|
Welcome to the International Skeptics Forum, where we discuss skepticism, critical thinking, the paranormal and science in a friendly but lively way. You are currently viewing the forum as a guest, which means you are missing out on discussing matters that are of interest to you. Please consider registering so you can gain full use of the forum features and interact with other Members. Registration is simple, fast and free! Click here to register today. |
24th November 2007, 05:20 AM | #1 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,306
|
Angry UK chiropractic regulators write to the Press Complaints Commission
Here is an interesting development concerning the practice of chiropractic in the UK.
The chiropractic regulatory body, the General Chiropractic Council (GCC), has just lodged a formal complaint with the Press Complaints Commission (PCC) against three UK newspapers for “inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting of the purpose and outcome of a research study”. http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/page_fil...0(Website).pdf The research study in question found that there was no significant difference in the time to recovery, pain, function, global perceived effects or adverse events between people receiving active diclofenac and/or spinal manipulation compared to the respective placebo. The study’s Discussion section (p.1643) included the following comments:
Quote:
According to the GCC the offending newspapers are:
Note that the The Guardian headline read "Chiropractors may be no use in treating back pain, study says". [My bold] Now, remembering that in the UK legislation requires that chiropractors’ provision of care must be evidence-based and that spinal manipulation is about the only treatment that chiropractors administer that has some (very slim) evidence attached to it, those headlines may carry more than a kernel of truth in them. For those not familiar with the evidence base for spinal manipulation (which is not strictly ‘chiropractic’) here are the current data: From 2005
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Still on the subject of evidence, it is interesting to note that the GCC’s 9th November 2007 press statement regarding the study published in the Lancet said the following:
Quote:
Well, just where is the scientific evidence to support the GCC’s claims that “The main treatments of chiropractic have been shown consistently in reviews to be more effective than the treatment to which they have been compared”? And where are the safety data for ‘chiropractic’ (including those for children), and the data for chiropractic’s effectiveness and for its cost-effectiveness? And what about those national guidelines? Here's some insight into them:
Quote:
Returning once more to its formal complaint to the PCC, the GCC says that it is concerned that the newspapers’ reporting is…
Quote:
…and it is seeking corrections and clarifications printed in prominent positions in each paper. Well, presumably any such correction will be accompanied by the scientific evidence for ‘chiropractic’ (whatever chiropractic actually is), and it will also justify why several hundred McTimoney chiropractors (as well as quite a number of others) are allowed to promote the pseudoscientific concept of “innate intelligence”. For example:
Quote:
Finally, it’s interesting to note the following in the GCC’s complaint to the PCC:
Quote:
What it doesn’t say is that that recommendation isn’t true of the Royal College of General Practitioners (RCGP) in the UK. Its guidelines for the management of acute low back pain - which had previously recommended spinal manipulation – were withdrawn two years ago. See page 2 of the GCC’s Spring 2005 newsletter (#15) here: http://www.gcc-uk.org/files/link_file/GCC_news_15.pdf Does anyone else think that the GCC, as part of its regulatory duty to 'promote the profession', is equally guilty of inaccurate, misleading and distorted reporting? |
24th November 2007, 06:17 AM | #2 |
Banned
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 26,704
|
Let's see what the upshot of their complaint is. They may get slapped down hard!
|
24th November 2007, 04:40 PM | #3 |
Banned
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 58,581
|
|
25th November 2007, 05:18 AM | #4 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,306
|
Well, the Daily Telegraph has now published a very brief apology. However, what I’d like to know is how the General Chiropractic Council can say this…
Quote:
…when this seems to be the reality of the situation:
Quote:
Interestingly, in addition to “promoting the profession” the General Chiropractic Council has a duty to “protect patients” and “set standards”. Conflict of interests? ETA: Re cost effectiveness of spinal manipulation, here are the most up-to-date (2006) data:
Quote:
|
19th November 2010, 04:42 PM | #5 |
Graduate Poster
Join Date: Feb 2006
Posts: 1,306
|
It's been three years, but finally UK chiropractors and their regulator, the General Chiropractic Council, have been caught out with the above:
Where the evidence leads http://www.zenosblog.com/2010/11/whe...vidence-leads/ Has the self-destruct button been pressed? |
__________________
ebm-first.com What alternative health practitioners might not tell you. https://twitter.com/Blue_Wode |
|
20th November 2010, 02:52 AM | #6 |
Anti-homeopathy illuminati member
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 5,363
|
Ah, the joys of the web. All it takes is some diligent soul to link the dots and the internal inconsistencies and self-contradictions become evident.
Without wishing to derail, "Dana Ullman" has caught himself in a similar bind, albeit one that matters less in the great scheme of things. Unfortunately, what we lack is a great big buzzer that goes off when one of these gets spotted and the defeated party is forced to remove themself from the field of play forever. |
__________________
"i'm frankly surprised homeopathy does as well as placebo" Anonymous homeopath. "Alas, to wear the mantle of Galileo it is not enough that you be persecuted by an unkind establishment; you must also be right." (Robert Park) Is the pen is mightier than the sword? Its effectiveness as a weapon is certainly enhanced if it is sharpened properly and poked in the eye of your opponent. |
|
23rd November 2010, 05:15 PM | #7 |
Thinker
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 168
|
|
Thread Tools | |
|
|