Each may employ a wide range of treatments, some modestly evidence-based, most not at all, but if we are to examine what they offer we need to distinguish between the semantics of professional titles and the treatments provided by each profession (including overlaps).

I suspect this excerpt from the New Zealand Chiropractic association would be perceived by potential clients as a claim! And just look at those claims! Who needs traditional medicine!!(Check other similar claims and a rather one-sided ‘selection’ of ‘research’ at http://www.chiropractic.org.nz/research-literature )

Other Health Issues and Conditions
A smaller number of clinical trials alongside other preliminary studies, case reports and anecdotal evidence show that chiropractic may be effective in many different conditions such as colic, ear infection and other paediatric issues, HIV and immune problems, asthma, multiple sclerosis and other nervous system disorders, infertility issues, digestive and cardiovascular health etc. It is important to realise that chiropractic is not the treatment of any condition. The purpose of chiropractic care is to reduce interference to the nerve system, allowing the person to experience greater function and an overall improvement in quality of life.

There is nobody “like the above”, as you put it. He is unique and much beloved by Zeno and by me. Why – we’ve even given him his own forum
here.

So there’s no danger of anything turning into a childish melee.

they start begging when they start dying…

they PAY THE PRICE FOR ATTACKING THE SUPERNATURAL –

with their LIVES…

CRYSTAL NIGHT TONIGHT!

Atheists,

but you have NO ANSWER TO DEATH… therefore you FAIL…

THE DEATH TRAP

http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/FaceOff/
********

THE REAL QUESTION:

DOES ATHEISM HAVE A FUTURE?

AND THE ANSWER – NO!

visit:

http://www.clubconspiracy.com/forum/f30/does-ath-ism-have-future-no-11202.html#post66570

Shermer – Harris – Myers – Dawkins – Randi VS. NOSTRADAMUS – EINSTEIN – MARKUZE

you’re ANNIHILATED!

Atheists,

Repent and turn to God.

Sets out in very clear terms just how little of the evidence chiropractors are referring to is actually chiropractic evidence!

I’ve already asked for the General Osteopathic Councils verdict of the Bronfort report (as it mentions OMT). Their reply and how they view the report makes an interesting comparison to the views fo the GCC. Hopefully blogging on this tomorrow.

Good work.

@ Michael

Yes, re Bronfort and bias, it’s interesting to note what Ernst has had to say about him the past. The last sentence of the quote below speaks volumes:

Quote
“Bronfort[10] concluded that SM and/or mobilization are viable options for treating low back and neck pain. Bronfort[13] concluded that SM has a better effect than massage and a comparable effect to prophylactic drugs for headache. Reid[21] found only limited evidence from methodologically poor trials for effectiveness in cervicogenic dizziness. All other conclusions agreed that the effectiveness of SM is not supported by the results from rigorous clinical trials]…..Three systematic reviews were related to SM for neck pain[10-12] of which one reached a a positive[10] overall conclusion and this was the same review which reached a positive conclusion regarding back pain. The most authoritative of the three reviews[12] stated that SM/mobilization is effective only when combined with other interventions such as exercise and as a sole treatment for neck pain, it is not of demonstrable effectiveness. Similarly, 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 reviewers[14,15] did not find conclusive evidence in favour of SM…..Our previous work[6] has shown that the conclusions of reviews of SM for back pain appear to be influenced by authorship and methodological quality such that authorship by osteopaths or chiropractors and low methodological quality are associated with a positive conclusion. It is perhaps relevant to note that all three of the overtly positive recommendations for SM in the indications back pain,[10] neck pain[10] and headache[13] originate from the same chiropractor.”

Ref:
E Ernst, P H Canter. A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation J R Soc Med 2006;99:192-196
http://jrsm.rsmjournals.com/cgi/content/full/99/4/192?ijkey=67d13fec77bd5ae1759151315cce803fdc962330