[WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty

[Fred Bauder]

Here, (I think) is the offending reference it is contained within:

http://www.ncahf.org/pp/chirop.html

"There is substantial evidence that manipulative therapy has value in
treating back pain. Although it may not be any more effective than other
modalities in the long term, manipulation may offer short term benefits when
compared to other commonly used modalities. Several studies have found that
about one-third of patients will experience more rapid relief with
manipulation than with other modalities.(2-4) Manipulation is probably not
utilized as fully as it might be in relieving the symptoms of some chronic
disorders.  It has been reported to be beneficial in controlling migraine
pain.(5) Because manipulation involves the laying on of hands, a procedure
employed throughout history by folk and faith healers, it enhances
suggestibility and the placebo effect.(6,7) Occasionally, manipulation
produces dramatic results. An example involves immediate recovery from
paraplegia caused by an auto accident.(8) Manipulative therapy is not
without risk. Many cases of serious complications following manipulative
therapy have been reported in the medical literature. (9-15)

Chiropractic Manipulation
Chiropractors probably are more skilled in the art of manipulation than
other practitioners since it constitutes the major emphasis of their
training.  Chiropractors are usually the most accessible manipulative
therapists in a community, and some receive referrals from medical doctors.
However, many physicians are reluctant to refer patients to chiropractors.
This may be due to a fear that the chiropractor may attempt to indoctrinate
patients in deviant health beliefs, a disbelief in the value of manipulative
therapy, or an apathy to non-medical practitioners.(5)"

Despite the cricical tenor of the aricle it sets forth both that spinal
manipulation is effective for the treatment of low back pain, but points out
that to get that treatment the easiest way is to consult a chiropractor.

I really fail to see what is dishonest in citing this passage as a
reference.

Fred

> From: Robert <rkscience100 at yahoo.com>
> Reply-To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Date: Thu, 20 Mar 2003 14:54:14 -0800 (PST)
> To: wikien-l at wikipedia.org
> Subject: [WikiEN-l] Fred Bauder and academic dishonesty
> 
> I have been having a problem with user Fred Bauder on the
> Chiropractic medicine article, and it has no reached the
> point of vandalism. He is openly and repeatedly committing
> academic fraud; i.e. bald-faced lying.
> 
> In recent days he kept repeatedly citing a paper that
> specificly attacks chiropractice as frauduent...and somehow
> claimed that this paper *supported* chiropractic practice.
> He also rewrote the article to make it sound as if all
> spinal manipulation was chiropractic, which again is a
> bald-faced lie.  In fact, many medical doctors would
> consider it actionable libel if their spinal manipulation
> was referred to in print as "chiropractice".  Most medical
> doctors do not want their work to be tarred with a label
> that see as pseudoscience.  And, in fact, chiropractic
> theory has nothing to do with mere spinal manipulation.
> Plenty of medical doctors totally reject chiropractic
> theory, yet still will manipulate the spine for a limited
> number of medical conditions.
> 
> 
> It gets worse.  After being told about these gross erros,
> Fred Bauder has refused to discuss the issue, refused to
> address the specific points raised, and has engaged in a
> series of reverts:  Again and again he footnotes and quotes
> from an article *attacking* chiropractice fradulent, and he
> dishonestly is using it as if it offers support for
> chiropractice.
> 
> My previous comments to him noted this error, but his
> continued reversions of the article, and his repetition of
> this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume
> that he is deliberately lying. This is vandalism.
> 
> If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report
> that supports chiropractic theory, fine.  If someone wants
> to cite an article critical of chiropractic, that is fine
> to.  But no one has the right to lie about the views of
> people who are against something (e.g. chiropractice), and
> who explicitly write that it has no medical support.
> Deliberately lying about the views of people (all of whom
> are medical doctors and scientists) is grossly dishonest.
> 
> 
> RK
> 
> 
> =====
> "I prefer a wicked person who knows he is wicked, to a righteous person who
> knows he is righteous".
> The Seer of Lublin [Jacob Isaac Ha-Hozeh Mi-Lublin, 1745-1815]
> 
> __________________________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Platinum - Watch CBS' NCAA March Madness, live on your desktop!
> http://platinum.yahoo.com
> _______________________________________________
> WikiEN-l mailing list
> WikiEN-l at wikipedia.org
> http://www.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l