The plaintiffs clearly want more from the court. They want a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid, efficacious, even scientific health care service. I believe that the answer to that question can only be provided by a well designed, controlled, scientific study... No such study has ever been done. In the absence of such a study, the court is left to decide the issue on the basis of largely anecdotal evidence. I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.
Exclusion criteria were cervical spine instability, frac-
ture, neck pain referred from peripheral joints or viscera,
progressive neurologic deficits, existing cardiac disease re-
quiring medical treatment, blood clotting disorders, diffuse
idiopathic hyperostosis, inflammatory or destructive tissue
changes of the cervical spine, infectious disease or other
severe disabling health problems, substance abuse, preg-
nancy or breastfeeding, previous cervical spine surgery, and
pending or current litigation. In addition, participants
were excluded if they had received any of the study treat-
ments in the past 3 months.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
I just noticed the word "allopathic" which is strangely a derisive word which means medicine, or medicine based on science and evidence. I'm unsure why we would call anything else medicine.
Allopathic is a deragoratory term, it isn't a counter-point to Osteopath
« Older "At one major investment bank for which I worked, ... | Anatomy of a Stump Speech.... Newer »
This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments
Buy a Shirt