> I know what a kyphosis is.
may be now you do. Couple comments up - you obviously didn't as you so eagerly agreed with tghw's doubting what abnormal cervical curvature can be a problem :)
may be now you do. Couple comments up - you obviously didn't as you so eagerly agreed with tghw's doubting what abnormal cervical curvature can be a problem :)
yep, it was a sole basis of you doubt. Even though tghw was outright trashing neck angle problem, you still supported the trashing because diagnosis comes from chiropractor. Evidence based reasoning coming from a future medical doctor i guess ...
> Chiropractors are notorious
... and more of it.
Precisely. What is your problem with this? Chiropractic is a pseudo-profession. It is well established in scientific fields as a pseudo-profession and it has done very little to try and shed this image, besides making ad-homenim (if you can call it that) attacks against the rest of science screaming of prejudice.
You wouldn't hire a pseudo-coder to build a program for you and you shouldn't pay a pseudo-doctor to treat you.
I'm going to go out on a limb here and say you didn't even look at my references (that you asked for) regarding chiropractic. That's okay. I understand you are a 'true believer', are not going to look at resources I have provided, and are not even really debating whether or not chiropractic is a worthwhile field of human endeavour; instead we are debating your belief. And I just want to say I am not challenging your belief, you are free to believe whatever you want. But I am not, in fact, suffering from Dunning-Kruger in this instance; I am not unskilled, in fact my entire tertiary study (10 years worth now) has been in science and healthcare. and the balance of evidence is against your position; which is what I supported tghw on; and was communicating to the greater audience on HN, including yourself.
To continue to claim that I am attacking chiropractic because I 'dont know' or 'don't believe' is an empty statement, because I understand the available evidence, and my statements in these posts have been consistent with the published scientific concensus.
Instead, one can look at NIH site:
http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/introduction.htm
After that we can look at your statements:
>Chiropractic is a pseudo-profession. It is well established in scientific fields as a pseudo-profession and it has done very little to try and shed this image, besides making ad-homenim (if you can call it that) attacks against the rest of science screaming of prejudice.
yep, man, calling it a pseudo-profession in the face of NIH is a definition of ad-homenim. As well as calling 'true believer' people whose opinion is supported by NIH, yet contradict your own. Speaking about 'true believers' :)
On your link: It is a summary of chiropractics, along with a summary of studies discussing what treatments may or may not help. It is lacking substance and has no new information that was missing from the SBM links.
"The good thing about science is that it's true whether or not you believe in it." -Neil deGrasse Tyson
The guys clearly have an agenda, and their opinion of what is "non-scientific based medicine" clearly goes against NIH, a top medical research organization. One is free to pick a side, a top medical research organization or the alternative :)
> You totally failed to address the content of the article.
i didn't even planned on doing it. My word against SBM, even when NIH's word is supposedly not enough? Are you kidding?
>On your link: It is a summary of chiropractics, along with a summary of studies discussing what treatments may or may not help. It is lacking substance and has no new information that was missing from the SBM links.
exactly - summary by NIH is just some fluff that is "lacking substance". Man, i rest my case.