Well said Johan. The phenomenon of is one I’m all too familiar with myself and can be explained thus. “Why can’t everyone just think like me, dammit??”

Re: Paralysis and HPV vaccination

The first article you linked to from the Times we cannot properly evaluate. We do not know the girl’s medical history. The article does not mention what tests were performed or what the results were. We don’t know if she traveled anywhere before she received the vaccine. No clues are given whether any other individuals who receive jabs from that lot of vaccine also experienced ADRs. In short, there are a very large number of factors that we just don’t know. It cannot, therefore, be used to support a claim that Cerverix causes paralysis. Nor can it be used to exonerate the vaccine. All we can say is that, scientifically speaking, it’s worthless.

Likewise, the Daily Mail article is woefully devoid of pertinent details to make any kind of reasonable judgment. From what is there, the rates of the serious ADRs listed appear to be at a rate of less than 1 per 100,000. The only one that wasn’t was the blurred vision (just shy of 3 per 100,000). We are not told how many of those individuals recovered from the ADRs vs. how many were permanent. However, given the little that we can glean from the article, the benefits of the vaccine still appear to outweigh the risks (considering both the risk of ADRs from the vaccine, as well as risks from cervical cancer if not vaccinated).

I’ll take a look at the cholesterol bits as I get time to read the studies and comment on them. Thanks for providing the links!

Re: FDA Funding

Believe me, I would be very happy to have industry user fees done away with. As the article you linked to says, it creates the impression of conflicts of interest. I, personally, would like to see an actual study that looks at whether there really is a difference in FDA behavior specifically linked to the user fees. I’m not aware of any such study, though.

The fees themselves, unfortunately, are necessary because Federal funding simply doesn’t cut it. FDA has never had adequate funding to accomplish what they are tasked with, since the first beginnings of the agency. A sad state, really, given the importance of what they do, and to have confidence in them eroded (rightly or wrongly) due to the added funding derived from fees paid by industry, is awful.

Paralysis happens 30min after jab, but everyone denies it could be the vaccine.

Daily Mail article
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-1160516/Paralysis-epilepsy-blurred-vision-1-300-girls-reaction-cervical-cancer-vaccine.html

Sorry they are only newspaper articles, but I hope you understand. Dr’s seem to think this is an OK risk, but in reality they have no way of telling if the vaccine will actually save lives.

Epidemiology 2001 Mar;12:168-72

Further references “British Medical Journal published in September of 1996, where a French study looked at over 6,000 men. The study revealed that men with low cholesterol were three times more likely to commit suicide. A similar study at Payne Whitney Clinic in New York showed a similar result: when dividing men into four groups based on cholesterol levels, suicide risk doubled in the group with the lowest levels.”

This article appeared in the prestigious Journal of the American Medical Association on April 24, 1987 under the title, Cholesterol and mortality. Thirty years of follow-up from the Framingham study. Its authors are the chief investigators of the Framingham study, W.P. Castelli, K.M. Anderson, and D. Levy.

Yes the FDA have investigated the deaths, but who pays them?

Uh, the Federal Government? Or did you mean user fees, which are applied to all corporations?

So far we have some paralysed girls and NONE saved from cancer. I believe the paalysis was mentioned in a Scottish Newspaper, I shall get back to you on that one.

Scientific sources would be a better place to look for support. Newspapers, though getting kernels of truth in their stories, are not reliable for unbiased information.

Regarding the cholesterol stuff, can you provide links to the studies? Also, include links to the studies that show an increase in depression and suicide as cholesterol (which kind – LDL or HDL?) levels decrease below that threshold.

I agree with almost 100% of what you say when it comes to deciding what I believe personally…I should hope all skeptics would say the same. This is because I’m not deciding for anyone but myself, so I can accept the ethical implications of my decisions entirely. If my understanding is flawed, so be it–the damage is limited to me only.

But I can’t agree that that same level of knowledge is acceptable for trying to talk others into, or out of, their beliefs. In areas where I have substantial experience and authentic knowledge, I can be quite forceful in advocacy. Ethically, I am responsible for the outcome of the decisions others make based on my advice, so I have to have a much higher certainty of the quality of the advice I give. In these cases, credentials, or repeating what I’ve read somewhere else, or heard another say simply won’t cut it. On those occasions, I simply reserve comment, despite my strongly held personal beliefs.

@Bunny

Utterly baffling. I am embarrassed for you. Let’s agree to disagree, or something.

While I’m on the subject of drug companies getting away with it – how come the 5 largest studies on cholesterol (the Framingham, Honolulu, Russian, Japanese, and the other one escapes me at moment) show that there is REDUCED risk of death with increasing cholesterol over 5mmol, yet doctors want to reduce it. Leeds University in the UK and Harvard in the US also concluded that there was no evidence anywhere for the lowering of cholesterol to the standards now set by the drug companies.

Ineresting to note that as cholesterol creeps under 4.12 mmol there is a triple increase in deprssion and suicide, meaning more anti-depressents can be sold!

new vaccine Gardsil is promoted as being a vaccine against cancer of the cervix

Technically, the vaccine is against 4 strains of human papillomavirus (HPV), which is linked to cervical cancer. It will not prevent all strains of HPV, but it will cut down on the risks of infection. The evidence supporting its efficacy in preventing infection thus far is sufficient for WHO to recommend its addition to national immunization programs. See http://www.who.int/wer/2009/wer8415.pdf for their position paper.

There have been no long term trial to prove this, and so far girls have been paralysed and there are even suspicions of a few deaths.

The deaths that some people think have been caused by Gardasil have been investigated by FDA and CDC and found to not be related to the vaccine. See http://www.fda.gov/ForConsumers/ConsumerUpdates/ucm048985.htm for more information.

As to the paralysis, do you have any links to studies showing such a reaction? Also, what is the incidence rate, out of the millions of doses distributed so far?

So pointing out errors in arguments and evidence for conclusions is the same as making excuses? Well, if that’s the case, all of science is just a big excuse. Also, I never made the claim that I’m 100% certain about anything and everything. There’s always a margin of error to consider. The claim I did make was that a conclusion backed by evidence is better than one made without any.

In fact not one of your excuses proves that you are any more than 1% sure of anything.

How do you get that 1% level of certainty? Is there a formula? Did you do some sort of huge, comparative study on all the topics and assign certainty levels to each conclusion?

Watching quasars means nothing when all you can do is assume their source and their behavior.

If you can provide a better, more accurate explanation for the origins and behaviors of quasars, let’s hear it. Science is about testing ideas. All your nay-saying is doing is showing me that you have no idea what you’re talking about. You just want to argue because you’re incensed that someone knows a particular subject better than you.

So if you want to play scientist, go ahead and enlighten us on the mechanism behind quasars, show us some proof for your assertions and answer our questions when you’re done. If your hypothesis seems plausible and well supported, we’ll pay attention. That’s how science works.

Again, even if you were studying quasars, at your current level of technology (equivalent to a stone club)

Our level of technology compared to what? A million years from now? That of the Grays on a world orbiting Zeta Riticuli? What’s the technological baseline?

all you can do is break things and watch them disintegrate.

Not true at all. We can put a lot of things together very well. And when we do break them to see what they’re made of, we learn quite a bit so there’s nothing wrong with smashing an atom or two or ten if we can learn more about the universe in the process.

So really, what is your point? That we’re all stupid? Then what?

OhReally espouses tu quoque fallacious claims – referencing cough medicine, arthroscopic knee surgery (each of which was discovered by science and published – thus abandoned by medicine). They also imply that real medical practioners only prescribe drugs – ridiculous. They more often than not advocate rest and recuperation or physical therapy for soft tissue damage.

It is chiropractors who must validate their extraordinary claims which stem from the fabricated beliefs of DD Palmer and others. Any visiting DCs want to comment on subluxation? Or describe the Winslow Autopsies as “proof” of their practices?

The BC College of Chiropractic provides some stunningly strong restrictions on practice.

Restricted activities
4 (1) A registrant in the course of practising chiropractic may do any of the following:
(a) make a diagnosis identifying, as the cause of signs or symptoms of an individual, a disease, disorder or condition of the spine or other joints of the body and the associated tissue, and the nervous system;
(b) move a joint of the spine beyond the limits the body can voluntarily achieve but within the anatomical range of motion using a high velocity, low amplitude thrust;
(c) put an instrument, a device or a finger into the external ear canal for the purpose of assessing the ear and auditory systems;
(d) put a finger beyond the anal verge for the purpose of manipulating the coccyx;
(e) apply X-rays for diagnostic or imaging purposes, excluding X-rays for the purpose of computerized axial tomography;
(f) issue an instruction or authorization for another person to apply, to a named individual,
(i) electromagnetism for the purpose of magnetic resonance imaging, or
(ii) X-rays for diagnostic or imaging purposes, including X-rays for the purpose of computerized axial tomography.
(2) Only a registrant may provide a service of chiropractic as set out in this regulation if, on the day before this section comes into force, the provision of the same service by anyone other than a person authorized under the Chiropractors Act was prohibited.

Clearly this would hardly qualify one as a primary care practitioner – but equally clearly BC area DCs are not following this guideline.

You are not a skeptic, and you are the one playing sides. I am not a chiropractor nor am I advocating for them.

I am the skeptic here. I am skeptical of the ridiculous claims made by so called scientists who deal in a belief system instead of facts. A group so sure of their own beliefs that it leads to arrogance over other fields of study.

Go feel sorry for yourself somewhere else. Don’t assume that your the skeptic when your the one defending your own belief system. Quack! Yes, I really do mean that you are a charlatan trying to push falsehoods on unsuspecting people using your elevated position in society. In short… Quack!

No worries.

“I must disagree that merely talking to experts qualifies one to speak with the same authority, however. Without cultivating real expertise before launching into advocacy, how are you not committing a fallacious appeal to authority?”

I hope I don’t claim to speak with authority, rather to say that this is what the experts say. Secondly, I don’t use the experts to assert correctness. Instead, I use the experts to find out what the mainstream is in that field, and why they reject non-mainstream views. Thus, a skeptic’s position relies on logic as well as specific knowledge. Thirdly, because experts are generally acknowledged as such in a particular field because they’ve demonstrated their expertise, usually through the acquisition of relevant credentials. In that sense, I don’t see too much of a problem with appealing to authority.

Therefore, for example, I’ll listen to my doctor when it comes to matters relating to my health, but not when it comes to diagnosing problems with my car; those problems I entrust to my mechanic. In each case, they’ve had to demonstrate their expertise in their relevant fields.

“You can’t say you have knowledge; you have only the testimony of someone else who ostensibly has knowledge. How do you even vet that information with no background in the discipline?”

By doing my own research. This is the thing about expertise in various fields – it’s usually not hidden away, but available for people to learn for themselves.

Second, most of those studies deal with back pain, essentially the only condition which there is any evidence that chiropractors are able to help with. Some studies it is not clear what they are looking at, and one that I noticed that clearly does not deal with back pain (it deals with headaches).

However, almost all of the studies that were not clearly tied to lower back pain are also ones that were clearly not double-blind placebo controlled studies. The only possible exceptions are the Oregon Study, which is has too little information to be able to draw any conclusion, and the Washington Study (the first one), which as stated would not have controls but there may be other results not mentioned. The former has far too little information to find, and the latter almost certainly has an incomplete journal title, and I cannot find it in a literature search.

So in short we really don’t need a list of the original publications, almost all of those studies are worthless and/or tell us something we already know. Only the two mentioned above need further analysis.

If you had looked at the article that sparked this whole discussion, and the discussion itself, you would see that we are not complaining about chiropractors treating lower back pain. That is fine. The problem is them claiming to be able to treat other conditions like colic, allergies, and many other conditions that there is zero evidence chiropractors are able to treat yet which a large number of chiropractors nevertheless claim to be able to treat (as the article shows).

Here is an article-by-article breakdown;

Oakland University Study
Based on insurance claims, so not the least bit controlled, blinded, or randomly selected. May or may not deal with back pain.

The Manga Report
Deals with back pain, a review, may or may not be scientifically valid depending on the quality of studies used in the review, the criteria used to include them, the exhaustiveness of the review, and the methodology used to asses the studies.

The British Medical Research Council
Deals with back pain, may or may not be scientifically valid.

New Zealand Study
Appears almost certainly to deal with back pain. Of unknown scientific validity.

Washington Study
Appears to be two studies, one of which, based on the description, had no controls or blinding and the second was a survey which, by definition, is neither controlled, blinded, or randomly selected. Explicitly does not deal with back pain (headaches). Also, I do no think the “Journal of Chiropractic” actually exists, it should probably be “Journal of Chiropractic _____”, which there are a bunch of. Whatever the case, I can’t find the study.

AV MED HMO Study
Deals with back pain, not the least bit blinded, controlled, or randomly selected.

Nevada Worker’s Compensation Study
Deals with back pain, appears to be a review of insurance reports so not the least bit controlled, blinded, or randomly selected.

University of Saskatchewan Study
Not the least bit controlled or blinded.

The Bristish Medical Journal
Deals with back pain. May or may not be scientifically valid.

Florida Study
From worker compensation records, so not the least bit blinded, controlled, or randomly selected. Further, the data was provided by a Chiropractic organization, so it is unknown how representative it is.

The Gallup Study
A satisfaction survey, so not the least bit blinded, controlled, or randomly selected. May or may not deal exclusively with back pain.

Oregon Study
Does not appear to appear double-blind, use proper controls, or use a random selection of subjects since it appears to use worker’s compensation reports, but hard to tell. May or may not deal exclusively with back pain.

Saskatchewan Hospital Study
Deals with back pain, may or may not be scientifically valid.

Journal of American Health Policy
Says it is a “review of data gathered from over two million users of chiropractic care”, so not double-blind, controlled, or selected from a random population. May or may not deal exclusively with back pain.

The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) issues guidelines for low back problems.
The title says this deals with back pain. Literature review, not a study. May or may not use scientifically valid studies or scientifically valid method to select or analyze studies.

Please provide proper links to the studies you mention. If you cannot do that, at the very least, provide the study title, title of the journal in which it appears, date of publication, and author(s). This will allow readers to evaluate the studies themselves to see if they are relevant to the discussion of safety and efficacy and how scientifically sound they are, rather than just take your word for it.

Thank you.

[Edit] Oh, and without proper context or adequate comparison, your remark about medical negligence, from the Harvard University article, is merely inflammatory and adds nothing to the discussion.

http://www.ourchiro.com.au/treatments.html

Note on their treatments, they include colic and baby reflux (anybody know what baby reflux refers to?)

Can I suggest you add this site to your banned list for adverts?

The chiropractic profession has always relied on clinical research and experimentation and chiropractic research is occurring around the world. Also, the chiropractic colleges are active in research as are several excellent research organizations which adhere to the strictest scientific standards. Here are a sampling of some of the most noteworthy research studies conducted since 1980.

Oakland University Study

At Michigan’s Oakland University, Miron Stano, Ph.D. compared the health care costs for medical and chiropractic patients. By reviewing the insurance claims paid, Dr. Stano concluded that patients who received chiropractic care, either alone or in conjunction with medical care, experienced health care costs that were $1000 lower on average than those who received only medical care. Total insurance payments for patients who received only medical care were thirty percent higher than those who were under the care of a chiropractor. This lower cost was attributed to lower in-patient and out-patient costs and showed that “the chiropractic care substitutes for other forms of out-patient care.

The Manga Report

“The Manga Report, from the University of Ottawa, reviewed all the international evidence on the management and low cost of back pain care. Pran Manga, Ph.D. concluded that significant cost savings would occur if the management of low back pain were transferred from physicians to chiropractors. He determined that chiropractic is safer than medical management of low back pain. “Many medical therapies are of questionable validity or are dearly inadequate. Chiropractic care is greatly superior to medical treatment in terms of scientific validity, safety, cost effectiveness and patient satisfaction.” Dr. Manga concluded that “chiropractic should be fully insured (and) fully integrated into the Ontario health care system.”

The British Medical Research Council

The British Medical Research Council documented a ten-year study which compared chiropractic and hospital out-patient management of seventy-four (74) patients with acute and chronic mechanical low back pain. The results showed that chiropractic care was significantly more effective than medical treatment for patients with chronic and severe pain. Furthermore, these results were long-term and remained consistent throughout the two-year follow-up period. Chiropractic was also shown to save the British more than 10 million pounds a year by having hospital out-patients with low back pain under chiropractic care.

New Zealand Study

These findings reinforced the conclusions of the New Zealand Report (377 pages) which was one of the most thorough and positive studies of chiropractic care on record. The twenty-month project was conducted by a government commission.

It concluded that spinal adjusting is a vital, very safe and clinically effective form of health care. Chiropractors have more thorough training in spinal mechanics and spinal care than any other health professional. Furthermore, chiropractic is scientifically based and must be made an integral part of all hospital care. Finally, the report said that “modern chiropractic is a soundly based and valuable branch of health care in a specialized area neglected by the medical professional.”

Washington Study

J. S. Wright, D.C., conducted a study and reported to the Journal of Chiropractic that 74.6 percent of patients with recurring headaches, including migraines, were either cured or experienced reduced headache symptoms after receiving chiropractic adjustments. Daniel C. Cherkin, Ph.D. and Frederick A. MacCormack, Ph.D., a survey in 1989 that concluded that patients who were receiving care from health maintenance organizations (HMOs) in Washington State were three times as likely to report satisfaction with chiropractic care as they were from other physicians. The patients also reported they believed that their chiropractor was concerned about their welfare.

AV MED HMO Study

AV MED, a large HMO in the southeast, wanted to see if it could save money by having patients visit chiropractors for back pain. They chose one-hundred patients, eighty of whom had already been treated medically–without results. In each case, the patient had been seen by an average of 1.8 M.D.s. After receiving chiropractic adjustments, not one of the 100 patients had to have surgery. Furthermore, 86 percent of them got better and none of them got worse. Herbert Davis, M.D., the medical director of AV MED, said that chiropractic care saved the HMO $250,000 in surgical costs alone!

Nevada Worker’s Compensation Study

The State Industrial Insurance Systems (SIIS) in Nevada compared the average medical and chiropractic care for patients who suffered industrial injuries from 1988-1990. The results showed that 24.4 percent were back injuries but they accounted for more than 50 percent of all medical costs. Over the three-year period, the average medical cost per patient was $2,142 which was 260 percent higher than the average chiropractic cost per patient of $892; Loss of work time under chiropractic care is less than one-third that for medical care. Furthermore, injured workers are able to continue working while receiving chiropractic care which may not be an option for medical care patients who are advised to have bed rest and medication. The Nevada Worker’s Compensation Study emphasized that chiropractic eliminates the concern and expense of inappropriate hospitalization, unnecessary surgery, improper use of medication including the high dosage of narcotic painkillers.

University of Saskatchewan Study

In 1985, the University of Saskatchewan Study monitored 283 patients “who had not responded to previous conservative or operative treatment” and who were initially classified as totally disabled. The study revealed that after daily spinal adjustments were administered, “81 percent …became symptom-free or achieved a state of mild intermittent pain with no work restrictions.

The Bristish Medical Journal

The British Medical Journal reported in the June 2, 1990 issue that T.W. Meade, M.D. studied patients over a two-year period. Dr. Meade found that “for patients with low-back pain in whom spinal adjustments are not contraindicated, chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long-term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management.”

Florida Study

In 1991, Steve Wolk, Ph.D., studied 10,652 worker’s compensation cases in Florida. The results reported by the foundation of’ Chiropractic Education and Research concluded that: “A claimant with back-related injury, when initially cared for by a chiropractor versus a medical doctor, is less likely to become temporarily disabled, or if disabled, remains disabled for a shorter period of time; and claimants treated by medical doctors were hospitalized at a much higher rate than claimants care for by chiropractors.”

The Gallup Study

The Gallup Organization conducted a demographic poll in 1991 which revealed that ninety percent of chiropractic patients felt their care was effective. More than eighty percent were satisfied with the care they received and almost seventy-five percent felt most of their expectations had been met during chiropractic visits.

Oregon Study

Also in 1991, Joanne Nyiendo, Ph.D., conducted a worker’s compensation study in Oregon. She concluded that the median time loss in days for comparable injuries on any case was 9.0 days for patients who received chiropractic care as compared to 11.5 days for those who received medical treatment.

Saskatchewan Hospital Study

Two years later, in 1993, researchers at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatchewan concluded that “the care of lumbar intervertebral disk herniation by side posture adjustments is both safe and effective.” The researchers involved in the report, J. David Cassidy, D.C.; Haymo Thieli D.C.; M.S. and W. Kirkaldy-Willis, M.D., are all on staff at the hospital’s Back Pain Clinic.

Journal of American Health Policy

A 1992 review of data gathered from over two million users of chiropractic care in the United States appeared in the Journal of American Health Policy. It stated that “chiropractic users tend to have substantially lower total health care costs”. The data also indicated that chiropractic care reduces the need for both physician and hospital care.

The Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) issues guidelines for low back problems.

The U.S. agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) formed a 23-person panel to find out the best ways to care for low back problems in adults. These health care professionals, including experts in orthopedic surgery, family practice, internal medicine, physical and rehabilitative medicine, emergency medicine, neurosurgery, rheumatology, and many other disciplines reviewed more than 3,900 studies on the topic. These guidelines released in December 1994 verified what chiropractors had been saying for years: surgery and medication should be a last resort treatment for most cases. Moderate exercise and chiropractic adjustments are far more effective and less risky.

Philip R. Lee, M.D. assistant secretary for health and director of the Public Health Service, said, “By encouraging people with acute low back problems to resume normal activities, using only those treatments that have been scientifically shown to be effective, these guidelines could save Americans considerable anguish time and money now spent on unneeded or unproven medical care.”

One clear message from all these studies is that chiropractic remains a cost effective and efficient method of healing that is, in many instances, equal or superior to medical care. The studies, which have often been conducted by state health or workers compensation agencies, have shown that chiropractic is often less expensive, significantly reduces the time away from work and often eliminates the dangers of drugs and surgery.
Harvard Study

According to a 1991 report by the Harvard Medical Practice Study Group in Cambridge, Massachusetts:

80,000 persons die every year–one person every 7 minutes–and 150,000 to 300,000 more are injured annually from medical negligence in hospitals.

–A Measure of malpractice, Harvard University Press 1993