Chiropractors try to erase web clues

At least one chiropractic association has told its members to remove their wilder unproven claims from their web sites. This follows the decision of science writer Simon Singh to appeal against a conviction of libelling chiropractors by saying that their claims of being able to cure colic and other infant troubles were “bogus.” Unfortunately for Mr. Singh, he defined “bogus” in his article as meaning invalid; but the judge invoked mind-reading powers to conclude that Mr. Singh meant “deliberately fraudulent.” That’s a bogus decision, Judge.

Homeopathy scare

The trouble is, who’s being scared?

From CECTIC:

Read the whole story.

Ben Goldacre: AIDS denialism kills

Mathias Rath, vitamin-pusher, sued Ben Goldacre of Bad Science to keep Ben from writing about him. But Ben won, and the missing chapter of his book can now be published. Read it here: “Mathias Rath: steal this chapter.”

One person dies of AIDS in Africa every two minutes. That’s half as many as women dying of complications of pregnancy worldwide, one a minute. So let’s eliminate both health threats.

What is denialism?

On the blog Denying AIDS and Other Oddities, I found an article about “What is HIV/AIDS Denialism?” and it includes a description of denialism in general:

Like other extremist groups, denialists hold an absolute certainty that they are the sole bearers of “The Truth.” For HIV/AIDS denialists, the truth is that HIV is a harmless virus that cannot possibly cause disease, and that anti-HIV medications amount to nothing more than poison, DNA terminators that can themselves cause AIDS. Second, extremist groups believe that governments are under the control of conspiring forces. In the case of HIV/AIDS denialism, the power of Big Pharma and the medical establishment have corrupted the National Institutes of Health and biomedical sciences in general. A third characteristic of extremists is a hatred for its opponents, often seen as conspiring with their enemies. HIV/AIDS denialists attack the most visible scientists; especially those who are widely exposed in the media as well as those who have publicly debunked their rhetoric. Fourth, extremists deny basic civil liberties to those whose views they see as their enemies. Ironically, denialists censor science by cherry-picking results of research while claiming to be the victims of censorship themselves, and often claiming that their rights to free expression are being systematically thwarted. Finally, denialists, as do extremists, indulge in irresponsible accusations and character assassination. As expected, denialists refer to AIDS scientists and medical specialists as Nazis, the mafia, and murderers.

Psychologist Michael Shermer is the leading authority on Holocaust denialism and he has found that Holocaust deniers’ “fallacies of reasoning are eerily similar to those of other fringe groups, such as creationists”. Remarkably, these same personality features that Shermer describes in holocaust deniers are immediately recognizable among HIV/AIDS denialists. First, denialism concentrates on opponents’ weak points without making definitive statements about their own position. In HIV/AIDS denialism, without a shred of credible evidence to the contrary, there is an incessant call for the one study that proves HIV causes AIDS while not recognizing the thousands of studies that accumulate to irrefutably show that HIV causes AIDS. Even knowing the complexity of HIV and the barriers it poses to vaccines, Peter Duesberg looked me dead in the eyes and said that failure to achieve an HIV vaccine means that an infectious agent cannot be the cause of AIDS. Second, denialists exploit errors made by AIDS scientists, implying that a few errors detected in a mass of work calls into question the entire scientific enterprise.

…There are striking similarities in rhetoric, using selected excerpts from credible documents and calling for a debate on matters for which there is universal agreement. Denialist groups of all types claim mounting controversy and the need for a debate.

A big hat tip to Orac at Respectful Insolence for starting the discussion with his article “HIV/AIDS denialist Celia Farber on the death of Christine Maggiore: It was a “radical detox” regimen, not HIV.”

Why chiropractors shouldn’t be “doctors”

DC’s Improbable Science points out, in a letter from an ex-chiropractor:

Two practices are of particular concern in some chiropractic offices and in my view; these alone should be sufficient reason to prevent chiropractors from calling themselves “doctor”. The first is the systematic and deliberate erosion of a person’s confidence in the medical system. Many offices have anti medical literature in their libraries. Chiropractors are sometimes taught practices to subvert medical credibility. See http://chirobase.org/20PB/top7.html for an example.

The second is a subset of the first but is particularly damaging. It is active opposition to vaccination. At chiropractic school, I was taught anti-vaccination information in my paediatrics course. I have seen books written by chiropractors opposing vaccination and I have seen many offices with anti vaccination leaflets and books in abundance. Now I am all for informed choice but this type of material is rarely accurate or balanced. People are being encouraged not to vaccinate their children by professionals who they believe to be a reliable and prestigious source of information.