede that there was evidence for the effectiveness of spinal manipulation in the treatment of neck pain, back pain, headaches and dizziness.”

That’s true, but they also had to arrive at the following conclusion after taking into account a responsible risk/benefit profile for spinal manipulation…

Spinal manipulation has been associated with frequent, mild adverse effects and with serious (probably) rare complications. Therefore the risk-benefit balance does not favour SM over other treatment options such as physiotherapeutic exercise. This statement is not in agreement with several national guidelines, for instance, for the treatment of back pain. We suggest that these guidelines be reconsidered in the light of the best available data.
In conclusion, we have found no convincing evidence from systematic reviews to suggest that SM is a recommendable treatment option for any medical condition.

http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/99/4/192

Similarly, Ernst’s systematic review of adverse effects of spinal manipulation, which was published the following year (2007), determined the following:

The effectiveness of spinal manipulation for most indications is less than convincing. A risk-benefit evaluation is therefore unlikely to generate positive results: with uncertain effectiveness and finite risks, the balance cannot be positive.

http://www.jrsm.org/cgi/content/full/100/7/330

Don’t both of these reviews suggest, very strongly, that the regulation of chiropractic was premature? It’s something noted by Professor David Colquhoun in the New Zealand Medical Journal last year:

Both the New Zealand and the UK governments have got themselves into an impossible position by giving official recognition to chiropractic before the evidence was in. Since the conventional manipulative treatments are cheaper, and may well be safer, and because they involve no quasi-religious ideas like ‘subluxation’ or ‘innate intelligence’, the only reasonable conclusion is that there is no need for chiropractic to exist at all. They do nothing they do that would not be done as well by medical practitioners and physiotherapists. What will governments do about that, I wonder?”

http://dcscience.net/?p=253

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:30 David wrote: ”I have to say that I agree with almost everything that Samuel Homola has to say…The “revolution” that he forecasts will need to happen in chiropractic happened in the UK years ago.

No it didn’t. Take, for example, the comments made in the GCC’s Fitness to Practice Report 2007 (p.13) regarding a complaint it received against one of its registrants:

The GCC’s expert witness advised that the discovery of subluxations (areas of vertebral restriction in the spinal joints) is commonplace to the point of universality in patients.

http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/FITNESS_TO_PRACTISE_REPORT_2007_FINAL_FOR_WEBSITE.pdf

Bearing in mind that an orthopaedic subluxation is an incomplete or partial dislocation of a joint which is frequently the result of trauma, and is a fairly severe abnormality which tends to occur in areas other than the spine (and, as such, is rarely treated by chiropractors), the above reference to ‘subluxations’ by the GCC’s “expert witness” can only relate to the imaginary ones only believed in by chiropractors.

So, not really indicative of a ‘revolution’ is it?

On Wednesday 28 October 2009 at 00:37 David wrote: ” @ Skepticat – I’m afraid that your tone betrays your motives for engaging in this post. I’m not sure which part of my contributions you regard as “mendacious” but it seems to me that, despite your beratement of Jackie W, you have contributed nothing of substance yourself, only abuse.

It would appear that you have not read Skepticat’s latest blog post which was linked to in comment 40. For your convenience, here’s the link again:
http://skepticat.wordpress.com/2009/10/27/chiropractic-is-crap/

So, you challenged Blue Wode to answer a question, knowing that he couldn’t access the information needed to answer it, and that you did not have access to the detailed information to answer it either?

OK, if you have direct dealings with those involved, can you tell me how to get the information from them required to answer your challenge ? I’m sure support from you will help them agree to make it available, and if their philosophy is rational and evidence based, what objection could they have? I’m happy to share my own relevant teaching materials with them.

“Can I follow up your point here? I recognise my limitations in not knowing exactly what is currently taught at AECC and WIOC, and that this is relevant to the discussion. Can you help me gain access to their teaching materials on non-musculo-skeletal disorders?”

I’m afraid that I don’t have access to the actual teaching materials used at AECC or WIOC. My comments are based on what I know of the philosophy applied to the teaching offered at those institutions from my direct dealings with them and my contact with those involved.

Sorry.

Anyway, that really is going to have to be it from me for a while, so I’ll bow out now.

“I’m guessing it’s not only because he’s been bored off by Blue Wode’s tiresome habit of challenging every mendacious claim he makes……………….”

I’m afraid that your tone betrays your motives for engaging in this post. I’m not sure which part of my contributions you regard as “mendacious” but it seems to me that, despite your beratement of Jackie W, you have contributed nothing of substance yourself, only abuse.

“The reasons for use of manipulation/mobilization by an evidence-based manual therapist are not the same as the reason for use of adjustment/manipulation by most chiropractors…As I warned in Bonesetting, Chiropractic and Cultism, if chiropractic fails to specialize in an appropriate manner, there may be no justification for the existence of chiropractic when there are an adequate number of physical therapists providing manipulative therapy.” http://jmmtonline.com/documents/HomolaV14N2E.pdf

I have to say that I agree with almost everything that Samuel Homola has to say. What you should bear mind though, is that he graduated from Lincoln College of Chiropractic in 1956. Lincoln College is a self-confessed “straight” college which doggedly adheres to outdated principles. The “revolution” that he forecasts will need to happen in chiropractic happened in the UK years ago.

The AECC and WIOC are already supplying graduates to the
“chiropractic profession [which] as a whole specializes in the physical treatment of back disorders…and earns reciprocity with other healing professions,
under the guidance of medical science”