There is a growing movement on the Internet called the skeptic movement, or modern skepticism. These are people that reject any and all ideas without seeing sufficient proof that an idea actually exists.
Here is an actual explanation of skepticism from Skeptic.com.
“Some people believe that skepticism is the rejection of new ideas, or worse, they confuse “skeptic” with “cynic” and think that skeptics are a bunch of grumpy curmudgeons unwilling to accept any claim that challenges the status quo. This is wrong. Skepticism is a provisional approach to claims. It is the application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed. In other words, skepticism is a method, not a position. Ideally, skeptics do not go into an investigation closed to the possibility that a phenomenon might be real or that a claim might be true. When we say we are “skeptical,” we mean that we must see compelling evidence before we believe.”
I, for one, am skeptical about many things myself. I don’t believe in unicorns. or Bigfoot, or the Loch Ness Monster, or psychic abilities, or the safety of any prescription or over-the-counter drug out there today. To me, having tonsils removed because you are getting sick makes no sense, especially when tonsils are actually organs of the immune system. To me, that is simply just the “application of reason to any and all ideas.”
However, there are skeptics out there with agendas of their own. These are people who will reject any and all ideas that don’t suit there purpose. Stephen Barrett is the perfect example.
The Atlas of Life Skeptics
As of late, I have had a number of alternative medicine and chiropractic skeptics visit The Atlas of Life. It started after I posted an article entitled “The Vertebral Subluxation Extinct in the UK… Where Next?” I got into a debate with a skeptic in the comments section. A few weeks later, January posted an article about our oldest child’s reaction to poison oak.
Apparently, one of these skeptics posted this article on a skeptic blog or forum criticizing how we handled the poison oak reaction. In fact, the day after January posted that, we experienced the second highest traffic day of all time here at The Atlas of Life.
As a result, we received a number of rude and nasty comments questioning our decision as parents, saying, among other things, that we were cruel and unfit to be parents, that we had one person’s contempt, and that we were lucky and irresponsible… all of which were trashed, because I don’t allow comments of that nature on this site.
The funny thing is that skepticism is supposed to be the “application of reason to any and all ideas — no sacred cows allowed.” Well, these people never actually read the post. If so, they would have known we were very diligent in watching over our daughter and that she was completely fine during that entire reaction. The only adverse occurrence was that she looked like someone else because of the swelling. It was poison oak, for crying out loud… not an allergic reaction to an aspergillus spore on a peanut! Just because we don’t run out to get steroid shots for our kids at the littlest sign of trouble, doesn’t mean we are bad parents. It just means we know the body can heal itself much better than ANY medication out there.
These people skipped over January’s words, instead judging by the pictures. Hmm… I thought reading was part of the “application of reason.”
Since then, I have received at least one mean-spirited comment a day from a “skeptic,” one individual even calling himself “Concerned Chiro.” I actually find it funny that these people go to great lengths to insult us and deride us, putting time and thought into their rude comment, only to get it deleted and never see the light of day. It honestly amuses me. None of you see those comments because they get trashed. There are also others who are not mean-spirited, which I approve and willingly debate.
Which leads me to one of the points of this post. These skeptics seem to live and die by the Randomized Controlled Trial (RCT). Some of these people, not all, but some seemingly need an RCT to validate the sky is blue.
Armchair Skepticism
They use this logic to completely discount chiropractic as having zero value whatsoever. They say there aren’t any reliable chiropractic RCTs, citing faulty research using osteopathic manipulations, and not specific chiropractic techniques, as the basis for their arguments. I agree with them… those studies are flawed and I don’t give them any credence either. They discount some actual decent research, ideas, and theories as completely wrong and then say “See? The GCC ruled that vertebral subluxation doesn’t exist!” as if that will actually prove their point to me. The majority of these people have no practice experience of any kind in a health care related field, yet they see fit to correct and criticize those of us who do take care of patients. I would classify this as “armchair skepticism.”
There are also a number of skeptics who actually reside within the chiropractic profession itself. Many of these skeptics have professional homes amongst the faculty of chiropractic colleges around the country. They make many of the same arguments skeptics outside the profession make, saying things like “The vertebral subluxation is ridiculous.” And the problem there is the same: armchair skepticism. It’s hard to give credibility to someone who failed in practice and couldn’t actually clear patients’ spines of vertebral subluxations.
Now, I don’t say all this claiming all chiropractic college faculty is this way… I can list a number of chiropractors teaching in the schools, making a difference to their students. A number of these chiropractors have had a positive influence on my own growth as a chiropractor.
Chiropractic has been around for 115 years, and that is not by accident. A healing art such as this would not last long at all if it were a sham. Chiropractic works and it is safe, plain and simple. Now, I might not have RCTs to prove everything under the sun about chiropractic, but there is such a thing as practice-based results. It’s tough to prove chiropractic works through RCTs simply because it’s difficult to offer sham adjustments. It’s possible within upper cervical, as evidenced in this study, but not within chiropractic as a whole in most cases. So practice-based results will have to do in most instances.
The Argument
The problem with RCTs to prove chiropractic is not the point of this post. But it does lead me to the argument no skeptic, in or out of the profession, has ever addressed when brought up. In fact, they avoid it altogether, skirting the issue by trying to debate me on something else entirely.
I grew up a sick kid, which you can read about here. I first tried chiropractic in my early twenties. I experienced a big reduction in allergies, as well as coldness and poor circulation in my hands and feet completely disappearing after about a month of care. Should my chiropractor have told me that the alleviation of those symptoms haven’t been proven in an RCT, so I should not attribute them to chiropractic? Should he have told me it was a placebo, that it was all in my head?
What about two weeks ago, when my two-year-old daughter woke up miserable, complaining that her ear hurt… crying and moaning and screaming to my wife until I came home for lunch and laid her down for a nap. When she woke up, we took her over to the office and specifically adjusted her left posterior C1 vertebra. Is it a placebo when my daughter goes from crying, moaning, and screaming from the moment she woke up that morning, to running around the office happily two minutes later? What about 45 minutes later when she ran up to my wife exclaiming “Mommy, Mommy! My ear popped! It doesn’t hurt anymore!” Should we discount that experience because there isn’t a RCT to prove it?
What about the 22 year old female who came to our office a few weeks ago with a pain so bad in her upper back that she told me if it goes on much longer, she doesn’t want to live much more. Should I tell her it’s a placebo effect when her pain immediately disappears after one specific upper cervical adjustment, when pain meds and generalized osteopathic spinal manipulations had zero effect before that? Should I tell her the scientific evidence is weak and that we can’t prove what we did helped her?
What about the elderly woman on 10 different pain meds and countless surgeries later having nowhere to turn to for answers? Modern medicine failed her, but one specific upper cervical adjustment alleviated some of her pain enough to give her hope that maybe, just maybe, she has finally found an answer to her suffering when nothing else before that did. Should we tell her there’s only shaky evidence at best to confirm what we did helped? Should we tell her that until we get an RCT to prove what we do is valid, she shouldn’t attribute her newfound relief to anything we did whatsoever?
Every single skeptic has avoided this point I brought up. I would love for just one skeptic to tell me what we should be telling our patients about chiropractic as stated in the examples above. I’m not trying to change minds here, just get an answer to a question I keep asking, all to no avail.
Maybe today I’ll finally get an answer.
{ 17 comments… read them below or add one }
Still no answer I see…..
If you don’t want something to be, no amount of evidence will prove it is right. The man who knows he is right doesn’t try to prove himself. I don’t waste my time with skeptics. You are the Will of God.
For hundreds of years the earth was flat – and then it became round – how did that happen??? Did the scientific community accept this new fact? No – people were labelled as heretics! We are in good company……………………..!
Having studied philosophy and interacting with ‘so-called’ skeptics, I must say I find it a completely laughable epistemological position. Skeptics deplore dogmatism, yet practice it daily. The position of skepticism is dogmatic in and of itself — where is their evidence that questioning everything is somehow a better way of knowing than, let’s say intuition or common sense. Skepticism is riddled with paradox — that is, their modus operandi is to not believe anything at face value even if it makes sense, except for their belief (yes, I said belief because that is what it is) that skepticism is the best way, or even valuable way, of encountering the world. Their major obstacle is akin to the major obstacle of classic liberalism — if you are de facto all inclusive of ideas, then you have to take the conservative and neo-conservative positions serious enough that you avoid creating straw men and altogether discount their view because it is a square peg that doesn’t fit in your round hole!
What’s even more laughable about skepticism, is skeptics question only that which is convenient — how can you truly subscribe to anything in life if you are a true skeptic? I am a skeptic alright…a skeptic about skepticism. So I guess because I am skeptic about skepticism as a method, I am more of a skeptic than the ‘skeptics’ themselves — I question their very paradigm as a viable way of knowing. If you are going to pick and choose what you are skeptical about, there is an inconsistency in your paradigm. If you encounter your world with skepticism, why are you not skeptical about skepticism itself? Bottom line is your skepticism is an a priori assumption that, that is a viable, let alone valuable, way of knowing. If it is not an assumption, then all you Pyrrhonians step up to the plate and prove otherwise….but remember you are arguing your point to a true skeptic, because I am skeptical of skepticism…Lol! Bring it!
Sceptic reporting in.
Hello, “Doctor” Brandon! Do you understand the difference between “reliable evidence” – the kind of thing you find in randomised, doubled-blinded clinical studies published in peer-reviewed scientific journals – and “anecdotes”?
If you do, then that’s the answer to your question. If chiropractic really was responsible for curing your childhood illnesses, you should be able to find some of that “reliable evidence” I’m talking about.
Otherwise, I’m afraid, you’re just misleading your patients with anecdotes.
Hi Ron, thanks for the comment. However you failed to answer my question. Of course I am aware of the difference between RCTs and anecdotes, but you missed my point.
My question was not “Am I misleading my patients with anecdotes?” I am not giving my patients anecdotal evidence whatsoever. My patients are experiencing changes brought about only by chiropractic, and not the “scientific medical establishment” (Of which only about 20% has been proven by RCTs). Should I tell them they are having an anecdotal experience and not to attribute it to chiropractic? THAT is my question.
You just said the same thing every other skeptic has been saying to me, which doesn’t hold a lot of water compared to what I see in practice everyday.
I just thought that any skeptics checking in might value the following link –
http://www.chiropracticsafety.com.au/chiropracticsafety/Evidence_Here.html
@Ryan- Great points. Hard to argue with anything you said there.
Well, Karen, you’re really keeping the skeptics honest now. Just looking through that list was impressive. I’m sure the skeptics will discount it all, even the RCTs in that list, as having some kind of flaw so as to desperately hold on to their position.
Well done Dr. Harshe. I had a professional MMA fighter come in last week from Mendocino Combat who was suffering from a strain of the proximal biceps tendons. He had been in pain for 1 month and was not able to train. After a thorough examination of the shoulder, biceps and cervical spine (motor, sensory, ROM etc.) I administered a specific adjustment to his atlas. While he was on the resting table he kept noting how his shoulder and biceps were feeling “warm” and “loose”. Later that day I went down to the fight club and ran into the patient who was in earlier that day. He reported that he was 100% and was completely amazed. He kept praising me and telling the other pro fighters that they need to come and see me. I of course told them that there is no RCT to support what he experienced and to disregard his progress until there is a double-blind test supporting what he felt. Just kidding.
Let me get this strait-
If you consider the bodies ability to heal itself crazy, but accept any “study” published by the medical community as gospel (even though these studies are selectively published, and all those which do not support their drug of choice are sent to the dung heap) you are an intellectual skeptic?
I don’t call that skepticism, I call that selling out to the highest possible bidder. But don’t worry- you are in good company, the FDA does the same thing. (You can find lots of proof of that- the FDA actually will speed your drug approval if you pay them more. I could not make this stuff up if I wanted to).
Don’t worry Dr Harshe (and notice I did not put the Dr before your name in quotation marks, that is because I actually believe a good Chiropractor is a true doctor of the first order) the skeptics will not be laughing and feeling high minded when they get back surgery (which has what, a 40% success rate?- proven of course by a DB study) rather than a non invasive UC adjustment to allow their own body to heal itself.
I am seriously concerned about the state of the world when parents are berated for not running their kids to an MD because of poison oak. What’s next, a vaccine for mild childhood illnesses, like Chicken Pox?
Keep up the good work.
@Dr. Nathan- I’m glad you were honest with him and told him you did nothing. Very responsible. Wait… you were kidding? How irresponsible. LOL!
@Sarah- Yeah, no one would ever make a Chicken Pox vaccine. That’s silly. Oh wait… they do. Nevermind.
For the record, only one skeptic has chimed in so far, and he didn’t address my point. Still waiting…
Ron, my friend have you made a gross error in your argument. My oh my, did it excite me to find it because it discredits your entire argument (you should be more careful next time!) and makes you look entirely pitiful (I almost feel bad pointing out such a novice mistake…almost).
You erroneously state:
“If chiropractic really was responsible for curing your childhood illnesses, you should be able to find some of that “reliable evidence” I’m talking about.”
The classic “if…then” statement. Oops…have you caught it Ron? Didn’t think so, so let me spell it out to you.
Read carefully: “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence.” Say it with me Ron, “The absence of evidence is not the evidence of absence”.
Could it be possible that the research has not been done to show a connection between childhood illnesses and the chiropractic care? (**Gasp**). I am afraid, Ron, that by answering “Yes,” or “Possibly,” defeats your argument. The affirmative is the only logical answer to this question (Yes, it is a questions about possibilities – don’t you hate those!).
In order to belabor the argument (okay, maybe just to kick you while your down), let’s replace your logic with something else in order to see just how ABSURD it is.
“If Jon Smith killed Kathy Peterson, then you should be able to find the evidence that Jon killed Kathy”. Ron, have you ever heard of cold case? There are plenty of examples where a person has killed someone else without authorities being able to find evidence of it ever happening. Again, this demonstrates how your logic is clearly not logical. You see killing Kathy has nothing to do with being able to discover evidence of who killed her, much like chiropractic eliminating allergies has no causal relationship to the existence of the evidence to back this up. Therefore, your “if..then” argument is merely a fallacious attempt at ascribing causality to two un-related statements. That’s all. Just a really stupid mistake.
Don’t worry though, my old logic professor is always looking for examples. I shall forward this to him (your fortunate the he changes names!).
Please be more careful next time you opine.
“only one skeptic has chimed in so far, and he didn’t address my point.”
I’m a skeptic. Also a bit stupid.
I’d like to address your point, but I couldn’t find it. No trying to be mean, please consider it all my fault. But please, could you a bit more succinctly tell me what your point is?
Read the last 6 paragraphs of the post again. I think it’s pretty plain as day.
And just so you know, it’s really hard to take someone seriously when they post their name as a Transformers character.
I always wondered how you can actually document proper VO2 output. The RCT of that would be awesome. Could you imagine? Today I need you to run on this treadmill but you can’t know you are running and neither can I and for the others I want them to stand still but actually think they are running. Both groups must not know that they have a machine strapped to their face. The control group will just have the machine strapped to their face and not be given any specific instructions. Just saying it would fun to see and perform!