|
Well, if you call "picking" the parts of what some chiropractors do to some patients some of the time, then I wouldn't argue that you're deliberately "picking" ... but not being "picky." And, what you're doing typifies the sort of "pickiness" that chiropractors have done with any studies that look like they might validate even the smallest things that chiropractors think, say, and do. That's why you're all over this particular Scandinavian effort like a cheap chiropractic suit, NMSdoc.
But, before you make statements like the one above ... "yup, this is indeed chiropractic" ... you're going to have to define the term "chiropractic." Otherwise, your assertion that whatever was done thatlooks like it might be "chiropractic" must "indeed"be"chiropractic" (because you like what you see) ... this amounts to so much empty rumor and false advertising. If "chiropractic" is to be any and everything that a chiropractor thinks, says, and does or anything that is ever taught at any and all chiropractic schools (including CE seminars), you've got a lot of accounting to do before you can so casually and thoughtlessly say, without blinking an eye, that what the Scandinavians did was "indeed chiropractic."
There's something else that I find "troublesome" about your reflex planting of a chiropractic flag on top of what sounds like a pretty lame study. You probably don't even notice your own effort; but, what is this business about "[incorporating] all the above modalities and MORE [emphasis added]?" More what ... the imbecilities that characterize the "chiropractic" you prefer not to mention? Incorporate into what ... the rest of the profession's ball of moronic chiropractic wax?
Your response to Diane is much MORE "chiropractic" than anything else. Why don't you start by telling chirotalkers what is unique about "chiropractic" so that the next time you use the term, we know what you're referencing and what you mean by "indeed."
~TEO.
John Badanes, DC, PharmD
LCCW '84, UCSF '97