The Red Flags of Quackery
10 Tuesday Jan 2012
Posted in Pseudo-science, Science Photos, Skepticism
- Comment
- Reblog
-
Subscribe
Subscribed
Already have a WordPress.com account? Log in now.
Science-Based Life
%d
I found all these phrases listed on this very poster. I am skeptical of it!
I say: Be skeptical, but don’t be prejudice.
P.S. “The liver removes any real toxins from your body just fine.” Glad I don’t need to worry about DDT or other poisons anymore!
You found these phrases to be what?
These are pseudoscience red flags to look out for, not a warrant for prejudice.
The toxins pane refers to useless commercial detox products, not legitimate poisoning.
FYI, Niels H. Harrit, Jeffrey Farrer, Steven E. Jones, Kevin R. Ryan, et. all CAN say: “Read my peer-reviewed journal article”: http://www.benthamscience.com/open/tocpj/articles/V002/7TOCPJ.htm
I exhort all critical-thinking skeptics to read it for themselves.
First of all, I am skeptical of the publisher themselves.
5 of the 7 authors do not have academic reputations and the ones that do have ideological reasons to support their conclusion (conflicts of interest). One of the authors, for example, has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ visited America. This is not a reputable group of authors.
After this study was published, the editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology, resigned (presumably from shame or controversy).
The samples in the study were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers. The study did not account for this whatsoever.
Overall, because the study’s conclusions are so spectacularly speculative, the more reasonable answer to the thermite claims presents itself: it is entirely possible that aluminum and iron oxide were mixed in the collapse of the WTC (without being put there as explosives). Being that rust is anywhere there is iron and that the buildings were comprised over literally thousands of tons of aluminum, it is much more likely that the two simply mixed in the destruction. The speculations in this study do not offer anything that would support the idea of thermite being in the building in the first place.
>>First of all, I am skeptical of the publisher themselves.<>5 of the 7 authors do not have academic reputations…<>…and the ones that do have ideological reasons to support their conclusion (conflicts of interest).<>One of the authors, for example, has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ visited America. This is not a reputable group of authors.<>After this study was published, the editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology, resigned (presumably from shame or controversy).<>The samples in the study were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers. The study did not account for this whatsoever.<>Overall, because the study’s conclusions are so spectacularly speculative [how so?], the more reasonable answer to the thermite claims presents itself: it is entirely possible [and probable?] that aluminum and iron oxide were mixed in the collapse of the WTC [to form the chips?] (without being put there as explosives). Being that rust is anywhere there is iron and that the buildings were comprised over literally thousands of tons of aluminum, it is much more likely that the two simply mixed in the destruction.<<
And the chips, too? Oh right — and when I toss a box of watch parts out the window, they typically align themselves in mid air, and then assemble when they hit the ground.
Here is my main question to you: in your "possible mixed" scenario above, how did the unignited, double-layered, nano-scale, explosive, in-tact chips become formed in the dust? Better yet, point me to a published article in any scientific journal that explains it; that's how these issues get discussed. (It's been 3 years since publication.) If you can do so, I'll read it. Otherwise, there isn't much of a leg for you to stand on, except amateur speculation.
Your analogy is incorrect. We are not talking about throwing parts out of a window, we are talking about particles coming together under thousands of pounds of pressure and intense heat that smoldered for months. That is a much more plausible scenario than either your straw-man analogy or the conspiracy theory. Under such temperature and pressure, things can become layered, and everything has a structure at nano-scale. This is an example of fitting ideologically induced ideas to the data.
Unfortunately, most of my response was swallowed up and lost by the commenting system (probably html tag confusion). It’s a shame, but my most important question made it through the end. Here’s the rest as bits and pieces from a backup. [cross-fingers]
>>First of all, I am skeptical of the publisher themselves.—
Indeed, publishers were a difficult problem for the authors, as it is even a difficult topic to approach in the mass media alone. However, they chose this publisher because it allowed them the amount of space and pictures they needed to publish the report accurately and completely.
>>5 of the 7 authors do not have academic reputations…—
Baseless claim. But here is just a small portion of the large support from the academic and scientific community towards 9/11 Truth:
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yIOC1J44RYw
Lynn Margulis, PhD — http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O0fkDmi78Og
-http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZEvA8BCoBw
>>…and the ones that do have ideological reasons to support their conclusion (conflicts of interest). —
I suppose you think that because *I* support 9/11 Truth that I have ideological reasons as well? You’re simply wrong. I wish that was the case, as I believed the government account for years without question. But instead, I base my conclusion on critically evaluating the evidence available, such as physics and chemistry, as well as photographic, video, and witness testimony on that day. These people are the same. But let me say: no one pursues a research project unless they hypothesize that it will turn out correct. To assume otherwise is obsurd — this is the point of testing a hypothesis. The problem is that 9/11 is such a politically charged issue. But if you can take that part away, the science demonstrates that a new investigation is required.
>>One of the authors, for example, has sought radiocarbon dating evidence of the existence of pre-Columbian horses in the Americas, and has interpreted archaeological evidence from the ancient Mayans as supporting his faith’s belief that Jesus Christ visited America. This is not a reputable group of authors. —
This is old-fashioned character assassination, nothing more. Let me give it a go now — Say, did you hear that Isaac Newton wrote many works that would now be classified as occult studies, including alchemy and apocalypse!? You believe in HIS law of gravity!? (http://bit.ly/jgpXcM) — See how that works? It’s an invalid, moot point. Please attack the science, not the strawman.
>>After this study was published, the editor of the journal, Professor Marie-Paule Pileni, an expert in explosives and nano-technology, resigned (presumably from shame or controversy).—
Purely an appeal to authority. Someone’s decision to quit their job or stay does not (in)validate science. It’s politics. Believing otherwise is unscientific.
>>The samples in the study were not kept in sterile environments by any stretch of the imagination and were handled by ordinary, non-scientist New Yorkers. The study did not account for this whatsoever.—
“by any stretch of the imagination?” Really? They actually were kept in sterile locations, such as platic baggies. This was a citizen job only because the government didn’t have any dust. But let that aside for now…. Are you saying that average Joes put micro technology into dust samples? Where did they get it? Why would they do it? Care to speculate on your conspiracy theory, and prove it?
The publisher has been known to produce bogus papers and its peer review process has been called into question. I suspect that this was the only kind of journal that such a study could be published in.
It is important when publishing to have a good track record of solid scientific papers. These authors do not have these, and do not deserve undue respect simply because they published in a questionable journal.
You say that there is large support from the academic community for 9/11 truth, but while you could surely name a few, this of course does not represent the scientific community as a whole. If you were to take a poll of relevant scientists, it would surely not be a majority (prove me wrong). This is the same argument that climate change deniers use. They say there is widespread support and list a few hundred scientists, even though this comprises only 2% of relevant scientists.
Your idea about how research works is also false. The point of research is not to prove a hypothesis correct, it is to find out either way. You cannot make any assumptions about the conclusions or that will bias the research. This is why the 9/11 research is biased. Most research does not prove a hypothesis correct, yet it still progresses. By misunderstanding the research process, you are making unfounded conclusions about 9/11 research.
You’re right about my ad hominem attack, I apologize. Just because he has thoroughly unscientific beliefs does not mean that he is wrong. However, his style of thinking typified by these beliefs at least color his perception of science.
I was not saying the someone resigned, therefore the research is incorrect. In the publishing process, there are many examples of people resigning from their position after a particularly egregious paper makes it past their review process. Having such a poor study published under their editing position is a disgrace, and editors many times resign in that situation.
I am saying that you cannot trust samples that were obtained from the untrained lay audience far after the incident. Such poor controlling invalidates any conclusions, no matter what they find. If you cannot control for it, you can never be sure.
You have not yet answered my two (well, three) basic questions:
1) How could the “untrained audience” have tainted the dust samples with unignited, double-layered, nano-scale, explosive, in-tact chips?
2) How could “particles coming together under thousands of pounds of pressure and intense heat that smoldered for months” account for the dust samples with unignited, double-layered, nano-scale, explosive, in-tact chips?
3) Where are the scientific papers disproving the dust samples with unignited, double-layered, nano-scale, explosive, in-tact chips?
Without these answers, your skepticism of the study is unfounded.
1) Without properly controlling the samples, you cannot assume that they are authentic, representative, or relevant. Without controls, the science falls flat.
2) Like I said, I’m sure there was both aluminum and iron particles in the air at the time of the collapse which could have come together under the immense stress of a skyscraper collapse (yes, especially at the nano-scale). It could come together in layers, be “unignited” (sheltered in the debris), be explosive (it doesn’t have to be expertly mixed to be combustible), and the chips could feasibly be in-tact for a number of reasons (all of which say nothing of a conspiracy).
3) It is the onus of the researchers to prove that their science is sound. You are assuming that their conclusions are true in the first place and need to be disproven, again a misunderstanding of the research process.
1) Wrong. Without explaining how the “untrained audience” could have tainted the dust samples with unignited, double-layered, nano-scale, explosive, in-tact chips, you cannot claim the samples may be considered unauthentic or irrelevant.
Care to explain then?
2) Wooow. I will give you credit for having the gumption to publicly post this “explaination” on a site that claims to be scientific. But that’s certainly all I will give you. Do you realize how foolish that sounds?! Wow. It’s crazier than creationism to an atheist. It is so far from even the realm of possibility that it defies comprehension. Seriously, honestly, and truly I give much much higher probability to my previous watch-out-the-window analogy than to the utter pseudo-science reasoning nonsense being suggested here.
Care to try again?
3) Wrong. You see, the researchers HAVE proven their science is sound by publishing their observations in a *peer-reviewed* (not sneaked-thru) scientific journal. That was two years ago! Since then, it has been up to the scientific community to find opposing evidence and publish it for community review and refinement. That is the scientific process.
Again, where is the counter-article in a scientific journal? (Even the same “questionable-as-you-say” journal — If it’s so easy to debunk, I assume there are many more than one article, but let’s just start here.)
1) Again, without proper controls, we have no way of knowing either way.
2) You belittle myself and my argument without answering it in the slightest. I’m waiting for a real rebuttal. You wouldn’t want me to characterize your points by the unfounded belief in a 9/11 conspiracy would you? Addressing the actual point is more useful.
3) I am well aware of what the scientific process is. It’s more telling to me that no serious researchers have taken any notice of the study to consider it worthy of replication. Science is a busy and messy process, not all the junk that is published can be refuted.
1) You do not refute the fact that the “untrained audience” could not have tainted the dust samples with these microscopic, double-layered chips. And, since *all* samples have contained the chips, it is therefore safe and reasonable to conclude that *none* of them could have been tainted by the collectors.
2) Nothing personal, sorry. But it is impossible for me to argue an idea that is beyond improbable. There is nothing of substance for me to even address. Everything about your chip-formation scenario is very bad pseudo-science, just as much as body magnetism theropy (BMT) is; founded upon an idea that sounds logical but falls apart very quickly. And like BTM, your theory has never been witnessed, tested, proven, verified, and peer-reviewed in a scientific journal. Or even documented independently on a YouTube video clip! It stinks. Many intellectuals who have given such silly responses as yours have later retracted them, admitting their supposition holds no basis in reality. In short: your scenario is only intellectualized pseudo-science babble with no basis whatsoever in chemical or physical reality, given the constraints of the scenario.
Please, prove me wrong. Show me the evidence and scientific experimentation supporting your hypothesis/scenario of creating thermite chips in a building collapse. Otherwise, I tell you it is madness.
3) Wrong. Here’s another scientific, independent verification:
Mark Basile, Chemical Engineer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JZNQq7XBLwc
Are you saying that the findings in a published article from a peer-reviewed scientific journal are not credible, unless they are refuted?; that makes no sense. Or verified? The authors have invited any/all other independent scientists to verify or refute their finding in a true scientific spirit, as Basile did. Normally, bunk findings get smashed down. For example, like the recent faster-than-light particle discovery. Scientists are anxious to debunk published findings (maybe it’s an ego thing, I don’t know?). So, for all of the anti-9/11 truth scientists out there, why have none claimed the trophey of debunking the thermite chip discovery in a scientific journal? You make it sound so simple and easy. But if it’s really low-hanging fruit with much prestige attached to such an article, why are there none?
It’s simple: the science is sound, and the findings are sound. It is not junk — it is considered irrefutable, obviously, until there is a counter-paper published. I challenge you invite all your scientist friends to publish such an equally peer-reviewed counter-article. (They are already two years behind the starting line.) But until then, your theory is not scientifically relevant in comparison.
4) Let’s move on now. Relatedly, iron-rich microspheres (a by-product of thermite) were so common in the WTC dust that EPA’s WTC panel discussed their use as one of the signature components to distinguish the WTC dust from so-called “background” dust (i.e. common office-building dust). RJ Lee Group, evaluating the contamination of the Deutsche Bank building at 130 Liberty Street, NYC, also described these iron-rich spheres — and actually used them as one of their signature markers.
In other words, dust wasn’t regarded as WTC dust unless it contained large quantities of these spheres.
The chemical composition and micro-images of two WTC iron-rich spheres were documented by the US Geological Survey. The chemical signature of several of the spheres shows significant amounts of aluminum, thus matching the signature of thermite residue but not that of steel. The chemical signature of many of the WTC dust spheres also “strikingly” matches that of the spheres and spheroids found in the residue of ignited red/gray nanothermite composite chips.
Note: The independent, scientifically-verified evidence is now mounting and supporting each other. While your explanation unravels at the seams; why not be skeptical of it?
1) Again, you are assuming that the chips are authentic. Without controls, you cannot be sure.
2) My “intellectualized pseudoscience babble” is a much more plausible explanation than a ridiculous complicated conspiracy for which there is no evidence. For your assertions to be true, you must also prove the entire conspiracy true. Good luck with that. You are also assuming that these are, in fact, thermite chips created for a controlled explosion even though the “researchers” in the study themselves only speculate that that could be a possibility. It was not proven.
3) Again, one guy does not make a scientific consensus.
I am saying that these results were published in a shoddy journal, and that the scientific process is based upon verification. You are assuming that the study is 100% accurate in the first place, which is incorrect to do. What you are not understanding about my argument is that because these are speculative, implausible results, no reputable scientist would take the time, money, resources to debunk it. This study you keep referencing has made absolutely no impact in the scientific community exactly because it would be a waste of time to do so. If the study was better designed, less speculative, had reputable authors, etc., perhaps some one would take the time. It is more telling that this study has languished in the annals of forgotten “research.”
4) Let’s not move on. You could admit that nothing I could say can change your mind, so might I suggest this forum for further discussion.
This is a very revealing and embarrassing response from you. You have elucidated both the source and bias of your believe surrounding 9/11 and evidence.
Though I have asked you *repeatedly* for a scientifically-sound source of your impossible scenario, you point me to an irrelevant, convoluted forum thread. This is laughable compared to the small sample of hardened science coupled with expert testimony I have shown you. This is an admission on your part that you have no scientific leg to stand on whatsoever. So of course your argument will not convince any critical thinker, including myself, worth his/her salt.
I some respect, we are both disappointed by the scientific community to refute the chip article. Me, because I could go back to believing the official 9/11 conspiracy report. You, because you cannot validate your biased belief system with science. Human tenancy shows that when we want to believe something, the human mind seems to have an endless capacity to rationalize the most improbably of explanations, even against the face of science. I follow where the science goes. You follow where JREF group-think speculation goes, I presume, or wherever else your idea came from.
Despite your broad assertion, I do not have to prove the entire “9/11 conspiracy” in the slightest. I do not need to prove how the chips got there, but only that they were discovered there and they shouldn’t be there. It is up to others with the proper, official investigative powers to do the required criminal investigation work. However, this assertion of yours is your attempt to lash out after being cornered with scientific evidence that you cannot explain or refute with science.
This debate makes me both satisfied and sad. Satisfied: because I am more confident than ever that the chips cannot be contested or refuted with science, only pseudo-science and internet speculations. Sad: because I originally believed that you demonstrated the ability to trust science and think critically and without bias. But you have proved otherwise. You cannot accept the science of the chips because you cannot accept *where ever* those facts may lead.
This is not science or critical-thinking that you are practicing. You need to know that.
I was not providing you with a scientific rebuttal, I was providing you with a group that shares you beliefs and where you could find people who have much more interest in discussing conspiracy theories with you.
With regards to your thermite theory,
Richard Fruehan, professor of metallurgical engineering at Carnegie Mellon University states:
Notice that it nearly matches the theory that I gave you earlier, not pseudo-scientific babble but science. And again, this account is far more likely than the one proffered by the conspiracy mongers.
Furthermore, refuting the paper you provided with science:
—Hoffman, Thomas. 2009. Bentham editor resigns over Steven Jones’ paper. Danish Science News Service (April 28). Available online at http://videnskab.dk/content/dk/naturvidenskab/chefredaktor_skrider_efter_kontroversiel_artikel_om_911. (Translation available online at http://screwloosechange.blogspot.com/2009/04/bentham-editor-resigns-over-steven.html.)
—Fana, Run-Hua, Hong-Liang Lü, Kang-Ning Sun, et al. 2006. Kinetics of thermite reaction in Al-Fe2O3 system. Thermochimica Acta 440(2) (January 15): 129–31.
—“Sunstealer.” 2011. The sad case of Niels Harrit. JREF forum. Available online at http://forums.randi.org/showpost.php?p=6959549.
Again, another explanation consistent with the one I provided for you.
You do have to provide some context for your chip theory. If you could show the conspiracy to have some plausibility, then the chips begin to make sense. If, however, the conspiracy has no evidence whatsoever going for it, the chips fit into the explanation that fits the science: thermite can have easily been created/reacted in the WTC explosions/collapse.
I love all of the person attacks and assumptions about my motivations and reasoning capabilities. It makes you sound much more intelligent. Keep them coming.
I count three “could”s in Fruehan’s very first quote! Where are the “did”s!? Did he ever prove his hypothesis? If not, this is not science; it’s speculation. Did he inspect any WTC dust samples? Where is his published scientific journal paper? Or any other counter papers, for that matter? Can you give me the link or text of such? (Again I ask.)
“This article does not make the case for thermite use on 9/11…” — Technically this is correct but deceptive. It is implying to me that the study’s finding are exaggerated, blown far out of porportion. However the nanothermite article itself actually concludes with: “Based on these observations, we conclude that the red layer of the red/gray chips we have discovered in the WTC dust is active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.” In other words, the paper proves that nanothermite was found in the dust, but not why it was there or how it was used. Defining the limits of conclusions is very good science.
“Furthermore, the authors admit that their “differential scanning calorimeter” measurements of the supposed thermitic material showed results at about 450 degrees C below the temperature at which normal thermite reacts (Fana 2006).” — Though implied, there is no contradiction here at all. Again, the chips are not typical thermite, they are: “active, unreacted thermitic material, incorporating nanotechnology, and is a highly energetic pyrotechnic or explosive material.”
“Because thermite supplies its own oxygen (via iron oxides), it can even burn underwater. Suggesting that the samples show partially reacted thermite is preposterous.” — Then perhaps he should test it, publish it, and debunk them with his own finding, instead of speculating.
“Claiming that thermite would explain molten pools of steel weeks and months after the attack is equally preposterous.” — What is perposterous? The molten pools, or the source? The molten pools are well documented by many expert eye-witnesses. Bechtel engineers, responsible for safety at Ground Zero, wrote in the Journal of the American Society of Safety Engineers: “The debris pile at Ground Zero was always tremendously hot. Thermal measurements taken by helicopter each day showed underground temperatures ranging from 400 deg F to more than 2,800 deg F.” Abolhassan Astaneh, Professor of Civil Engineering at the University of California at Berkeley, who was hired by the NSF to study the collapse of the WTC buildings. He said: “I saw melting of girders in World Trade Center.” Many witnesses, including rescue personnel and firefighters working on the piles, described the phenomenon of “molten steel.” A photograph taken on September 27 by a Ground Zero worker shows an excavating machine lifting debris from the WTC wreckage dripping yellow/orange molten metal.
“The article’s publication process was so politicized and bizarre that the editor-in-chief of the Bentham journal that featured Jones’s article, Marie-Paule Pileni, resigned in protest (Hoffman 2009).” — That’s very true, it was all politics, as I’ve said before. This does not disprove the underlying scientific discovery.
Sorry, the Sunstealer youtube link is broken. I cannot comment on it.
“You do have to provide some context for your chip theory.” — No, I do not. If I walk into a room and see a still man laying flat on the floor in a large pool of blood, I do not have to ALSO prove who did it, why, and with what weapon. Imagine all the crimes that would be ignored if such were the requirement! Yet this is what you ask of me. In fact, the first step of an investigation is to say “something is definitely wrong here.” That is what this paper exposes — something that was proved with the scientific method is very fishy in these dust samples, and it demands further investigation. It is then up to others with the authority to theorize, postulate, and investigate the criminal evidence trails, and bring them to trial; none of which I can do.
So the fundamentals of metallurgy are speculation? You don’t have to publish in a journal to apply the basics of a science. Pick up a textbook and do the calc’s yourself. It explains the supposed thermite better than a conspiracy would.
Just because the paper makes a conclusion does not make it correct. Again, you are assuming that the findings are sound just because they are written down.
Your “this is not typical thermite” is special pleading. Restating verbatim what the study says without understanding what it means does little.
Saying that partially reacted thermite is preposterous does not have to be published in Science to be correct. His conclusion is based upon the principles of chemistry. Would I have to publish a paper on the reaction between an open flame and methane before you would believe it? Should I write a paper every time I say that a dropped rock will fall to the ground? Combustion and gravity flow out of the science and do not have to be continuously re-proven once established. The same is true for the unreacted thermite argument. Chemistry tells us that thermite would fully react, plain and simple. Hiding behind a lack of journal citation does nothing for the argument.
Your arguments about the molten metal are dealt with here.
I agree with your investigation analogy–you can infer a situation from the evidence without knowing the situation. However, if you find a pool of blood (thermite), investigate the cause and find no evidence for murder (conspiracy), you have to change your theory on what happened. There is little reason to believe in a thermite-controlled explosion theory. Therefore, if we find thermite we look for a case of interesting chemistry, not speculative and implausible conclusions written by authors to validate a conspiracy published in a shoddy journal. When you hear hooves, think horses, not zebras (unless you are in Africa, I suppose).
Can we move this discussion to another venue? Perhaps on one of my 9/11 posts or on Reddit? This discussion really does not apply to this post.
I don’t see any point to continue this discussion, yet. You STILL have not shown me any experiment-based scientific evidence. None. Only hypothesis and speculation that contradicts independently verified (multiple times), repeated, valid scientific experimentation — and most of that which you’ve presented *completely* ignores the known laws of physics and chemistry with the context surrounding the collapse of the WTC towers on 9/11. Hypotheses are good, unless they lack testing while contradicting proven, peer-reviewed evidence; then it is bad science unless those ideas are either a) tested and proven or b) rejected. No other option exist. That is the scientific method.
Thermetic material was repeatedly proven to be found in the WTC dust. That is a fact. That nano-technology material could not have formed from the combination of existing materials and pressure found in a building collapse. Seems completely obvious! Go ahead and prove me wrong with tested evidence instead of speculation. Any of Richard Fruehan’s three “could”s will do, during a building collapse. Surely it’s happened before, if it’s common science as you say, right? I must be begging you to show me something simple, equivalent to an apple falling from a tree, so please just do it!
Until then, I will keep my skepticism and conclusions on the side of science, *especially* when it’s unrefuted. I recommend that you do the same.
I was going to say nearly the same thing to you.
Prove what you said about the dust being unable to form in the collapse.
Haha, right! Even Richard Fruehan, whom you quote, doesn’t speculate that chips could form during the collapse. (He goes out on a very improbable limb about thermite *reactions* from building materials –unproven– but not he speculates on the formation of nano-technology!) That’s your theory, so prove it. I hope you succeed, as your method would put many an advanced chemical engineer out of a job, saving top military contractors millions of dollars.
Really enjoying your blog as I am a super skeptic, but one thing irked me in this pic.
The bit about Chiropractors. I realise that A LOT of supposed “chiropractors” are out there making a living off hokem non-accredited B.S. (and complete frauds), but my mother is a chiropractor who went to FOUR years of medical school, 2 years of chiropractic college, and also has a minor in biology. She IS a bona-fide doctor who actually has more knowledge/experience, because she specialised in a branch of medicine, than an M.D.
People who call themselves chiropractors who really just dabble in homeopathy or other nonsense COMPLETLEY discredit an ACTUAL science.
My mom has been in practise for 30+ years, was on the Board of Chiropractic Examiners of California for 15+ years (http://www.chiro.ca.gov/) and now represents Ireland in the European Chiropractors’ Union (http://www.ecunion.eu/).
Not all chiropractors are fake and I’m tired of people thinking they are. Please don’t discredit a REAL science by listening to the people who think they know everything. Instead, spread the word that there ARE fakes and people SHOULD look for proper accreditation before becoming a patient!
Thanks! And I’ll definitely keep reading your blog!
Thanks Agent Phoenix, I’m glad that you enjoy the site.
I think that the skeptical charge leveled against chiropractors is fairly accurate. While they may preform therapies that do have some benefit, like manipulations for back pain (the kind of things physical therapists do), the methodological basis for chiropractic, vertebral subluxation (manipulation), has no evidence in its favor. The idea that moving your spine around to relieve nerve pressure which in turn can help eyesight and indigestion so far does not have any plausibility to it. In this way, chiropractic is not considered a real science.
I’m sure that your mother is a very good practitioner and a very smart woman, but other alternative medicine practitioners like acupuncturists also go through their own version of medical school, acupuncture school, are licensed, and have their own boards to govern them. Unfortunately, all of this schooling and regulation does not mean that the methodologies are scientifically sound.
I would not say that all chiropractors are fakes. I’m sure that a majority of them are very sincere and just want to help their patients. However, even accredited chiropractors practice the main tenet of vertebral subluxation, which as far as it has been tested, has no evidence to make it a real science. If a chiropractor did not employ any of these unfounded practices, and just stuck to things like exercise, massage, nutritional consultation, etc., then chiropractors could not be called fakes.
Here is a summary of vertebral subluxation and the skeptical side of it. I would be happy to talk to you about this further if you like. Stay Skeptical!
Well celebrity doctor thats the number one for me in the list !