Recently I have noted in social media that straight chiropractors, who are partial to relying on anecdotal evidence and case studies to justify their treatments, have resorted to a new straw man attack against evidence based chiropractic. They now like to utilize the phrase "RCT Worshipper" as a slur against evidence based chiropractors. They do this when their claims of efficacy are challenged, or when asked for literature to back up the all too common outrageous statements made on social media.
The implication is that evidence based chiropractors only value the things that are found and can be verified by Randomized Control Trial evidence. It is an absolute straw man argument, a false representation of an opponents point of view. This is nothing unusual for straight chiropractors, or particularly the ones who like to drive a wedge between the two factions of the profession. In fact, straw man might be their number number one form of fallacious thinking.
The fact is, evidence based chiropractors, and evidence based clinicians from all fields, understand the value of all levels of evidence. The RCT is just one piece of the puzzle and some levels are regarded much higher than others for their ability to control for bias and demonstrate true cause and effect.
The Hierarchy of levels of evidence are as follows, from highest to lowest:
- Systematic Reviews
- Randomized Controlled Trials
- Cohort Studies
- Case Controlled Studies
- Case Series and Case Reports
- Editorials, Expert Opinions
Consider this analogy; Levels of evidence are like the Richter Scale of Seismic activity. Registering a "1" on the scale (editorial, expert opinion) isn't going to get as much attention as a "6" (RCT). Yet straight chiropractors tend to go limbic over every "1" they see that supports their confirmation bias, and use that information as proof that something truly seismic is going on.
Take a recent facebook post of chiropractor Lyle Koca. It was posted on his personal page, but then shared into a public group. Many times straight chiropractors use their social media pages as proxy advertisement for their practices. The posting of testimonial and results not only can be construed as advertisement, but especially in the case of Lyle Koca specifically, the posts are then used as a soap box for anti-medicine or anti-science diatribes. The following post is no different (the poor grammar is his, not mine):
"Mom just leaves...we checked and adjusted her 11 month old who has been constipated since day one...Peer reviewed and what our "other" side says we should become (I DISAGREE) says that is "normal"...Saturday night after her first Gonstead Adjustment to ONE specific vertebra, he pooped 3x and is going like "normal" now...so I ask the cmm's and other groups...I know you are constipated in thinking, but is it right to allow a child to be that way???"
Now first, I will admit, it is very difficult to even understand what Lyle Koca is talking about. But there are a few things to take from this nearly incoherent rant. And for further clarification, it is relevant to this blog post because the commenter's below the original post referred to their professional colleagues who operate in an evidence based manner as "RCT Worshippers" and "RCT Luddites". That's the theme of the message. Lyle Koca has decided to take a child's personal medical experience, and twist it into an anti-evidence diatribe to drive a wedge between his approach to care and his colleagues. Classy.
One thing to take away from the rant: Lyle Koca is convinced that his one specific vertebral adjustment allowed a child who has been constipated since birth to poo regular. Back to our levels of evidence folks. That would be an expert opinion (yes I'm laughing as I type that) or an editorial opinion. That's an even LOWER level of evidence than a case study. It's a "1" on the Richter scale, but its an earthquake enough in Lyle Koca's mind to claim that the evidence based world is collapsing.
Remember, higher up the ladder, less chance of biased observation. Is it plausible that a vertebral adjustment helped a constipated child poo regular? Absolutely! So why is there an argument? Who cares?
That's a relevant question. This is a clinical issue. While it is important to help the person in front of you who is seeking an answer to their health concerns, that is still just one person. And even if it happens often in your office, that is still just one office. And even if it happens often amongst your peers who practice like you do, that's still a small percentage of all the practicing health care providers in the world, with the rest of the world not even knowing your strategy is even a possibility.
What if, instead of occupying your time as a clinician using these patients and their results as tools in your rants and attempts at personal aggrandizing on social media, what if you used your time to work these results up the evidence ladder? Into case studies, even cohorts. Like I said, it is important to help the person right in front of you. Could you imagine how many people in the entire world you could help by showing an unbiased evidence base for what you do and the results you get?
Of course I'm not directing this only at Lyle Koca, he's only an example. But he does claim to be a leader in the profession, so he needs to be made example of. Most chiropractors are woefully scientifically lazy. Their only interest in science seems to be when it confirms something they already believed anyways, or when they can use it to get people in the door and keep them there.
For example, take case reports. Recently, a case study was published in the "journal", Journal of Pediatric, Maternal & Family Health - Chiropractic, stating that spinal adjustment corrected the strabismus in a young Down's Syndrome patient (Chiropractic Care of a Down's Syndrome Patient with Vertebral Subluxation and Strabismus, JPM&FH Volume 2015, Issue 1, pages 46-50). Oops, let me correct that so that Rob Sinnott, the author doesn't get upset. The patient had a vertebral subluxation and strabismus. In the case study the subluxation was corrected, and the strabismus resolved. These slight technicalities in rhetoric will drive straight chiropractors completely limbic.
But I digress, that particular case report, since its release, has been shared and posted by straight chiropractor's as "evidence". Evidence of what? I'm not sure. But typically they will use it for evidence of whatever pet belief about chiropractic they have. And they are right, it is evidence. A very low level of evidence with a high possibility of bias and not tested on a large enough population to make any assumptions about anything. Yet it is, once again, a "1" on the Richter scale, maybe a "2" being treated as ground shaking and ground breaking.
But here's where relying on case reports and anecdote can come back to bite you: If you are going to hold high regard for case studies and anecdotes that support your beliefs, you also have to hold high regard for case studies and anecdotes for the things you don't believe in as well. If not, you are being intellectually dishonest. Think about that. Intellectually dishonest.
And in the great big world of things that chiropractors hate to admit, adjusting the upper cervical spine has a very high anecdotal and case report body of work that says it is dangerous and even life threatening. A very high volume of such evidence exists. Can you be an honest clinician when discussing anecdotal results, while ignoring other anecdotal results that say you shouldn't even be doing it in the first place?
For instance, let's take the above mentioned case study. Adjusting a child with Down's Syndrome and noting a correction of strabismus. You can't celebrate the anecdotal observation of the strabismus resolution while at the same time ignoring the higher volume of evidence that applying a high velocity, low amplitude thrust to a Down's Syndrome patient is a risky move. Down's Syndrome individuals susceptible to atlantoaxial instability, up to 10-20% of Down's Syndrome individuals (Neurologic sequelae secondary to atlantoaxial instability in Down's Syndrome. Implications in otolaryngologic surgery. Harley et al Arch Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 1994 Feb;120(2):159-65). This is a higher evidence base, with less bias that would indicate that, although not a strict contraindication, a moderate contraindication exists when considering cervical adjustment of a Down's Syndrome patient.
If you ignore the higher level evidence, in order to accept the belief affirming lower level, you are in fact allowing your personal beliefs to put people at risk. Rob Sinnott's case study shows a response in one patient, the one in front of him. But with a 10-20% chance of atlantoaxial instability, you could say he got lucky. Attempt to reproduce that study in 100 similar patients, and the results could indeed be disastrous.
So let's get back to Lyle Koca for a second. Did his adjustment actually help the child as he claims? Who knows? Maybe. Possibly. Possibly not. We do not know. Even if he says it does, even if the child's patents say it did, we don't know. In situations where we just don't know, how can someone honestly claim a moral and professional victory. Correlation does not equal causation. Yes, it could have indeed been the adjustment. It could have been anything! And it could have been the adjustment for 100 kids before that. We don't know. None of it was controlled for bias. Just because you are certain, does not mean you are right. But science have given us a beautiful gift, a tool for proving that your assertion is correct... Evidence.
If you really want chiropractic to dominate the health care scene, to be the primary source for health and wellness in the world (and I know straight chiropractors do), then put your money where your mouth is and prove it. Work to design the studies that will bring your practice to the exalted level it deserves. Stop only using low level information as a bias confirmation tool and then dropping its importance once you've reached your personal goal of getting someone to lay face down on the table. Science is not a tool to help you meet your ends. It has been a human discovery that has changed the entire world with its application. Whether you despise it or embrace it, don't understand it or do, ignore it or love it, you are participating in science when you attempt to heal people, like it or not.
So no, evidence based chiropractors don't worship the RCT. In fact, statements like that show how science inept many straight chiropractors are. If we worshipped anything, it would be the meta-analysis, which is higher up on the evidence ladder! We, like all other clinicians who understand research, just respect higher levels of evidence for what they're worth. But all levels have some worth. But I'm personally not going to give a level "1" earthquake the same respect as a level "6". And you shouldn't either.
Recently, in a related incident, I was accused of practicing out of fear and not "thinking outside the box" by a straight chiropractor. This was when I asked for evidence and reasoning for why a chiropractor would utilize Applied Kinesiology to help a 2 year old child with constipation after an abdominal surgery. That's ok, I'm used to being insulted when asking for a reason for certain treatment approaches. When your beliefs are questioned, respond with an insult or attack seems to be the second most common logical fallacy of the straight chiropractor.
My response was that I absolutely think outside the box. And evidence based practice encourages that. Evidence based practice encourages clinician experience and intuition. But that is AFTER the box has been drawn. You actually have to have a foundation for how you operate, before you know how to operate outside of it. The name of the game is to get as many safe, conservative, positive results for as many people as possible. Evidence based guidelines are an excellent box to start within, and let your experience guide you beyond that. Establish a comfort zone, and work your way out of it.
This individual seemed to think you should just AVOID THE BOX AT ALL COSTS. The box isn't even defined. Since vertebral subluxation has never been specifically defined or agreed upon (or reliably detected), there is no box! It's a create your own adventure which amounts to not much more than believing in magic.
Those people have no business serving the public as healthcare providers. They are the ones that think vaccines are dangerous beyond all cost, regardless of the levels of evidence available to the contrary. They are the ones who think that all allopathic medicine is bad, and detrimental to humans, ignorant of the things that medicine can and does do for people throughout the world on a daily basis (unless of course they get sick themselves, then its off to the MDs for help and a swallowing of pride). They are the ones that see less than 1% of the worlds population, and get some results in some of those people, but their run with the blinders on mentality has them thinking they are the answer to the world's ills.
They are the ones who may put their beliefs ahead of their patient's personal needs. Because for many of these folks, the whole game is about setting up and surrounding themselves with a world that will only mirror back exactly what they want to hear. Making confirmation bias the third most utilized logical fallacy in straight chiropractic. With psychological projection being the fourth. Yes, I know it's not a true logical fallacy. But it should be.
The psychological projection, in this case, is for a group of professionals who ABSOLUTELY worship a certain ideology and rationale, to accuse another group of professionals of worshipping something like evidence, which is just organized information. It's laughable. It's enough to make a guy want to write a blog. The organization of information is what has taken us from caves and peat bogs to the moon and beyond. Information is just information. How you interpret it or ignore it is what defines your course in history.
How we as a profession participate or ignore the world of information as it rapidly unfolds around us will define this professions course in history. To use a new agey term that straight chiropractors will understand... straights are not playing big enough when it comes to providing evidence for what they claim to do. This isn't about proving it to yourself and your patients and friends, it's about proving it to the world.
So my challenge to straights is this: Instead of ridiculing those of your peers who quest to make sense and expand our base of knowledge on how chiropractic can help humanity, can you participate in the conversation, become literate in the world of research and evidence, and help the world in ways that it so desperately needs? If we do not participate in the process of saying who we are and what we do, someone else will make those determinations for us. Whether you're lauging at them on social media or not. Whether your office is full or not. No one ever talks about the last dinosaur that lived and how he was more successful than the others. History only tells us that they all went extinct.
Thursday, March 19, 2015
Wednesday, December 24, 2014
A Spinmaster's Delight; The Incoherent Rants of Rob Sinnott (Volume 2)
While I would prefer to not have to comment on the social media antics of Rob Sinnott, at some point it becomes unavoidable. Like hearing a train screeching helplessly towards an inevitable crash, you just can't help yourself but look to see the carnage. And boy does Sinnott deliver the carnage. Massive heaps of wiggle words, spin, pseudoscience, and rhetoric that leave any rational thinking person feeling that the air is being sucked out of the room, and brain cells being sucked out of their head.
Nothing. Chiropractic does not "treat disease". Unless, of course, you went to a lousy school with no philosophy and are ignorant of the facts of our philosophy. Facts? Yep, facts.
You see, facts cannot be found through the scientific method, but can be through formal logic, which is the method used in our philosophy. What's that you say? Your school did not tell you that? They t l led you scientific method is the path to truth and fact? Oh my. Well, you paid $200,000.00 to be lied to it would seem.
You were seemingly taught from a position of "scientism", not science. What is scientism?
This is a brief description from the site PBS.org, the Public Broadcasting Service, who by legal decree has to function in the best interests of the nation's people.
"Scientism...Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
To attack philosophy out of ignorance, such as that self-described by David Newell and many others belies their true agenda. Why else would he run to Ernst for approval of his antichiropractic views, instead of following logic and seeking clarification? Agendas serve to shield those that follow them from seeking truth.
Other self-appointed leaders have made overtures to force drug pushing onto the profession recently. You see, their former agenda for the medicalization of the profession from the inside has fallen apart and they now work in the darkness, keeping their work as secret as possible so that they can force their mutation into the genetic structure of Chiropractic. To aid their devious effort, they turn out a graduate that knows little but the scientism they preach from their pulpit. Poorly armed to actually practice, the young are failing in far larger percentages today than ever before. They are being told that they need medicalization to save themselves. Slowly, they have built a tiny army of inept practitioners who tried to practice their inbred model and failed. They are told if only we could push drugs, then Chiropractic would work, even for those not fit to practice it. Then it will be surgery, as is required for licensure in Oregon already. Then, in their first set hour, they will make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation. Then all those in the majority, that have some understanding of how Chiropractic is truly practice, cane be eliminated. Oh yes, it is the honest Chiropractor that must be eliminated in their plan.
Sound crazy? Sure does....
Today, good Chiropractors that practice honestly, are being told to leave their country as the self-appointed weak leaders want to outlaw success and honesty, and replace it with fear and retribution. It is happening in Europe as the weak and intellectually impotent have seized control of the reigns.
They could never have a practice as you and I do. They are ignorant of not only our philosophy, but also have turned the logical views of science into a god and worship at the altar...having given s in e attributes far beyond what science is limited by. Just before writing this I held a pressure child's atlas because they were subluxated and were in the throws of a seizure. This child stopped within seconds of applying this pressure, and then a proper adjustment could be made. Just a side note for those adhering to the church of the Newell Agenda, Chiropractors do not treat epilepsy, we do an analysis for vertebral subluxation and provide a specific adjusting thrust.
Don't be a follower for your whole life. Don't follow their lead of assumed Omnipotence. Seek answers and don't live a life based upon false assumption to fulfill an agenda.
Until you graduate, it is never too late to get to a school that is willing to allow you to be exposed to things within the profession, but outside their Agenda. Editing your exposure, is NOT education." - Rob Sinnott
The most recent rant of note will be posted here in its entirety, so as to not succumb to accusations of taking things out of context (if proper context can be found). And my responses to portions of the rant will follow. For perspective on this rant, you may have to read my previous article on Rob Sinnott's ebola virus rant and the sequence of events that followed. This specific rant was posted to his personal facebook page, which is somewhat confusing. Who is he speaking to? Rob Sinnott and his associates have made every attempt to block or ban anyone who disagrees with them from their social media sites. So it seems the intended target of this rant would never actually see it. Well, that is if if his intended target for the message was actually someone he was trying to "inform" and not just the chief beating the rhetorical war drum of his tribe: Anti-science, anti-logic, anti-medicine, and anti-anyone who doesn't drink the kool aide he has mixed up and offered.
So here it is, the rant:
"What can Chiropractic do for (insert medical term for whichever set of symptoms)?
Nothing. Chiropractic does not "treat disease". Unless, of course, you went to a lousy school with no philosophy and are ignorant of the facts of our philosophy. Facts? Yep, facts.
You see, facts cannot be found through the scientific method, but can be through formal logic, which is the method used in our philosophy. What's that you say? Your school did not tell you that? They t l led you scientific method is the path to truth and fact? Oh my. Well, you paid $200,000.00 to be lied to it would seem.
You were seemingly taught from a position of "scientism", not science. What is scientism?
This is a brief description from the site PBS.org, the Public Broadcasting Service, who by legal decree has to function in the best interests of the nation's people.
"Scientism...Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."
To attack philosophy out of ignorance, such as that self-described by David Newell and many others belies their true agenda. Why else would he run to Ernst for approval of his antichiropractic views, instead of following logic and seeking clarification? Agendas serve to shield those that follow them from seeking truth.
Other self-appointed leaders have made overtures to force drug pushing onto the profession recently. You see, their former agenda for the medicalization of the profession from the inside has fallen apart and they now work in the darkness, keeping their work as secret as possible so that they can force their mutation into the genetic structure of Chiropractic. To aid their devious effort, they turn out a graduate that knows little but the scientism they preach from their pulpit. Poorly armed to actually practice, the young are failing in far larger percentages today than ever before. They are being told that they need medicalization to save themselves. Slowly, they have built a tiny army of inept practitioners who tried to practice their inbred model and failed. They are told if only we could push drugs, then Chiropractic would work, even for those not fit to practice it. Then it will be surgery, as is required for licensure in Oregon already. Then, in their first set hour, they will make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation. Then all those in the majority, that have some understanding of how Chiropractic is truly practice, cane be eliminated. Oh yes, it is the honest Chiropractor that must be eliminated in their plan.
Sound crazy? Sure does....
Today, good Chiropractors that practice honestly, are being told to leave their country as the self-appointed weak leaders want to outlaw success and honesty, and replace it with fear and retribution. It is happening in Europe as the weak and intellectually impotent have seized control of the reigns.
They could never have a practice as you and I do. They are ignorant of not only our philosophy, but also have turned the logical views of science into a god and worship at the altar...having given s in e attributes far beyond what science is limited by. Just before writing this I held a pressure child's atlas because they were subluxated and were in the throws of a seizure. This child stopped within seconds of applying this pressure, and then a proper adjustment could be made. Just a side note for those adhering to the church of the Newell Agenda, Chiropractors do not treat epilepsy, we do an analysis for vertebral subluxation and provide a specific adjusting thrust.
Don't be a follower for your whole life. Don't follow their lead of assumed Omnipotence. Seek answers and don't live a life based upon false assumption to fulfill an agenda.
Until you graduate, it is never too late to get to a school that is willing to allow you to be exposed to things within the profession, but outside their Agenda. Editing your exposure, is NOT education." - Rob Sinnott
And my responses:
"What can chiropractic do for (insert medical term for whichever set of symptoms)? Nothing. Chiropractic does not "treat disease"."
- This is the eternal and infamous cop out of the straight chiropractor. However, if you look even as far back as BJ Palmer (see photos below), chiropractors have been claiming to "treat" conditions. What this statement amounts to is semantics and wiggle words, to conform to an alleged philosophy. Surely the overwhelming majority of all patients who present to a chiropractors office will present due to some sort of symptom or condition. The chiropractor, if choosing to accept the case, by just the act of doing so, is agreeing to attempt to help with that condition AKA treat.
You'll notice Rob Sinnott also uses the words "do for" in substitute for "treat". This is all purely semantical. Regardless of what anyone says, its very clear chiropractors treat conditions, and advertise that they do so. Even one of the most boisterous of philosophical leaders in the profession, Liam Schubel lists the "casos frequentes" (frequent cases) his clinics will see on his website.
http://www.quiropractica.com.pe/casos.html
As you can see, its a litany of symptoms and diseases. Now of course, the philosophically based chiropractor will say "chiropractic doesn't treat the disease of condition, it only removes nerve interference allowing the body to heal itself". Well, that's treating. Look up any dictionary definition of treat. Regardless of philosophical intent, applying an adjustment is a treatment.
Of course this is also where a philosophically based chiropractor will state that obviously the philosophy is not being understood. Except this issue is not one of philosophy, it is one of semantics. As an example, a chef can state he does not grill the steak, he merely allows the inner flavors of the steak to express themselves by putting them near heat. Regardless of intent and philosophy, he still grilled the steak.
"You see, facts cannot be found through the scientific method..."
- Well, this is about the most absurd thing ever said. So absurd it is hard to even distinguish what Rob Sinnott is even getting at. A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case. The usual test for a fact is verifiability. Standard reference works are used to check facts. Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments. So quite distinctly, utilization of the scientific method can lead to discovery of scientific facts. Facts, in relation to philosophy, always come under the scrutiny of objectivity. Yes, as Rob Sinnott states, you can use logic to find facts, but that will also call into question the accuracy of the logic, objectivity, and bias. (As in, is the logic used even correct that was used to arrive to the fact?)
"...but can be through formal logic, which is the method used in our philosophy."
- That is cute, however, chiropractic "philosophy" and the people who incorporate it are rife with logical fallacies and confirmation bias. In many ways it is quite simple to explain how chiropractic philosophy is not a philosophy at all. It is, as I call it a PINO (Philosophy In Name Only) and actually aligns more with a dogma. Conveniently many integral facts can be ignored when employing a dogma, and others strongly reinforced. That is not the case with an actual philosophy.
"You were seemingly taught from a position of "scientism", not science. What is scientism..."
- Before we even get started here, lets call this out as a straw man argument. We could probably move on from there and not need to comment even further. But it is so common for philosophically based chiropractors to respond with the "scientism" attack whenever anyone mentions the importance of science and evidence in practice, that it has to be addressed. First and foremost, if you review the definition of scientism, and look around at our peers in the chiropractic profession, you would be hard pressed to find anyone you could accuse of adhering to scientism.
It's a novel attempt by Rob Sinnott to make mechanistic, cold, boogeymen out of the chiropractors who feel that scientific evidence for the things we do and the things we say are important, but it doesn't hold water. Evidence based approaches also incorporate practitioner experience, best practices and guidelines, and encourage the use of intuition and innovation. The idea that there is a drive to only practice based on what is stated to be effective by Randomized Controlled Studies is a very popular straw man attack. Typically by people who are dogmatically tied to approaches that have little to no evidence of validity or efficacy whatsoever, or are based on mysticism, metaphysics, and vitalism.
"To attack philosophy out of ignorance... ...belies their true agenda. Agendas serve to shield those that follow them from seeking truth."
- Here is yet another straw man. The assumption is made that chiropractic "philosophy" is attacked out of ignorance of its principles. That's typically not the case. The central tenets of chiropractic dogmatism are quite easy to understand, and accessible. It doesn't take a PhD to get them. And for the most part, all chiropractors were exposed to them to some degree during their education, even if it was just from a historical perspective (there is a philosophy portion of the national board exams, after all)
- Chiropractic philosophy is attacked by non dogmatists quite frankly because if you had the opportunity and the mind to question many of the tenets, you would realize it doesn't hold up to snuff over time, ESPECIALLY if you apply the tenets and discoveries of modern science, anatomy, and physiology. The vitalistic portions of the philosophy may hold credence as a belief system. But those portions are the philosophy of vitalism, a true philosophy, not the tenets of chiropractic philosophy, which incorporated vitalism into its fray.
"...they turn out a graduate that knows little but scientism they preach from their pulpit. Poorly armed to actually practice, the young are failing in far larger percentages than ever before."
- In this instance correlation may not equal causation. Could there possibly be multiple factors to explain why graduates fail at higher percentages than ever before (if that is in fact true)? Is it really because they are educated in too much science? Or is that yet another straw man? Could it be economic factors like crushing student loan debt (which is not profession specific but instead a national occurrence)? Could it be lower utilization rates? And how did the lower utilization rates occur? Could it be too much supply (schools producing too many graduates) and not enough demand for chiropractic services? Could it be lower reimbursement rates? Real estate inflation? General public distrust of chiropractors due to sentiments like quackery and shady business practices, long term treatment plans, and high pressure sales? No no no, it MUST be science's fault. And the introduction of the principles of science into the chiropractic education.
"They are told if only we could push drugs, then chiropractic would work, even for those not fit to practice it."
- Getting boring. Straw man. Not true.
Recently, chiropractors in the state of Washington were pursuing a scope of practice expansion that would allow them to do sports physicals on children. Merely a physical exam. No use of drugs or surgery. They were denied. Why? The officials at the Washington State public health department stated that there is no way a chiropractor could give a competent physical exam because so many children are on medications at this time, and chiropractors have no education or resources to understand the effects of these medications. It wasn't the application of medications that was at issue here, it was the complete aloofness on the subject of medications altogether.
This begs a very important question: How could ANY of us operate as medical providers in the society we live in now, without some sort of basic understanding of pharmacology and its effects on human physiology? Even if your convictions state that "drugs are bad", merely holding an uneducated attitude such as "drugs are bad" isn't appropriate enough for patient care. There is no way to have this cake and eat it too. You cannot and should not have access to patients as a direct access portal of entry provider, if you can't assess their complete health. Ignoring the medication issue because "it's not chiropractic" is disingenuous and potentially dangerous. It has nothing to do with weather chiropractic will work or not.
"Then it will be surgery, as required for licensure in Oregon already."
- Surgery and obstetrics has been required in Oregon and part of the scope of practice for chiropractors since 1904. This was something that DD Palmer felt was necessary for the profession he founded. An inconvenient truth often ignored...
"D.D. Palmer had relocated his "Fountain Head School" from Oklahoma City to Portland late in 1908, at which time the institution was identified as the D.D. Palmer College of Chiropractic. "Old Dad Chiro's" curriculum offered instruction in obstetrics and minor surgery, apparently in keeping with Palmer's charge:
"A chiropractor should be able to care for any condition which may arise in the families under his care, the same as a physician; this we intend to make possible in a two-year's course."" - Keating (http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=46293)
"Then, in their first set hour, they will make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation."
- More straw man. Which I now sense is the theme of Rob Sinnott's rant. A fear based straw man attack on an invisible science boogeyman.
Let's be abundantly clear here... No one wants to make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation. Primarily, there is no agreed upon and proper definition of a vertebral subluxation, or a valid and reliable way to locate one, so it would be very hard to make it illegal to adjust one. Can you make unicorns illegal? How about sasquatch or gnomes? Since an overwhelming majority of the entire profession uses manual therapies and spinal manipulative therapy as a clinical tool, it would be ridiculous to try to outlaw it.
The fear tactic here is that these "chiropractic thought leaders" utilize appeal to fear to whip their base up into a froth whenever needed. They love to employ the "they're trying to take away subluxation" ploy frequently and often. Nothing can be further from the truth. When it comes to "vitalistic" chiropractors versus "scientific" chiropractors, I feel that the scientific chiropractors would want the vitalists to be able to practice as they see fit. There is no reason why vitalists shouldn't be able to practice their belief system within ethical and legal boundaries.
However, vitalism does not comply with many of our modern health care practices if it wishes to remain an ethical and legal practice. So in order for many of these practitioners to thrive, they must "bait and switch" their patients. Advertise about how they can help with symptoms, but then ignore the patients complaints when under care. Call themselves doctors and perform "exams", yet at the same time state that they don't diagnose or treat anything. The litany of violations a vitalist chiropractor makes against modern practice AND vitalism as well is long.
One of the worst violations vitalists make are their poor attempts at reaching for scientific legitimacy. Anyone who understands anything about philosophy (true philosophy) and especially the philosophy of vitalism vs mechanism is that you cannot prove vitalistic concepts with science. Yet we have horrible attempts to prove vitalistic concepts with science put forth by the abhorrent and downright embarrassing Annals of Vertebral Subluxation, and other leaps of logic used throughout the philosophic base of the profession. It really is a ruse, a grasp at some sort of legitimacy in the modern times of scientific inquiry, for a concept that cannot exist within it. It's like a disguise, like when your mom would hide the vegetables under your dinner, in hopes you would eat them.
Vitalists should absolutely be allowed to practice vitalist chiropractic. In order to do that, they need to give up insurance reimbursement for conditions treated (oh yeah, there's another irony), they need to give up utilization of radiography for diagnostic purposes (you cant find unicorns on an x-ray), and they may also need to give up post secondary professional school status. They would in fact, be on par with energy healers, Reiki, etc. This would also give them quite a few advantages I think they would enjoy. Their education could be lessened and all of the "scientific restrictions" placed on their education could be removed. They wouldn't have to jump through so many regulatory hoops to be licensed and to practice. There would be no ethical boundaries concerning care plans and practice members and advertising. Win win.
What would science based chiropractors get in return? The ability to pursue the scope of practice and education they see fit. Advanced scope, advanced education, integration, cultural and professional respect. Cast off the dark spectre of metaphysics that plagues the profession. eliminate pseudoscience. Because you see, dear reader, when it comes to Sinnott's claim that science based chiropractors would somehow try to make subluxation based chiropractic illegal, what he's engaged in there is a little bit of psychological projection. Because vitalist chiropractors are notoriously the obstructionist group that attempts to block any sort of progress for the profession. They get in the way, on purpose.
So it's simple, divorce. That would be the only sound ethical thing to do for the public we serve, and for the profession. The patient (customer) will have a much more clear idea of what product it is they are purchasing (instead of getting sucked into bait and switch), and each group can practice as they see fit without one riding the coattails or holding down the other. Win win, and the market will decide which brand of chiropractic it prefers.
"Then all those in the MAJORITY... ...can be eliminated. Oh yes, it is the honest chiropractor that must be eliminated in their plan."
- I think I already covered this above. Except that Rob Sinnott is completely confused about who is in the majority. If he took his blinders off long enough he might see that vitalistic chiropractors, subluxation based chiropractors are in the MINORITY. More appeal to fear, more lying to the audience. More delusion.
"They could never have a practice as you and I do. They are ignorant of not only our philosophy, but have also turned the logical views of science into a god and worship at the altar..."
- Covered. Absurd. Psychological projection when referring to worshipping at the altar.
"Just before writing this I held a pressure (sp?) child's atlas because they were subluxated and were in the throws of a seizure... ...Just a side note for those adhering to the church of the Newell Agenda, chiropractors do not treat epilepsy, we do an analysis for vertebral subluxation and provide a specific adjusting thrust."
- ...to treat the epilepsy. How many people bring their children in because they are normal or just to be checked? Yes, there are some, and they should be allowed to pursue that product if they'd like. But that is not mainstream chiropractic by any means. MOST people are coming in because they want help with something. And seriously, thrusting on a baby? Don't get me started.
"Don't be a follower for your whole life. Don't follow their lead of assumed omnipotence. Seek answers and don't live a life based upon false assumption to fulfill an agenda."
- From a guy who "kneels at the altar" of BJ Palmer and his assumed omnipotence. One who says the only way to be a true chiropractor is to follow the predescribed tenets of chiropractic "philosophy" and black lists anyone who disagrees or asks questions. The one who ascribes to a "philosophy" rife with false assumptions and operates on the most transparent agenda I think I have ever personally seen.
Psychological projection
This guy thinks he's smart. But he's not that smart.
Wednesday, October 29, 2014
A Tipping Point Indeed
So it appears we are going to have to set the record straight on a recent and ongoing incident involving certain chiropractors and their claims concerning the ebola virus. The incident stemmed from a rant like post made on a chiropractor's personal facebook page that escaped into the social media sphere and has gone semi-viral. That chiropractor's name is Rob Sinnott DC, who self identifies as a philosophically based chiropractor. More on that later.
Bobby Maybee DC
FTCA
But let's back track a little bit to gain some perspective. Chiropractic and ebola? Seriously? Do you remember the ALS Ice Bucket Challenge that took the internet by storm not too long ago? Well, when it was all the rage I made a comment to some peers that I wouldn't be surprised if subluxation based chiropractors didn't begin to hijack the Ice Bucket Challenge to make a subluxation awareness campaign. You see, I have noticed that philosophically based chiropractors, due to their evangelical and marketing oriented practices, tend to hijack any current popular movement to try to keep subluxation based chiropractic care relevant and in the consumers mind. They literally cannot help themselves.
It didn't take long to be proven right:
http://youtu.be/xCsdlgI2eVA
In this video Eddie Weller DC essentially represents everything the Forward Thinking Chiropractic Alliance stand against; Schlocky salesmanship, a horrid understanding of the physiology of the human body, poor mastery of a subject well outside his wheelhouse (ALS), and an evangelical approach to pitching his panacea, correction of the vertebral subluxation. In fact, if you view Eddie Weller DCs other facebook videos, titled after different conditions, OF COURSE the answer to all of them is to have the subluxations of your upper cervical spine located and corrected. But, as a caveat, he doesn't "treat" the conditions, subuxation based chiropractors don't treat anything. More on that word play later.
Well, as the Ice Bucket Challenge faded from the headlines, the next media darling to catch the subluxation based chiropractor's eyes was ebola. Somehow, being in this business long enough, I just KNEW the media furor ebola was recieving would be too much for the "Subbie", as they're called, to resist. And sure enough, a wave of posts came through social media. Posts from chiropractors claiming that all you needed was chiropractic and your immune system would be "boosted" enough to resist ebola, and that there's no way a regularly adjusted patient could ever contract ebola. Chiropractors encouraging their patients on facebook to make sure they came in for their "wellness adjustment" in order to stave off ebola and other viruses. You know, the standard straight chiropractic hijacking of current health events, and bringing it back to subluxation correction. Utilizing appeal to fear and appeal to emotion as leverage to gain business. Classy.
By the way, it doesn't even have to be curent health events for a Subbie to try to tie things back to subluxation correction. This chiropractor, Joseph Arvay, tied subluxation correction into the Aurora Colorado Shootings:
http://youtu.be/0ybj2BjLoUc?list=UU14vAWwU7U1RNugJfdElKvA
He produced that video, as you can see by watching, within 24 hours of the shootings. Too soon Arvay, too soon.
It came to the point where my colleagues and I had enough. We joked that if Subbies were so convinced that chiropractic could help with ebola, then maybe they should catch a flight to Africa and do some real noble work. Get their hands dirty adjusting some ebola patients. Surely there was no evidence directly correlating subluxation correction to prevention or elimination of ebola infection, so where was this coming from? Just pure belief?
Then my sarcastic side kicked in, and I made a little video called the Chiropractic Ebola Challenge:
http://youtu.be/zLX3YxSpGjM
My thought was that the video would catch on like wildfire, like the Ice Bucket Challenge. I thought for sure Subbies all across the globe would be challenging each other to get out there and fight ebola, and prove the amazing effects of subluxation correction. But alas, not a single Subbie took me up on the challenge. Despite over 2,500 people seeing the video.
I know plenty of subluxation based doctors saw the video and recieved the challenge, just based on the sheer amount of ad hominem attacks, insults, and threats of bodily harm I recieved since its publication. But not a single one wanted to put their hands where thier mouths usually are, on the miraculous and all encompassing effects of subluxation correction.
I thought, by that time, my point had been made; chiropractors, stay in your lane when it comes to ebola. But I was wrong, and this is where Rob Sinnott DC comes back into our story gentle reader...
I was alerted to a post made by an unidentified chiropractor that was being talked about on the facebook page "Things Anti-vaxxers Say", which has over 8,000 followers. The post recieved hundreds of comments and nearly a hundred shares. The post, which comes across as an angry incoherent pseudoscientific rant claiming that the only thing people need for ebola is removal of subluxations by a competent chiropractor, was attributed to Rob Sinnott DC. Here is the original post:
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
I have to say, unfortunately, we see a lot of social media posts like this one at the FTCA. But for some reason this particular one, especially coming from a purported leader of OUR profession and the embarrassing content and tone it portrayed, did not sit well with us. We shared. We shared it far and we shared it wide. With comments like "I'm a chiropractor, not a moron", this was social media solid gold.
Eventually the post made it to Dave Newell BSc MSc PhD FRCC (Hon) FEAC, reader and director of research at Anglo European College of Chiropractic who crafted a responce to the Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation, which can be read here:
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
An appropriate admonishment from a scientific expert in the profession. Did Rob Sinnott respond? No. However, he did state on social media, when confronted about this post and other academic ethics issues, that he would "gladly be a part of a live internet philosophy discussion... ...The only stipulation is that a real moderator skilled in argumentation (works) control of this event..." While this was not directed at Dr. Newell, it did show that Rob Sinnott DC was at least open to debate, and not afraid to take someone on, one on one.
Twenty four hours after Dr. Newell's response to Rob Sinnott DCs post, a response was issued by Matthew McCoy DC, which was essential a biased hit piece full of diatribe titled "AECC Researcher Reveals Ignorance of Basic Science", which you can find here:
http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/99070
In this article, Matthew McCoy DC plays master of spin to his readership in classic pundit fashion. He then attempts to provide citations to evidence to prove Rob Sinnott DCs point of view scientifically correct, but falls flat on his face. It was curious to me that Rob Sinnott did not appropriate a response, but Matthew McCoy did. What did Matthew McCoy have to do with any of this? Ahh, the articles I will take joy in writing in the future gentle reader. But I digress. As a response, the Evidence Informed Chiropractic Challenge was born.
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
The challenge is very simple, a yes or no vote on the following question: "Would you like to see a moderated public debate between those in the chiropractic profession that vehemently disagree with those that claim that chiropractic adjustments can be used to treat Ebola, as asserted by Rob Sinnott's public post? "
What was the response to the challenge by Sinnott, and apparently his partner, McCoy? Nothing. Well, nothing besides having the Evidence Based Challenge website shut down temporarily. Yes, that shows they knew the challenge was out there, they at least spent enough time reading it to have it removed from the server. But not enough time to actually respond to the content. Despite NUMEROUS attempts to contact Sinnott, which we have on record here at the FTCA, there has been no response from him. In fact, he claims on social media that no one has tried to contact him at all, which is on its face a lie, and which we also have on file at the FTCA.
What does Rob Sinnot do instead of facing responsibility for his actions, and answering the challenge of his colleagues? He arranges with his inner circle of supporters a social media drive to blacklist (block) anyone who has criticized him from seeing his posts as well as theirs. This shows no regard for the content or repercussions of their actions, just a desire to be able to do what they want to do without anyone saying anything about it. Including putting a black eye on the profession with a pseudoscientific ebola post. He then claims that none of his many social media followers had any problem with his post. Well sir, if you remove any dissenters from your social media content, how would you know who disagrees? Another classic Subbie move, only surround yourself with those who agree with you. Cover your ears, close your eyes and "nah nah nah nah nah".
And then it gets worse.
There's nothing a progressive chiropractor hates more than seeing yet another anti-chiropractic slam piece produced by the folks at Science Based Medicine. Mark Crislip MD got a hold of Sinnott's post and ran with it.
http://sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=398&Itemid=649
While not a total embarassment, I do respect Dr. Crislip for this one moment where all chiropractors were not lumped together into a subluxation based heap; there was a nod toward the fact that the more rational and evidence minded in the profession did not think this was cool of Rob Sinnott DC.
Instead of owning up to his gaffe, as a true leader should, what do you think Rob Sinnott has done? He has attempted to blame the furor over this on Dr. Newell, calling it the "Newell Agenda" and blaming it on members of the FTCA. A simple metaphor here; that's like a shooter blaming the witnesses for seeing him shoot someone and reporting the crime. If Rob Sinnott would not have gone on such an unprofessional, unscientific, and professionally embarassing rant, none of us would be in this position. He fired the shot, we just heard the bang and saw him holding the gun. In fact, if Matthew McCoy would not have published Dr. Newell's private email to gain traction and increase his mailing list and donation numbers, no one would have known. They used Dr. Newell's email as a publicity stunt to further rile up their subluxation based faction, and it's backfiring.
The issues at hand here are a few. I will try to boil them down as succinctly as I can.
1. Social media needs to be more regulated in the chiropractic world.
Historically speaking, and as I have shown previously in this article, subluxation based chiropractors are an evangelical and marketing oriented bunch. Even in early history they marketed well by wagon, by newsprint, by radio, by television, and essentially by any means necessary. Each new avenue led to new regulation. Currently state boards manage false claims and other ethical issues very well when it comes to print, tv, and radio type of advertising. But social media is a completely different beast. It's part advertising, and part free speech/expression. This gives chiropractors (and others) carte blanche to advertise unclaimed, unfounded, unscientific, and even dangerous ideas to patients, while blurring the lines of free speech. As professionals, chiropractors should be held to a higher standard, and regulatory boards should get involved with what is said on social media.
2. We haven't talked about the science here but... There isn't one lick of SOLID evidence that can directly correlate chiropractic adjustments to increased immune function or an ability to prevent or eliminate ebola infections. There are some very limited studies, some very poor studies, and even studies that would indicate that larger and higher quality studies should be done for SPINAL MANIPULATION and immune function, but none have been done. Anything beyond that is a leap in logic by a provider making false claims. Regardless of what they see anecdotally in their personal practices, correlation does not equal causation.
In fact, in Matthew McCoys disastrous attempt to attack Dr. Newell, he used about 12 osteopathic studies on spinal manipulation and immune function to prove his point. However, that actually destroys his point, because osteopaths don't adjust subluxations and "aren't even trained to locate them". So, if an osteopath can elicit minor immune response without adjusting a subluxation, who says that adjusting the subluxation even causes the immune response? And of course we have to ask, besides being a novel historical concept, with so many varied definitions of what it is, who can even say if subluxations exist? Beyond those who believe.
For instance, in America, if you add up all of the MDs, DOs, PTs, NPs, Nurses, PAs, and DCs, you come out to about 1.4 million professionals. Of those, about 60,000 are chiropractors, or about 4-5%. Give or take a few. According to a recent survey of Canadian chiropractors, only 17% were subluxation based in nature. Now thats Canada, and the numbers in the US are surely different. But probably not terribly much. Even if there were up to 50% subluxation based chiropractors, that still means only 2% of the ENTIRE health care professional world believes in subluxation. Does that make them special, or completely out of touch? Keep in mind, all 1.4 million of these professionals have roughly the same pre-medical science requirements in their education.
3. Rob Sinnott's defense is that he "never claimed chiropractic treats anything". Ahh yes. And I will admit this was an oversight on Dr. Newell's part in the language of his Evidence Informed Challenge. The classic Subbie cop out... We don't treat anything. Well the state boards and courts don't buy that. The public doesn't either. That defense doesn't work in court, and it never will. You're treating something. And that defense doesn't work for Rob Sinnott DC when he claims that the laying of hands on somebody to deliver an adjustment doesn't "treat" anything, especially ebola. He might say to me next that I don't "understand chiropractic philosophy", I say chiropractic philosophy was never meant to be a game of word twister so you can always win the "gotcha" prize. I understand it just fine.
4. There is indeed a divide in this profession. I will save this for another article, perhaps many more. There are people, like Matthew McCoy, who appear to profit off of perpetuating this divide. Like any politician who has mastered playing the false left right paradigm to his advantage, McCoy plays up the conflict to the benefit of his subluxation based businesses, and Juice Plus multilevel marketing business. He has voiced his admonition of the FTCA multiple times on his mailing list and in articles, but always in some sort of an attempt to gain further followers, more donations, ruffle up the feathers, and gain more traction and more click bait.
Truth is, Matthew McCoy should rather love to keep us around. Its good for his business. And it is in fact, all about business. Subluxation based doctors need to have the progressive majority around to give them a veneer of legitimacy. They talk like they'd like us to go away, they attack us verbally and throughout social media, but without the majority around, the marketplace and the regulators would steamroll subluxation based doctors into oblivion.
5. In reality, it's actually NOT all about business, it's about the people we serve. The ONLY thing that matters in a position of service is what is in the people's best interest. The end. I do truly believe there are subluxation based doctors who feel they are doing the best possible thing for their patients. There are also some who have put the philosophy, turf war, winning, their close cabal of friends and business alliances, and ego ahead of what is best for the patient. If you deny science and the best evidence available, you are not acting in the best interest of your patients. If you choose your philosophy, over what is right, like in this ebola example, you are not acting in the best interest of your patients.
Finally, I'll leave you with the final words thus far that we've recieved from Rob Sinnott DC concerning this episode. Yes, people are going to talk about this. And yes, its not good. That's nobodys fault but your own Rob Sinnott. It would not be in the patient's best interest to circle the wagons and defend you from this as a profession, as you may ask your cabal of friends and business associates to do. We would actually prefer to shed light on it and the inappropriate behavior we witness on social media on a daily basis, so that it might never happen again. We do not approve and your views do not represent the majority of the profession.
There is no "anti-philosophy agenda", although I know Subbies do love a good persecution story. You did this Rob Sinnott. There's no hatred. There's no threat to the profession, because the world is slowly learning that there are two types of chiropractors. They are learning that there is a majority that does not adhere to rigid philosophical fundamentalism and doesn't spout anti-medical rhetoric. You are responsible, you must respond appropriately if you are worth your salt as a leader. Hide, resort to further insults and word play, and thats your own doing. We won't respect you or your group of colleagues, because to us, that is not in the best interest of the people we serve, and the profession we've been called into to represent with pride.
You are correct sir, we are indeed at a tipping point. So are you going to take the challenge or not?
"Dear Chiropractors of Europe,
I am sorry to inform you that since Dr. Newell decided to follow his anti-philosophy agenda over bothering to ask me if he was not sure of a meaning (that has been clear to the 2000+ DCs on my page), his shortsighted hatred has brought the attention of anti-chiropractic groups in Europe. Simon Singh has been contacted by them and it will get very bad, most likely, for the profession in Europe and specifically England before the dust settles that Dr. Newell caused single-handedly.
To those that are familiar with our philosophy and my views along those lines, you know Chiropractors don't treat anything. I have never wavered on that point in anything I have ever written or spoken about around the world. This would explain while "an educator" chose to follow his agenda instead of asking me about something he clearly did not understand. Due to that hatred he puts forth, the students of AECC will very likely be under attack by Singh and his anti-chiropractic leagues.
This is on Dr. Newel completely. He made his fallacious attacks public without ever contacting me....to this very day. Now, of course, the cat is out of the bag and nothing will stop what will most likely result, so there is no point to him bothering to seek facts out at this late date.
If the profession in Europe survives this coming onslaught, I hope this serves as a lesson not to sit idly while our schools' administrators cause these troubles."The Newell Agenda" will serve as a tipping point for the profession. Either it will perish, or it will stand together to ensure such agendas are not allowed to poison schools in the future." - Rob Sinnott DC
In this video Eddie Weller DC essentially represents everything the Forward Thinking Chiropractic Alliance stand against; Schlocky salesmanship, a horrid understanding of the physiology of the human body, poor mastery of a subject well outside his wheelhouse (ALS), and an evangelical approach to pitching his panacea, correction of the vertebral subluxation. In fact, if you view Eddie Weller DCs other facebook videos, titled after different conditions, OF COURSE the answer to all of them is to have the subluxations of your upper cervical spine located and corrected. But, as a caveat, he doesn't "treat" the conditions, subuxation based chiropractors don't treat anything. More on that word play later.
Well, as the Ice Bucket Challenge faded from the headlines, the next media darling to catch the subluxation based chiropractor's eyes was ebola. Somehow, being in this business long enough, I just KNEW the media furor ebola was recieving would be too much for the "Subbie", as they're called, to resist. And sure enough, a wave of posts came through social media. Posts from chiropractors claiming that all you needed was chiropractic and your immune system would be "boosted" enough to resist ebola, and that there's no way a regularly adjusted patient could ever contract ebola. Chiropractors encouraging their patients on facebook to make sure they came in for their "wellness adjustment" in order to stave off ebola and other viruses. You know, the standard straight chiropractic hijacking of current health events, and bringing it back to subluxation correction. Utilizing appeal to fear and appeal to emotion as leverage to gain business. Classy.
By the way, it doesn't even have to be curent health events for a Subbie to try to tie things back to subluxation correction. This chiropractor, Joseph Arvay, tied subluxation correction into the Aurora Colorado Shootings:
http://youtu.be/0ybj2BjLoUc?list=UU14vAWwU7U1RNugJfdElKvA
He produced that video, as you can see by watching, within 24 hours of the shootings. Too soon Arvay, too soon.
It came to the point where my colleagues and I had enough. We joked that if Subbies were so convinced that chiropractic could help with ebola, then maybe they should catch a flight to Africa and do some real noble work. Get their hands dirty adjusting some ebola patients. Surely there was no evidence directly correlating subluxation correction to prevention or elimination of ebola infection, so where was this coming from? Just pure belief?
Then my sarcastic side kicked in, and I made a little video called the Chiropractic Ebola Challenge:
http://youtu.be/zLX3YxSpGjM
My thought was that the video would catch on like wildfire, like the Ice Bucket Challenge. I thought for sure Subbies all across the globe would be challenging each other to get out there and fight ebola, and prove the amazing effects of subluxation correction. But alas, not a single Subbie took me up on the challenge. Despite over 2,500 people seeing the video.
I know plenty of subluxation based doctors saw the video and recieved the challenge, just based on the sheer amount of ad hominem attacks, insults, and threats of bodily harm I recieved since its publication. But not a single one wanted to put their hands where thier mouths usually are, on the miraculous and all encompassing effects of subluxation correction.
I thought, by that time, my point had been made; chiropractors, stay in your lane when it comes to ebola. But I was wrong, and this is where Rob Sinnott DC comes back into our story gentle reader...
I was alerted to a post made by an unidentified chiropractor that was being talked about on the facebook page "Things Anti-vaxxers Say", which has over 8,000 followers. The post recieved hundreds of comments and nearly a hundred shares. The post, which comes across as an angry incoherent pseudoscientific rant claiming that the only thing people need for ebola is removal of subluxations by a competent chiropractor, was attributed to Rob Sinnott DC. Here is the original post:
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
I have to say, unfortunately, we see a lot of social media posts like this one at the FTCA. But for some reason this particular one, especially coming from a purported leader of OUR profession and the embarrassing content and tone it portrayed, did not sit well with us. We shared. We shared it far and we shared it wide. With comments like "I'm a chiropractor, not a moron", this was social media solid gold.
Eventually the post made it to Dave Newell BSc MSc PhD FRCC (Hon) FEAC, reader and director of research at Anglo European College of Chiropractic who crafted a responce to the Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation, which can be read here:
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
An appropriate admonishment from a scientific expert in the profession. Did Rob Sinnott respond? No. However, he did state on social media, when confronted about this post and other academic ethics issues, that he would "gladly be a part of a live internet philosophy discussion... ...The only stipulation is that a real moderator skilled in argumentation (works) control of this event..." While this was not directed at Dr. Newell, it did show that Rob Sinnott DC was at least open to debate, and not afraid to take someone on, one on one.
Twenty four hours after Dr. Newell's response to Rob Sinnott DCs post, a response was issued by Matthew McCoy DC, which was essential a biased hit piece full of diatribe titled "AECC Researcher Reveals Ignorance of Basic Science", which you can find here:
http://chiropractic.prosepoint.net/99070
In this article, Matthew McCoy DC plays master of spin to his readership in classic pundit fashion. He then attempts to provide citations to evidence to prove Rob Sinnott DCs point of view scientifically correct, but falls flat on his face. It was curious to me that Rob Sinnott did not appropriate a response, but Matthew McCoy did. What did Matthew McCoy have to do with any of this? Ahh, the articles I will take joy in writing in the future gentle reader. But I digress. As a response, the Evidence Informed Chiropractic Challenge was born.
http://eicchallenge.weebly.com/background.html
The challenge is very simple, a yes or no vote on the following question: "Would you like to see a moderated public debate between those in the chiropractic profession that vehemently disagree with those that claim that chiropractic adjustments can be used to treat Ebola, as asserted by Rob Sinnott's public post? "
What was the response to the challenge by Sinnott, and apparently his partner, McCoy? Nothing. Well, nothing besides having the Evidence Based Challenge website shut down temporarily. Yes, that shows they knew the challenge was out there, they at least spent enough time reading it to have it removed from the server. But not enough time to actually respond to the content. Despite NUMEROUS attempts to contact Sinnott, which we have on record here at the FTCA, there has been no response from him. In fact, he claims on social media that no one has tried to contact him at all, which is on its face a lie, and which we also have on file at the FTCA.
What does Rob Sinnot do instead of facing responsibility for his actions, and answering the challenge of his colleagues? He arranges with his inner circle of supporters a social media drive to blacklist (block) anyone who has criticized him from seeing his posts as well as theirs. This shows no regard for the content or repercussions of their actions, just a desire to be able to do what they want to do without anyone saying anything about it. Including putting a black eye on the profession with a pseudoscientific ebola post. He then claims that none of his many social media followers had any problem with his post. Well sir, if you remove any dissenters from your social media content, how would you know who disagrees? Another classic Subbie move, only surround yourself with those who agree with you. Cover your ears, close your eyes and "nah nah nah nah nah".
And then it gets worse.
There's nothing a progressive chiropractor hates more than seeing yet another anti-chiropractic slam piece produced by the folks at Science Based Medicine. Mark Crislip MD got a hold of Sinnott's post and ran with it.
http://sfsbm.org/index.php?option=com_easyblog&view=entry&id=398&Itemid=649
While not a total embarassment, I do respect Dr. Crislip for this one moment where all chiropractors were not lumped together into a subluxation based heap; there was a nod toward the fact that the more rational and evidence minded in the profession did not think this was cool of Rob Sinnott DC.
Instead of owning up to his gaffe, as a true leader should, what do you think Rob Sinnott has done? He has attempted to blame the furor over this on Dr. Newell, calling it the "Newell Agenda" and blaming it on members of the FTCA. A simple metaphor here; that's like a shooter blaming the witnesses for seeing him shoot someone and reporting the crime. If Rob Sinnott would not have gone on such an unprofessional, unscientific, and professionally embarassing rant, none of us would be in this position. He fired the shot, we just heard the bang and saw him holding the gun. In fact, if Matthew McCoy would not have published Dr. Newell's private email to gain traction and increase his mailing list and donation numbers, no one would have known. They used Dr. Newell's email as a publicity stunt to further rile up their subluxation based faction, and it's backfiring.
The issues at hand here are a few. I will try to boil them down as succinctly as I can.
1. Social media needs to be more regulated in the chiropractic world.
Historically speaking, and as I have shown previously in this article, subluxation based chiropractors are an evangelical and marketing oriented bunch. Even in early history they marketed well by wagon, by newsprint, by radio, by television, and essentially by any means necessary. Each new avenue led to new regulation. Currently state boards manage false claims and other ethical issues very well when it comes to print, tv, and radio type of advertising. But social media is a completely different beast. It's part advertising, and part free speech/expression. This gives chiropractors (and others) carte blanche to advertise unclaimed, unfounded, unscientific, and even dangerous ideas to patients, while blurring the lines of free speech. As professionals, chiropractors should be held to a higher standard, and regulatory boards should get involved with what is said on social media.
2. We haven't talked about the science here but... There isn't one lick of SOLID evidence that can directly correlate chiropractic adjustments to increased immune function or an ability to prevent or eliminate ebola infections. There are some very limited studies, some very poor studies, and even studies that would indicate that larger and higher quality studies should be done for SPINAL MANIPULATION and immune function, but none have been done. Anything beyond that is a leap in logic by a provider making false claims. Regardless of what they see anecdotally in their personal practices, correlation does not equal causation.
In fact, in Matthew McCoys disastrous attempt to attack Dr. Newell, he used about 12 osteopathic studies on spinal manipulation and immune function to prove his point. However, that actually destroys his point, because osteopaths don't adjust subluxations and "aren't even trained to locate them". So, if an osteopath can elicit minor immune response without adjusting a subluxation, who says that adjusting the subluxation even causes the immune response? And of course we have to ask, besides being a novel historical concept, with so many varied definitions of what it is, who can even say if subluxations exist? Beyond those who believe.
For instance, in America, if you add up all of the MDs, DOs, PTs, NPs, Nurses, PAs, and DCs, you come out to about 1.4 million professionals. Of those, about 60,000 are chiropractors, or about 4-5%. Give or take a few. According to a recent survey of Canadian chiropractors, only 17% were subluxation based in nature. Now thats Canada, and the numbers in the US are surely different. But probably not terribly much. Even if there were up to 50% subluxation based chiropractors, that still means only 2% of the ENTIRE health care professional world believes in subluxation. Does that make them special, or completely out of touch? Keep in mind, all 1.4 million of these professionals have roughly the same pre-medical science requirements in their education.
3. Rob Sinnott's defense is that he "never claimed chiropractic treats anything". Ahh yes. And I will admit this was an oversight on Dr. Newell's part in the language of his Evidence Informed Challenge. The classic Subbie cop out... We don't treat anything. Well the state boards and courts don't buy that. The public doesn't either. That defense doesn't work in court, and it never will. You're treating something. And that defense doesn't work for Rob Sinnott DC when he claims that the laying of hands on somebody to deliver an adjustment doesn't "treat" anything, especially ebola. He might say to me next that I don't "understand chiropractic philosophy", I say chiropractic philosophy was never meant to be a game of word twister so you can always win the "gotcha" prize. I understand it just fine.
4. There is indeed a divide in this profession. I will save this for another article, perhaps many more. There are people, like Matthew McCoy, who appear to profit off of perpetuating this divide. Like any politician who has mastered playing the false left right paradigm to his advantage, McCoy plays up the conflict to the benefit of his subluxation based businesses, and Juice Plus multilevel marketing business. He has voiced his admonition of the FTCA multiple times on his mailing list and in articles, but always in some sort of an attempt to gain further followers, more donations, ruffle up the feathers, and gain more traction and more click bait.
Truth is, Matthew McCoy should rather love to keep us around. Its good for his business. And it is in fact, all about business. Subluxation based doctors need to have the progressive majority around to give them a veneer of legitimacy. They talk like they'd like us to go away, they attack us verbally and throughout social media, but without the majority around, the marketplace and the regulators would steamroll subluxation based doctors into oblivion.
5. In reality, it's actually NOT all about business, it's about the people we serve. The ONLY thing that matters in a position of service is what is in the people's best interest. The end. I do truly believe there are subluxation based doctors who feel they are doing the best possible thing for their patients. There are also some who have put the philosophy, turf war, winning, their close cabal of friends and business alliances, and ego ahead of what is best for the patient. If you deny science and the best evidence available, you are not acting in the best interest of your patients. If you choose your philosophy, over what is right, like in this ebola example, you are not acting in the best interest of your patients.
Finally, I'll leave you with the final words thus far that we've recieved from Rob Sinnott DC concerning this episode. Yes, people are going to talk about this. And yes, its not good. That's nobodys fault but your own Rob Sinnott. It would not be in the patient's best interest to circle the wagons and defend you from this as a profession, as you may ask your cabal of friends and business associates to do. We would actually prefer to shed light on it and the inappropriate behavior we witness on social media on a daily basis, so that it might never happen again. We do not approve and your views do not represent the majority of the profession.
There is no "anti-philosophy agenda", although I know Subbies do love a good persecution story. You did this Rob Sinnott. There's no hatred. There's no threat to the profession, because the world is slowly learning that there are two types of chiropractors. They are learning that there is a majority that does not adhere to rigid philosophical fundamentalism and doesn't spout anti-medical rhetoric. You are responsible, you must respond appropriately if you are worth your salt as a leader. Hide, resort to further insults and word play, and thats your own doing. We won't respect you or your group of colleagues, because to us, that is not in the best interest of the people we serve, and the profession we've been called into to represent with pride.
You are correct sir, we are indeed at a tipping point. So are you going to take the challenge or not?
"Dear Chiropractors of Europe,
I am sorry to inform you that since Dr. Newell decided to follow his anti-philosophy agenda over bothering to ask me if he was not sure of a meaning (that has been clear to the 2000+ DCs on my page), his shortsighted hatred has brought the attention of anti-chiropractic groups in Europe. Simon Singh has been contacted by them and it will get very bad, most likely, for the profession in Europe and specifically England before the dust settles that Dr. Newell caused single-handedly.
To those that are familiar with our philosophy and my views along those lines, you know Chiropractors don't treat anything. I have never wavered on that point in anything I have ever written or spoken about around the world. This would explain while "an educator" chose to follow his agenda instead of asking me about something he clearly did not understand. Due to that hatred he puts forth, the students of AECC will very likely be under attack by Singh and his anti-chiropractic leagues.
This is on Dr. Newel completely. He made his fallacious attacks public without ever contacting me....to this very day. Now, of course, the cat is out of the bag and nothing will stop what will most likely result, so there is no point to him bothering to seek facts out at this late date.
If the profession in Europe survives this coming onslaught, I hope this serves as a lesson not to sit idly while our schools' administrators cause these troubles."The Newell Agenda" will serve as a tipping point for the profession. Either it will perish, or it will stand together to ensure such agendas are not allowed to poison schools in the future." - Rob Sinnott DC
Bobby Maybee DC
FTCA
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)