Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

>The poster who says, say, that one or another approach has not helped >him or her is participating in and contributing to net.colloquy. It’s >the cocksure bullies who enjoy dropping in just long enough to mock >the general project of misc.health.alternative who belong in the kill >files (_of this group_Badanes makes strong and very useful contributions >elsewhere). Say hello to Mr. Thorson, John.

Well put. It is not the dissension, but the tone which is offensive. For an example, the statement, >… As I >once heard a chiropractor say during an adjustment: `Oops’.

is just nasty.  But if you want to trade "overheard oops", you can add my OB who ignored my complaints during my pregnancy and then was totally surprised when she delivered my       12 lb 2 oz baby  (delivered normally, I weigh 120).

Response:

        From the misc.health.alternatives charter:     misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical     discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are     alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western     scientific medicine. Thank you, Scott, for doing the obvious and publishing the actual reference to which so many, including Robert, have referred and misunderstood. I *was* wondering what this so-called ‘code’ was, and was also impressed with the consistency with which all who ‘abided’ by it, had, with great authority, used it to fend off dissenting opinion….as if this would in some way validate the ‘alternatives’ or at least their commitment to them.         Robert:     If you don’t subscribe to the charter of m.h.a., you shouldn’t be     posting here. This is not to stifle dissent, it’s to provide a forum     for people with similar interests. Despite your credentials, you have     not shown that you share that interest. This has the sound of ‘mha, love-it or leave-it.’ If you replace the word ‘interest’ with ‘belief’ I think you will get Robert’s real message. And it is *you*, Robert, who is being dishonest, because your attitude is *precisely* meant to ’stifle dissent.’ Particularly troublesome for you and other Believers is how to stifle the voice of a ‘High Priest’ who says, "There is no God" or who simply points out, "The Emperor has no clothes." You can resort to ‘kill-filing’ or ignoring, which is your choice; but I would examine the impulse to do so since I believe it is an externalization of your own efforts to quell your *own* incredulity regarding the ‘alternatives’ ….which for one reason or another, you [and other Alternativists] can’t ‘afford’ to experience. JB

Response:

>Typical roundabout way of attacking the subject matter of this newsgroup. >First, character assassination…. next, see below: >other Believers is how to stifle the voice of a ‘High Priest’ who >says, "There is no God" or who simply points out, "The Emperor has no >clothes." You can resort to ‘kill-filing’ or ignoring, which is your >choice; but I would examine the impulse to do so since I believe it is >an externalization of your own efforts to quell your *own* incredulity >regarding the ‘alternatives’ ….which for one reason or another, you >[and other Alternativists] can’t ‘afford’ to experience.

I don’t like this particular form of argument at all; we just saw some cretin of a med student trying (badly) to psychoanalyze Steve Dyer on sci.med, and this isn’t any more attractive.  However, I am in no wise defending Larry London… >Typical stilted drivel spewed by detractors. >I’ve read it over and over in many "alternative" newsgroups. >What’s _your_ motive for bashing alternative healthcare? >Or should I ask, who’s paying you to do it.

Gee, aren’t you the guy who was complaining about "character assassination" a few lines earlier?  How lovely to see that you don’t stoop to such things. In answer to your final sentence, no, you shouldn’t ask, unless you’re attempting to prove you can be a bigger jerk than anyone else on this newsgroup.  [If that's what you're doing, well, far be it from me to try to stop you.]   — David Wright, Hitachi Computer Products (America), Inc.  Waltham, MA      but you’re free to disagree, you poor deluded creature

Response:

>[. . . ] You can >resort to ‘kill-filing’ or ignoring, which is your choice; but I would >examine the impulse to do so since I believe it is an externalization of >your own efforts to quell your *own* incredulity regarding the ‘alternatives’ >….which for one reason or another, you [and other Alternativists] can’t >’afford’ to experience. >JB

Question: What does John Badanes have in common with Clarence Thomas (the one who recently inundated the internet with his "repent-Jesus- is-coming-the-day-after-tomorrow" message? or with the guy who posts his interminable rantings on how the Armenians really slaughtered the Turks to every soc.culture group in netland? Answer: He feels that is message is so transcendently important that he’ll damn well post it where- and whenever he wants, whether it’s welcome or not. The analogy is imprecise, however, since Thomas and his ilk probably know that they’re transgressing the norms of civility and community, while Badanes can only understand those who would happily do without him in terms of their own putative illness. Reminds me of the East Germans who were (honestly, in the eyes of their physicians–the means but not the motivations were shared with their Soviet comrades) placed in mental hospitals because they couldn’t see the glories of socialism, GDR-style. Disagree with _his_ intrusions, and _you’re_ mentally ill. Maybe North Korea is in need of mental health professionals, John. This is, as other posters have pointed out, not to say that one may not express reservations or stronger about one alternative modality or another, or that one must sign on to a list of principles. The point is not to stifle discussion among and within a net.community earnestly interested in the possibilities, met and unmet, of misc.health.alternative. The poster who says, say, that one or another approach has not helped him or her is participating in and contributing to net.colloquy. It’s the cocksure bullies who enjoy dropping in just long enough to mock the general project of misc.health.alternative who belong in the kill files (_of this group_–Badanes makes strong and very useful contributions elsewhere). Say hello to Mr. Thorson, John. — David Neal Miller               s’vort nekome hot a zin                                 ven mit blut farshraybst em

Response:

>I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and >continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and >my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what >misc.health.alternative is all about.

Let me recommend a nuanced view. The matters aren’t that simple. Suppose someone posted a message saying something like    "I personally don’t believe in homeopathy (or Alexander technique,    fasting, psychotherapy, aroma therapy, whatever), because (lots    of good arguments). Rather I would recommend homeopathy    (or Alexander technique, fasting, psychotherapy, aroma therapy,    whatever), because (again, good arguments)." To me, that would fit perfectly into misc.health.alternative. On the other hand:  - if the second part is "Rather I would recommend traditional medicine",    it belongs in sci.med or some talk group; agree.  - if the second part is missing altogether, it belongs in talk.*.    We’re not here to discuss whether alternative medicine is any    good or not.  - if the arguments are missing, it doesn’t belong in any newsgroup.  - if the arguments consist only of name-calling, it belongs in alt.flame. What bores me is the "which is less fat?" postings. I see nothing *alternative* in trying to limit fat consumption. It belongs in alt.beauty.slimline or possibly sci.med.nutrition.fat.not Also, I see nowhere in the Bible support for violation of the news ground rules just because you think yourself that you have an important message for us all. Ole | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM | | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM |  Ole V. Villumsen | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM |  Department of Statistics, | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM |  University of Washington, Seattle, USA. | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM |  Sent out from Computer Science Department, | MM  MM  MM | MM  MM |  Aarhus University, Denmark. |  |  |   |  |  |  |  |

Response:

>        From the misc.health.alternatives charter: >    misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical >    discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are >    alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western >    scientific medicine. >This has the sound of ‘mha, love-it or leave-it.’ If you replace the word >’interest’ with ‘belief’ I think you will get Robert’s real message. And >it is *you*, Robert, who is being dishonest, because your attitude is >*precisely* meant to ’stifle dissent.’ Particularly troublesome for you and

Typical roundabout way of attacking the subject matter of this newsgroup. First, character assassination…. next, see below: >other Believers is how to stifle the voice of a ‘High Priest’ who says, "There >is no God" or who simply points out, "The Emperor has no clothes." You can >resort to ‘kill-filing’ or ignoring, which is your choice; but I would >examine the impulse to do so since I believe it is an externalization of >your own efforts to quell your *own* incredulity regarding the ‘alternatives’ >….which for one reason or another, you [and other Alternativists] can’t >’afford’ to experience.

Typical stilted drivel spewed by detractors. I’ve read it over and over in many "alternative" newsgroups. What’s _your_ motive for bashing alternative healthcare? Or should I ask, who’s paying you to do it.

Response:

Greenstein) writes of John Badanes less then high opinion of many alternative practices, and then continues:    If you don’t subscribe to the charter of m.h.a., you shouldn’t be    posting here. This is not to stifle dissent, it’s to provide a forum    for people with similar interests. Despite your credentials, you have    not shown that you share that interest. I believe Mr. Greenstein is right on target about this charter business. It is simple net courtesy to not post off charter articles to a newsgroup. If Dr. Badanes does not subscribe to the charter of m.h.a, he should do the right thing and stop posting here. And that goes for all you other charter violators out there too! Let’s take a good look at this charter so we can more ably identify charter violations – I quote from the official newgroup message sent by David Lawrence: – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >Newsgroups: misc.health.alternative >Control: newgroup misc.health.alternative >misc.health.alternative is an unmoderated newsgroup which passed its vote for >creation by 356:64 as reported in news.announce.newgroups on 14 Dec 1992. >For your newsgroups file: >misc.health.alternative     Alternative, complementary and holistic health care. >The charter, culled from the call for votes: >    misc.health.alternative is a newsgroup for general non-technical >    discussion (pro *and* con) of health care and therapies which are >    alternative, complementary, or not commonly accepted by Western >    scientific medicine.

Mr. Greenstein will note the pro *and* con phrase in the charter. As I once heard a chiropractor say during an adjustment: `Oops’. It appears that Dr. Badanes is actually conforming to the charter by discussing the ‘con’s’ of alternative health care while Mr. Greenstein is the one in `violatius chartius flagrante’.Obviously Mr. Greenstein’s course of action is clear. But! Even as we must condemn the crime of charter violation, we must admire the moral fibre of Mr. Greenstein that will cause him to apply the same standards to himseulf that he is readily applied to Dr. Badanes. It *is* sad, but we will have to be strong as we say `Adieu Robert!’ sdb —

Response:

> I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and > continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and > my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what > misc.health.alternative is all about. > I’m not suggesting a moderated group, but only some self-control > among the S.D.s of the net.community: if you’ve nothing to contribute > to misc.health.alternative beyond rejection of its raison d’etre, > please read in silence or find a more congenial home.

I couldn’t agree more – I just hope the people your post is aimed at take some notice…. Annette

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->  I agree that much ‘bandwidth’is used up because it is so easy to drum up >a fight advocating homeopathy on SCI.med or demanding data on misc.health. >ALTERNATIVE.  From my standpoint, there are far more transgressors who >appear on sci.med making unscientific claims, arguing about their *rights* >(libertarian vitamin politics), and building paranoid medical-industrial >castles.  But, that’s what makes it fun, right?  If I want REAL scientific >discourse I go down the hall or pick up a journal. >  On the other hand, I think you have to realize why sci.med’ers >are moved to post here. There are basically 4 forms of argument made on >this group about a therapy: >        1. It worked for me, my sister, my dog (the argument from >anecdote) >        2. Dr. Blahblah says or traditional chinese healers say or my >guru says (the argument from authority) >        3. It oughta work (the argument from biologic plausibility) >        4. It DOES work – X% of the time, or better than the standard >therapy. >(the argument from empiricism) >  It amazes me how often you alt.healthers who decry establishment science >resort to arguments 3 and 4.  When you do, and you do quite often, you can >expect to be called on it.  When ronroth waxes brilliant about >neuroanatomy or chemistry – he gets nailed.  When someone says in m.h.a >(as they did), "It turns out that the AIDS virus cannot tolerate high >oxygen levels in its victims’ blood."  and that oral H2O2 can generate >these high O2 levels; these are empiric claims about nature.  They are >either true or false.  This post does not appeal to some ayurvedic >philosophy of medicine or invoke Ch’i or Yang or spinal alignment.  It’s >just mainstream, though bad (as in wrong, stupid, makes no sense, no >supporting data), science. >  Want to use arguments 1 & 2, I won’t post a response. But, if you’re >gonna >play with those fun science phrases like "90% effective compared to PTCA" >or "it works by stimulating carnitine acyl transferase" or "I measure >intracellular ACTIVITY of ions" – then a sci.med incursion into the lofty >climes of m.h.a is justified.

Yes, fair enough, and well stated. I drew my distinctions based on what I took/take to be the mandates of the respective groups, but your distinctions based on discourse/evidentiary modes is also compelling. — David Neal Miller               s’vort nekome hot a zin                                 ven mit blut farshraybst em

Response:

        David Neal Miller:     "I shall make one last attempt to state my case before having recourse to      the kill file. Before I begin, however…." Your efforts to ‘control’ and ‘mandate’ with David Neal Miller’s "ground rules" suggests to me that you likely do this with the rest of your life and relationships. It must be awfully restricting ‘in there.’ Undoubtedly, you have ‘kill-filed’ many of life’s perturbations and threats progressively narrowing your experience until your ‘room’ is in perfect order. No matter. I shall be honored to be included in your ‘kill-file’ and take my place next to all the other experiences you have repressed.         David Neal Miller:     "In two words, get lost." Well, David… in five words, "Sit on it and rotate." JB

Response:

  I agree that much ‘bandwidth’is used up because it is so easy to drum up a fight advocating homeopathy on SCI.med or demanding data on misc.health. ALTERNATIVE.  From my standpoint, there are far more transgressors who appear on sci.med making unscientific claims, arguing about their *rights* (libertarian vitamin politics), and building paranoid medical-industrial castles.  But, that’s what makes it fun, right?  If I want REAL scientific discourse I go down the hall or pick up a journal.   On the other hand, I think you have to realize why sci.med’ers are moved to post here. There are basically 4 forms of argument made on this group about a therapy:         1. It worked for me, my sister, my dog (the argument from anecdote)         2. Dr. Blahblah says or traditional chinese healers say or my guru says (the argument from authority)         3. It oughta work (the argument from biologic plausibility)         4. It DOES work – X% of the time, or better than the standard therapy. (the argument from empiricism)   It amazes me how often you alt.healthers who decry establishment science resort to arguments 3 and 4.  When you do, and you do quite often, you can expect to be called on it.  When ronroth waxes brilliant about neuroanatomy or chemistry – he gets nailed.  When someone says in m.h.a (as they did), "It turns out that the AIDS virus cannot tolerate high oxygen levels in its victims’ blood."  and that oral H2O2 can generate these high O2 levels; these are empiric claims about nature.  They are either true or false.  This post does not appeal to some ayurvedic philosophy of medicine or invoke Ch’i or Yang or spinal alignment.  It’s just mainstream, though bad (as in wrong, stupid, makes no sense, no supporting data), science.   Want to use arguments 1 & 2, I won’t post a response. But, if you’re gonna play with those fun science phrases like "90% effective compared to PTCA" or "it works by stimulating carnitine acyl transferase" or "I measure intracellular ACTIVITY of ions" – then a sci.med incursion into the lofty climes of m.h.a is justified.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >    I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and >    continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and >    my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what >    misc.health.alternative is all about. >Don’t you mean to say "what misc.health.alternative is all about" for *you*? >Is it that you feel personally "rejected" and "annoyed" when one of your >precious healing paradigms is challenged even a little bit? Where’s your >"open mind?" And I thought that the internet forums were available in part >for professionals to discuss and toss things about a bit. Now you suggest >that this group’s mandate is to cut themselves off from the rest of the world >so that they can more effectively collude with each other, becoming ever >more insulated and inbred. That you *can’t* see how this attitude is counter- >productive, fostering  stagnancy and retardation tells me that the >"alternatives" will never grow and are doomed to the fringe….And you >can pretend it’s the "medical establishment" that’s doing it to you to >rationalize your proclivity, but I don’t think this is "healthy"…and >either do you. >JB

I don’t know that you’re being entirely honest here, John. That’s because you also do a fair amount of posting on sci.med, where, it seems, you spend most of your energy bashing those of an alternative bent. I’m not sure if you were around at the time, but the reason that misc.health. alternative was proposed in the first place, was because some folks wanted a place to discuss alternative medicine without the constant bashing. This was done with the full support of most of the wonderful folks over at sci.med, who wanted to get rid of the alternative types. I voted against creation of m.h.a. because I suspected it would result in the bashing moving over here, while at the same time cleansing sci.med of impurities, much like a high colonic. This seems to be exactly what happened. If you don’t subscribe to the charter of m.h.a., you shouldn’t be posting here. This is not to stifle dissent, it’s to provide a forum for people with similar interests. Despite your credentials, you have not shown that you share that interest. — Robert Greenstein           What the fool cannot learn he laughs at, thinking                             of latent idiocy – M. Corelli

Response:

>Don’t you mean to say "what misc.health.alternative is all about" for *you*? >Is it that you feel personally "rejected" and "annoyed" when one of your >precious healing paradigms is challenged even a little bit? Where’s your >"open mind?" And I thought that the internet forums were available in part >for professionals to discuss and toss things about a bit.

I shall make one last attempt to state my case before having recourse to the kill file. Before I begin, however, on what basis do you presume to know to which "precious healing paradigms" I adhere? My very few posts outside the areas to which I claim professional expertise (language and literature) or avocational experience (travel, investing) have, in fact, been to sci.med and of a traditional, research-oriented cast–which does not mean that I believe that alternative healing paradigms are without value. But all that is beside the point. What is _not_ beside the point is this: A Usenet group is an electronic community. Communities are defined and circumscribed, norms are set, standards of civility are enforced from within that community. Dissent can and should take place, _but only from within that community_, broadly defined. Guests who drop by–and I put myself at least somewhat in this category–should listen and learn, ask questions when they are moved to, and otherwise hold their tongues. People who disagree fundamentally with the healing paradigms of misc.health.alternative should consort with like-minded individuals on more appropriate newsgroups. (I believe that tthe reverse is also true: incendiary FDA-bashing, for example, probably belongs on misc.health.alternative and not, say, on sci.med.) To be sure, there will always be gray areas, but the underlying principle of not posting on groups the fundamental mandate and belief systems of which the poster cannot accept is, I submit, a sound one. There are, finally, groups the very raison d’etre of which is debate. This is what the talk. hierarchy is for. If you like bashing heads and exchanging hostile barbs over the issue of medical/healing paradigms, propose talk.health or somesuch group; I’ll even vote for it, though I can’t see myself tuning in. In the meantime, go the hell back to a group whose mandate bespeaks your commitment and world-view and refrain from your holy mission of poselytizing that world-view on misc.health.alternative. In two words, get lost. — David Neal Miller               s’vort nekome hot a zin                                 ven mit blut farshraybst em

Response:

>> I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and > continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and > my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what > misc.health.alternative is all about.

When nitwits try to justify their bizarre theories by using the sound, but not the sense, of the scientific method, as Bernie regularly does, and that apologist for homeopathy with the Indian name recently did, then they deserve to be exposed as the poseurs and imposters that they truly are.  Remember that the next time you see someone here try your patience. — Steve Dyer

Response:

    I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and     continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and     my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what     misc.health.alternative is all about. Don’t you mean to say "what misc.health.alternative is all about" for *you*? Is it that you feel personally "rejected" and "annoyed" when one of your precious healing paradigms is challenged even a little bit? Where’s your "open mind?" And I thought that the internet forums were available in part for professionals to discuss and toss things about a bit. Now you suggest that this group’s mandate is to cut themselves off from the rest of the world so that they can more effectively collude with each other, becoming ever more insulated and inbred. That you *can’t* see how this attitude is counter- productive, fostering  stagnancy and retardation tells me that the "alternatives" will never grow and are doomed to the fringe….And you can pretend it’s the "medical establishment" that’s doing it to you to rationalize your proclivity, but I don’t think this is "healthy"…and either do you. JB

Response:

>> I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and > continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and > my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what > misc.health.alternative is all about. >But poking ridicule at people who run their lives on substances >indistinguishable from tap water or the phases of the Moon >is a necessary part of my Laughter Therapy, which has so far prevented >me from acquiring cancer, reduced my blood pressure, and >super-charged my _chi_.  Without misc.health.alternative, >I’d probably be dying from HIV-negative AIDS induced by >electromagnetic fields right now!  This newsgroup has saved my life!

No doubt your find your post witty. I find it merely disrespectful and childish. Shame on you. — David Neal Miller               s’vort nekome hot a zin                                 ven mit blut farshraybst em

Response:

I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what misc.health.alternative is all about. Let me cite a few parallel situations. Posters to lists devoted to one or another religious belief systems are requested/required (depending on whether the list is moderated) to accept, at least for the purposes of their net.participation, in the basic precepts of that belief system. Thus, for example, a group devoted to halakhic Judaism isn’t going to waste its time defending the basic principle of kosher food production/consumption, or one devoted to charismatic Christianity the basic principles of speaking in tongues. These are the opening stakes, if you will. Discussion _assumes_ agreement with those basic principles and goes on from there. Wouldn’t one expect the same courtesy and respect on misc.health. alternative? Persistent posters whose recurring messages amount to something like "alternative medicine is a crock" should feel free to read this group, but keep their opinions to themselves– or post them to sci.med or one of the talk groups. They just don’t belong here. At least one frequent poster has posted much of real value to sci.med, which bespeaks his own orientation, but just gets in the way on this group with his ill-tempered attacks on, it seems, anything and everything concerning alternative health and medicine. Enough! I’m not suggesting a moderated group, but only some self-control among the S.D.s of the net.community: if you’ve nothing to contribute to misc.health.alternative beyond rejection of its raison d’etre, please read in silence or find a more congenial home. — David Neal Miller               s’vort nekome hot a zin                                 ven mit blut farshraybst em

Response:

> I’ve been reading misc.health.alternative for some months now, and > continue to be surprised/annoyed by those using up bandwith–and > my patience–with postings reflecting their rejection of what > misc.health.alternative is all about.

But poking ridicule at people who run their lives on substances indistinguishable from tap water or the phases of the Moon is a necessary part of my Laughter Therapy, which has so far prevented me from acquiring cancer, reduced my blood pressure, and super-charged my _chi_.  Without misc.health.alternative, I’d probably be dying from HIV-negative AIDS induced by electromagnetic fields right now!  This newsgroup has saved my life!

Response: