Jonathan Ward English 1102 Ms.

Caruso 3/20/2013 1st Draft Medical Neurologist attacks Chiropractic Neurology legitimacy

As all of you reading this blog are informed Chiropractic patients I am sure that you have been following the recent news the field of Chiropractic Neurology and its practitioners ability to heal their patient. The pioneer of Chiropractic Neurology, Dr. Ted Carrick, was featured on ABC news regarding his miracle methods. However, that media attention does not come without the responses of skeptics both from inside and outside the medical community. One such skeptic, Dr. Steven Novella, who is a Medical Neurologist, wrote an article on Chiropractic Neurology stating that it was nothing more than a hoax relying solely upon the placebo effect. Dr. Novella states that it does not pass scientific rigor, nor is it related to evidence based medicine. He goes on to attacking the Chiropractic Profession as a whole, yet this skeptic is one who seeks out alternative medicines merely for the purpose of attacking them. It would appear at first glance that Dr. Novellas argument regarding this matter is legit; however once we dig deeper you will see that a lot of his statements are biased, and not backed by scholarly sources. I do have one question for Dr. Novella If your opinions are the opinions of other Medical Neurologist , then why is it that the only patients Dr. Carrick treats are those referred to him by Medical Neurologist? Dr. Carrick only treats those patie nts who are referred to him, after a Medical Neurologist either cant figure out how to treat the patient, or who thinks that Carricks methods might be a good alternative. This has raised eyebrows about the legitimacy of Dr. Novellas article, and when we take a closer look at the superficial facts we will see the truth.

Comment [A1]: Notice that many of your readers could potentially be Drs. As well. Adrianna Hughes

Comment [A2]: Connect with a semi-colon. It reads weird as multiple sentences

Comment [A3]: Your readers are typically educated, so it may not be necessary but perhaps explain what the placebo effect is.

Comment [A4]: goes on to attack the chiropractic profession as a whole

Jonathan Ward

Dr. Novella is a Medical Neurologist who works at Yale University School of Medicine, and one would think that his opinions are valid. Novella attacks the legitimacy of Dr. Carrick, and when we look at Novellas website we see that Dr. Carrick is not the only one he is attacking. Dr. Novella is the president of the New England Skeptics Society, and he seeks to debunk what he claims are pseudoscientific methods. The New England Skeptics Society does operate a website and you can visit that website at www.theness.com. Having said that, it appeared to myself and others by readin g this article, that Novella may have experimenters bias meaning that he does not have an open mind regarding the practice of Chiropractic Neurology and has already developed in his mind that it is pseudoscience before he even analyzes the field. In the article Novella seeks to compare Chiropractic Neurology with Straight Chiropractic, stating that Chiropractic Neurology is Straight Chiropractic just with an emphasis on neurological disorders contradicting earlier statements made in the article about the ways of Chiropractic practice are varied from one end of the spectrum to the other. As you, the informed Chiropractic patient are aware, within the field of Chiropractic Medicin e you have mixers and straights. Mixers being those Chiropractors who take a more evidence based medicine approach to care, versus straights who still hold the same beliefs of the original chiropractic philosophy of D.D. Palmer. In todays modern socie ty straight chiropractors are fewer in numbers than mixers, with most chiropractors realizing the benefits of an evidence based practice. Dr. Ted Carrick is not a straight chiropractor, and does not claim to be one; he treats his patients in a way that is based on modern chiropractic based evidence. According to Dr. Barwell in his article on Chiropractic Neurology, he states that modern science is moving away from the Germ theory, and is focusing more on psychoneuroimmunology and immunoendocrinology when looking for the causes of disease. Likewise our knowledge of the
Comment [A6]: Throw in a quote of him saying it I think it will add legitimacy to your article and encourage your audience to take it seriously. Comment [A5]: A little confusing, maybe another way to phrase it.

Jonathan Ward

nervous system during D.D. Palmers time was very very simple compared to our knowledge of it today, which is why the original philosophy of him is not held true by many chiropractors. At the end of the first paragraph of Novellas article he quotes a definition of straight chiropractor from chiropractors.org. However, when I went to the chiropractors.org website, I could not find the definition, the site was basically a site used to find local chiropractors practicing in your area. I also could not find a glossary despite their being a link for it. The site did not appear to be a very reliable site to utilize for a source. As a matter of fact all of the sources Dr. Novella used throughout his article for definitions where from organizations websites, never once does he cite, a definition of a medical field from a medical book. Dr. Novella being a medical neurologist, I am sure is familiar with having legitimate sources to back up your findings, yet he does not apply this practice in his article. Dr. Novella also states that Carrick does not produce any research and that Chiropractic Neurology is not based on a body of research. If that was the case then why does Carrick have an institute dedicated solely to conducting research related to functional neurology, neuroscience etc. Functional Neurology encompasses all of the factors when assessing a patient and does not take neither an allopathic or chiropractic stance when assessing the patient or determining the best treatment. All factors are taken into play. You can visit Carricks research institu te at www.frcarrickresearchinstitute.org for more information regarding the types of research being conducted. In the article written by Dr. Novella, he talks about how Neurological disorders are very subjective to the placebo effect, and that merely doing something for the patient will make them seem better. He criticizes Chiropractic Neurology to be nothing more than a placebo effect, and while Carrick does not deny the possibility of it being a placebo effect, Carrick does state in his defense, that if it was a placebo effect then they are doing a very good job at it, because they
Comment [A7]: Really like all the links you used throughout the paper, as stated above maybe throw in a few quotes for the readers.

Jonathan Ward

are seeing the same results every time. What is to say that the Medical Neurologist isnt merely performing a placebo effect on their patients with their list of symptom controlled medications? That is the difference between a Chiropractic Neurologist and a Medical Neurologist, the Medical Neurologist treats the symptoms while the Chiropractic Neurologist seeks to regain function of the loss ability or body part. Steven Novella is a harsh critic and skeptic of Chiropractic Neurology, and you as the informed Chiropractic patient, should know not to just take someones word for it because of the position or title they hold especially when they cant provide good research to back up their argument. If Chiropractic Neurology was the way that Novella portrayed it then Medical Neurologist around the country would not be referring their patients to Dr. Ted Carrick for treatment.

Comment [A9]: What did you claim your purpose was? I really like the paper but consider that it slowly turned into kind of a roast of Dr. Novella against Dr. Carrick, not just in practice and opinions but in personality.