One of the stories generating quite a response from our readers online lately has been Robert Arnason’s piece about whether consumers should accept nutritional advice from a chiropractor.
“Chiropractors are known as doctors who specialize in the spine, but that isn’t stopping some from offering advice on the dangers of pesticides and genetically modified food,” Arnason wrote in his story on the subject.
Arnason goes on to point out that the chiropractors’ own code of ethics says members should “recognize the limitations of his or her expertise.”
Reader Ray Z was one of the first to comment:
“What I find funny is that there is the presumption that chiropractics is based on science, which it isn’t. The entire field of chiropractics is snake oil, so there’s no surprise here that the snake oil salesmen are selling snake oil. In fact, there is evidence that chiropractic therapy is more likely to cause harm than benefit.”
Ray goes on to include a couple links, presumably to articles supporting his thesis.
Reader Richard was quick to respond:
“The only sector of the medical arts that takes a holistic approach to health and vitality is being attacked for promoting disease prevention through lifestyle? What a concept!”
Reader Dayton had this to say:
“Regarding health, it’s always best to err on the side of caution.”
Reader Neil thinks chiropractors should stick to their area of expertise:
“No wonder some consumers have an unbalanced view of modern agriculture practices when respected professionals are giving negative advice about food and nutrition. I think I will take a few anatomy and physiology courses this winter and start advising people on spinal cord and joint care. That would be scary for anyone who listened to me!”
In the story, Keystone Agricultural Producers president Dan Mazier said relying on a chiropractor for food knowledge is like asking a mechanic for information on foot health.
“What I can’t get over is what does a chiropractor know about food?” Mazier said after visiting chiropractors’ websites.
Reader Sterling Ericsson has a theory:
“That’s probably because chiropractic is pseudoscience that isn’t supported by scientific evidence. When you have one kind of pseudoscience, they tend to conglomerate around other kinds of pseudoscience.”
Which prompted this reply from Richard:
“Kinda like GM is a pseudo technology parading around as progress (i.e. benefits accruing only to the perpetrators), which of course is why its apologists are desperate to attack anyone contradicting the dogma.”
It seems there’s seldom a shortage of spirited debate, and we’re always glad to hear it. Check out our stories online and tell us what you think.