I've been thinking of terms to search that would have patterns and trying to predict the pattern first.
E.g., online book sales:
Not sure what is so special about September 1st when it peaks? I guess the early yearly peaks are just people reading on holidays, or buying a new book to read on PT on the way back to work/uni, something like that.
The trend on employment is really cool - people don't give a fuck about work in December, haha.
Anyway, get searching, interested to see some more interesting patterns.
"Call of Duty" was a good one to search for and "Grand Theft Auto" as well. Shows the spikes at release times clearly.
Apparently nobody gave a shit about the royal wedding until it went nuts:
You can clearly tell when the summer and winter olympics are held:
Gary Brolsma went viral in early '05:
Depressing War & disaster graphs:
This is depressing as well, lots of interest in Spirit and Opportunity rovers, not so much interest in the Phoenix Lander. Maybe if NASA want to capture the public's attention to a future mars mission they need to pack a cool car inside the rocket to drive around on the red planet:
This one's funny. People trying to figure out how the fuck to use their ipods each christmas:
Scary. Apparently searches for Hitler peak yearly around his birthday in April. But hey, at least the neo-nazis take a break in hating all non-Aryans each year at Christmas time:
Don't worry about me mate! I've been hanging out with my hot emo friends, uploading pics of my gf on social sites using filehippo while managing my 1 wiki.
Isn't a correlation where you draw the link between two things?
Eg, i could say two shares have a positive correlation, and that would imply that if one goes up, so would the other likely?
Or, perhaps you could say summer fashion has a negative correlation with winter fashing in USA, meaning that when one is popular, the other isn't?
Then why is everyone searching just the same term twice? That's always going to have a correlation of nearly 1.
I think you're all using it wrong.
Edit: try drawing your own correlation.. I've got one: Something that correlates with a downwards slope well is flash web. Naturally this is predictable as in fact less and less people care about flash. It's pretty normal now, you wouldn't google it.
What would be cool is if you could say, find a negative correlation with flash web, and rise in HTML5. It would probably also negatively correlate with "shockwave" as shockwave was phased out, flash would have become a bigger search term. But google doesn't seem to allow you to actually find anything that is negatively correlated or i can't find the input for the second terms to find a correlation between them.
edit2: thought i'd be able to copypaste the results but i don't know much about in browser rendering.. so turns out i managed only to get the graph and not at all the stuff which makes the graph.
Correlated with Goon 0.9260dispensary los angeles
0.9250dispensaries in los angeles
0.9189family law attorneys
0.9183los angeles dispensaries
0.9182sprint htc
0.9158new iphone screen
Very high correlation between goon and new iphone screen.
In fact this entire series pulls a pretty good story, goon = family law attorneys, goon's reccomend the sprint HTC, and in fact goon leads you to searching for a new iphone screen.
I had a look at all those too 3dee. It's quite interesting because sites like FB, YouTube, Twitter - you don't search for them. Yet this shows search activity. So really it's probably more an estimate of new users. I'd like to see the charts compared to actual new user sign-ups for those services.
It's quite interesting because sites like FB, YouTube, Twitter - you don't search for them. Yet this shows search activity.
You'd be surprised. I know my parents never use the address bar, or often their bookmarks. Google is their homepage and they just type what they want in there and click on the first result. So for youtube etc. they'd do a search in google every time then just click on youtube.
It's quite interesting because sites like FB, YouTube, Twitter - you don't search for them.
Nah a lot of people do, effectively using Google as a command line interface to the web.
Google as your homepage gives you immediate focus on the search box from a little bit of javascript and you can use the keyboard as 'I'm feeling Lucky'. Compare:
1. Ctrl-L "twitter" Ctrl-Enter
(or for n00bs: Ctrl-L "WWW.TWITTER.COM" Enter)
vs
2. "twitter" Enter Enter
I had a look at all those too 3dee. It's quite interesting because sites like FB, YouTube, Twitter - you don't search for them. Yet this shows search activity. So really it's probably more an estimate of new users. I'd like to see the charts compared to actual new user sign-ups for those services.
I wouldn't bet on it. I see numerous people going to google and typing "facebook"... makes me cringe every time. It's like they don't understand what that address bar thingy is.
I wouldn't bet on it. I see numerous people going to google and typing "facebook"... makes me cringe every time. It's like they don't understand what that address bar thingy is.
I wouldn't bet on it. I see numerous people going to google and typing "facebook"... makes me cringe every time. It's like they don't understand what that address bar thingy is.
Eh, depending on the thickness of your tin foil hat and your tolerance for waiting the extra half second it takes for google to redirect you to where you obviously want to go it's not that bad.
People generally just don't care about how things work if they work good enough for their needs. So much so that Firefox and Chrome are pondering eliminating the address bar altogether.
And, oh dear:
Hahaha homeopathic birth control - the theory that you can avoid getting pregnant by drinking lots of water.
Billy, you know that comparing naturophathy and homeopathic remedies to Chiropractic Doctors is ridiculous. For one, I believe there is still only only one Chiropractic Doctor (who can also work with animals) in Australia and I interviewed him in Melbourne.
There are plenty of dreaded stories about Chiropractors. These can be explained by several factors: Malpractice, using un-proven techniques (yes, they use PROVEN techniques), patient provided misinformation, a shit chiropractor etc etc.
In the US, since 2009 the Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals changed its policy to include Doctors of Chiropractic as physicians. In these five academic year programs, they study all the same sciences and medical specialties as medical doctors do. In Switzerland, Chiropractors are trained in medical schools along with medical doctors.
Unfortunately, in Australia it is only a necessity to complete a 4 year undergraduate degree in chiropractic, followed by a 2 year masters degree in chiropractic. But even so, it is unusual to hear of a chiropractor injuring someone here.
It's fun to be skeptical, but when you blatantly ignore the benefits and science behind a profession - it's always good to check your facts before you develop an opinion. What they do has been proven to work and to ease suffering - I can provide you with quite a few independent studies from universities etc, if you like and in-turn, I'm sure you can point me to some scary blog stories and hate sites.
Chiropractors don't just rely on spine manipulation - they perform a complete range of procedures and if the Chiro you're with diagnoses immediately and then attempts to manipulate without any care - see a different one. They are trained to read scans - bring one in and if you're in bad shape, they will use a method which benefits.
Take a scan in and you have nothing to worry about. It's akin to describing your allergies to a doctor before he prescribes.
Billy, you know that comparing naturophathy and homeopathic remedies to Chiropractic Doctors is ridiculous. For one, I believe there is still only only one Chiropractic Doctor in Australia and I interviewed him in Melbourne.
There are plenty of dreaded stories about Chiropractors. These can be explained by several factors: Malpractice, using un-proven techniques (yes, they use PROVEN techniques), patient provided misinformation, a shit chiropractor etc etc.
In the US, since 2009 the Commission on Accreditation of Hospitals changed its policy to include Doctors of Chiropractic as physicians. In these five academic year programs, they study all the same sciences and medical specialties as medical doctors do. In Switzerland, Chiropractors are trained in medical schools along with medical doctors.
Unfortunately, in Australia it is only a necessity to complete a 4 year undergraduate degree in chiropractic, followed by a 2 year masters degree in chiropractic. But even so, it is unusual to hear of a chiropractor injuring someone here.
It's fun to be skeptical, but when you blatantly ignore the benefits and science behind a profession - it's always good to check your facts before you develop an opinion. What they do has been proven to work and to ease suffering - I can provide you with quite a few independent studies from universities etc, if you like and in-turn, I'm sure you can point me to some scary blog stories and hate sites.
Chiropractors don't just rely on spine manipulation - they perform a complete range of procedures and if the Chiro you're with diagnoses immediately and then attempts to manipulate without any care - see a different one. They are trained to read scans - bring one in and if you're in bad shape, they will use a method which benefits.
Take a scan in and you have nothing to worry about. It's akin to describing your allergies to a doctor before he prescribes.
I'd be curious to hear what chiropractors do that works and that isn't covered by what physios do.
So basically Door has been convinced by one chiropractor that he is the one legit chiropractor with proven techniques. Isn't that the sort of thing psychics and mediums say?
So basically Door has been convinced by one chiropractor that he is the one legit chiropractor with proven techniques. Isn't that the sort of thing psychics and mediums say?
Just one? hahaha I also interviewed Physios. It was the rivalry between Physios and Chiros that spurred the project. No biase at the time. Actually I'll try and find it should they have it in archive. But I'm not here to argue, I just wanted to add balance to the usual internet conspiracy nuttery. Good chiropractors teach the same practices as Physiotherapists do - it's not all about cracking bones. Both fields have their legitimacy, one just causes more problems because it's a more hands-on and immediate approach - just like Psychiatrists and psychologists.
Chiropractic is a deceptive piece of fuckn shit with a load of hoodoo and some science mixed in to try and legitimise the hoodoo. (i.e., more aggressively, "what sparrow said.")
Physiotherapy is a science. Chiropractic is a deceptive piece of fuckn shit with a load of hoodoo and some science mixed in to try and legitimise the hoodoo. (i.e., more aggressively, "what sparrow said.") See through it, don't be a victim.
From what I understand, you do not have to undertake the same studies as a Physio to become a doctor. Chiropractic professionals do. Based off the studies they then specialize. Physiotherapists attend tafe.
From what I understand, you do not have to undertake the same studies as a Physio to become a doctor. Chiropractic professionals do. Based off the studies they then specialize. Physiotherapists attend tafe.
Yes, but exactly the opposite what you said. Swap physio to Chiro and you're right.
From what I understand, you do not have to undertake the same studies as a Physio to become a doctor. Chiropractic professionals do. Based off the studies they then specialize. Physiotherapists attend tafe.
Neither Physios nor Chiros should be compared with General Practitioners.
Chiropractic has created it's own little bullshit with the D.C. (Doctor of Chiropractic) - just another example of the deceptive methods they use to install trust in their patients before robbing them.
I hurt my shoulder mucking around doing some boxing with a mate. It hurt real bad at the time, but became a dull ache over time.
It started to ache more and more, and got to the point it would ache as I tried to get to sleep.
I went to a place that had a physio and chiro working there. I described what was wrong, and they said the physio wasn't it (edit: in, not it), but the chiro was. I gave the chiro a go, and he fixed it instantly and I slept like a baby.
It came back, but not as bad, two more 10 minute sessions with him, and my shoulder is good as new.
Just one? hahaha I also interviewed Physios. It was the rivalry between Physios and Chiros that spurred the project. No biase at the time. Actually I'll try and find it should they have it in archive. But I'm not here to argue, I just wanted to add balance to the usual internet conspiracy nuttery. Good chiropractors teach the same practices as Physiotherapists do - it's not all about cracking bones. Both fields have their legitimacy, one just causes more problems because it's a more hands-on and immediate approach - just like Psychiatrists and psychologists.
I am actually curious what proven techniques chiros use that physios don't - because I don't know. Sure, I could do my own research, or you could just tell me, seeing as how you're saying you do know.
Also:
just like Psychiatrists and psychologists
Chrios and physios are very different from this. Psychiatrists are medical drs, who specialise in the human psyche (using proven behavioural techniques and medicines) whereas psychologists aren't drs, and can't proscribe medicine. They do, however, still use proven behavioural techniques. Generally you go to the former if it's a more serious problem that needs medication.
I am actually curious what proven techniques chiros use that physios don't - because I don't know. Sure, I could do my own research, or you could just tell me, seeing as how you're saying you do know.
Just look it up on the internet. This isn't magic. If a disk is out of alignment, a Chiro can attend to it immediately and will also teach you how to keep this from reoccurring.
Chrios and physios are very different from this. Psychiatrists are medical drs, who specialise in the human psyche (using proven behavioural techniques and medicines) whereas psychologists aren't drs, and can't proscribe medicine. They do, however, still use proven behavioural techniques. Generally you go to the former if it's a more serious problem that needs medication.
It's not really different. One treats the issue directly. The other treats the behavioral problem which caused the issue. Both techniques can be used simultaneously, one just has an immediate (relatively) benefit. I think you also have a skewed view on what makes a doctor a doctor, it's not simply PHD's in Australia and depending on your views what you define could differ from another. I keep my standards on a formal basis - some GP's couldn't be defined as a doctor by the formal standard.
This sounds similar to the chaplain issue which I know we didn't agree on door. Both are potentially able to help, but one potentially relies on techniques which are not valid/verified. Even if some of their techniques are, it should be all of them or they shouldn't be practising. (when there is a better option, some right doesn't make some wrong completely ok)
Basically ask an engineer to build a bridge, and ask somebody who will some of the time use the same techniques as an engineer, and see which bridge you'd rather drive across. :P
This sounds similar to the chaplain issue which I know we didn't agree on door. Both are potentially able to help, but one potentially relies on techniques which are not valid/verified. Even if some of their techniques are, it should be all of them or they shouldn't be practising. (when there is a better option, some right doesn't make some wrong completely ok)
The difference is though, chiropractic practices can be verified. No one reads journals, peer reviews etc. There's a reason why you can not use wikipedia and unreliable sources in uni.
I dunno, the only chiro I've been to was a bit of a whackjob, going on about getting things into alignment so the magical healing energies of the body could perform their mystic mumbo jumbo. He had pictures and diagrams and threw around words like "chakra".
I think in the future I'd much rather go to a real doctor.
I think in the future I'd much rather go to a real doctor.
There are plenty of doctors who will refer you to Chiro and a large array of Chiros will undertake the same education as GP's until they specialize. Seems like people are getting confused with an osteopath, which is similar to the homeopathy way of thinking. Doctors will not refer you to homeopathy or an osteopath.
AND FYI KHEL: Yours was a wackjob and has escaped from the science and applied Hindu practices. This is what happens when people (we are all at fault) prescribe to the same way of thinking - yes Chiro is a method which can circumvent medication, HOWEVER it does not justify the complete believe in life without it.
Isn't a correlation where you draw the link between two things?
...
Then why is everyone searching just the same term twice? That's always going to have a correlation of nearly 1.
I think you're all using it wrong.
This. Most of you guys are using this as though it's Google Trends, which unsurprisingly is what Google Trends is for. This is for comparing and finding correlations between trends.
Besides, Correlate proves once and for all that all Physios do is kill you:
This. Most of you guys are using this as though it's Google Trends, which unsurprisingly is what Google Trends is for, this is for comparing and finding correlations between trends.
As the graph I had just displayed earlier. It's a comparison - not a hit-site.
As the graph I had just displayed earlier. It's a comparison - not a hit-site.
As I said, most, not all. :P
I want to ban wood-chippers.
Ah ha, but is that people looking to buy wood chippers to aid them in their quest for death, or is it people looking to sell off their wood chippers before they end it all?
I want to ban wood-chippers. Ah ha, but is that people looking to buy wood chippers to aid them in their quest for death, or is it people looking to sell off their wood chippers before they end it all?
I was thinking it could be yin and yang. People who want to die vs people who want to kill. (woodchippers would be perfect for disposing a body into a river). ;)
I was thinking it could be yin and yang. People who want to die vs people who want to kill. (woodchippers would be perfect for disposing a body into a river). ;)
So you're saying that by some sort of karma, for every person around the world who wants to die there's a person who equally wants to kill? I love the assumption in your theory that anyone searching for wood chippers on google couldn't possibly want it for anything besides murder. ;P
So you're saying that by some sort of karma, for every person around the world who wants to die there's a person who equally wants to kill? I love the assumption in your theory that anyone searching for wood chippers on google couldn't possibly want it for anything besides murder. ;P
I was simply implying that people may want to kill and die - not that they were doing it. You splurged that people ACTUALLY committed suicide and were selling equipment to dispose of their bodies or to gain cash from insurance, vampire'ish celebrations, African tea parties and nevertheless cleanliness in respect for those whom were responsible for the remains...I was simply leaning towards a thought process. Quite frankly, your thought processes disgust me. allegedly.
This. Most of you guys are using this as though it's Google Trends, which unsurprisingly is what Google Trends is for. This is for comparing and finding correlations between trends.
Google Trends only seems to go back 2 years, whereas this Google Correlate goes back to 2003.
It's valid to use it either way, I was just plugging stuff in and snapshotting the top correlation. Obviously search activity for "adolf hitler" and "hitler" are going to be strongly correlated, but the normalized search activity over time of those strongly correlated terms is interesting as well.
That's true, shody - and in your case the chiro probably did the same treatmeant as the physio. Wherein the problem lies - depending on the chiro they do use evidence-based treatments but often mixed in with a lot of bullshit. How can you separate what you are getting?
And example of commonly practiced bullshit is sub-luxation realignment. Google if you're interested, and feel free to abuse any chiros in your local shopping mall who are promoting this treatment.
And example of commonly practiced bullshit is sub-luxation realignment. Google if you're interested, and feel free to abuse any chiros in your local shopping mall who are promoting this treatment.
Google Detox Cleanse.
Google Hypnotherapy.
Google Anti-depressants.
Google Heart Surgery.
Google ANY Surgery.
Google Wisdom Teeth removal.
Google The frontal lobe lobotomy.
Google Ya mum
Stop using random examples of whackjob practitioners. There are plenty of crazy naturopaths out there and i guess a higher ratio of crazy to normal of practitioners than doctors. However, for the past half decade or so doctors and specialists alike have been continuining to recommend Elevit as pregnancy+breastfeeding multivit despite the fact it an out-of-date 20-yr old formula that lacks Iodine, the #1 cause of preventable brain damage in babies. http://www.who.int/features/qa/17/en/index.html. So while most doctors dont know that, many naturopaths do, just dont go buying pine needles to align your cosmic energies or some shit.
Google Trends only seems to go back 2 years, whereas this Google Correlate goes back to 2003.
It's valid to use it either way, I was just plugging stuff in and snapshotting the top correlation. Obviously search activity for "adolf hitler" and "hitler" are going to be strongly correlated, but the normalized search activity over time of those strongly correlated terms is interesting as well.
Google Trends goes back just as far as Correlate does. Regardless, I wasn't saying that people were drawing false conclusions, or that the observations weren't interesting, just that people didn't seem to be using this newer feature to its fullest potential.
Holy crap at all the crazy that came out in this thread...
Door, the burden of proof is on you to show that chiropractic works. I'll be super impressed if you can do better than the British Chiropractic Association who were also publicly challenged to provide evidence that their methods work, and failed miserably.
And before you launch into another self-contradictory rant, let's be clear about what we mean when we're talking about chiropractors - do you mean straights or mixers, and what techniques do have evidence for showing that they work? Let's avoid discussing any actual physio or medical training they are given - they are likely science based and not really part of any definition of "chiropractic".
That's true, shody - and in your case the chiro probably did the same treatmeant as the physio. Wherein the problem lies - depending on the chiro they do use evidence-based treatments but often mixed in with a lot of bullshit. How can you separate what you are getting?
And example of commonly practiced bullshit is sub-luxation realignment. Google if you're interested, and feel free to abuse any chiros in your local shopping mall who are promoting this treatment.
Yeah, that might be the case. If I ever suffer the same problem, I'll give a physio a go and see what they do to fix it and compare.
That particular chiro didn't seem to spruke any of this spiritual stuff though. I felt like I was going to a doctor when I visited. Also, he actually manipulated my shoulder, and arm. I've heard stories of chiros only doing spine work to cure all. Don't know how much validity there is behind that though.
Yeah, that might be the case. If I ever suffer the same problem, I'll give a physio a go and see what they do to fix it and compare.
That particular chiro didn't seem to spruke any of this spiritual stuff though. I felt like I was going to a doctor when I visited. Also, he actually manipulated my shoulder, and arm. I've heard stories of chiros only doing spine work to cure all. Don't know how much validity there is behind that though.
And there is the problem - if he was touching anything other than your spine, he wasn't using chiropractic.
I was just trying to show that although there are some crazy naturopaths out there, doctors dont always know everything and naturopaths can be of some benefit.
Depends on the situation IMO.
Stabbing pain in the head for a few days - doctor.
Optimising health and nutritional intake when trying to conceive - suitable naturopath, nutritionist, dietician.
Door, the burden of proof is on you to show that chiropractic works. Let's avoid discussing any actual physio or medical training they are given - they are likely science based and not really part of any definition of "chiropractic".
The burden of proof is not on me and let's not avoid discussing the medical training they're given - because medical training is a requirement and a significant proportion of Chiros are regarded as Primary Carers. How can you logically choose a definition of "chiropractic" which doesn't involve the medical study they are are legally required to undertake in Australia and most parts of the world (like any doctor). Chiro, like any profession evolves over time and to not include it's current state is ridiculous considering surgeons initially killed a greater percentile than they saved.
Here's a study on the first randomized controlled trial comparing full CPG-based treatment, including spinal manipulative therapy administered by chiropractors, to family physician-directed UC in the treatment of patients with AM-LBP. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389 Published 2010 Dec.
Some points you can take from this, if you're only used to reading wikipedia:
Acute low back pain patients demonstrate significantly greater improvement with chiropractic than “usual care.”
This important hospital based study demonstrates that clinical practice guideline consistent care including chiropractic spinal manipulation resulted in consistently better results at 8, 16, & 24 weeks for multiple outcome measures than usual, non-clinical practice guideline consistent care provided by primary care medical doctors in a hospital based spine outpatient clinic.
Even in measures for reduction of back pain, clinical practice guideline consistent care with only acetaminophen and Spinal Manipulation resulted in as much pain reduction as the use of opiods in the usual, non-clinical practiced guideline based care.
In addition, as noted in the discussion section of the paper, the improved outcomes at the end of the acute phase, as well as, at 24 weeks may increase the likelihood of better long-term outcomes. This is the subject of a future prospective, longitudinal study which is based on long-term follow-up of the two patient groups in this clinical trial.
--
When you mention the public challenge of the British Chiropractic Association, I assume you're speaking of their case with the Advertising Standards Authority. One of these issues was with infantile colic and asthma improvement of which they have evidence of, but no study to prove it, unlike the study above. The BCA actually won this case anyway... If the study you're citing is a different one and is infact a 'public challenge' doesn't that strike you as a little ridiculous to begin with? A public challenge? And they failed at it - anyone could see the issue with that.
I have hundreds of studies I can link, which have been performed in controlled conditions and conducted by third parties under your required scientific conditions. You get on your high horse about a public challenge? I'm afraid the burden of truth is on you.
If you're claiming that chiropractic works, then yes it is.
and let's not avoid discussing the medical training they're given - because medical training is a requirement and a significant proportion of Chiros are regarded as Primary Carers. How can you logically choose a definition of "chiropractic" which doesn't involve the medical study they are are legally required to undertake in Australia and most parts of the world (like any doctor). Chiro, like any profession evolves over time and to not include it's current state is ridiculous considering surgeons initially killed a greater percentile than they saved.
Right, and that's why I asked you to define what you mean by chiropractic. The problem that I (and many others) have is that chiropractors don't just practice chiropractic. Yes, chiropractors practice some science-based treatments, but that does not mean that _chiropractic_ works. Hopefully you understand that logic.
Here's a study on the first randomized controlled trial comparing full CPG-based treatment, including spinal manipulative therapy administered by chiropractors, to family physician-directed UC in the treatment of patients with AM-LBP. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20889389 Published 2010 Dec.
[...]
Let me start by saying that I am happy to concede that there is evidence showing that chiropractic can actually alleviate lower back pain. That is the one (and I think only) thing that chiropractic has been shown to be effective at treating. However, there are several problems with the specific study you cited. For example, it's not an "independent study" like you suggested earlier, and it's not a real randomized control trial, nor is it double blinded. This is a great example of the sort of shody research used to establish legitimacy of the practice. But let me point out again, I'm happy to go along with chiropractic being effective at treating lower back pain.
When you mention the public challenge of the British Chiropractic Association, I assume you're speaking of their case with the Advertising Standards Authority. One of these issues was with infantile colic and asthma improvement of which they have evidence of, but no study to prove it, unlike the study above. The BCA actually won this case anyway... If the study you're citing is a different one and is infact a 'public challenge' doesn't that strike you as a little ridiculous to begin with? A public challenge? And they failed at it - anyone could see the issue with that.
I was referring to the BCA attempting to sue Simon Singh when he called their methods "bogus". The public asked for evidence that their methods aren't bogus, and the BCA spent a long time putting a list of studies together showing that their methods were sound. Within 24 hours of their list being published, the included studies were torn to shreds by people who had a clue. For example.
I have hundreds of studies I can link, which have been performed in controlled conditions and conducted by third parties under your required scientific conditions.
No, you don't.
You get on your high horse about a public challenge? I'm afraid the burden of truth is on you.
Again, no it's not. The burden of proof is always on the person making a claim.
If you do want to keep defending chiropractic, please define it first so we know we're on the same page.
it's not an "independent study" like you suggested earlier, and it's not a real randomized control trial, nor is it double blinded. This is a great example of the sort of shody research used to establish legitimacy of the practice.
I really think you will find many, if not most, studies are biased - from drug companies wanting to rush the latest patent to uni students trying for an easy assignment.
I really think you will find many, if not most, studies are biased - from drug companies wanting to rush the latest patent to uni students trying for an easy assignment.
Right, and that's why I asked you to define what you mean by chiropractic. The problem that I (and many others) have is that chiropractors don't just practice chiropractic. Yes, chiropractors practice some science-based treatments, but that does not mean that _chiropractic_ works
Allow me to evaluate what you have just stated. "Chiropractors don't just practice chiropractic" - okay then... "chiropractors practice some science-based treatments, but that does not mean that _chiropractic_ works" - you have said that it is effective below. What are you against here? The fact that it could work but some of the claims made by a select few have not been proven? Well that's the same with any profession and this by no means equates to their line of work being entirely invalid.
Let me start by saying that I am happy to concede that there is evidence showing that chiropractic can actually alleviate lower back pain. That is the one (and I think only) thing that chiropractic has been shown to be effective at treating.
You have conceded that there is evidence chiropractors can alleviate lower back pain thus agreeing that Chiropractic care can be effective.
However, there are several problems with the specific study you cited. For example, it's not an "independent study" like you suggested earlier, and it's not a real randomized control trial, nor is it double blinded. This is a great example of the sort of shody research used to establish legitimacy of the practice. But let me point out again, I'm happy to go along with chiropractic being effective at treating lower back pain.
Flabbergasted. You're having a difficult time understanding the merit of independent studies in this area and what an independent study actually is. Most studies have been peer reviewed - this does not by any means undermine their findings.
Further to this you also have a misunderstanding of the requirements. Real randomized control trial? Really?
You require a study based on two completely different methods to be Double Blinded? You're basically stating that only patients who do not know about Chiropractors can be accepted, but should General Anesthesia be a necessity to create a legitimate study? As the Chiropractor could affect the results by knowing what they are doing to the patient, it would be a requirement them to be under General Anesthesia too. I would understand if the study was based on drug treatment...but I fail to see how this could be implemented with hands-on treatment - you could do it 'Singularly Blinded' and pretend to work on someones back? *Head explodes*
I was referring to the BCA attempting to sue Simon Singh when he called their methods "bogus". The public asked for evidence that their methods aren't bogus, and the BCA spent a long time putting a list of studies together showing that their methods were sound. Within 24 hours of their list being published, the included studies were torn to shreds by people who had a clue. For example.
This link follows the response to loose claims made by the BCA based on patients who had experienced benefit with their conditions - specifically in the article: Colic, Asthma, Otitis Media and Nocturnal Enuresis. Each of these conditions may be assisted by Chiropractic treatment, as posture has an affect on each of these ailments and it would not be a huge stretch to come to this conclusion. They were unable to substantiate these claims entirely and I have my doubts about them...however I do find it interesting that these conditions were the 'big issues' (Layman's terms: Gas, Asthma, Sore Ear and Bedwetting) in your supplied blog'ish article. FYI: The BCA never actually said it could cure these ailments: although they did say it could 'help' them.
I find Simon Singh's case to be absolutely hilarious. During his appeal (yes, he lost the first time) a proportion of his case relied on and allow me to quote "This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So Let's be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer. wrote that, 99% of all diseases are cased by displaced vertebrae'. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body." Allow me to put this into context: In 1935, the Lobotomy was a mainstream cure for psychiatric (and occasionally other) conditions. Singh's arguments were absolutely ludicrous and childish.
As for definitions, let's not confuse a Chiropractor with an Osteopathic Physician. I would not see a trained Chiropractor who uses Osteopathic Physician methodology. Just like I wouldn't go to a GP who handed me a jar of homeopathic solution.
A Chiropractor is someone who specializes in back and neck pain, and are often among the first practitioners a patient will visit when experiencing back pain. They may use a variety of treatments, including spinal adjustment to treat back pain, but are not surgeons and are also unable to dispense medication. When appropriate, a chiropractor may refer a patient to another practitioner.
A Osteopathic Physician is a Doctor of Osteopathy emphasizes preventative care and treats all injuries or illnesses. They focus on the neuro-musculoskeletal system.
Door, you seem to be completely missing Billy's point. Straights are the only true chiropractors, and they're the ones who believe vertebral subluxation is the cure for everything. Mixers have some REAL medical knowledge, but because they're using REAL medical techniques they're not really applying chiropractics. End result: Chiropractics doesn't work, REAL medicine does.
I am not missing the point at all. "Straights" are not in the majority. "Mixers" use medical techniques through their Chiropractic profession and strangely enough their methods do include Chiropractic solutions. To judge an entire profession based on outdated procedures unused by the majority of a profession is ludicrous. There is science behind spine manipulation and they use it with their medical training. There is a correct way to perform and the profession should be judged based on the majority who use their medical training to come to the conclusion that the procedure they perform is medically beneficial.
I am not confused about the two. I hold them separately - just like my previous comparison of a GP providing a homeopathic remedy. There is no doubt that Chiro procedures have their benefit and it is irresponsible to justify an opinion based on those who perform without correct medical knowledge. Just as you could not write-off the entire Psychiatric profession, based on a sampling of their views in support of Electroconvulsive therapy.
Allow me to evaluate what you have just stated. "Chiropractors don't just practice chiropractic" - okay then... "chiropractors practice some science-based treatments, but that does not mean that _chiropractic_ works" - you have said that it is effective below. What are you against here?
I'm against you concluding that chiropractic works.
The fact that it could work but some of the claims made by a select few have not been proven? Well that's the same with any profession and this by no means equates to their line of work being entirely invalid.
When there is no clear way to distinguish between the voodoo practices and the legitimate practices, yes it does.
You have conceded that there is evidence chiropractors can alleviate lower back pain thus agreeing that Chiropractic care can be effective.
No. I agree that chiropractic can be effective at treating lower back pain. If you think it's effective at anything else, it's up to you to provide the evidence (which I am yet to see).
Flabbergasted. You're having a difficult time understanding the merit of independent studies in this area and what an independent study actually is. Most studies have been peer reviewed - this does not by any means undermine their findings.
I'm certainly confused by what you wrote here, but I'm pretty sure I don't have a difficult time understanding how research works.
Further to this you also have a misunderstanding of the requirements. Real randomized control trial? Really?
Yes, really. When you're making a claim that chiropractic is effective at treating something, you have to actually demonstrate that it is in fact chiropractic that's having the effect.
You require a study based on two completely different methods to be Double Blinded? You're basically stating that only patients who do not know about Chiropractors can be accepted, but should General Anesthesia be a necessity to create a legitimate study? As the Chiropractor could affect the results by knowing what they are doing to the patient, it would be a requirement them to be under General Anesthesia too. I would understand if the study was based on drug treatment...but I fail to see how this could be implemented with hands-on treatment - you could do it 'Singularly Blinded' and pretend to work on someones back? *Head explodes*
No, you're arguing from ignorance. Just because you don't know how to do the proper study does not mean it can't be done. A common method to double blind such therapies, for example, would be to have one set of chiropractors recommend treatments that should and shouldn't work for each case. So out of your whole sample of people with lower back pain, you have one set of chiropractic treatments that should work, and one set that shouldn't work for each specific case. Each person in the sample can then be randomly assigned to one of these treatment groups. You would then have a different set of chiropractors who actually perform the treatment set out for them, so they don't know whether or not the treatment is designed for the patient they are seeing. That way, you have correctly controlled for the treatment, and both the person giving the treatment and the person receiving the treatment are blind to the conditions. Do you have a single study where something like this was done?
This link follows the response to loose claims made by the BCA based on patients who had experienced benefit with their conditions - specifically in the article: Colic, Asthma, Otitis Media and Nocturnal Enuresis. Each of these conditions may be assisted by Chiropractic treatment, as posture has an affect on each of these ailments and it would not be a huge stretch to come to this conclusion. They were unable to substantiate these claims entirely and I have my doubts about them...however I do find it interesting that these conditions were the 'big issues' (Layman's terms: Gas, Asthma, Sore Ear and Bedwetting) in your supplied blog'ish article. FYI: The BCA never actually said it could cure these ailments: although they did say it could 'help' them.
The BCA posted 28 "studies" that support the effectiveness of chiropractic. Only a few of those studies were actually about chiropractic, and even those were dodgy. That's the best an entire organisation could do - laughable.
I find Simon Singh's case to be absolutely hilarious.
Me too. When he called chiropractic "bogus", the BCA sued him instead of just showing the evidence. Then they lost their lawsuit because they couldn't substantiate the claims they were making.
During his appeal (yes, he lost the first time)
No he didn't.
a proportion of his case relied on and allow me to quote "This is Chiropractic Awareness Week. So Let's be aware. How about some awareness that may prevent harm and help you make truly informed choices? First, you might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer. wrote that, 99% of all diseases are cased by displaced vertebrae'. In the 1860s, Palmer began to develop his theory that the spine was involved in almost every illness because the spinal cord connects the brain to the rest of the body." [...] Singh's arguments were absolutely ludicrous and childish.
No they weren't. They were factually accurate.
Allow me to put this into context: In 1935, the Lobotomy was a mainstream cure for psychiatric (and occasionally other) conditions.
I think you mean the leucotomy, which was, unlike chiropractic, actually very effective at treating some psychiatric symptoms. The reason the practice was stopped was because of the side effects. This is a nice analogy for chiropractic should also be stopped because it has a lot of side effects, without much benefit.
Just as you could not write-off the entire Psychiatric profession, based on a sampling of their views in support of Electroconvulsive therapy.
Huh? Electroconvulsive shock therapy is again very effective, unlike chiropractic.
No. I agree that chiropractic can be effective at treating lower back pain. If you think it's effective at anything else, it's up to you to provide the evidence (which I am yet to see).
Later tonight, no problem. Good that you can agree that it's affective at treating lower back pain, because that's what most people go into see them for.
No, you're arguing from ignorance. Just because you don't know how to do the proper study does not mean it can't be done. A common method to double blind such therapies, for example, would be to have one set of chiropractors recommend treatments that should and shouldn't work for each case. These different treatments would then be randomly allocated to a different set of chiropractors who actually perform the treatment, not knowing whether or not the treatment is designed for the patient they are seeing. That way, you have correctly controlled for the treatment, and both the person giving the treatment and the person receiving the treatment are blind to the conditions. Do you have a single study where something like this was done?
You see, I'm not arguing from ignorance. Because I briefly summarized exactly what you have written and in my opinion it would not be beneficial to the study and hazardous to the patient. A trained chiropractor would be able to identify any spinal issues as soon as they touched the patient. They specialize in the spine. To perform a procedure on a patient who has an existing ailment and ignoring it completely in order to fulfill a double-blind requirement would be unethical (and loosely reminds me of the Tuskegee syphilis experiment). This is partly why the studies provided have compared Chiro care to another form - it's not as simple as performing a procedure and hoping for the best, there are signs of issues and corrections must be made - if a correction isn't necessary, a Chiropractor can feel there is no issue and would not make an unnecessary adjustment - for that would be dangerous...but I thought that was obvious.
I think you mean the leucotomy, which was, unlike chiropractic, actually very effective at treating some psychiatric symptoms. The reason the practice was stopped was because of the side effects. This is a nice analogy for chiropractic should also be stopped because it has a lot of side effects, without much benefit.
Leucotomy is a Lobotomy and I think you'll find it difficult for anyone to agree that it was directly affective. It's akin to walking into a doctor with a sore foot and having him chop your leg off - condition cured! I urge you to look into this disgusting practice, please do. As for comparing the side-effects of Chiro and Lobotomies, you're really showing a lack of understanding now.
Just as you could not write-off the entire Psychiatric profession, based on a sampling of their views in support of Electroconvulsive therapy.
Again, this is a case regarding false advertising. I have no problem with these practitioners getting shunned if they're making ludicrous claims. They do it because it earns them business. The fact that only 1 in 4 were accused of making false claims should say that 3/4 of them had substance - I would go as far as saying 1/4 businesses make outlandish claims.
I feel like your perspective has been shot by relying on those who claim that all ailments can be cured through the spine and are now disagreeing that it assists neck (particularly torticollis), back, migraines, pelvic positioning and overall establishes correct posture and spinal position which have undeniable benefits - as agreed with by people (even on this forum) who have been treated. If you would like to debate the claims made by chiropractors who support that their procedures cure bed-wetting, I can not disagree - I just will not agree that this concludes the entire profession should be seen as quackery, because an equal conclusion could be made with a number of scientific professions if held under the same view.
Just curious what your credentials are Door? To potentially help give weight to your arguments about what makes proper and improper research, since I'm not sure if you know that you're going up against a phd research student. :P
Just curious what your credentials are Door? To potentially help give weight to your arguments about what makes proper and improper research, since I'm not sure if you know that you're going up against a phd research student. :P
Are you implying that I'd need a Phd in research to substantiate that performing a double blind test on a persons spine would be a ridiculously dangerous requirement and near impossible to implement? A chiropractor can feel a spinal issue immediately...like a slipped disc or how a massage therapist can feel back problem areas before they're told where. Double blind, merely as a suggestion, baffles me and represents a clear misunderstanding of the profession which would generally equate to lack of research - but I'd never accuse a Phd research student of that, would I.
Nope just that I'd be very careful in calling Billy ignorant or that he doesn't understand, or claiming that you understand these things better if you don't have similar experience. Just picking on quotes such as "You're having a difficult time understanding the merit of independent studies in this area and what an independent study actually is" which you've made to Billy.
I'm with Door about Billy's proposed experiment. It's ludicrous and even a second spent thinking about it should be enough to realise how absurd a suggestion it is. It's not too surprising that Billy gets lost in secondary concerns of double blindness etc, coming as he does from such a fundamentally unscientific field as psychology. The extreme focus on the mechanics of the scientific approach is a cover for the underlying lack of scientific validity.
Got to ask for your credentials too loutl. I've made similar (mostly joking) jabs at psych a few times in the past, but in the end a real scientist is a real scientist, more than I ever ended up being. Just hope you're not more of a "fan" making such claims. :P
(also afaik Billy and Sparrow both work in perception and neuroscience, which is more biology than classic psych, i.e. very much a hard science)
I'm with Door about Billy's proposed experiment. It's ludicrous and even a second spent thinking about it should be enough to realise how absurd a suggestion it is. It's not too surprising that Billy gets lost in secondary concerns of double blindness etc, coming as he does from such a fundamentally unscientific field as psychology. The extreme focus on the mechanics of the scientific approach is a cover for the underlying lack of scientific validity.
Hahaha.
So what you propose is the alternative - pay for *treatments* with no evidence, or anecdotal evidence alone (which is also no evidence)
- Report of the Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractic. PD Hasselberg. Wellington, New Zealand”
- Efficacy and Risks of Chiropractic Manipulation: What Does the Evidence Suggest?" by Ian Coulter, Ph.D. Journal Integrative Medicine pp.61-66
- Washington HMO Study, Daniel C. Cherkin, Ph.D
- The Magna Report (1993)
- The Meade Study
- Journal of Family Practice, study by D.C. Cherkin, Ph.D
- U.S. Government Agency Report (1994) - (Search for Chiropractor, obviously)
- Smith, R. Where is the wisdom? BMJ 1991: 798-799.
- John McMillam Mennell MD - Medicine, Monopolies and Malice 1996. pp.121 154-155.
Interesting to note the risks involved compared to traditional anti-inflammatory side affects. In 1999 – 1 in 5,850,000 neck adjustments. (Taken from "A report on the occurrence of cerebrovasular accidents in chiropractic practice". J Canada Chiropractic Association 1993 104-06)
Anyway, since I never alleged that Chiropractors were frauds or were illegitimate, legally 'the burden of proof' has never been my responsibility - I believe the wording is : The burden of proving untrustworthiness lies with those opposing admission - it was fun to write at least. Some of you seem to believe that it's an unscientific method - maybe it is if you're being treated for asthma, however real evidence has been provided in support of the adjustment of severe torticollis, lower back pain and Kyphosis which may interest you. It's fun to be believe in conspiracies though, i'll give you that! I'd be interested to see a scientific test on Psychiatry one day, since you can't scientifically evaluate the problem to a specific degree initially, nor prove an illness has been cured. Perhaps they're frauds.
Door he already said that the scientifically validated methods were valid, it's the not scientifically validated methods that shouldn't be practised. You can't just choose a few amongst many and say that makes the many ok.
I'm with Door about Billy's proposed experiment. It's ludicrous and even a second spent thinking about it should be enough to realise how absurd a suggestion it is. It's not too surprising that Billy gets lost in secondary concerns of double blindness etc, coming as he does from such a fundamentally unscientific field as psychology. The extreme focus on the mechanics of the scientific approach is a cover for the underlying lack of scientific validity.
Door he already said that the scientifically validated methods were valid, it's the not scientifically validated methods that shouldn't be practised. You can't just choose a few amongst many and say that makes the many ok.
Views were based on the profession, not the validity of a selection of methods used by a minority within the profession itself. Opinions were formed based on the scientific evaluation of proven methodology based on impossible testing requirements. Never did I suggest (as mentioned several times), medically unfounded procedures were valid, nor did I pledge allegiance to every method used by a minority. They can assist with back problems, this is their specialty - if you decide to visit a Chiropractor for another ailment without the support of a GP...you deserve to be ripped off.
On a different note:
WTF
For those having trouble, I've figured out a formula for the best time to get laid:
Got to ask for your credentials too loutl. I've made similar (mostly joking) jabs at psych a few times in the past, but in the end a real scientist is a real scientist, more than I ever ended up being. Just hope you're not more of a "fan" making such claims. :P
If what I say has any merit at all, it is not because of what qualifications I have. I'm not worried that Billy is losing any sleep over it though :P
Pinky:
Hahaha.
So what you propose is the alternative - pay for *treatments* with no evidence, or anecdotal evidence alone (which is also no evidence)
*clap clap clap*
/scientist exiting thread, never to return
Thanks for shitting in my thread too you clowns.
Hang on, did you really just eQuit your own thread in the same breath you asked me question? More importantly, anecdotal evidence is not evidence? That isn't just madness, that's freakin' Sparta. Lastly, I'm not a clown and don't even like the circus.
Nerf: If what I say has any merit at all, it is not because of what qualifications I have.
Asked for credentials, not necessarily qualifications ;). Essentially why does what you say have merit? Why is it worth my time giving your opinion credit?
Asked for credentials, not necessarily qualifications ;). Essentially why does what you say have merit? Why is it worth my time giving your opinion credit?
Nerf, you seem so deeply in need of perceived authority that you're now even asking me to decide for you, whether or not what I say is worth crediting. I'm sure you have a perfectly fine brain of your own, now you just need the balls to start trusting it.
Hang on, did you really just eQuit your own thread in the same breath you asked me question?
I didn't ask any questions. I just pointed and laughed at your ridiculous statements.
When it comes to interventions (we're talking Chiros here) then yes, anecdotal evidence means shit because you can't compare the efficacy of the treatment with what might have happened if the patient did nothing.
Nerf, you seem so deeply in need of perceived authority that you're now even asking me to decide for you, whether or not what I say is worth crediting
No, I was asking for you to give me reasons why I should listen to you. i.e. who are you to weigh in with an opinion on whether psych is a valid science?
I'm sure you have a perfectly fine brain of your own, now you just need the balls to start trusting it.
Yeah I grew past that stage, I'm not an expert at everything.
I thought he might surprise me with some amazing scientific credentials because he talked so confidently, didn't want to write him off presumptuously. :/
When it comes to interventions (we're talking Chiros here) then yes, anecdotal evidence means shit because you can't compare the efficacy of the treatment with what might have happened if the patient did nothing
I apologise then, when I thought you were asking me a question you were actually putting words in my mouth. Being recommended a Chiro to treat a symptom that someone else had been treated by successfully for the same problem sounds crazy to you? The fact that they may have had the same outcome without going at all is untestable in the rigorous sense, and sufficiently improbable in a practical sense in enough situations to matter. You do understand that there's a reason medicine as a field is based so strongly on epidemiology right?
Nerf, you focused on the glib dig I was having at Billy's expense whilst totally disregarding the important point I was making. Namely that Door was absolutely right and that Billy's suggested "double blind" experiment was utterly ridiculous. That's the case no matter my cheeky psychoanalysis of the field of psychology.
Who are you to say it's ridiculous? What would you know? Teelllll me, you're torturing me with this potential bullshit-artist or experienced-researcher possibilities situation here.
Door has already explained why it doesn't make sense Nerf, and honestly if you can't understand for yourself that Billy's suggestion of assigning random chiros to random treatments to apply to random recipients can't possibly produce any meaningful data then I don't know how to help you.
Nerf, It is very difficult to construct a true double blind that involves a physical (as distinct from a chemical) intervention by an expert on a conscious patient. We have the same problem in all aspects of physical medicine and surgery. If you can think of an intelligent, fool proof and ethical way to do so, please contact a health organisation immediately to proclaim your genius.
This is as close as you'll get to a randomized double blind test. It's still not 'true' double blind as the Chiropractor has the ability to feel for areas which require manipulation, this restriction is highlighted within full trial document - http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16517383
You guys are still ignoring the only question I've asked :P, and that last quip was rude simple because I've admitted to my lack of genius and want to know what authority you guys are speaking from on the validity and quality of testing possibilities. Considering you are up against professionals and they seem to all disagree with you, I want to know what backgrounds you guys hail from that gives your opinion apparent weight.
What professionals Nerf? Seriously dude, no one here is a professional directly relating to the issue of Chiropractics right now. If you're simply asking whether I have researched this in a professional capacity and have been paid to do so - yes I have, I've written this previously. If you're asking whether I am a professional researcher on Chiropractics, no - it is not my current job to research the legitimacies of Chiropractics full time. Nor does anyone who has replied have a professional role to contradict the profession of a Chiropractor. If you're asking if I am paid to research in my current role? Yes I am, which is why I have materials at hand. I am simply awestruck by your ridiculous line of questioning.
If you're so adamant about disbelieving the methods of a double blind test on a patient using physical means, why not just go to wiki - I'm sure a professional in double blind tests has authored it? Seriously, wtf.
I'll save you the trouble, bud. "It is also difficult to use the double blind method to compare surgical and non-surgical interventions (although sham surgery, involving a simple incision, might be ethically permitted)." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_experiment
The I think at least 3 or maybe 4 PhD researchers laying into you guys for your stances.
The rest of your response has nothing to do with what I said. I just want to know what the backgrounds are of people telling the PhD researchers that they "don't understand research" before listening to anything else they had to say.
I don't believe that 'don't understand research' was heavily implied
It's a pretty heavy running theme in the responses...
just a lack of understanding regarding relevant testing controls, in particular double blind conditions and physical intervention. It's pretty easy to figure out dude...
I've spent years working in bioinformatics and have never touched on that kind of stuff. I have no knowledge about it and have no interest in it, which is why I'm deferring my judgement to those I know who do. If you could provide similar credentials I'd know whether to take your take on what makes good and bad research seriously, because I don't understand the techno-babble side of things at all and need to defer to somebody who does.
I think you have a skewed view on students striving for a PhD...
I think that they have good credentials for discussing a matter of what makes good and bad scientific research, because I know what an intense and long road it is, and how much experience that will result in. PhD researchers are hardly "students striving for a degree" - that's what undergrad is - it is a full-time career which can result in being published.
I think I'll go back to uni for my last three years now
I have a degree, have worked in research for years for both employment and a thesis, and still have nfi on these topics. When you have the education (with experience) in a relevant field, I'll know to hold the conclusions you draw on relevant topics that I don't understand with more weight.
(i'll try to get it sooner for you, bud) to achieve my PhD and become an authority on everything for you.
I never said that. Better authority != authority on everything. Stop putting words in my mouth.
I simply can't wait any longer, it's obvious my research is worthless until I finish
You still haven't even told me what you do, which is all I asked for of you guys so I know how much weight to give to what you guys say when you add things like "you don't understand what research is" when talking to PhD students. The fact that you guys have so aggressively avoided the question for so long is really getting odd.
why did they even employ me?!@
Who? That's exactly what I wanted to know, where does this claim to authority come from? As I said, I've spent years employed in science, and I'm still not anywhere near the level that PhD students reach.
What about Chiropractors with PhD's?
They'd have comparative credentials for discussing what makes good and bad science? But that's not what you are, and I asked you what your credentials were.
*slaps forehead*
Why are you being such an unreasonable, aggressive, dismissive ass? :/ I asked what background you guys have. I apologise extensively for setting off your respective crazy modes, because I'm really not enjoying it. (Hell I was even thinking that I might help you guys save face when you realised that you might be digging a bit of a hole doing the whole superior-expertise thing against people you may not have realised are professional researchers)
You guys may well be right, but all I asked is what claim to relevance do you guys have when claiming whether research methods are good and bad for those of us playing at home with no knowledge or interest in them? If you start calling me names and insulting my intelligence just because I asked, and even then still cannot answer the fucking question, I'm sorry but you're setting off all my alarm bells for frequent bullshitter.
That's enough, bud. I tried really hard, but I just couldn't bring myself to respond to that. I've deleted my previous post too. This is just kiddy sqwabbling now and I cannot allow myself to participate. I'd rather to take the highroad to popcorn town!
This video has been posted on quite a few websites and has very few views so far, I'd be interested to see if this affects google's popcorn correlation since it's only in it's viral beginnings (318 views). Hopefully it's reception will be enough to adjust the data...unlikely but maybe. Could be interesting to see it's immediate accuracy if anything 'pops' up.
Despite Door and loutl's ignorant dismay at my suggestion of actually running scientifically rigorous studies to test chiropractic, the first hit in google scholar when you search for "chiropractic double blind randomized control trial" yields a systematic review of properly controlled studies, most of which did exactly what I suggested in my earlier post. And, of course, when the studies were well controlled, any effect of chiropractic disappears. Quel fucking surprise. Go science!
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0885392401003372
Despite Door and loutl's ignorant dismay at my suggestion of actually running scientifically rigorous studies to test chiropractic, the first hit in google scholar when you search for "chiropractic double blind randomized control trial" yields a systematic review of properly controlled studies, most of which did exactly what I suggested in my earlier post. And, of course, when the studies were well controlled, any effect of chiropractic disappears. Quel fucking surprise. Go science!
I provided one which stated the same in a previous post under (Here ya go: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16517383 :a randomized double-blind clinical trial of active and simulated spinal manipulations.). However it is not truly double blind if the specialist is performing on the patient, since they can feel spinal misalignment. It is as close as you could get though. Quite the quandary, isn't it...
Read through it and I'm actually glad you supplied this one. It summarizes completely what I have been saying, proving the effectiveness of treatment for obvious Spinal issues and discredits those such as asthma and primary dysmenorrhea. Quite a good read, cheers. The language was frustratingly bias though, although this can be assumed by the inclusion of asthma and bed-wetting (the latter showed surprising results actually). Not sure how you came to your conclusions though as the conclusion itself specifies the opposite?
That's enough, bud. I tried really hard, but I just couldn't bring myself to respond to that. I've deleted my previous post too. This is just kiddy sqwabbling now and I cannot allow myself to participate.
You guys were the ones who couldn't answer a simple question and instead turned to insulting me, you can high-road and noble it all you like but it still hasn't validated why I should listen to you when you tell PhD researchers that they don't understand what research is or what makes a good test. :P
Sorry Billy but did you even read the abstract for the (paywalled) paper you linked?
For many years, spinal manipulation has been a popular form of treatment. Yet the debate about its clinical efficacy continues. The research question remains: Does spinal manipulation convey more than a placebo effect? To summarize the evidence from sham-controlled clinical trials of spinal manipulation as a treatment of various conditions, and to assess the methodological quality of these studies, a comprehensive search strategy was designed to locate all sham-controlled, double-blind, randomized trials of spinal manipulation as a treatment of any medical condition. Data were extracted from these trials and validated by two independent reviewers in a standardized fashion. All trials were critically analyzed and their methodological quality evaluated. Eight studies fulfilled the pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria. Three trials (two on back pain and one on enuresis) were judged to be burdened with serious methodological flaws. The results of the three most rigorous studies (two on asthma and one on primary dysmenorrhea) do not suggest that spinal manipulation leads to therapeutic responses which differ from an inactive sham-treatment.This analysis demonstrates that sham-controlled trials of spinal manipulation are sparse but feasible. The most rigorous of these studies suggest that spinal manipulation is not associated with clinically-relevant specific therapeutic effects.
Without access to the full paper it's hard to form too strong an opinion but I'm sorry, this abstract sounds utterly stupid. Oh and what do you know! 2/8 of the trials were for the treatment of back pain, 1/8 bed wetting, 2/8 asthma, 1/8 period pain and 3/8 unknown (not mentioned in the abstract). Of those, the back pain results are mysteriously afflicted by serious flaws -- oh well! Least we got the asthma results!
As for double blind, are you kidding me? Maybe experiments are double blind if you call them that in the title of the paper?
Nerf, I addressed your question by questioning its relevance. You apparently won't accept that you could possibly ask a silly question so I guess we're left having to disagree.
The point of that abstract is that there is sweet fuck all evidence that spinal manipulation is an effective treatment for ANY condition.
That's just hilarious in itself, and typical of alternative modalities. They won't even say that their method of treatment is suitable for treating any condition at all because then it could be scientifically tested and what a surprise it would be to everyone that it doesn't actually work!
Instead they stick to the usual boring shit: nausea, back-pain, period pain, tiredness, migraines. It's like God of the Gaps for believers - they just find their little niche where science is yet to fully explain the phenomena and peddle their stupid snake oils.
Sorry Pinky, disagree. I do agree though that the intention of the paper was to show that spinal manipulation is not effective for anything. They only managed to show that for things like asthma and period pain however. Back pain, the only condition that anyone actually cares about in terms of chiropracters, was unable to be analysed for some "methodological flaws". For everyone that isn't considering chiropractic as a treament for asthma (i.e. pretty much everyone in the world) this is a completely pointless paper.
What's more, the lead author of this paper may or may not play it straight it seems.
Back pain, the only condition that anyone actually cares about in terms of chiropracters, was unable to be analysed for some "methodological flaws".
In other words the experimental process designed to prove the effect, or the statistics used to examine the results of the experimental process, were incorrectly used. I.e., the data is next to useless.
Not uncommon in clinical trials where it is expensive to involve people and you need to run the minimum number of experiments.
Back pain, the only condition that anyone actually cares about in terms of chiropracters, ...
No. Chiropractors claim to be able to influence all body functions by paying particular attention to the skull, spine and pelvis. They claim this is central to the body's workings and by ensuring correct structure the body works better.
All of this without any evidence that their treatment method is even feasible, much less actually effective.
In other words the experimental process designed to prove the effect, or the statistics used to examine the results of the experimental process, were incorrectly used. I.e., the data is next to useless.
Not uncommon in clinical trials where it is expensive to involve people and you need to run the minimum number of experiments.
As neither of us actually have access to the paper, we're both drawing quite a lot from just an abstract. So to avoid us both just arm-waving back and forth, I've googled the lead author some more, and found this. I think it's pretty clear that as a method of treatment for back pain and mechanical neck disorders, chiropractic can clearly be as effective as any other standard approach, though not without its own risks.
No. Chiropractors claim to be able to influence all body functions by paying particular attention to the skull, spine and pelvis. They claim this is central to the body's workings and by ensuring correct structure the body works better. All of this without any evidence that their treatment method is even feasible, much less actually effective.
Well I don't think it's worth time worrying over people who claim or people who believe, that spinal manipulation will cure everything random thing under the sun. I've only ever heard of people going/considering chiropractic treatment for back pain and nothing else.
If you're actually interested in this subject, please PM me and I'll provide you with some information as I have full access to Billy's article and every other that I have posted. I have decided to not respond to those who are questioning this, as the resources I have already provided speak for themselves and any further comments are based on ignorance.
I have access to the above papers as well being a loosely linked academic, but not the time to go into them. I will go through the one that BillyH linked to see exactly what the method flaws noted were.
loutl, your link was a good read. However my interperetation from that info is that lower back pain is a complex issue that has not yet been solved.
Well I don't think it's worth time worrying over people who claim or people who believe, that spinal manipulation will cure everything random thing under the sun. I've only ever heard of people going/considering chiropractic treatment for back pain and nothing else.
I do think it's worth the time. That's what my main concern is. I'm not medically trained, I'm an engineer, but I have at least a basic logic toolkit and problem solving skills so I can clearly identify the obvious (yet popular!) areas of sham medicine.
I routinely here people at sports clubs say, "I'm going to my Chiro" when it comes to all kinds of random physical conditions. So I do think it's a wide-spread problem.
At least with lower back pain spinal manipulations are on the face of it a feasible intervention. However I have some very serious problems with the imaging methods they use (low res X-ray) and the kinds of conclusions they make from the X-rays and therefore their intervention approach. I'm back on the subject of sub-luxations and talking about shopping centre sales booths again, to be specific.
PM
WWW
