The random thoughts of a sceptical activist

Washing dirty linen in public

The General Chiropractic Council publishes annual Fitness to Practice reports, which contain summaries of all complaints dealt with over the year and useful advice and guidance for chiropractors on topics like:

1. Professional boundaries
2. Abuse of trust or exploitation of lack of knowledge
3. Communication with patients and obtaining consent
4. Record keeping
5. Management and care: initial examination and review of treatment
6. Use of X-rays
7. Local complaints procedure
8. Treatment prescribed by another health professional
9. Protecting patients and colleagues from risk of harm
10. Honesty, integrity and trustworthiness
11. Politeness and consideration towards patients
12. Respecting confidentiality

For example, in the last report (2008), they remind chiropractors:

Health professionals are in a position of power and trust and because of this patients are vulnerable.

The trust that the public places in chiropractors can be abused in a variety of ways. It may be by using strategies designed to lock patients into treatment plans that are excessive in both frequency and duration. Or it may be through marketing activities and the provision of inaccurate information that exploits the public even before they become patients.

Learning points
It is wholly unacceptable for chiropractors to use alarmist language, suggestions of future ill-health or to create patient dependency on a particular type of treatment beyond the point of benefit to them.

Chiropractors must communicate effectively with every patient. The reasons for this are clear: it is integral to obtaining consent; patients must have the necessary information to make informed decisions about their initial and ongoing care and treatment

Chiropractors must not expose patients to ionising radiation without justification

All health professionals are expected to be trustworthy and act with honesty and integrity. Behaving otherwise does nothing for public confidence or the good name and standing of the profession and, as we have seen, it may also put patients at risk.

There are several future blog posts in there…

The reports are sent to all chiropractors, who are supposed to diligently read through them and — importantly — learn from them.

But do they, one has to wonder?

Openness, transparency and confidence

Last year, the GCC dealt with nine complaints (there were others that were rejected by the Investigating Committee and did not reach the Health Committee or Professional Conduct Committee) and these are detailed in the FtP report. The report gives a summary of each case, listing who complained (complainers are obviously not identified), a summary of the case and the resultant outcome.

Of the nine chiropractors complained about, two were removed from the register, two were suspended from the register, four had ‘condition of practice orders’ imposed and one was admonished. The report then gives basic details about each case.

Of course, there will always be some details that have to be kept out of the public domain for confidentiality reasons, but that must not stop a regulator from publishing details of, say, improper conduct of a chiropractor: the chiropractor should be identified while keeping anonymous the complainant or any other person involved. This must also apply to less serious complaints: keep it all in the open where all see what’s going on.

Indeed, this is what they did in GCC v Allan STEWART when they published their 2008 FtP report in July this year: the complainant is referred to simply as Mrs A, but there are details of what the complaint was and what was considered. The report even includes an ‘Extract from the Committee’s final decision’.

They are good summaries, but it is also important that the full details of the complaint, how it was handled and the outcome are also published on the GCC’s website. For this particular case, it can be found here, amounting to some 15 pages. These give a useful insight into the way the GCC handles complaints.

Informing the public

Publishing this information is important: it is vital that a statutory regulator is seen to be transparent, keeping everyone informed and hiding nothing. Indeed, the GCC themselves state this as an aim in their Good Governance report:

The GCC should strive to achieve openness and transparency in all aspects of its activities.

If any activities — particularly how it actually regulates chiropractors and deals with complaints — are not open and transparent, what of the public or Government’s confidence in the GCC to properly execute its statutory duties? How could we possibly have confidence in a regulator that kept important dealings and decisions hidden from the public?

One of the GCC’s stated aims is to:

…to safeguard the health and wellbeing of people who use or would benefit from using the services of chiropractors, thereby promoting confidence in the profession.

So it is right and proper that the GCC are open about disciplinary proceedings against their members, isn’t it?

The regulator for proper doctors, the GMC, and that for dentists, the GDC, similarly publish full details of complaints. Imagine if they chose to hide some of these proceedings? What would the public perception be then? Would they be seen as a reputable regulator whose purpose was to protect the public? Definitely not.

The GCC sometimes even issues a press release when a chiropractor has been removed or suspended from the register. The first was in January 2007 (Proud) and there was another in July this year (Hall), although there has been silence about Stewart.

However, we now find that all this openness and transparency stuff is a bit too much for some chiropractors.

Strategic manoeuvres

The GCC recently issued a consultation document on their draft strategic plan. It went out to 57 organisations and individuals, but they only got eight responses. Is seems likely that the chiropractic trade associations would have responded.

There were some interesting things in the consolidated comments received.

Among other things, it asked for comments on the aims of the GCC:

We aim to safeguard the health and wellbeing of people who use or would benefit from using the services of chiropractors, thereby promoting confidence in the profession.

The responses agreed this was ‘fundamental’ and added:

We would encourage the GCC to consider whether its aim should also be to gain the public’s confidence and trust in it (the GCC) as a regulator.
We would support any endeavours by the GCC to seek amendment to the 1994 Act so that the GCC’s public centred aim is reflected in statute.

And who could disagree with that? However, the plan also said:

Increase awareness of regulation

We will do this by:
a. Providing clear and comprehensive information about ourselves and our work on our website www.gcc-uk.org
b. Keeping the link to our website in the public eye by use of the most effective mechanism
c. Identifying and using all possible distribution channels for our publications
d. Encouraging publicity of the outcomes of fitness to practise cases that result in removal or suspension from the register
e. Participating in relevant collaborative activities with other organisations
f. Measuring any change in awareness via repeat MORI surveys.

The responses were:

1. We endorse (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f). However, we have concerns about encouraging publicity in relation to PCC Hearings which reflects badly on the individual chiropractor and the profession at large and we question the objective behind this. The policy at (d) appears to be in contradiction of the guiding principle (1) “…thereby promoting confidence in the profession”.
2. Point d. We agree that publicity should be sought in cases whereby the practitioner (and/or their actions) poses a risk to the general public but not for cases where suspension or removal from the register has been the result of a professional misdemeanour or oversight in their professional practices.
3. With regard to (d). We would prefer “Reporting on our web site and having available the outcomes of fitness to practice cases that result in removal or suspension from the register” “Encouraging publicity” sounds as though you could be issuing press releases and thus making the public more aware of the negative performance of Chiropractors than the positive.

Whose responses there were, we can only guess, but point d) seemed a bit controversial, didn’t it? They certainly don’t seem keen on the GCC publicising the transgressions of chiropractors!

The first respondent just doesn’t get this statutory regulator thingy about openness, transparency and protecting the public: “One of us has been a bad boy, but let’s keep it hush-hush in case the public think — heaven forbid — that we’re not squeaky clean and whiter than white.” In fact, they saw this as contradicting the aim of the GCC:

We aim to safeguard the health and wellbeing of people who use or would benefit from using the services of chiropractors, thereby promoting confidence in the profession.

The second respondent just wanted the ‘serious’ cases to be publicised. That, at least, is a bit more responsible.

The third respondent is saying much the same as the first: “let’s not wash our dirty linen in public”.

What these respondents seem to want is a regulator who regulates quietly and just lets them get on with their businesses without being disturbed: if the regulator was seen to be regulating and protecting the public, that would reflect badly on the profession!

As far as keeping what they might see as minor misdemeanours hidden from public gaze, I wonder if they were thinking of my complaints?

40 Responses to Washing dirty linen in public

  • So, having issued 57 consultation documents, only three persons/organisations voiced any concerns. None of those consulted had any complaints about the publication or availability of outcomes of cases, only the idea that these should be ACTIVELY publicised. Not that contentious or sinister really, is it?

    As for the Fitness to Practice report and the manner in which the GCC conducts its business, they seem pretty reasonable, open and transparent to me.

  • Seems like a lot of assumption has been included in this article.

    Do you know for certain that the reservations were from chiropractic organisations?

  • What assumptions, Tom?

    No. I don’t know for certain and I haven’t claimed to.

  • Just seems to me that you’re trying to build up some kind of ‘cover up’ or conspiracy that doesn’t exist. Do you think that in the real world any profession is whiter than white?

    Ever heard of a dodgy mechanic, electrician etc. Does that mean that ALL of those in these professions are untrustworthy?

    At least chiropractic is regulated by the GCC, and you appear to have used this to your advantage in lodging your blanket complaint.

    I’m really genuinely interested in the following:

    1) What is the motivation behind the complaints?

    2) What do you hope to achieve?

  • Tom

    It’s there in black and white for all to see. Some respondents to the consultation want some things not publicised.

    No, I don’t think that every other profession is whiter than white and I have not said so. Besides, why should what mechanics do or not do be relevant to whether some chiropractors are abiding by their CoP or not? It is a straw man.

    Nor have I said that all chiropractors are ‘untrustworthy’. However, some would appear to be not abiding by their CoP.

    I am unclear what you mean about me using the fact that chiropractors (not chiropractic itself) are regulated by the GCC to my advantage. The GCC are there to regulate chiropractors, so they are the ones to make complaints to.

    Your question about my motivation is irrelevant: the question that is being avoided is whether some chiropractors are contravening their CoP by making the claims they do. Do you think they have the right level of evidence required by the CoP for all conditions claimed?

    What do I hope to achieve? Proper regulation of chiropractors so that the public are protected.

  • LoL

    Zeno is on record saying that he wanted to create as much mischief for the GCC as he could. Linking this to the Singh case is easy if you dig around in the blogs.

    His complaints are clearly vexatious in some cases he even complains that chiropractors claim to treat low back pain. His site also makes fun of the profession linking it to Nazi Germany.

    Now he tries to pretend that he wants to uphold the standards of regulation.

    Please try and be honest Zeno.

  • The link to the BCA’s libel case against Simon is clear. The BCA’s actions highlighted chiropractic and started many looking into what chiropractors were claiming and what proper evidence there was for these claims.

    However, as I have already said, the motivation is utterly irrelevant: the question at hand is whether chiropractors are abiding by the rules they have all signed up to? If not, why not and what is being done about it? It might reflect better on chiropractors if they focussed on getting evidence that would satisfy the ASA than trying to build straw men.

  • Zeno,

    I’m afraid your insistence that your motives are irrelevant doesn’t wash. If your purpose were genuinely protection of the public, you would be finding much more important battles to fight and yet I don’t see you campaigning with anything like the same enthusiasm on any other topic.

    The “one battle at a time” argument doesn’t wash either. It is now some time since you made your 500+ complaints to the GCC who I understand are in the process of dealing with them. So, now that the ball is rolling, you have plenty of time to turn your attention to other matters. After all, it didn’t take very long for you, a man of evident resourcefulness, to compile and submit your complaint to the GCC.

    If your particular concern is with complementary medicine, why have you not complained to the General Osteopathic Council about the rather greater number of osteopaths in the UK who make claims at least the equal of those made by chiropractors? We can only assume that doing so would not fit your agenda.

    Your activities belie the notion that you are concerned with public safety. They smack rather more of an irrational, obsessive campaign against chiropractors for the purpose simply of giving sycophantic support to Simon Singh.

  • David

    Despite your claim to the contrary, you obviously have little knowledge or understanding of the process and what is currently happening. However, I won’t bore you with the details as I doubt you’re really that interested.

    You also have no knowledge of me or what I have done in the past with regard to ‘protecting the public’: you’ve just assumed you know. Wrongly.

    And who are you to try to insist I fight battles you think are important? Do I tell you how to spend your spare time? But then again, if you think there are other battles to be fought, what exactly are you doing about it? Doing something about them might be more productive than posting ill-informed diatribes.

  • Zeno,

    Ooh! Touchy!

    The point, which you chose to side-step, is that you claim to be acting purely for the public safety but your actions suggest otherwise. If you feel so passionately about the claims that chiropractors make, why are you so tolerant of the claims that others make?

  • You’re the one with the fancy footwork – I answered your point about complaining about others. You seemed to have missed it.

  • Zeno,

    You’re right, if you have answered my point, I can’t see it in your reply.

    So, I’ll ask an even simpler question. Have you, or will you in the near future, complain to the General Osteopathic Council about the many hundreds of osteopaths in the UK who claim to be able to treat childhood disorders such as infantile colic, sleep disturbance and asthma? And if not, why is that not as big a concern for you as the claims that some chiropractors make?

  • Zeno, there are indeed several future blog posts in there on the subject of the requirements set out by the GCC and the apparent failure, in many cases, of its registrants to abide by them. I must say that I am looking forward, immensely, to your further observations in 2010 and beyond. I really don’t know where you find time to slay all the various dragons you go after.

    It’s very telling that included in the responses to the GCC’s consultation document that there was one from respondents who had “concerns about encouraging publicity in relation to PCC Hearings which reflects badly on the individual chiropractor and the profession at large”. I wonder if they were McTimoney chiropractors? It’s worth remembering that in June 2009, in a confidential letter that the McTimoney Chiropractic Association sent out to their members in a panic about the potentially dubious contents of their websites, it said…

    …we strongly suggest you do NOT discuss this with others, especially patients. Firstly it would not be ethical to burden patients with this…

    http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2009/06/chiropractors-told-to-take-down-their.html

    …because that reads to me like the Association is desperate not to scare off its members’ lucrative customer base.

    @ David
    You claim that the GCC conducts its business in a “pretty reasonable, open and transparent” manner. I disagree. The GCC presently claims that,

    The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatments to which they have been compared

    and that chiropractic intervention, including manipulation, is:

    Safe, effective and cost-effective in reducing referral to secondary care.

    http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/Musculoskeletal_Pathway_for_Back_Pain_Advice_Note_FINAL_Dec09.pdf

    However, that appears to be a misrepresentation of the facts, as recent research has shown chiropractic to be less safe and no more effective than conventional treatments that are much cheaper . But still the GCC, and others, continue to (unreasonably, IMO) stand by their claims for the evidence for chiropractic despite controversy surrounding the studies they promote, such as the 2004 UK BEAM Trial, and the 1990 Meade report and its follow-up. The GCC also promotes the European guidelines for the management of low back pain which, although the GCC implies that they recommend chiropractic, only briefly mention spinal manipulation. See here for a comprehensive round-up of the problem:
    http://www.ebm-first.com/?cat=83

    Another good example of questionable GCC behaviour can be found in a July 2004 letter which the GCC sent to Alastair McLellan, editor of the Health Service Journal. In the letter, the GCC scolded Mr McLellan for publishing an article by Professor Edzard Ernst entitled ‘Beyond The Fringe’. It denounced it as being “nothing more than an ill-founded attack on UK chiropractors”, before going on to claim that Professor Edzard Ernst “…refuses to engage in any meaningful dialogue with the UK chiropractic profession.” Well, just over a year later, Professor Ernst attended one of the GCC’s meetings, and the following is what the GCC chose to write about his visit in its open minutes of that meeting:

    A copy of Professor Ernst’s presentation is attached as Appendix A to these Minutes. Questions to Professor Ernst in the subsequent debate included:

    • Are you familiar with the work of Herzog et al regarding the physical characteristics of cervical spine manipulation and its effect on the vertebral artery?
    • How do you rationalise your view of the chiropractic profession as responsible for most serious adverse affects when osteopaths, some physiotherapists and other professionals also engage on a global basis in manipulation of the cervical spine?
    • Why do you say that osteopaths use mobilisation, which is inherently safer and chiropractors only manipulate, which carries more risk?
    • Where is your evidence of “serious adverse events, such as stroke (sometimes fatal) are regularly reported”?

    http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/C-040805-Open1.pdf

    Intriguingly, Appendix A, and the minutes of the ensuing debate, seem to be for chiropractors’ eyes only.

    Finally, other (apparently misleading) GCC documents can be found in the correspondence that the activist group, Action for Victims of Chiropractic, has conducted with it over the past five years. Scroll through its news page here:
    http://www.chirovictims.org.uk/victims/news.html

    Very revealing.

  • Zeno,

    Exactly! The hipocrisy in your attitude to chiropractors shines through.

  • David

    You just don’t seem to get it do you? You have no idea what I have done in the past, what I am currently working on or what I’m planning for the future, yet you continue to jump to your very own (wrong) conclusions.

  • Zeno,

    Enlighten us then.

  • David

    Having just read through this thread, I have to wonder what your purpose is? You say,

    “Your activities belie the notion that you are concerned with public safety.”

    Somebody puts a lot of time and work into trying to get false claims and other irregularities that could impinge on people’s health put right and you say this person isn’t really concerned with public safety but is just “giving sycophantic support to Simon Singh”.

    Do you think Zeno is in love with Simon? Do you think Zeno is hoping that, if he works hard enough at exposing the irregularities in the chiro industry, then there’s a chance Simon will leave his wife for him? Honestly, David!

    Nobody is denying that the BCA’s disastrous decision to sue Simon Singh is the catalyst that encouraged Zeno (and others) to investigate and highlight the way the BCA and GCC operate and if you want to believe it’s because Zeno is smitten with Simon, that’s fine. But your repeated goading, while it may make you feel better, isn’t actually going to make an iota of difference to anything Zeno does and I’m afraid your comments throughout this blog are making you appear “irrational and obsessive”.

    http://www.skepticat.org/2009/10/chiropractic-is-crap/

  • @ Zeno

    I can draw only two possible conclusions from your refusal.

    1) Your actions are indeed driven more by a desire to denigrate chiropractors than protect the public.

    2) You wish to “keep your powder dry” with respect to whatever you’re hatching next. If this is the case, it can only be in order to achieve maximum glory for you. If you have any public health/safety concerns, you surely would feel compelled to raise them at the earliest opportunity.

    @ Blue Wode

    You’ve obviously graduated (with honours) from the Edzard Ernst school of spin.

    @ Skepticat

    What are you waffling on about?

    Sycophant: –noun a self-seeking, servile flatterer; fawning parasite.
    Synonyms: toady, yes man, flunky, fawner, flatterer.

  • Feel free to draw whatever conclusions your limited information, but bountiful imagination, allow. It makes not one jot of a difference!

  • David

    Which answers my point how, exactly?

    If you’re not implying Zeno has some kind of infatuation with Simon, what are you trying to imply? What reason do you think Zeno might have for wanting to give ‘sycophantic support’ to him?

    Come on, out with it.

  • Skepticat

    Sycophancy & infatuation are not the same thing. Honest.

    Love the weird side argument though.

  • Jackie

    You appear to have misread my post. Either that, or my point is too difficult for you. Sorry about that.

    Perhaps get an adult to help you?

    Glad you’re enjoying the weird argument. You can thank David for starting it.

    http://www.skepticat.org/2009/12/how-the-spine-wizards-tried-to-trap-me/

  • @ Skepticat

    I’m not going to engage with you. I have yet to read a posting you have made that had any merit.

    You appear to be here only to throw insults at other contributors and to try to attract attention to your own, sad little blog.

  • Actually, David, I came here to challenge your insult to Zeno. You’ve made a couple of extremely nasty assertions about him that you are unable to justify. If you behave like that, you can expect to be challenged. If you don’t like being challenged, try engaging your brain before trolling someone’s blog.

    Yes, I am pleased to publicise my own blog. I hope you don’t find it too cerebrally challenging.

    Here’s a quick link to all my posts about chiroquacks:

    http://www.skepticat.org/category/alternative-therapies/chiropractic-alternative-therapies/

  • I only recently noticed the war going on here. I’m sure Zeno must be a very successful blog-writers to get all this attention.

    I have just left a comment in another of his posts, however, it seems that there are more educated guests here (David) rather than just lunatics fighting very hard to prove themselves to themselves.

    I find it extremely funny that there some jobless people out there who choose to keep themselves occupied by claiming to care about the public when they actually try to discredit a profession that has been around for more than a century and, that most of all, is respected worldwide exactly for that reason; helping the public by helping millions of suffering patients (whether you like it or not).

    I guess that’s the advent of internet. Who would know about Zeno and Skeptical if the internet didn’t exist?

    Skeptical, do you actually hold any degrees? (I don’t mean in your hands)

    Zeno, are you also on youtube? that would be hilarious!

    A strong word of advice: PLEASE, DO NOT HELP THE PUBLIC. THEY CAN HELP THEMSELVES. GET A JOB INSTEAD.

    Regards,
    Dr N.E.O.
    MD DC MChiro

    p.s.: Zeno, I have learned, now, how to put my name at the beginning of my post, but please do not insult the public’s intelligence. Surely, if anyone needed help with serious health matters your blog would be the last place to visit.
    Furthermore, I assume that by ‘wanting to help the public’ you mean they should listen you you, invisible God, rather than a Governmental Body. I should have brought a dictionary for xmas and read again the definition of ‘ignorant arrogance’.
    Good luck buddy. May the cyber-world be with you.

    Dr N.E.O.
    MD DC MChiro

  • Jackie W/N.E.O.

    I still don’t know how to address you. That seems to be three different names/pseudonyms you’ve used today. Either that or you have some guests all using the same PC. It doesn’t matter of course — it’s just courteous.

    Anyway, you said:

    I have just left a comment in another of his posts, however, it seems that there are more educated guests here (David) rather than just lunatics fighting very hard to prove themselves to themselves.

    That’s just two ad hominems. Nothing that actually helps any discussion or debate.

    I find it extremely funny that there some jobless people out there…

    Eh? What jobless people? And why would you find that funny? Don’t bother answering — it’s irrelevant.

    who choose to keep themselves occupied by claiming to care about the public when they actually try to discredit a profession…

    Again, what do know of my motives?

    …that has been around for more than a century and, that most of all, is respected worldwide exactly for that reason

    That’s an appeal to antiquity and an ad populum and both are fallacious. Witchcraft has been around for even longer, but that doesn’t mean it works or should be respected.

    …helping the public by helping millions of suffering patients (whether you like it or not).

    Now you get to the nub of the problem: where’s the good evidence that it does and how robust is that evidence?

    I guess that’s the advent of internet. Who would know about Zeno and Skeptical [sic] if the internet didn’t exist?

    I assume you’re referring to Skepticat? And what has that got to do with anything?

    Skeptical, do you actually hold any degrees? (I don’t mean in your hands)

    Just another ad hominem.

    Zeno, are you also on youtube? that would be hilarious!

    And another.

    A strong word of advice: PLEASE, DO NOT HELP THE PUBLIC. THEY CAN HELP THEMSELVES. GET A JOB INSTEAD.

    Why the shouty language? Never mind, I’m not sure I’m inclined to take your advice anyway, particularly when you have given me no cogent reason to do so.

    What’s this fixation with jobs? Again, it matters not one jot, because it is irrelevant.

    p.s.: Zeno, I have learned, now, how to put my name at the beginning of my post

    Good.

    …but please do not insult the public’s intelligence.

    Please elucidate.

    Surely, if anyone needed help with serious health matters your blog would be the last place to visit.

    Where do you think I am giving medical advice? Have you read the Comment Guide yet? It says (among other things):

    Nothing on this website should be construed as medical advice. If you have a medical condition or think that you might or are worried about your health, consult your properly medically qualified GP, not a Quack.

    Anyway…

    Furthermore, I assume that by ‘wanting to help the public’ you mean they should listen you you, invisible God, rather than a Governmental Body.

    If by ‘a Governmental Body’, you mean the General Chiropractic Council, then it seems clear that chiropractors are not listening to them either. Not that they’ve been particularly vocal about asking chiropractors if they wouldn’t mind awfully adhering to their own Code of Conduct.

    Perhaps you could tell me what you think the GCC is there for? Why do they have a Code of Conduct? So it can be ignored by whoever takes a notion to?

    I should have brought a dictionary for xmas and read again the definition of ‘ignorant arrogance’.

    Again, if you care to point out where you think my knowledge is lacking…

    Good luck buddy. May the cyber-world be with you.

    I don’t think I want to be your buddy, but if you are going to continue to comment on my blog, please do so civilly and try to address arguments properly. I will point you yet again towards the Comment Guide for a brief introduction to argumentation and the rules on commenting on my blog.

  • I apologize if have touched/hurt someone’s sensitivity by my ‘uncivilized’ comments; however, I will engage you no more on this nonsense as I see no constructive outcomes, regardless of writing style.

    As someone on the previous posts said, if you meet one dodgy mechanic does not mean all mechanics are.

    It is no up to me to judge or scrutinize the work of the GCC, GMC ot any other professional body. I’m sure someone above me is. Might that be you?

    Anyway, good work; keep it up.

    Goodbye.

  • When you have a musculoskeletal pain/ache etc what would be your chosen method of treatment?

  • What’s that got to do with the regulation of chiros?

  • I had one of those pains recently. It lasted a few weeks. I treated it by buying a laptop table. I’ve had no problem since.

    So fortunately, I didn’t waste my money on chiropractic, in spite of their best efforts to snare me.

    http://www.skepticat.org/2009/12/how-the-spine-wizards-tried-to-trap-me/

  • Nothing to do with regulation of chiros. It was a question.

    And skepticat, that is the kind of advice chiropractors give. It’s called work station ergonomics. No chance of me reading that link either if your recent reply is anything to go by.

  • Yes, Tom, but the difference between a lap top table and an appointment with a chiropractor is about £80. And since you’re scared of clicking my link, I’ll save you the bother and c & p here:

    “On the subject of what treatment I needed, she was more forthcoming: if I made an appointment there and then for a full examination at their clinic, I could have it for the bargain price of £30 instead of the usual £95. I didn’t enquire about the price of the “several sessions” of treatment she thought I might need but asked instead whether simply making a concerted effort to improve my posture might help. “I’d still recommend treatment because the longer you leave a problem untreated, the greater the danger of degenerative disease,” came the predictable reply…

    …The next day I bought a £15 laptop table from IKEA and my shoulders haven’t ached since.”

  • Ha Ha Ha! Correct me if i’m wrong but I do believe Skepticat just accused me of being a bit chicken!? What powers of intellect you have at your disposal.

    And nope, even though you’re desperate for me to read below that point.

    Zeno, this individual is lowering the standard of your blogs.

  • Tom said: “Zeno, this individual is lowering the standard of your blogs.”

    Nope, I don’t think you need any help at all.

  • Nice try Zeno, I expected better from you to be honest.

    I will leave your blog now and let you know that even though I don’t agree with your views I respect them, as I would any other person. I don’t feel that skepticat shares the same basic manners, therefore, I don’t wish to continue visiting your site.

    I wish you and your family well.

    Goodbye.

  • Good riddance. If you can’t take it, don’t dish it out.

    What lowers the standard of this blog is that every chiro that has commented here has avoided the issues and resorted to ad hominem attacks instead.

    No, I don’t respect people who do that.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


× nine = 72

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>