1- I'll gladly address your false statements in another thread; not gonna hijack this one.
A single post would be sufficient to rebut me (if it's possible), meaning no hijack is in order. And anyway, the thread has devolved to the subject of PJ's stinkhole; it's no great loss if we change subjects (or are you deeply interested in his bum?).
But it's quite clear you don't know what you're talking about and have not been versed in the overwhelming amount of published peer reviewed literature that correlate with the basic tenets of mainstream chiropracfic philosophy.
1. You can call the strictures of "chiropracfic" 'philosophy' if you like, since whether the term applies is simply a matter of stipulating its meaning, a semantic issue. Most versed in the subject, however, would agree that calling anything to do with chiropractic 'philosophy' is abusing the word. You might as well be aware that the chiropractic school has taught you to use the word improperly so that you can correct that in the future.
2. There might be plenty of research that correlates with the basic tenets of astrology, all of it refuting such tenets. Correlation is clearly not what you mean to say. On the assumption that you mean "confirm," I'd be happy to see a single study that does one or more of the following: (i) demonstrates the causal efficacy of "subluxations" and "innate intelligences"; (ii) demonstrates the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment above and beyond the placebo effect; (iii) demonstrates the effectiveness of chiropractic above and beyond other forms of treatment already available.
3. Chiropractic is pseudoscience to the extent that it accepts the notions of innate intelligences and subluxations. Using Carl Sagan's (reasonable) definition of pseudoscience as inquiry that either posits unfalsifiable entities, doesn't exercise skepticism towards its claims, fails to treat its claims as fallible, or all of the above, chiropractic is pseudoscience because it affirms the first disjunct: it posits unfalsifiable entities in the form of subluxations and innate intelligences. No matter the empirical data, such notions can be maintained. Whatever the value of positing such entities, any inquiry that does so isn't science.
It doesn't take "faith" in the supernatural to "believe" in how the body works.
I'm not sure how this is relevant unless you think I was referring to such notions when I said 'pseudoscience.' In any case, I was not, and the sense of 'pseudoscience' I utilize is above.
Like I said, PM me.
You never said that. I'd prefer our discussion be in public, so everyone can see the results.
2- I'll never take gear without a script from a licensed doctor. But thanks for your deep concern.
I never said you'd be in legal trouble, just that certain "trouble" more generally may result from linking a huge amount of personal information to your account here. If you were to piss off one of the crazies here (right now you just mildly annoy everyone), they could do a number of things. Getbig's history shows this to be the case. Anyway, I'll drop the subject since it's your choice.
