Blogs
 


  Oddworld Forums > Blogs > I, BM


I, BM

299 792 458 m·s^−1 6.67384(80)×10−11 m³·kg^−1·s−2 6.626 069 57(29) × 10^−34 J·s 1.054 571 726(47) × 10^−34 J·s 4π × 10^−7 N·A^−2 = 1.256 637 061... × 10^−6 N·A^−2 8.854 187 817... × 10^−12 F·m−1 376.730 313 461... Ω 8.987 551 787... × 109 N·m²·C^−2 1.602 176 565(35) × 10^−19 C 9.274 009 68(20) × 10^−24 J·T^−1 7.748 091 7346(25) × 10^−5 S 12 906.403 7217(42) Ω 4.835 978 70(11) × 10^14 Hz·V−1 2.067 833 758(46) × 10^−15 Wb 5.050 783 53(11) × 10^−27 J·T^−1 25 812.807 4434(84) Ω 5.291 772 1092(17) × 10^−11 m 2.817 940 3267(27) × 10^−15 m 9.109 382 91(40) × 10^−31 kg 1.166 364(5) × 10^−5 GeV^−2 7.297 352 5698(24) × 10^−3 4.359 744 34(19) × 10^−18 J 1.672 621 777(74) × 10^−27 kg 3.636 947 5520(24) × 10^−4 m² s^−1 10 973 731.568 539(55) m^−1 6.652 458 734(13) × 10^−29 m² 0.2223(21) 1.660 538 921(73) × 10^−27 kg 6.022 141 29(27) × 10^23 mol^−1

Rate this Entry

Beware the Spinal Tap

Posted 07-30-2009 at 06:31 AM by Bullet Magnet
(Note: this is the infamous article on chiropractic that got Simon Singh sued. It is being reposted all over the web today by multiple blogs and online magazines.)

Some practitioners claim it is a cure-all, but the research suggests chiropractic therapy has mixed results - and can even be lethal, says Simon Singh.

You might be surprised to know that the founder of chiropractic therapy, Daniel David Palmer, wrote that "99% of all diseases are caused 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. Therefore any misalignment could cause a problem in distant parts of the body.

In fact, Palmer's first chiropractic intervention supposedly cured a man who had been profoundly deaf for 17 years. His second treatment was equally strange, because he claimed that he treated a patient with heart trouble by correcting a displaced vertebra.

You might think that modern chiropractors restrict themselves to treating back problems, but in fact some still possess quite wacky ideas. The fundamentalists argue that they can cure anything, including helping treat children with colic, sleeping and feeding problems, frequent ear infections, asthma and prolonged crying - even though there is not a jot of evidence.

I can confidently label these assertions as utter nonsense because I have co-authored a book about alternative medicine with the world's first professor of complementary medicine, Edzard Ernst. He learned chiropractic techniques himself and used them as a doctor. This is when he began to see the need for some critical evaluation. Among other projects, he examined the evidence from 70 trials exploring the benefits of chiropractic therapy in conditions unrelated to the back. He found no evidence to suggest that chiropractors could treat any such conditions.

But what about chiropractic in the context of treating back problems? Manipulating the spine can cure some problems, but results are mixed. To be fair, conventional approaches, such as physiotherapy, also struggle to treat back problems with any consistency. Nevertheless, conventional therapy is still preferable because of the serious dangers associated with chiropractic.

In 2001, a systematic review of five studies revealed that roughly half of all chiropractic patients experience temporary adverse effects, such as pain, numbness, stiffness, dizziness and headaches. These are relatively minor effects, but the frequency is very high, and this has to be weighed against the limited benefit offered by chiropractors.

More worryingly, the hallmark technique of the chiropractor, known as high-velocity, low-amplitude thrust, carries much more significant risks. This involves pushing joints beyond their natural range of motion by applying a short, sharp force. Although this is a safe procedure for most patients, others can suffer dislocations and fractures.

Worse still, manipulation of the neck can damage the vertebral arteries, which supply blood to the brain. So-called vertebral dissection can ultimately cut off the blood supply, which in turn can lead to a stroke and even death. Because there is usually a delay between the vertebral dissection and the blockage of blood to the brain, the link between chiropractic and strokes went unnoticed for many years. Recently, however, it has been possible to identify cases where spinal manipulation has certainly been the cause of vertebral dissection.

Laurie Mathiason was a 20-year-old Canadian waitress who visited a chiropractor 21 times between 1997 and 1998 to relieve her low-back pain. On her penultimate visit she complained of stiffness in her neck. That evening she began dropping plates at the restaurant, so she returned to the chiropractor. As the chiropractor manipulated her neck, Mathiason began to cry, her eyes started to roll, she foamed at the mouth and her body began to convulse. She was rushed to hospital, slipped into a coma and died three days later. At the inquest, the coroner declared: "Laurie died of a ruptured vertebral artery, which occurred in association with a chiropractic manipulation of the neck."

This case is not unique. In Canada alone there have been several other women who have died after receiving chiropractic therapy, and Edzard Ernst has identified about 700 cases of serious complications among the medical literature. This should be a major concern for health officials, particularly as under-reporting will mean that the actual number of cases is much higher.

If spinal manipulation were a drug with such serious adverse effects and so little demonstrable benefit, then it would almost certainly have been taken off the market.

Simon Singh is a science writer in London and the co-author, with Edzard Ernst, of Trick or Treatment? Alternative Medicine on Trial. This is an edited version of an article published in The Guardian for which Singh is being personally sued for libel by the British Chiropractic Association.
Posted in Science
Comments 5 Email Blog Entry
Total Comments 5

Comments

Pilot's Avatar
This is one of the most shamelessly biased articles I've read in quite a while.
Posted 07-30-2009 at 07:49 AM by Pilot

Bullet Magnet's Avatar
It's difficult to be biased against outlandish, even dangerous claims for which there is no evidence, since to oppose it is scientifically the default position. And I find it very difficult to take the BCA's side at all, since their response was, rather than attept to muster even the faintest trance of evidence to support the claims they were making, to take advantage of libel laws so ridiculous that claimants form around the world flock to our shores in order to sue, and American legislation is being considered to protect American citizens from the effects of British court rulings in libel cases. I won't have it.

The British Humanist Association, which also re-published the piece, wrote:

:
The BHA today joins dozens of other organisations in re-publishing portions of an article by Simon Singh on the scientific status of chiropractic therapy, for which he is being sued by the British Chiropractic Association.

The article, originally published in April 2008 by The Guardian newspaper, offered criticisms against claims made by, among others, the British Chiropractic Association on some of the alleged medical benefits of chiropractic therapy. Given his critical position on the scientific status of the BCA's claims, namely that they are not supported by the evidence, Singh's article argued that the British Chiropractic Association "happily promotes bogus treatments".

Rather than mounting a robust scientific defence against these claims, the British Chiropractic Association instead personally sued Simon Singh for libel.

On 7 May this year a preliminary hearing to determine the "meaning" of the piece, prior to a full trial, ruled that Singh was accusing the BCA of deliberate dishonesty. Singh has responded that "although I feel that chiropractors are deluded and reckless, I was not suggesting that they are dishonest". The preliminary finding means that in trial, Singh's case may now rest on a semantic point which he disowns, rather than on the scientific claims against chiropractic therapy which made up the great majority of his article.

In June, BHA Chief Executive Hanne Stinson joined many other organisations and public figures in signing a statement headed "The law has no place in scientific disputes". Among other things the statement asserts that:

Where medical claims to cure or treat do not appear to be supported by evidence, we should be able to criticise assertions robustly and the public should have access to these views.

English libel law, though, can serve to punish this kind of scrutiny and can severely curtail the right to free speech on a matter of public interest. It is already widely recognised that the law is weighted heavily against writers: among other things, the costs are so high that few defendants can afford to make their case. The ease and success of bringing cases under the English law, including against overseas writers, has led to London being viewed as the "libel capital" of the world.


BHA Chief Executive Hanne Stinson said today, "We're proud to re-publish Simon's article here on our website. This is not just an issue about freedom of speech, although that is important in itself. But if legitimate scientific criticism ever leads to a successful libel action, that will not only prevent people speaking out about false claims, it actually threatens scientific progress. Scientific advances almost always involve disagreement and criticism, and scientists have to able to express their views robustly without fear of prosecution. If our courts interpret one ambiguous phrase in a piece labelled 'Comment' as defamation, with the result that the writer loses a huge sum of money, then there is something very wrong in the balance between libel and freedom of speech."

In an effort coordinated by Sense about Science, Singh's article is re-published below, in a version which has been edited of alleged "libellous" remarks and distributed to a number of other concerned organisations, magazines, newspapers, and websites.
Posted 07-30-2009 at 10:23 AM by Bullet Magnet
Updated 07-30-2009 at 10:26 AM by Bullet Magnet

Nate's Avatar
Disclaimer: I am a biased individual, what with my sister being a chiropracter.



I am tempted to write an article about all the people who died during heart transplant surgery and how immoral and dangerous the cardiologists are. Every medical option has some level of risk attached.

Yes, a very small number of people have had adverse affects from Chiropractic, but we're talking about a fraction of a fraction of one percent. In almost every case where someone has had permanent injury, it's because the practitioner was not actually properly trained at a university level in Chiropractic, but was a naturopath who had studied it from books (or something similar). What's more, the first session with any chiropracter involves 30-60 minutes of tests to ensure that you don't have any medical issues that may result in side effects.

Yes, there are chiropracters making wild and outlandish claims about what you can achieve from their intervention. Whilst they tend to be the loudest subgroup of practitioners, they are very much in the minority. My sister makes no claim other than improved back health, improved posture and general improved health that will result from those.

And there actually has been significant amounts of scientific research in to Chiropractic. Probably not enough to satisfy your wishes, but it's ongoing. (Also, of course, not enough to prove the rubbish claims of the whackjob minority, but that's never going to happen.)
Posted 07-30-2009 at 07:03 PM by Nate

Hobo's Avatar
Hello Cleveland!
Posted 07-31-2009 at 11:01 AM by Hobo

Bullet Magnet's Avatar
This is nothing about the ability of chiropractic to treat back issues, which it can do to about the same (low) level of success as a massage or physiotherapy. In addition, my best friend's mother, in turn a friend of mine, is a chiropractor. Part of my interest is in the outlandish nineteenth-century claims based on no evidence whatsoever that were actually being endorsed by the British Chiropractic Association, but most of it is in the ability of anyone to use the law to keep scientific study or whistle-blowing silent. These laws are ridiculous, and the defendant is assumed guilty until proven innocent, which itself is a logical impossibility. This is not just an issue of free speech, but an issue of free scientific inquiry.
Posted 07-31-2009 at 11:44 AM by Bullet Magnet

 

Recent Blog Entries by Bullet Magnet





 
 
- Oddworld Forums - -