Shaun Holt BSA decision

I have just seen this,

Does anyone have a transcript of what was said....

http://www.stuff.co.nz/national/2896251/TV1-show-breached-accuracy-stand...

Trackback URL for this post:

http://skepticsinthepub.net.nz/trackback/36

Hmmmm, chiropractors sure are

Hmmmm, chiropractors sure are touchy. Surely if they have the opportunity to rebut, and make truthful claims they will have no loss from some critical commentary. Reminds me of when the research came out showing that chiropractors (among others) were misusing the term doctor they got all upset and threatened legal action (note: "doctor" is not the protected term, "medical practitioner" is and so anyone can call themselves a doctor.) - there is more on this at http://www.dcscience.net/?p=245 Professor Frizelle famously stated at the time: "Let’s hear your evidence not your legal muscle" and that's exactly what the chiropractors should be doing.

DC's Improbable Science also has some commentary on the case and the rebuttal by the chiropractor that is interesting reading http://www.dcscience.net/?p=2262#more-2262

I however, am in two minds about Holt myself. While he is appropriately sceptical about some things like homeopathy and chiropractic practices he doesn't appear to do the same with other areas where he should be, like with outrageous claims about supplements I've noticed. This appears mainly because he sells the things himself, I've been over looking at the 'reference' section of Vitamin Lab and if he's claiming that chiropractors are being misleading claiming to treat conditions like childhood asthma then maybe he should be making darned sure that he isn't making the same mistake. Looking at the section on asthma on his website - http://www.thevitaminlab.com/asthma_ebr.html demonstrates that he might just be going a tad beyond what the evidence is and perhaps being selective in his cites. I've also found in this cold prevention research bit that one citation is from Medical Hypotheses, the listed journal that is not peer reviewed and authors of papers pay to get their papers published. All they have to be is interesting and reasonably well written. Not something I would use as a reference. One example from the asthma bit:

Citation: "Ascorbic acid supplementation attenuates exercise-induced bronchoconstriction in patients with asthma. Tecklenburg SL et al.Respir Med. 2007;101:1770-8. Two weeks of ascorbic acid supplementation (1500 mg/day) significantly modified the bronchoconstrictor response to exercise in asthmatic subjects and significantly improved asthma symptoms scores." This is a poor reference, checking in pubmed shows that this was very short term (only two weeks) and on only on 8 asthmatic patients. Putting it simply, it way too underpowered to make any conclusions even though the result was positive. There isn't a true control group either. It would also be hard to blind patients to whether they were on a placebo or active treatment, high doses of ascorbic acid cause diarrhoea. I'd hate to think that children might be treated with vitamin supplements instead of appropriate medication like inhaled bronchodilators because while the site may simply say that they are summaries of research on the vitamins and supplements supplied, state a heading of "conditions" and have a teeny weeny disclaimer that those with medical conditions check with a doctor an average person *might* just think that having specific medical conditions listed means the supplements could be used to actually treat the medical condition concerned.

It could actually be that the BSA has correctly characterised the statements made in some cases, a email survey of 13 chiropractors, nine of which said they could treat asthma and eight suggested efficacy in treating ear infections is totally insufficient to extrapolate from there that two-thirds of chiropractors would treat those conditions and the severe limitations of these types of surveys should have been explained. That being said the chiropractor responding didn't help his case given what I've read on DC's Improbable Science about his woo filled statements, and I think that overall the claims of chiropractors were characterised correctly. I've heard of a few people complaining that they have been pushed to go back time and time again for unneeded "maintenance" treatment, and that's just adults. Apologies for the long post, I've been reading about this off and on for a while.