Most Helpful Customer Reviews
|
|
28 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
Unbiased, unlike this book, January 5, 2000
By A Customer
I am not a chiropractor and I have never set foot inside a chiropractic office. I don't know about chiropractic, so I got this book and some others. Unfortunately, this book was so biased that I question the validity of any of its information. Initially, it seems impressive that the author has 272 references. However, the majority of these are not studies showing deterimental effects of chiropractic. They are quotes the author has taken from chiropractic sources(most likely out of context), and marketing material directed towards chiropracters. Ten of his remaining references were authored by Dr. Barret, who edited this book and five more were written by William T. Jarvis, whose glowing review is featured on the back cover of this book along with Charles DuVall's review, who is also found as a reference. What a surprise that they would like this book. In his chapter on nutrition, the author talks quite a bit about dubious nutritional supplements. The author then states, "In 1988, 74 percent of about 2,400 respondents to a survey by Dynamic Chiropractic (the leading chiropractic newspaper) reported using nutrition supplements in their practices. In 1991, 83.5 percent of 4,835 full-time practitioners who responded to a survey by the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) said they had used 'nutrional counseling, therapy or supplements' within the previous two years. Consumer Reports estimated that at least 150 supplement companies market through chiropractors."[p.100] In the first sentence, the statistic"74 percent of about 2,400 respondents..." is irrelevant because: 1) We do not know the percentage of practicing chiropractors that actually subscribe to this paper. That statistic is not telling us that 74% of all practicing chiropracters use supplements or even that 74% of all the chiropractors who subscribe to that paper use supplements. The 74% refers only to the "about 2,400" people who responded. The author uses the word "about" which I infer means the number of respondents was probably lower than 2,400. 2) We do not know what the survey meant by "supplements"or what the respondents thought it meant when they answered. There is certainly no reason to conclude that it referred to the dubious supplements the author had just previous talked about, but that seems to be the implication. Plain old calcium is a supplement, after all. The next statistic is from a NBCE survey "83.5% of 4,835 full-time practitioners who responded...said they had used 'nutritional counseling, therapy or supplements' within the previous two years." 1) Again,the 83.5% is the percentage of people who responded to the survey and does not mean 83.5 percent of chiropractors. 2) Again, we do not know what the survey or its respondents meant by the word "supplements". 3) Finally, these 83.5% might have advised patients on eating a more balanced diet to lose weight to help alleviate back problems. They would have to answer affirmatively to that question, even if they never used supplements in their practice because nutritional couseling and supplements were tied together as an answer. The last statistic is from an estimate by Consumer Reports, "150 supplement companies market through chiropractors." 1) We are not told how Consumer Reports arrived at this estimate. 2) We again do not know the nature of the supplements the estimate refers to. 3) We do not know how many chiropractors these 150 companies market through. A chiropractor might be willing to have supplements made by many different manufacturers available in his office. Some of the points in this book may be valid ones. However, because this book is written so deceptively, there is very little assurance that what is presented is anything more than information the author has twisted to support his (and Drs .Barrett and Jarvis')strong opinions.
|
|
|
15 of 19 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
There are good and bad everywhere, August 19, 2000
Although the book does have some valid points and some useful information, its approach and attitude was sophomoric. Bad points can be raised about any group - MDs, DCs, Priests, Teachers, Parents, etc. Does this mean that any group that has a bad apple is an entirely sour bunch? I think not. After reading this book it is apparent that the authors and editor have a personal or even vengeful agenda to discredit an entire profession. Their anger and biased nature oozes through each page.
|
|
|
26 of 35 people found the following review helpful:
1.0 out of 5 stars
I thought a doctor lived by the expression "First do no harm, March 17, 2001
By A Customer
A very silly book, obvious propaganda, Manger certainly has an agenda. I'm very aware that medicine has a dismal record when it comes to back problems (I know..I'm an Internist). I've referred many to chiropractors and have received marvelous feedback. Pain which had been present for years had resolved in a relatively short time. This is after the patient (or insurance) spent countless thousands on PT, MRI's, Cat Scans etc. If this book keeps potential patients away from a very probable method to relieve symptoms, then Manger is "Doing Harm" Isn't the patients welfare the primary concern? Not with Manger, and his buddies..especially Barrett and Hamola. Lastly..a suggestion to these "quackwatch" people: Learn to write intellegently, the public are not fools!.
|
|
|
Most Recent Customer Reviews
|
