DL Optometry/Clinical Psychology/Pharmaceutical degree?

On a DL forum, this kind of comment is what is called "baiting" or "flame bait" and is common among trolls.

Now, it may be that the poster is not a troll and this is his genuinely held opinion, which is fine but, making a post such as quoted above generally serves no purpose but to inflame those with opposing positions into "taking the bait" and engaging in heated dialog for the amusement of the troll.

Brother Kalos, your flame baiting is becoming annoying to some of us. What say you provide some useful participation here and not use this as a sounding board for your often ill conceived (and occasionally actionable) personal opinions.

 

Of course, I deny being a "troll".
The issue is one of the initiator wanting to explore ways of becoming a health professional in Canada. He had "chiropractor" on his list of possible professions. It is perfectly responsible to point out that chiropractors are not health professionals in any rational sense of evidence-based medicine. I would have done the same if he had listed "shaman" as a possible health professional. Had the thread progressed, I would have pointed out that Chiropractors were delisted from Ontario's medical system recently - generally for over-billing, poor treatment results, and irrational treatment practices such as waving kitchen cupboard magnets above patients to draw out evil spirits. I would also have pointed out that ~50% of all chiropractor practices fail, so that even putting aside all ethical questions - chiropraxy is simply not a viable prospect for an immigrant - which the initiator and/or his sister appear to be. This does not constitute "baiting".


Brother Kalos, your flame baiting is becoming annoying to some of us. What say you provide some useful participation here and not use this as a sounding board for your often ill conceived (and occasionally actionable) personal opinions. [/QUOTE]
You are mistaken. I do not bait. My opinions have never been shown to be "ill-conceived", and in fact are carefully thought-out and unassailable. Also, you cannot demonstrate any "actionable" opinions of mine.

 

A couple of clarifications - since you've chosen to put words in my mouth.
I'm referring to retail store pharmacies - not hospital pharmacies. The scandal in retail pharmacies - which is a hot topic in the profession - is that owner/operator pharmacists are turning their back on professional ethics by selling over-the-counter medications and devices which they must know do not work. These include all kinds of "medicines" sold at outrageous prices for all kinds of chronic and difficult to treat conditions - arthritis relief, weight reduction, heart "support". It's almost universal - you can't find a pharmacy anywhere in North America these days which is not full of worthless scam treatments.

One pharmacy in my neighborhood sponsored a "magnetic blood chemistry screening" a few weeks ago, where some uncredentialed quack came in with a bogus machine to "predict" individual sensitivity to cancer, heart disease, arthritis, Altzheimer's, diabetes etc, etc - and then sold worthless "preventative" medicines at high prices to the people - often senior citizens - he managed to scare. Where was the responsible pharmacist store-owner in this ? He was taking his cut of the profits. This wouldn't have happened twenty years ago. Something has gone very wrong in retail pharmacy.

 

Well, it may not have been intended as baiting but it did in fact have that effect. It was therefor "a bait".

One might argue that stating your opinion that Chiroprators are quacks and con artists in a public forum as though it were fact could be actionable. Reality is that there is no definitive proof either way.

The opinion of skeptics is no more valid proof than the opinion of the Chiropractors.

Your example of shaman is equally off base as a Shaman is a religious leader and not a medical practioner. His practice of healing by faith is little different than that practiced by other religions (ie. laying on of hands). How does this relate?

nuf said though - if you're sure you're right then we simply disagree.

 

That's an intriguing concept...

Er... right...

I concede not all chiropractors are con artists. There is a small group of chiropractors who have renounced the "subluxation" theory of disease and related chiroquackery humbugs and promise to restrict their treatments to modalities which actually may do some good. They are known as NACM - "National Association of Chiropractic Medicine". See www.chiromed.org

The onus of proof for chiropractic efficacy lies with the proponents - not their doubters. Somehow chiropraxy enthusiasts never get around to providing unassailable evidence. Not 100 years ago. Not now. Likely not ever.

From Wikipedia: "Shamanism refers to a range of traditional beliefs and practices similar to Animism that claim the ability to diagnose and cure human suffering and, in some societies, the ability to cause suffering...Many shamans have expert knowledge of the plant life in their area, and an herbal regimen is often prescribed as treatment. In many places shamans claim to learn directly from the plants, and to be capable of harnessing their effects and healing properties only after obtaining permission from its abiding or patron spirit" A Shaman is foremostly a medical practitioner and has faith in magical medical interventions - not unlike chiropractors... The similarity is striking.

 

There's gold in them there hills.....

Regardless of the opinions that you hold, no matter how well developed, Medicare and other private payers are reimbursing for chiropractic and other complimentary and alternative medicine (CAM). The American Medical Association’s 2006 manual for Current Procedural Terminology (CPT) now includes codes, which facilitate billing for chiropractic and acupuncture therapies. CAM coverage provided by Medicare is limited to a single chiropractic service, manual manipulation for subluxation of the spine. In contrast, the private insurance Anthem Blue Cross and Blue Shield of Connecticut provides an array of CAM therapies and provider types in their network, including chiropractic, holistic medicine specialists and nutritionists (info from BC&BS of CT website).

FWIW, I think that you're right. I'd just as soon have someone shake a turtle shell over me than crack my back and tell me I'm cured (of whatever). But the federal government and private insurances obviously consider chiropractic legitimate healthcare, and chiropractors to be legitimate healthcare providers. Those are the opinions that count, not ours.

 

Re: Re: There's gold in them there hills.....

But as a consumer, you have the right to refuse such treatments. You do not have the right to refuse to allow others access to those treatments, at least not when HMOs and Medicare allow it.

 

Kalos:

I think I have identified your essential problem. You are not quite familiar with the words you choose. Is English your second language? Because "unassailable" means impossible to disprove. Can you really mean that?

Let me take a recent example. You made the claim that chiropractic was quackery and that chiropractors were frauds. To support this position, you offered two things:

1). You informed us all that you'd looked into this matter since the late 1980s, including attending some skeptic's club meetings in the Bay Area.

2). You then informed us that a province in Canada has delisted chiropractic because of abusive practices of practitioners, such as performing fake healings with magnets, poor results and billing irregularities.

Based on those two premises, you consider your position unassailable. But in fact, the very poor quality of your "proofs" tends to make your absolutist statements look foolish and makes you look like...well, exactly what you are: a troll and a flamer. In other words, as you say yourself, to slightly paparhrase: the onus of proof lies with the proponent. When you make an absolutist statement on chiropractic, then support it with such paltry arguments, you tend to disprove the statement or at the very least discredit yourself.

But there's more: you then go on to assail the very opinions you called unassailable:

How does this synch up with your "unassailable" opinion that "chiropractors are quacks and con artists"?

Of course, it does not. It's a retreat from your original position. You were called to task, you realized you really didn't know much at all about the subject matter, you backpeddled. That's fine; well done. Some chiropractors are frauds and snake oil salesmen, some are legitimate practitioners. Now that makes sense, and if that's what you're trying to communicate, then I think we can all agree.

However, it would do your credibility some good to admit that you were wrong, that your opinions are very often not well-considered at all, and that you have a penchant for shooting from the hip in fields about which you know little, making conclusory statements, then looking foolish. And then, if you really want to be taken seriously, stop doing all of the above and become a crusader with some measure of wisdom and pragmatism. I support your cause for exposing academic frauds in academia, but I can only imagine what you must be writing these administrators, given what I see on these boards from you. And I start to wonder if that's not the reason you get the run-around.

Look, in the past I've frequently made an ass of myself here. Do a search. My cheeks burn when I read some of the hot-headed stuff I've written. It's best though, just to apologize and move on--increases your credibility (and yours is currently at a low ebb here, in spite of the good you've tried to do).

You're right, they're not actionable, at least not in an American court of law IMHO.

 

Axioms of Formal Logic

Sigh... The clubhouse lawyer is back for another try...

My "position" on chiropractic is based on a lot, lot more. It starts from an examination of chiropraxy's ridiculation "subluxation" theory of disease. I don't bother to tell you because, frankly, you have trouble processing information and you don't appear to be very bright. You're also thrown off stride very easily. I might write more on chiropractic if there is reason to do so in the context of DL.

You don't appear to know what a "proof" is. I haven't presented any for you to access - even if you were able to do so. Clearly from your previous postings, you are scientifically illiterate - and it appears your knowledge of medicine consists of chasing ambulances. So, it's rather a waste of time to engage you.

It's not a retreat - and I didn't backpedal. You simply demonstrate your cluelessness in formal logic. Hint: I didn't say ALL chiropractors are quacks and con artists. It's a deliberate subtlety completely lost on you.

I've reviewed your past postings. There's hardly ever anything of substance. A lot of tedious clubhouse hair-splitting such as you demonstrate here - and a curious preponderoance of the "god means dog backwards" revelations characteristic of poseurs. In fact, I do know a lot about everything I write. Quackery has been a special avocational study of mine for at least twenty years. My interest in bogus degrees started as a result of noticing the large number of false and worthless degree credentials claimed by medical quacks.

Actually, after a bit of tuning, I'm now getting very good results with administrators. You - on the other hand - appear to be entirely ineffective in whatever you do. All meandering talk - no substance.

Yes - I'm well aware of your assinine postings. I do you a favor by not bringing them up in the current thread.

Gimme a break. You're posturing again out of desperation. My writings stand or fall on their accuracy. You're pathetically unable to challenge anything I write. I'm perfectly willing to have my asssertions analysed and disputed - I welcome adverse comment. Too bad you're doing such a pitifully third-rate job of dispute - a sort of feeble self-conscious yapping precociousness.

 

Yes you did - in this thread you wrote the words "Chiropractors are not "Heath (sic) Professionals". They are quacks and con artists." That's what you wrote.

You did not say "some chiropractors" or "many chiropractors" or "two chiropractors" you said "chiropractors". You refered to them in the next sentence as "they".

Now, if you are going to argue in favor of good logic, let's use some.

 

Good heavens... Comes now pettifoggery...

 

Re: Axioms of Formal Logic

They do indeed.

 

Kalos, if your attacks had some grain of truth--just a bit--I'd be offended, I'd get huffy here. But you must at least rise to some level of competence. If you're just going off on pure ad hominem and invective when the person you're addressing has brought up dead-on points, then it's more of a pitiable condition. You said what you said and Coach Turner and I destroyed it.

Will you care to tell us what about my post was "desperate", what about it gave you an indication that I can't follow an argument? What about it made you think I was scientifically idiodic or in general stupid? Please point these things out. If somehow I'm missing it all and am the only one not in on the joke, then by all means bring it specifically to my attention.

If you're just going to post what someone else said and then follow it up with an insult, you can't fairly call that an argument. Why, it's not a sign of great reasoning skills, it's not a sign of anything other than one who's stinging because their rhetorical butt has been kicked up about the shoulder blades. This is common forum behavior, as is trolling and flaming. You specialize in all three. But they do not pass for rhetoric, and they are the reason that many people are calling you to task. Look at your posts, can't you see some reason for the hositility towards your style? Get a book on logic and rhetoric. They need to teach these things in undergrad, you need to learn them.

Good day.

 

Re: There's gold in them there Chiropractic scams.....

Payment for CAM services by insurers is not evidence for efficacy. It is merely a response to the marketplace. Enough suckers want chiropraxy and CAM to be covered by medical insurance that many insurers caved. When in the USA, I look for insurers who do NOT include CAM, or who seriously limit payout, because I don't want my premium dollars going to support gourd-shakers.

A cynical interpretation is that CAM clears difficult or self-limiting or untreatable chronic conditions from specialists' offices, and thus may be "cost-effective" in the short run, even if treatment does not work in any objective sense. I think this strategy will backfire if CAM becames more common, and insurers see increasing expenditures for bogus treatment modalities. This is the basis for Ontario's recent decision to cut out chiroquackery from public "medicare".

Incidentally, chiroquackery tried to establish itself at Florida State University using political pressure. See www.time.com/time/columnist/jaroff/article/0,9565,1021206,00.html?promoid=rss_top

 

Re: Axioms of Formal Logic

I gotta agree with Coach Turner here. That was the most pathetic of defenses--doesn't even pass the straight face test--perhaps the most pathetic I've seen on this forum or any other.

 

Re: Re: There's gold in them there Chiropractic scams.....

Hey, I wasn't arguing efficacy, I'm arguing that the designation of who is and who isn't a healthcare provider is not up to posters on a DL discussion board. Not even one as convinced as you.

They do teach Chiropractic at the RA University of Bridgeport (http://www.bridgeport.edu/pages/3239.asp). I can't seem to find any NA chiropractic programs.............

 

Re: Axioms of Formal Logic

What in the world do you mean by this? I'm honestly intrigued. Give me an example. Cite one, I'll be glad to comment.