Now chiropractors have a real pain in the neck...

A rhetorical question (Injured by a chiropractor?) on a bus have got chiropractors more than just a little upset. The ad is sponsored by the Chiropractic Stroke Awareness Group and Chirobase has a detailed article with a picture of the bus.

Should the NHS fund complementary medicine?

A group of doctors has tried to stop NHS resources being spent on quackery.

Let's rather spend money on real medicine that actually works than use them on unproven and disproved treatments.

Let us give it to real nurses and doctors who use real medicine that actually works.

Reasons?

1. NHS money are being given away from good working medicine which would otherwise be available. They give false information to patients who should be receiving conventional medical treatment.

2. Public are best served by using the available funds for treatments that are based on solid evidence

3. "Alternative" medicine does not work, because if it did it would become part of the conventional medicine and it would be very easy to prove it in a double-blinded controlled trial. Results have not published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal, and it is a fair bet that they are not very reproducible.

4. The "Scientific" basis of "alternative" medicine is not consistent with known science (eg. homeopathy, energy therapies). We knows that homeopathy does not work. Experiments of this kind have been done repeatedly. The people given the wrong homeopathic solution get better just as often as the people given the "homeopathic remedy" (i.e. water). There is nothing that is evidence-based to support homeopathy and it deserves no more place in science than horoscopes.

5. The NHS Direct website includes links to sources containing misleading information about CAM. Furthermore, they allow NHS Alliance and NHS Trust Association to use their logo and style on their website, both websites seems to exist solely to promote CAM. Why support Them?

Why don't we accept that the standard of evidence-based medicine is the only standard? Moreover, that unproven or disproved treatments should be replaced with good evidence and clear information.

Should the NHS fund complementary medicine? Give your vote!

Relevant links:

NHS told to abandon alternative medicine

Doctors' letter: In full
The open letter from some of the UK's leading doctors urging NHS trusts to stop using complementary therapies.

Links to video of Prince's comments...

Prince Charles first advocated the use of complementary medicines more than 20 years ago, and has established the Prince's Foundation for Integrated Health.



Complementary Medical Association Response to Dr. Baum and Colleagues

The IMPROBABLE SCIENCE page

What kind of atheist are you?

The Ardent Atheist
The results are in, and it appears that you have scored 61%...

You are an atheist, pure and simple. You think God is just one big lie, and consider religious people to be both annoying and beneath you. Ardent atheists will argue tooth and claw for their position, and have no truck with people that won't listen. You think being an atheist is the only way to lead an honest life, and see no reason to accept the pleas of faith. Ardent atheists are the backbone of atheism. Be proud.



Link: The Atheist Test written by chi_the_cynic on Ok Cupid, home of the 32-Type Dating Test
(Hat tip: Science & Politics)

the 32nd meeting of the Skeptics' Circle

If you are devoted to skepticism the 32nd meeting of the Skeptics' Circle is live over at Pooflingers Anonymous.

Well known chiropractic problems

Chiropractic is widely accepted by the government, and it isn't hard to see why people would confuse chiropractors with MDs and why people wouldn't even realize there is a controversy.

The problem is that Chiropractic medicine as a whole makes unsubstantiated claims and they are still unproven.

It is demonstrated with X-rays, that subluxation is a fantasy.

The only problem is that most subluxations that are claimed to exist by chiropractic analysis can not be found when examined by radiologists or other chiropractors. In blinded studies chiropractors have not been able to find subluxations claimed by other chiropractors.

Source: XRays (Inappropriate Use)

There is no known benefit for a chiropractor cracking a person's neck, and it is known to cause occasional stroke.

Everyone who wants to be a chiropractor learns that rubbing one part of the body can cure diseases and disorders elsewhere in the body. The claim is that all body organs are controlled through the spinal column, but then explain to me how transplanted organs work well without nerve connections to the host?

Of course, a chiropractor can make your back feel better, but do not let the temptation of a good back rub lure you into supporting the chiropractic educational and billings systems.

It strikes me that if you doubt about a chiropractor it probably get people more upset than doubting of their God.

I doubt about this chiropractor.

Chiropractic treatment with no benefit.....

The BBC News of today has this interesting article about the benefit of spinal manipulation. One of the side effects is still strokes caused by damage to the vertebral artery in the back.

Cartoons from http://skeptically.org/quackery

Spinal manipulation - which is used by chiropractors and osteopaths in the UK to treat neck and back pain - is of little help, researchers have said.
Experts from Peninsula Medical School in Devon reviewed 26 studies carried out between 2000 and 2005.

Writing in Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, they said the data gave "little evidence" of effectiveness.

Chiropractors said the team had focused on negative studies which supported the researchers' views - a claim they deny.

Chiropractors said the team had focused on negative studies which supported the researchers' views - a claim they deny.

The researchers said they looked at all studies evaluating the benefits of spinal manipulation for period pain, colic, asthma, allergy and dizziness - as well as back and neck pain up to 2005.

It was found the data did not show spinal manipulation was effective for any condition - except for back pain where it is superior to sham manipulation, but not better than conventional treatments.

The researchers said that, as spinal manipulation had been linked to mild side effects in around half of patients, such as temporary stiffness, and - much more rarely - strokes brought on by damage to the vertebral artery in the back, it was not something which should be used instead of other therapies.

They suggest existing guidelines need to be re-evaluated in the light of their conclusions.

'Wake-up call'
Professor Edzard Ernst, who led the review, said: "There is little evidence that spinal manipulation is effective in the treatment of any medical condition.

"The findings are of concern because chiropractors and osteopaths are regulated by statute in the UK.

"Patients and the public at large perceive regulation as proof of the usefulness of treatment.

"Yet the findings presented here show a gap and contradiction between the effectiveness of intervention and the evidence."

"We suggest that the guidelines be reconsidered in the light of the best available data."

Professor Ernst said the findings should be seen as a "wake-up call" to the chiropractic profession.

"One way forward is more rigorous clinical trials to test the efficacy of spinal manipulation," he added.

"After all, the treatment is not without risk and chiropractors must demonstrate why it should be a recommendable medical treatment option."

But in a statement, the British Chiropractic Association said it was disappointed by the study's conclusions, which it believed were based on "negative" research - other studies had come to the opposite conclusion.

"The usefulness of manipulation is that it can be added, substituted or modified as part of a package of care that provides management, pain control, advice and recognises risks to a good recovery," it said.

"Recent clinical trials funded by the Medical Research Council show that manipulation is effective and cost-effective within such a package for back pain."

The National Council for Osteopathic Research accused Professor Ernst of working with out of date data.

Featured site(s) at Skeptic Ring

I have taken a break from regular blogging since January this year, but there's still a lot of good skeptical blogging and websites to read, and a lot of them is gathered together in the Skeptic Ring:

The Skeptic Ring consists of sites that examine claims about paranormal phenomena and fringe science from a skeptical point of view. These sites believe that such claims should be examined rationally and objectively. Topics include UFOs, psychic powers, ghosts, crop circles, astrology, telepathy, repressed memories, creationism, Bigfoot, the Loch Ness monster, hypnosis, homeopathy, Reiki, TFT, nonexistent chiropractic subluxations, dowsing, and conspiracy theories. It is not an atheism ring or an anti-religion ring, since some believers can, in other areas, be skeptics....;-)

Anyone having a website with these topics have the possibility to join the webring by contacting the ringmaster Paul Lee. The ring have 162 active site(s) including Anne's Anti-Quackery & Science Blog. I am very flattered to find AAQ&SB in company with Skeptico and The Skeptics Society and Skeptic Magazine as one of the featured site(s) at the Skeptic Ring, and here too.