|
|
Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting
|
Logged in as: Guest
|
|
Users viewing this topic:
none
|
|
Login  | |
|
Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 25, 2007 6:35:11 AM
|
|
|
JSPT
Posts: 271
Joined: April 19, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
The link below goes to a podcast I listen to which ran an episode based on a skeptic's look at chiropractic treatment a few months ago. The author speaks highly of physical therapists in the 2nd half of the episode. He is a layperson, and I thought his insight was....um...insightful. Give it a listen if you get a chance, its about 10 minutes long:
http://skeptoid.com/episode_guide.php Scroll down to the episode from 5/1/07 entitled: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting, then click on listen to hear the audio clip or read for the transcript.
BTW, the Skeptoid podcast is probably the 2nd best podcast out there, next to The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.
P.S. I'm not posting this for the anti-chrio, part; more so the pro-PT part.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 25, 2007 10:51:34 AM
|
|
|
JCOY
Posts: 34
Joined: April 13, 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
BTW, the Skeptoid podcast is probably the 2nd best podcast out there, next to The Skeptic's Guide to the Universe.
It is disappointing that you consider these two sources as your "best" sources for reliable, objective information. I submit the following for your serious consideration(from a source I consider to be highly credible). Perhaps after thoughtful reading of the links below, you will judge the information disseminated by your two "best" sources with a bit more skepticism.
http://randomjohn.wordpress.com/2006/02/16/scooped-sciency-debunkery-and-other-pseudoskeptical-topics/
AND-
http://randomjohn.wordpress.com/category/skepticism/skeptics-skeptics-dictionary/
AND-
http://www.suppressedscience.net/skepticism.html
"Many who loudly advertise themselves as skeptics are actually disbelievers. Properly, a skeptic is a nonbeliever, a person who refuses to jump to conclusions based on inconclusive evidence. A disbeliever, on the other hand, is characterized by an a priori belief that a certain idea is wrong and will not be swayed by any amount of empirical evidence to the contrary. Since disbelievers usually fancy themselves skeptics, I will follow Truzzi and call them pseudoskeptics, and their opinions pseudoskepticism.
Organized (Pseudo-)Skepticism
The more belligerent pseudoskeptics have their own organizations and publications. In Germany, there is an organization called the Gesellschaft zur wissenschaftlichen Untersuchung von Parawissenschaften e.V., or GWUP, ( "society for the scientific evaluation of parasciences") which publishes a magazine called Der Skeptiker ("the Skeptic"). In the United States, there is the so-called "Committee for the Scientific Investigation of Claims of the Paranormal", or short, CSICOP. The name suggests a serious, unbiased institute or think tank whose mission is to advance human knowledge by sorting out true anomalous discoveries from erroneous or fraudulent ones. Indeed, that was what some of the original members of CSICOP envisioned when they founded the organization in 1976. But in the very same year, CSICOP faced an internal crisis, a power struggle between the genuine skeptics and the disbelieving pseudoskeptics that was to tilt the balance in favor of the latter.
...........After the true skeptics had been purged from the committee, CSICOP and its magazine, the Skeptical Inquirer, degenerated into little more than a propaganda outlet for the systematic ridicule of anything unconventional. Led by a small, but highly aggressive group of fundamentalist pseudoskeptics such as chairman and humanist philosopher Paul Kurtz, science writer and magician Martin Gardner and magician James Randi, CSICOP sees science not as a dispassionate, objective search for the truth, whatever it might be, but as holy war of the ideology of materialism against "a rising tide of irrationality, superstition and nonsense". Kurtz and his fellows are fundamentalist materialists. They hold the nonexistence of paranormal phenomena as an article of faith, and they cling to that belief just as fervently and irrationally as a devout catholic believes in the Virgin Mary. They are fighting a no holds barred war against belief in the paranormal, and they see genuine research into such matters as a mortal threat to their belief system. Since genuine scientific study has the danger that the desired outcome is not guaranteed, CSICOP wisely no longer conducts scientific research of its own (such would be a waste of time and money for an entity that already has all the answers), and instead largely relies on the misrepresentation or intentional omission of existing research and the ad-hominem - smear, slander and ridicule. "
quote:
P.S. I'm not posting this for the anti-chrio, part; more so the pro-PT part.
Really? Your thread title leaves me unconvinced.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 25, 2007 9:03:31 PM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1105
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
I can't help but notice that both these posts have exactly, and I mean EXACTLY the same believability....Opinion pieces. Interesting both, but neither has anything more weight than the other. Blogs and podcasts are not exactly held to the same standards as scientific or professional journals.
And, Jcoy, what IS your issue of JSPT quoting - without using the word "Chiropracting" at that - the actual title of the podcast as the title for this thread? I can see your dislike of the actual podcast title: not the most diplomatic and moderate idea to attract a wide range of readers/listeners......
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 25, 2007 10:16:13 PM
|
|
|
jlharris
Posts: 468
Joined: April 12, 2006
From: Nebraska
Status: offline
|
I agree. I actually enjoy Bad Science and Respectful Insolence. But just like the previous blogs listed, how they are viewed tends to depend on one's personal beliefs. If one blog "preaches" what you generally believe and the next often contradicts your beliefs, the first is good and the latter is laking.
We should almost be forced to read blogs that are aligned 180° from or professional beliefs just to have a better understanding of why the other thinks that way. And then RIDICULE AND CRUSH THEM with your new knowledge <g>
_____________________________
Jason L. Harris, PT, DPT
My PT Blog
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 25, 2007 10:43:38 PM
|
|
|
JSPT
Posts: 271
Joined: April 19, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
Wow, JCOY. An emotionally charged response which ignores the black and white of my post?! I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say!
First, as Sebastian kindly pointed out, the subject of my post was the actual title of the podcast episode to which I was referring.
Second: "It is disappointing that you consider these two sources as your "best" sources for reliable, objective information".
I don't recall saying that the 2 podcasts I mentioned were my sources for reliable, objective information. I just checked my post, and nope, I didn't type anything to that effect. Perhaps I meant they were the most entertaining, or that I liked the timbre of the podcaster's voices the best. Does it seem to you that you may have had a strong reaction to my post and saw something you wished I had typed?
Third: Why does my enjoyment of these podcasts disappoint you? Have you listened to enough of the shows to pass a judgement like that? If you have listened to most of the episodes and then made your decision regarding the quality of the material they present, I think you have some solid ground on which to start an argument. If you haven't, you're deciding without having examined the available evidence, aren't you?
Finally, you did get one piece of information correct, sort of. You're right that I am a non-believer in certain things. I am a dis-believer in very, very, very few things. I think a skeptic motto goes something like "Given the current evidence regarding a certain theory or idea, I am not convinced that the theory is correct. Therefore, I am a non-believer in its premise. However, I am willing to be convinced by future evidence when and if it becomes available."
As for the rest of your quoted text, just reading it made my head hurt. I won't spend a moments effort to respond, other than to say your quoted information is inaccurate, at best.
Sebastian- I was merely trying to convey that I was pleased to hear PT's cast in a positive light in a non-scientific medium. I don't think we get enough press, so I simply enjoyed hearing it.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 6:19:09 AM
|
|
|
Sebastian Asselbergs
Posts: 1105
Joined: September 29, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
|
JSPT, that was indeed the gist I got from your post. And you are right - we do not get enough press.
_____________________________
Mundi vult decipi
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 6:54:22 AM
|
|
|
ginger
Posts: 647
Joined: February 26, 2005
From: Melbourne Victoria
Status: offline
|
Loving this conversation, the posts are spot on in a way I wish could be happening right now over at thomathimple in a thread called 'dural stretching for the neck'.
Enjoyed your piece JCOY.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 12:06:54 PM
|
|
|
JCOY
Posts: 34
Joined: April 13, 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
And, Jcoy, what IS your issue of JSPT quoting - without using the word "Chiropracting" at that - the actual title of the podcast as the title for this thread? I can see your dislike of the actual podcast title: not the most diplomatic and moderate idea to attract a wide range of readers/listeners......
Well silly me.............if some one was sincerely desiring of:
quote:
P.S. I'm not posting this for the anti-chrio, part; more so the pro-PT part.
The thread title they would choose would reflect the "pro-PT part". I do not see "PT" at all mentioned in the title of the thread which they claim is the reason for posting?
quote:
We should almost be forced to read blogs that are aligned 180° from or professional beliefs just to have a better understanding of why the other thinks that way. And then RIDICULE AND CRUSH THEM with your new knowledge <g>
YES! Agreed. A 180 degree difference is easy to find.......However, one that is credible is not. The blog I refer to is written by a pharmaceutical statistican.....that backs up all his positions/claims.....something that cannot be said of all blogs. Some may sound very credible, but upon close scrutiny................are nothing more than obfuscatory, and totally void in genuine foundational support.
AND- also- there is always the possibility that one may find that the "best" blogs, that one has relied on for information, is NOT as reliable or credible as one was led to believe.
My snippet was intended to lure lookers into actually reading the material in the links provided. Apparently posts have been made, only upon the snippets.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 12:52:21 PM
|
|
|
JCOY
Posts: 34
Joined: April 13, 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Wow, JCOY. An emotionally charged response which ignores the black and white of my post?! I am shocked, SHOCKED, I say!
Wow- I am shocked that presenting links to a blog challenging your "best", would be considered "emotional". No caps, no exclamations...................Just links and a request for "your serious consideration" That is emotional....??????
quote:
First, as Sebastian kindly pointed out, the subject of my post was the actual title of the podcast episode to which I was referring.
Yes it was------ however your "reason" for posting it( "P.S. I'm not posting this for the anti-chrio, part; more so the pro-PT part.") was not relected in the title thread. Frankly- I see a condtradiction here....where is the "pro-PT part" in the title?
quote:
Second: "It is disappointing that you consider these two sources as your "best" sources for reliable, objective information".
Does it seem to you that you may have had a strong reaction to my post and saw something you wished I had typed?
I re-read(just to make sure I was not mistaken), and you described it as "best"------not "entertaining", or liking "the timbre of the podcaster's voice". I do not consider my reaction in the least "strong". However your reply has been extremely so. I fail to understand why offering an opposing, credible, factually supported resource, would elicit such "strong" reply.
quote:
Third: Why does my enjoyment of these podcasts disappoint you? Have you listened to enough of the shows to pass a judgement like that? If you have listened to most of the episodes and then made your decision regarding the quality of the material they present, I think you have some solid ground on which to start an argument. If you haven't, you're deciding without having examined the available evidence, aren't you?
You did not mention "enjoyment" or for what reasons you "enjoy" them. JUST that they are the two "BEST". HMMM-----?????
AND- YES- I have listened to them and found them lacking in verifable substance, and supportable data. Reading Random John has taught me how to recognize the arguement fallacies on this (and it's linked) sites.
quote:
Finally, you did get one piece of information correct, sort of. You're right that I am a non-believer in certain things. I am a dis-believer in very, very, very few things. I think a skeptic motto goes something like "Given the current evidence regarding a certain theory or idea, I am not convinced that the theory is correct. Therefore, I am a non-believer in its premise. However, I am willing to be convinced by future evidence when and if it becomes available."
HUH?
quote:
As for the rest of your quoted text, just reading it made my head hurt. I won't spend a moments effort to respond, other than to say your quoted information is inaccurate, at best.
Well I guess we have your answer dismissing my request for your (unemotional) "serious consideration"............of a resource that would be immensely beneficial in advancing critical thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 4:44:34 PM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2292
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
JCOY, I'd tend to believe that you got riled up over the title of this particular discussion. The reason that I believe you are or were riled up has to do with your bias because you are a chiropractor. Just to remind you, this is a "physical therapy" forum and "physical therapy" is only legally provided by "physical therapists." The physical therapist posters that post in this forum are absolutely pro-PT. Most physical therapists are not going to be strong supporters of chiropractic treatment. JSPT wasn't rude or anything in his original post.... but you JCOY are attempting to create a stir. I'm not sure why except for the bias you have toward chiropractic and your attempt to defend chiropractic treatments by choosing to antagonize JSPT. I view your choice of actions as quite childish. Since I've never met you, how do you believe that your choice of actions reflects upon you and your profession?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 5:21:47 PM
|
|
|
JCOY
Posts: 34
Joined: April 13, 2006
Status: offline
|
quote:
Since I've never met you, how do you believe that your choice of actions reflects upon you and your profession?
my "action"- ie posting links to a very rational/logical/statistically sound site, -reflects quite well---professionally. Thank-you.
Didn't realize it would be met with such hostility-----after all, it had nothing to do with smearing PT or chiropractic. Merely debunking the psuedo-skeptics and their pseudo-arguements.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 7:17:31 PM
|
|
|
3.5fig
Posts: 97
Joined: July 13, 2005
Status: offline
|
SJBird,
As a Chiropractor, when I saw the title to JSPT's post my first reaction was "oh no, here we go again with Chiro bashing". Then I read his post and wasn't so disturbed. I didn't take the time out of my day to watch the podcast, was quite a busy day. I will probably look at it at home tonight. I did think that JCOY's post was very professional in tone and subject matter and do not see where JCOY was being childish. I also do not see where JCOY is trying to create a stir...you are a regular on this forum. Didn't you think the title of the original post would create a stir? I for one do not expect PTs to be strong supporters of Chiropractor, nor do I expect Chiropractors to be strong supporters of PT...whatever a strong supporter is in your book. I do expect for there to be some professional respect shown on a board like this and I have to say that the majority of time there is respect, even when opinions diverge. However, when defending Chiropractic treatments, which I don't think JCOY was actually doing by the way, is equated with antagonizing JSPT I tend to get a little worried about the thought police. I saw nothing in JCOY's post that was dis-respectful or antagonizing in any shape or form. Then again, I am a Chiropractor, and therefore I am biased and incapable of rational un-biased thought when it comes to my profession. Please SJBird, you are more intelligent than this...please re-read JCOY's posts and see if you come to the same conclusion...and read it without your PT bias hat on...
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 7:27:34 PM
|
|
|
3.5fig
Posts: 97
Joined: July 13, 2005
Status: offline
|
SJBird,
How do you define Physical Therapy? You stated that "physical therapy" is only legally provided by a physical therapist, which is absolutely true. What is Physical Therapy? I know that I can't call what I do Physical Therapy because it is against the law. Yet all day I am prescribing exercises for patients, doing modalities, manipulating, joint mobilizing, soft-tissue mobilizing, gait analyzing, etc.... Am I practicing Physical Therapy?
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 26, 2007 11:30:47 PM
|
|
|
bonez
Posts: 173
Joined: August 29, 2007
Status: offline
|
quote:
ORIGINAL: 3.5fig
SJBird,
How do you define Physical Therapy? You stated that "physical therapy" is only legally provided by a physical therapist, which is absolutely true. What is Physical Therapy? I know that I can't call what I do Physical Therapy because it is against the law. Yet all day I am prescribing exercises for patients, doing modalities, manipulating, joint mobilizing, soft-tissue mobilizing, gait analyzing, etc.... Am I practicing Physical Therapy?
3.5 is spot on. In the same way that P.T's are now embracing manipulation it would be wrong to call that service Chiropractic. In the public's eye this "moving bones around" has long been considered Chiropractic. Similarly as evidence driven Chiros incorporate rehab exercise , council on gait and mechanics along with taping a dysfunction and modality usage the public would hardly call that PT.
The difficulty is that south of the border blood for both sides is always simmering at a low boil. For myself as a D.C. practicing on the prairies north of the forty ninth much of these turf driven arguments don't exist. Practices in my little corner of the world are really all multidisiplinary best evidence driven and patient centered. I (or my patients)slip down the street and have fascia that is stuck dry needled by my P.T collegue . While I'm there I might consult on a stubborn wrist or ankle mob/manipulation offering my insight to my P.T. collegue and at the end of the week we might both volunteer at a local sporting event doing injury triage . In the end we both work with our resource limited health system but the patient is the winner.
My experience is that above the turf war both sides have unique views on the same given problem and when the language of communication is the same everybody comes away enriched.
Bonez
< Message edited by bonez -- October 26, 2007 11:34:43 PM >
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 27, 2007 9:26:34 AM
|
|
|
SJBird55
Posts: 2292
Joined: May 10, 2004
From: Michigan
Status: offline
|
3.5fig, you are absolutely correct. I am a regular. There are choices we all make in the words we choose when we communicate on a forum. JCOY chose to use words that put JSPT on the defensive. Since I am a regular and I do have a feel for the history of quite a few posters, I definitely know that JSPT is not of character to intentionally attack or attempt to irritate anyone. In fact, his initial post wasn't even directed toward anyone. I do know that JCOY practices chiropractic; the podcast didn't paint chiropractic in a favorable light. Instead of discussing the podcast and the issues within the podcast, JCOY decided to turn the tables to attempt to make it appear that JSPT has a poor opinion and even took it to the extent to make it appear that JSPT is basing his opinion on something that isn't reliable or objective. The funny thing is that every single one of know that podcasts are not absolute truth and are generally for provoking thought, running or entertaining. What "cracks" me up  is that JCOY is just flat out denying that his motive was to stir up trouble and chooses to continue to rationalize the reason for his initial post.
In regard to the podcast... sure, JSPT was okay in creating the discussion title as he did. Why not? 1) it WAS the title of the podcast and 2) he wants readers and responders. If a poster doesn't snag the attention of others by the title, no discussion occurs.
In regard to the podcast.... an interesting point is made... there are chiropractors supposedly providing physical therapy services but calling it chiropractic. Chiropractors do not treat the wide array of various populations of patients that physical therapists treat. What I'd be curious to know... especially from those of you chiropractors that questioned above whether you were providing physical therapy services because the interventions appear to be physical therapyesqe.... if you were to sit for physical therapist licensure exam right now today, would you pass? If you couldn't pass, then you really don't have the knowledge or skill level to even consider what you are doing as physical therapy.
|
|
|
|
|
RE: Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting - October 27, 2007 11:25:18 AM
|
|
|
bonez
Posts: 173
Joined: August 29, 2007
Status: offline
|
I don't know that we would need to sit the PT exams as where I come from the proceedures in question fall in my scope of practice. there seems to be no evidence that they are the property of PT. The reverse question is also true would todays manipulating PT's pass the chiro licencing exams ? The answer both times would be possibly to unlikely. As manipulation is not exclusive to the Chiro world.
While the comments of the original poster were that the poster felt that PT was portrayed in a positive light, there is nothing in the title of the post to suggest anything about PT.
< Message edited by bonez -- October 27, 2007 11:30:33 AM >
|
|
|
|
 New Messages |
 No New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/ New Messages |
 Hot Topic w/o New Messages |
 Locked w/ New Messages |
 Locked w/o New Messages |
|
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
Post New Poll
Submit Vote
Delete My Own Post
Delete My Own Thread
Rate Posts |
|
0.156
|
Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> Whacking, Cracking, and Chiropracting 
