Spinal Manipulation May Benefit Asthma Patients

chiro.org ^ | Frank M. Painter, D.C.

[Balata]

BUMP and thanks for posting the #'s!

Your welcome, kstewskis.

It looks like we had "a clean up on isle three".#;^)

You have a great Thanksgiving too.

FReegards...Balata.

[bvw]

You have your own limited view of what "proves" things to you, and mock others. Not a very scientific attitude.

I mean, many scientists and engineers have that same MO, but it isn't "scientific" in that it involves throwing out -- ignoring -- good, sometimes almost otherwise unobtainable data and observations. Science is wise use knowledge, and your method is petty -- not so wise. It is not without some merit ... but it subtracts by mockery and myopia anything it adds by by haing its overly strictured narrow criteria met.

[discostu]

Whine whine whine. My view of what proves something is the same as the rest of the medical profession. I only mock people that deserve mocking. Notice Batala managed to produce the information I was asking for while others were blathering about paradigms and other garbase.

My MO is to ask for proof and to not be distracted by red herrings. Apparently you don't like it, luckily I'm not here to be liked. I'm looking for information and I'm not buying bad science. Provinding scientific proof that someone's breathing improved by showing their lung capacity, breath force and blood oxygen increased isn't overly ANYTHING, that's how it's done. While having patients feel better is nice it's not measurable, verifiable or reproducable. Lung capacity, peak flow and blood oxygen are measurable, verifiable and reproducable. That's good science. Some can provide it, others whine incessantly about being asked to. Guess which camp you're in.

[bvw]

My own whine is a mere shadow, a fleeting whisper, of your own, discostu. It is idiot savant attitudes like that you apply here that make the "medical profession" of today a tatter, it is worn, brittle and broken of its own hubris.

And, thankfully science and scientific method are more resilient and deeper than you know and espose and will outlast march of folly attitudes like you have taken on here.

[bvw]

I only mock people that deserve mocking.

I notice you did not say "I only mock ideas that deserve mocking." -- which is it, discostu, are you mocking the idea or the person?

[discostu]

BHAHAHAHAHA, here's a great idea, GET BENT! Batala found what I was asking for, I thanked Batala kindly, and you're still pissing and moaning like a little loser. Don't you have a dead bird to ruin, or something vaguely constructive to do with your time? The fact that somebody actually could find EXACTLY what I was asking for proves what a bleeding idiot you are. Even krod, the person I was arguing with, understood that Batala fulfilled my request, we shook hands and walked away. And here you are desperately trying to pick fights trying to prove some false sense of supperiority on your part. Talk about hubris, how much hubris does it take to continue to support a position AFTER the primary arguer of that position has walked away.

Now, really, go find something better to do with your time. You're conitinued moronic postings on this thread aren't helping anybody. My request was reasonable, and my request was fulfilled.

[discostu]

I mock the person. If I ask for very simple proof and the other person commenses a complex dodge and weave while desperately avoiding the point, I will mock them. It's not about the idea, it's about people's unwillingness to back their ideas up with facts. And the large crowd of FReepers (of which you're the current posterboy) that get offended when someone has the audacity to ask for proof. Anybody that's not willing to back up their claims with proof shouldn't make claims. I asked for very simple, very common, very well respected proof that people's breathing was positively affected. Nothing terrible about that. If you can't understand that I suggest you pick up some books and do some learning.

[bvw]

You're a gullible man, discostu. Balata fed a fool of a baby his pablum. However the baby is still collicky, aren't you?

Maybe you should see a chiropractor -- he might make you feel better!

[bvw]

Oh geesh, forgive me, I forgot -- discostu is unable to feel better. Just can't be, outside the ability of knowing -- for "better" would imply some ability to perceive a difference, to say that condition at time sero is greater in comfort than condition at time alpha, in other words -- to measure a difference in state of "feeling".

[discostu]

Who pissed in your cornflakes that you feel the need to be a total jackass on Thanksgiving? Batala provided SCIENCE, actual PEAK FLOW data that helped prove the point YOU were defending. I think it was a good post, kw thinks it was a good post, krod thinks it was a good post. You're just upset that the arguement ended while you were away.

Maybe you should see a proctologist, he can take that stick out of your rearend.

[discostu]

What a freaking dipweed. So what is the measurement used for feeling? You see science is measured in standardized units, peak flow is in PSI, blood oxygen is a percentage, lung volume is in CC. What're feelings measure in? That's why feelings don't provide SCIENTIFIC proof. They certainly provide helpful evidence, but it's not proof. Proof is measurable, verifiable and reproducable.

[bvw]

Just how freaking a dipweed am I? I mean, is that just your feeling? If it is, then certainly you can not prove it, at least not by your own hobbled logic.

Feelings, statisically and individually are measurable, they are reliable in many, and repeat under the same conditions.

For example, I do admit to feeling somewhat hurt by your remark -- and I can testify that I will continue to legitmately feel such hurt -- as have others -- by the rudeness you are fond of including in your remarks.

This if even though I am quite capable of more than countering your rudeness, measure for measure.

[discostu]

It's easy to prove you're a dipweed, all anybody has to do is read your moronic rantings. I ask again:
What is the measurement used for feeling?

That's why it's not proof. You see with measurable things like peak flow you can say "50% of patients had their peak flow improve by at least 15%", because peak flow is measured in easily understood units, as displayed on the side of the peak flow meter you can clearly innumerate and define the improvement. This measurement is consistent across all people, regardless of what the person's peak flow was at the start it has a number and deviation from that number can be measured, tracked, and eventually predicted.

You can't do that with feelings. There's no device that measures feelings, there's no scale of feelings that defines an absolute across all people. There's no way to put a consistent number to feelings. And because of that there's no way to measure, track or predict deviation from that starting point. This is why feelings are scientifically unimportant. Doesn't mean they're not important in life, the goal of medicine in PRACTICE is to make people feel better. But life isn't science. The goal of science is to measure, track and predict. One of these days when the brain waves are fully mapped feelings with be able to be measured, tracked and predicted; when that day comes they will be scientifically useful data. But that day is not today.

[kstewskis]

It looks like we had "a clean up on isle three".#;^)

LOL!!!

Cheers mate! ;^)

[bvw]

Pain. Pain is all feeling ... yet tens of thousands of scientific studies have been done on it. Dosages are set accorded to each patients ability to express his "subjective" level of pain, together with the caregiver's undertanding of that pain level from experience with other patients and so on.

By your own overly strict definition of science then, there is no "science" of pain, for pain is not measurable according to a calibrated scale. Yet, there is indeed a science -- a medical science -- of pain, and it is all founded on subjective, individual pain experiences.

That science of pain -- a multi-billion dollar one in it's practise -- is exactly parallel to the science of "feeling good" -- of alleviating the discomfort and aggravation associated with asthma (or any other impairing, persistant conditions as subject to psycho-somatic interactions), of increasing the "feeling" in the patients that they are well, are able to function, to relieve worry, to improve overall outlook.

[discostu]

Look, this is all off in a completely unattached never never land. It's all about chiropractic helping ASTHMA. That's not a matter of pain, it's a matter of BREATHING. All this other blabbering of yours is completelty pointless. There are scientific ways to prove someone is breathing better, that's the data needed to prove a treatment method works. Now do us all a favor and walk away. Stop resurrecting an arugment that your side already lost, be a man about it.

[bvw]

Yes ... and the posted article is a scientific study describing reports of relieved, improved conditions in asthma sufferers after shiropractic spinal manipulation.

[discostu]

And I asked for some scientific proof that the patients were actually breathing better, and eventually it was provided.

[bvw]

You asked for a different form of scientific proof, you railed like a jackal what only wants to eat rhesus monkeys when a macaque is served. What was nasty and demeaning about your complaint was that you claimed the macaque isn't a monkey.

[discostu]

Look, twit, the guy I was actually arguing with is satisfied, why are you so obsessed?

I've told you over a dozen times why "feeling better" IS NOT scientific proof. Unless or until you can show that it is (which you can't because it ISN'T) DROP IT. You're just being a twit and wasting time and bandwidth. Get over it, YOU LOST, that happens when YOU'RE A LOSER, you should be used to it by this point in your life.