A Spinmaster's Delight; The Incoherent Rants of Rob Sinnott (Volume 2)

While I would prefer to not have to comment on the social media antics of Rob Sinnott, at some point it becomes unavoidable.  Like hearing a train screeching helplessly towards an inevitable crash, you just can't help yourself but look to see the carnage.  And boy does Sinnott deliver the carnage.  Massive heaps of wiggle words, spin, pseudoscience, and rhetoric that leave any rational thinking person feeling that the air is being sucked out of the room, and brain cells being sucked out of their head.

The most recent rant of note will be posted here in its entirety, so as to not succumb to accusations of taking things out of context (if proper context can be found).  And my responses to portions of the rant will follow.  For perspective on this rant, you may have to read my previous article on Rob Sinnott's ebola virus rant and the sequence of events that followed.  This specific rant was posted to his personal facebook page, which is somewhat confusing.  Who is he speaking to?  Rob Sinnott and his associates have made every attempt to block or ban anyone who disagrees with them from their social media sites.  So it seems the intended target of this rant would never actually see it.  Well, that is if if his intended target for the message was actually someone he was trying to "inform" and not just the chief beating the rhetorical war drum of his tribe:  Anti-science, anti-logic, anti-medicine, and anti-anyone who doesn't drink the kool aide he has mixed up and offered.

So here it is, the rant:

What can Chiropractic do for (insert medical term for whichever set of symptoms)?

Nothing. Chiropractic does not "treat disease". Unless, of course, you went to a lousy school with no philosophy and are ignorant of the facts of our philosophy. Facts? Yep, facts.

You see, facts cannot be found through the scientific method, but can be through formal logic, which is the method used in our philosophy. What's that you say? Your school did not tell you that? They t l led you scientific method is the path to truth and fact? Oh my. Well, you paid $200,000.00 to be lied to it would seem.

You were seemingly taught from a position of "scientism", not science. What is scientism?

This is a brief description from the site PBS.org, the Public Broadcasting Service, who by legal decree has to function in the best interests of the nation's people.

"Scientism...Unlike the use of the scientific method as only one mode of reaching knowledge, scientism claims that science alone can render truth about the world and reality. Scientism's single-minded adherence to only the empirical, or testable, makes it a strictly scientific worldview, in much the same way that a Protestant fundamentalism that rejects science can be seen as a strictly religious worldview. Scientism sees it necessary to do away with most, if not all, metaphysical, philosophical, and religious claims, as the truths they proclaim cannot be apprehended by the scientific method. In essence, scientism sees science as the absolute and only justifiable access to the truth."

To attack philosophy out of ignorance, such as that self-described by David Newell and many others belies their true agenda. Why else would he run to Ernst for approval of his antichiropractic views, instead of following logic and seeking clarification? Agendas serve to shield those that follow them from seeking truth.

Other self-appointed leaders have made overtures to force drug pushing onto the profession recently. You see, their former agenda for the medicalization of the profession from the inside has fallen apart and they now work in the darkness, keeping their work as secret as possible so that they can force their mutation into the genetic structure of Chiropractic. To aid their devious effort, they turn out a graduate that knows little but the scientism they preach from their pulpit. Poorly armed to actually practice, the young are failing in far larger percentages today than ever before. They are being told that they need medicalization to save themselves. Slowly, they have built a tiny army of inept practitioners who tried to practice their inbred model and failed. They are told if only we could push drugs, then Chiropractic would work, even for those not fit to practice it. Then it will be surgery, as is required for licensure in Oregon already. Then, in their first set hour, they will make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation. Then all those in the majority, that have some understanding of how Chiropractic is truly practice, cane be eliminated. Oh yes, it is the honest Chiropractor that must be eliminated in their plan.

Sound crazy? Sure does....

Today, good Chiropractors that practice honestly, are being told to leave their country as the self-appointed weak leaders want to outlaw success and honesty, and replace it with fear and retribution. It is happening in Europe as the weak and intellectually impotent have seized control of the reigns.

They could never have a practice as you and I do. They are ignorant of not only our philosophy, but also have turned the logical views of science into a god and worship at the altar...having given s in e attributes far beyond what science is limited by. Just before writing this I held a pressure child's atlas because they were subluxated and were in the throws of a seizure. This child stopped within seconds of applying this pressure, and then a proper adjustment could be made. Just a side note for those adhering to the church of the Newell Agenda, Chiropractors do not treat epilepsy, we do an analysis for vertebral subluxation and provide a specific adjusting thrust.

Don't be a follower for your whole life. Don't follow their lead of assumed Omnipotence. Seek answers and don't live a life based upon false assumption to fulfill an agenda.

Until you graduate, it is never too late to get to a school that is willing to allow you to be exposed to things within the profession, but outside their Agenda. Editing your exposure, is NOT education." - Rob Sinnott

    And my responses:

"What can chiropractic do for (insert medical term for whichever set of symptoms)? Nothing. Chiropractic does not "treat disease"."

This is the eternal and infamous cop out of the straight chiropractor. However, if you look even as far back as BJ Palmer (see photos below), chiropractors have been claiming to "treat" conditions.  What this statement amounts to is semantics and wiggle words, to conform to an alleged philosophy.  Surely the overwhelming majority of all patients who present to a chiropractors office will present due to some sort of symptom or condition.  The chiropractor, if choosing to accept the case, by just the act of doing so, is agreeing to attempt to help with that condition AKA treat.  

You'll notice Rob Sinnott also uses the words "do for" in substitute for "treat".  This is all purely semantical.  Regardless of what anyone says, its very clear chiropractors treat conditions, and advertise that they do so.  Even one of the most boisterous of philosophical leaders in the profession, Liam Schubel lists the "casos frequentes" (frequent cases) his clinics will see on his website. http://www.quiropractica.com.pe/casos.html

As you can see, its a litany of symptoms and diseases.  Now of course, the philosophically based chiropractor will say "chiropractic doesn't treat the disease of condition, it only removes nerve interference allowing the body to heal itself".  Well, that's treating.  Look up any dictionary definition of treat.  Regardless of philosophical intent, applying an adjustment is a treatment.

Of course this is also where a philosophically based chiropractor will state that obviously the philosophy is not being understood.  Except this issue is not one of philosophy, it is one of semantics.  As an example, a chef can state he does not grill the steak, he merely allows the inner flavors of the steak to express themselves by putting them near heat.  Regardless of intent and philosophy, he still grilled the steak.

"You see, facts cannot be found through the scientific method..."

Well, this is about the most absurd thing ever said.  So absurd it is hard to even distinguish what Rob Sinnott is even getting at.  A fact is something that has really occurred or is actually the case.  The usual test for a fact is verifiability.  Standard reference works are used to check facts.  Scientific facts are verified by repeatable experiments.  So quite distinctly, utilization of the scientific method can lead to discovery of scientific facts.  Facts, in relation to philosophy, always come under the scrutiny of objectivity.  Yes, as Rob Sinnott states, you can use logic to find facts, but that will also call into question the accuracy of the logic, objectivity, and bias.  (As in, is the logic used even correct that was used to arrive to the fact?)

"...but can be through formal logic, which is the method used in our philosophy."

That is cute, however, chiropractic "philosophy" and the people who incorporate it are rife with logical fallacies and confirmation bias.  In many ways it is quite simple to explain how chiropractic philosophy is not a philosophy at all.  It is, as I call it a PINO (Philosophy In Name Only) and actually aligns more with a dogma.  Conveniently many integral facts can be ignored when employing a dogma, and others strongly reinforced.  That is not the case with an actual philosophy.

"You were seemingly taught from a position of "scientism", not science.  What is scientism..."

Before we even get started here, lets call this out as a straw man argument.  We could probably move on from there and not need to comment even further.  But it is so common for philosophically based chiropractors to respond with the "scientism" attack whenever anyone mentions the importance of science and evidence in practice, that it has to be addressed.  First and foremost, if you review the definition of scientism, and look around at our peers in the chiropractic profession, you would be hard pressed to find anyone you could accuse of adhering to scientism.  

It's a novel attempt by Rob Sinnott to make mechanistic, cold, boogeymen out of the chiropractors who feel that scientific evidence for the things we do and the things we say are important, but it doesn't hold water.  Evidence based approaches also incorporate practitioner experience, best practices and guidelines, and encourage the use of intuition and innovation.  The idea that there is a drive to only practice based on what is stated to be effective by Randomized Controlled Studies is a very popular straw man attack.  Typically by people who are dogmatically tied to approaches that have little to no evidence of validity or efficacy whatsoever, or are based on mysticism, metaphysics, and vitalism.

"To attack philosophy out of ignorance...  ...belies their true agenda.  Agendas serve to shield those that follow them from seeking truth."

Here is yet another straw man.  The assumption is made that chiropractic "philosophy" is attacked out of ignorance of its principles.  That's typically not the case.  The central tenets of chiropractic dogmatism are quite easy to understand, and accessible.  It doesn't take a PhD to get them.  And for the most part, all chiropractors were exposed to them to some degree during their education, even if it was just from a historical perspective (there is a philosophy portion of the national board exams, after all)

Chiropractic philosophy is attacked by non dogmatists quite frankly because if you had the opportunity and the mind to question many of the tenets, you would realize it doesn't hold up to snuff over time, ESPECIALLY if you apply the tenets and discoveries of modern science, anatomy, and physiology.  The vitalistic portions of the philosophy may hold credence as a belief system.  But those portions are the philosophy of vitalism, a true philosophy, not the tenets of chiropractic philosophy, which incorporated vitalism into its fray.

"...they turn out a graduate that knows little but scientism they preach from their pulpit.  Poorly armed to actually practice, the young are failing in far larger percentages than ever before."

In this instance correlation may not equal causation.  Could there possibly be multiple factors to explain why graduates fail at higher percentages than ever before (if that is in fact true)?  Is it really because they are educated in too much science?  Or is that yet another straw man?  Could it be economic factors like crushing student loan debt (which is not profession specific but instead a national occurrence)?  Could it be lower utilization rates?  And how did the lower utilization rates occur?  Could it be too much supply (schools producing too many graduates) and not enough demand for chiropractic services?  Could it be lower reimbursement rates?  Real estate inflation?  General public distrust of chiropractors due to sentiments like quackery and shady business practices, long term treatment plans, and high pressure sales?  No no no, it MUST be science's fault.  And the introduction of the principles of science into the chiropractic education.  

"They are told if only we could push drugs, then chiropractic would work, even for those not fit to practice it."

Getting boring.  Straw man.  Not true.

Recently, chiropractors in the state of Washington were pursuing a scope of practice expansion that would allow them to do sports physicals on children.  Merely a physical exam.  No use of drugs or surgery.  They were denied.  Why?  The officials at the Washington State public health department stated that there is no way a chiropractor could give a competent physical exam because so many children are on medications at this time, and chiropractors have no education or resources to understand the effects of these medications.  It wasn't the application of medications that was at issue here, it was the complete aloofness on the subject of medications altogether.  

This begs a very important question:  How could ANY of us operate as medical providers in the society we live in now, without some sort of basic understanding of pharmacology and its effects on human physiology?  Even if your convictions state that "drugs are bad", merely holding an uneducated attitude such as "drugs are bad" isn't appropriate enough for patient care.  There is no way to have this cake and eat it too.  You cannot and should not have access to patients as a direct access portal of entry provider, if you can't assess their complete health.  Ignoring the medication issue because "it's not chiropractic" is disingenuous and potentially dangerous.  It has nothing to do with weather chiropractic will work or not. 

"Then it will be surgery, as required for licensure in Oregon already."

Surgery and obstetrics has been required in Oregon and part of the scope of practice for chiropractors since 1904.  This was something that DD Palmer felt was necessary for the profession he founded.  An inconvenient truth often ignored...

D.D. Palmer had relocated his "Fountain Head School" from Oklahoma City to Portland late in 1908, at which time the institution was identified as the D.D. Palmer College of Chiropractic. "Old Dad Chiro's" curriculum offered instruction in obstetrics and minor surgery, apparently in keeping with Palmer's charge: "A chiropractor should be able to care for any condition which may arise in the families under his care, the same as a physician; this we intend to make possible in a two-year's course." - Keating http://www.dynamicchiropractic.com/mpacms/dc/article.php?id=46293

"Then, in their first set hour, they will make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation."

More straw man.  Which I now sense is the theme of Rob Sinnott's rant.  A fear based straw man attack on an invisible science boogeyman.  

Let's be abundantly clear here...  No one wants to make it illegal to adjust a vertebral subluxation.  Primarily, there is no agreed upon and proper definition of a vertebral subluxation, or a valid and reliable way to locate one, so it would be very hard to make it illegal to adjust one.  Can you make unicorns illegal?  How about sasquatch or gnomes?  Since an overwhelming majority of the entire profession uses manual therapies and spinal manipulative therapy as a clinical tool, it would be ridiculous to try to outlaw it.

The fear tactic here is that these "chiropractic thought leaders" utilize appeal to fear to whip their base up into a froth whenever needed.  They love to employ the "they're trying to take away subluxation" ploy frequently and often.  Nothing can be further from the truth.  When it comes to "vitalistic" chiropractors versus "scientific" chiropractors, I feel that the scientific chiropractors would want the vitalists to be able to practice as they see fit.  There is no reason why vitalists shouldn't be able to practice their belief system within ethical and legal boundaries.

However, vitalism does not comply with many of our modern health care practices if it wishes to remain an ethical and legal practice.  So in order for many of these practitioners to thrive, they must "bait and switch" their patients.  Advertise about how they can help with symptoms, but then ignore the patients complaints when under care.  Call themselves doctors and perform "exams", yet at the same time state that they don't diagnose or treat anything.  The litany of violations a vitalist chiropractor makes against modern practice AND vitalism as well is long.

One of the worst violations vitalists make are their poor attempts at reaching for scientific legitimacy.  Anyone who understands anything about philosophy (true philosophy) and especially the philosophy of vitalism vs mechanism is that you cannot prove vitalistic concepts with science.  Yet we have horrible attempts to prove vitalistic concepts with science put forth by the abhorrent and downright embarrassing Annals of Vertebral Subluxation, and other leaps of logic used throughout the philosophic base of the profession.  It really is a ruse, a grasp at some sort of legitimacy in the modern times of scientific inquiry, for a concept that cannot exist within it. It's like a disguise, like when your mom would hide the vegetables under your dinner, in hopes you would eat them.

Vitalists should absolutely be allowed to practice vitalist chiropractic.  In order to do that, they need to give up insurance reimbursement for conditions treated (oh yeah, there's another irony), they need to give up utilization of radiography for diagnostic purposes (you cant find unicorns on an x-ray), and they may also need to give up post secondary professional school status.  They would in fact, be on par with energy healers, Reiki, etc.  This would also give them quite a few advantages I think they would enjoy.  Their education could be lessened and all of the "scientific restrictions" placed on their education could be removed.  They wouldn't have to jump through so many regulatory hoops to be licensed and to practice.  There would be no ethical boundaries concerning care plans and practice members and advertising.  Win win.

What would science based chiropractors get in return?  The ability to pursue the scope of practice and education they see fit.  Advanced scope, advanced education, integration, cultural and professional respect.  Cast off the dark spectre of metaphysics that plagues the profession. eliminate pseudoscience.  Because you see, dear reader, when it comes to Sinnott's claim that science based chiropractors would somehow try to make subluxation based chiropractic illegal, what he's engaged in there is a little bit of psychological projection.  Because vitalist chiropractors are notoriously the obstructionist group that attempts to block any sort of progress for the profession.  They get in the way, on purpose.  

So it's simple, divorce.  That would be the only sound ethical thing to do for the public we serve, and for the profession.  The patient (customer) will have a much more clear idea of what product it is they are purchasing (instead of getting sucked into bait and switch), and each group can practice as they see fit without one riding the coattails or holding down the other.  Win win, and the market will decide which brand of chiropractic it prefers.

"Then all those in the MAJORITY...  ...can be eliminated.  Oh yes, it is the honest chiropractor that must be eliminated in their plan."

I think I already covered this above.  Except that Rob Sinnott is completely confused about who is in the majority.  If he took his blinders off long enough he might see that vitalistic chiropractors, subluxation based chiropractors are in the MINORITY.  More appeal to fear, more lying to the audience.  More delusion.

"They could never have a practice as you and I do.  They are ignorant of not only our philosophy, but have also turned the logical views of science into a god and worship at the altar..."

Covered.  Absurd.  Psychological projection when referring to worshipping at the altar.

"Just before writing this I held a pressure (sp?) child's atlas because they were subluxated and were in the throws of a seizure... ...Just a side note for those adhering to the church of the Newell Agenda, chiropractors do not treat epilepsy, we do an analysis for vertebral subluxation and provide a specific adjusting thrust."

...to treat the epilepsy.  How many people bring their children in because they are normal or just to be checked?  Yes, there are some, and they should be allowed to pursue that product if they'd like.  But that is not mainstream chiropractic by any means.  MOST people are coming in because they want help with something.  And seriously, thrusting on a baby?  Don't get me started.

"Don't be a follower for your whole life.  Don't follow their lead of assumed omnipotence.  Seek answers and don't live a life based upon false assumption to fulfill an agenda."

From a guy who "kneels at the altar" of BJ Palmer and his assumed omnipotence.  One who says the only way to be a true chiropractor is to follow the predescribed tenets of chiropractic "philosophy" and black lists anyone who disagrees or asks questions.  The one who ascribes to a "philosophy" rife with false assumptions and operates on the most transparent agenda I think I have ever personally seen.

Psychological projection

This guy thinks he's smart.  But he's not that smart.