"You Should Try to Structure a Web Site
on Facts Not Feelings "
April 6, 2007
I am currently a student at the Parker College of Chiropractic. I have recently spent an hour or so on your site, this being my second visit to your site (the first being a few years ago when I was analyzing the pros and cons of both the medical and chiropratic educations.
In the Jeers section of your site, I do not know whether you are portraying all comments, or simply focusing on the unstructured ones but any one who calls themselves a health care professional and then proceeds to use swears and threats to your life to validate their arguements, is doing a great inservice to alternative forms of healthcare. It appears most of the comments against your site are emotionally-driven as opposed to logically or scientifically-based, which furthers the widely held views of chiropractors (to use a specific example) as 'quacks'.
I would also like to say that I agree with your overall view of 'quackery': People should be made aware of the truths of any branch of health care, and thus make their decisions accordingly. I believe that any health-care practitioner (whether and MD, DC, DO or otherwise) that is producing great harm to their patients is doing an inservice to society.
The fallacy of your site however, lies in its structure: It seems to be more about finger pointing, and misunderstaning, than one of scientific basis (as it claims to be). That fact can be seen simply by your title 'quackwatch', which hardly suggests a valid discussion is about to be presented. Many of the articles are written using anecdotal evidence from traditional health-care practitioners, and from a relative few number of patients actually 'harmed' by alternative care (as compared to the hundreds of thousands that could be produced if an anti-medical site of the same magnitude was launched).
As well, the research used to support your arguements is either subjective (as is the nature of any case study), or published in AMA medical journals or their affiliates (but as we all know from the 1981 Wilks case on the 1963 AMA's 'committee on quackery', the AMA has been systematically using propoganda and scare-tactics as opposed to actual research to erradicate chiropractic from the health care profession).
As a bit of constructive criticism, I believe if you truly want to achieve your desired goal of eliminating most forms of chiropractic and alternative health care, it would be much more effective to use more science and reason in your arguements. I believe if you try to structure a website based on facts and not feelings, dismissing chiropractic as 'quackery' will prove to be far more difficult.
As a closing, I would like to say your site did not in the past, and continues to not make me second guess my chiropractic education. When you look at the highly documented results on human phisiology (affects of lowering blood pressure, and changes in surface EMG to use examples), or even animal results (as it is very difficult to argue the 'placebo effect' of a chiropractic treatment on the restoration of a dog's motor functions) as well as it's minimal harm to service ratio (compared to ALL forms of healthcare), it is hard to deny the value of chiropractic care in the global society.
Whether you want to post this in the cheers or jeers section has no matter to me, but I do look forward to your reply.
Moses Bernard B.Sc. (Student)