I enjoy scientific debates, and if I'm wrong I'll happily change my mind. As a scientist, there's no shame at all in changing your mind when new evidence comes along. However, I would have expected better from a chiropractor than the argument below, also on the web here: http://www.spinewave.co.nz/media/News__Reviews___March_2009.pdf
Forget the ad hominem stuff, that I'm a hater and .....young and foriegn! And the fact that he calls himself a doctor, but not me. The arguments are particularly poor and hardly worth destroying....but I'll do it anyway.
1. The results of a political commission are not strong scientific evidence - a small RCT provides better evidence and systematic reviews provide way better evidence.
2. Even if the 1979 committee actually got it right at the time, the conclusions may well no longer be valid 30 years later. In the 1960's it was thought that thalidomide was a really good drug for pregnant women. In 1979 we didn't know a fraction as much as we do now about evidence-based medicine. In the early 1990's, we thought that bed rest was the best thing for back pain, now we think exactly the opposite. A couple of years ago we thought that cox-2 inhibitors were good painkillers with less side effects, now we think they probably cause a lot of heart attacks.
Here is the article in full:
Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractic
The Buddha said man's greatest sin is his ignorance. Jesus said forgive them, for they know not what they do. In light of what's gone down recently on the TV1 Breakfast Show between chiropractic and medicine, I decided it was time to return to the Bible: "Chiropractic in New Zealand", the government's Royal Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractic, 1979.
What an amazing document. As a student one never reads past page 5, the summary, because we believe in what we do as chiropractors, see incredible results with people, and leave college under the illusion that the world is waiting with open arms for the gift that is chiropractic. Sadly not so. As they say on MTV Cribs, there are Haters. They hate the Game... and the Player. People who won't even make eye contact with you because you're a chiropractor. And the ugliness of this world continually rears its head as new Haters emerge thinking none of this has been investigated before; they're the first to walk the Earth as God's gift to medicine. Point in case: Shaun Holt, Medical Researcher on TV1 Breakfast (watch it here<http://tvnz.co.nz/breakfast-news/breakfast-monday-march-09-2525390/video?vid=2525815>). A young man, foreign, and clearly still in diapers when this Royal Commission took place in 1979.
Is chiropractic safe? Should chiropractors be called doctors? What can chiropractors "treat"? Should chiropractors be in hospitals? All these questions have already been answered! Why I am going to highlight this document every month from now is because its poignant, relevant, and important that the public understands chiropractic for what it is: A well grounded, scientific healing art that is safe.
"In July 1976, the then Minister of Health announced the Government's decision to establish a Commission of Inquiry into Chiropractic" (p.6). Organisations with legal representation appeared from every faction: ACC, Crown Law Office, Health Dept., GP Society, NZ Associations of Osteopaths, Nurses, Physiotherapists, Medicine, Chiropractic and the Social Welfare Dept. There were hundreds of submissions and thousands of petitioners. "This report follows an extended inquiry which developed into probably the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country" (p.1). This is the document the entire world now looks to when chiropractic is considered legally. All the barristers, lawyers and Governor-General thought this inquiry would only take two months. It took over two years to collate all the information because of the sheer depth that chiropractic has to offer - and they wanted to do it right. One of the many reasons the Commission was set up was because organised medicine was "adamantly opposed" to chiropractic gaining recognition in health care in NZ. What's changed? Before the ad break TV1 plays across the screen, CHIROPRACTIC UNDER SCRUTINY. And then the next day plays, CHIROPRACTORS FIGHT BACK. It's complete and utter media hype, which does nothing but denigrate the profession based largely on - and I speculate - one miscreant's simple opinion.
To conclude this month's instalment, the Governor-General stated that "by the end of the inquiry we found ourselves irresistibly and with complete unanimity drawn to the conclusion that modern chiropractic is a soundly-based and valuable branch of health care in a specialised area neglected by the medical profession" (p.2). "In the face of evidence it is unreasonable for the medical establishment to maintain its attitude of hostility towards chiropractors" (p.252)
Reference: Hasselberg, P. D., Chiropractic in New Zealand: Report of the Commission of Inquiry. Government Printer. 1979. Wellington, NZ.
Dr Neil Bossenger
CHIROPRACTOR
No comments:
Post a Comment