Tokyo Chiropractic College Leaders Say Subluxation Denier Leboeuf-Yde's Recent Paper is Confused, Without Evidential Support & Demonstrates Low Level of Scholarship
CLICK HERE to review the paper
The "Reality Distortion" they are referring to involves a previous paper written by Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde, Stanley I. Innes, Kenneth J. Young, Gregory Neil Kawchuk & Jan Hartvigsen titled: Chiropractic, one big unhappy family: better together or apart? The paper was published by the anti-subluxation research journal Chiropractic and Manual Therapies.
CLICK HERE for more on that story
Leboeuf-Yde has suggested in the past that chiropractic needed to be "sanitised" from chiropractors who promote subluxation and a vitalistic approach and this time she has brought along some colleagues to help her pepper the literature with her nonsense.
CLICK HERE for more on that story
The "Unhappy Marriage" paper by Leboeuf-Yde, Kawchuk and Hartvigsen which denigrates the practice of chiropractic in a vitalistic salutogenic, subluxation model was promoted from the WFC platform in Berlin.
Leboeuf-Yde and her colleagues have been attacking subluxation management and the chiropractors who practice that way for some time and they do so by publishing papers in journals controlled by Subluxation Deniers.
CLICK HERE for more on this issue
The paper by Ebrall and Murakami takes Leboeuf-Yde's team of Deniers to task demonstrating the flaws in their arguments and reasoning stating:
"The debate initiated by the European School of chiropractic is confused, presenting an allegorical allusion with no argument and no evidential support."
Ebrall and Murakami point out that Leboeuf-Yde et al's paper "demonstrates a low level of scholarship" and that the authors are engaging in "virtue-signaling" - feigned righteousness intended to make the speaker appear superior by condemning others. Ebrall argues this ". . . evidence-free opinion may be expressed without the responsibility of justification."
The Tokyo College leaders assert that what these Deniers are doing amounts to "reality distortion" among chiropractic researchers from the associated disciplines of biomechanics and rehabilitation therapies and that the locus of this reality distortion sits within the ‘European School’ of chiropractic.
In their critique, Ebrall and Murakami show Leboeuf-Yde et al's position misrepresents the inherent nature of the discipline they condemn to division and they reject the Deniers arguments as flawed in both logic and argument further demonstrating that conservative chiropractors are not adhering to dogma - a recurrent theme of argument for division of the profession.
In line with Leboeuf-Yde's goal of "sanitising" the chiropractic profession of those focusing on subluxation Ebrall and Murakami take her to task reject her "lexicon cleansing."
Leboeuf-Yde and other anti-subluxation, anti-vitalistic researchers have attempted to re-cast Evidence-Based Chiropractic and assert that only they and others who have denounced vertebral subluxation are evidence based. The flawed argument is that one cannot practice in a vitalistic, salutogenic model of subluxation management and still be evidence based.
This flawed argument is at the heart of the current campaigns in the United kingdom, Australia and Canada to marginalize chiropractors who manage vertebral subluxation. It has also taken root in the United States in cases where state regulatory boards have been highjacked by Deniers.
Ebrall and Murakami describe the management of vertebral subluxation as an evidence-based biopsychosocial model of health care with the intent of maintaining whole-body well-being by the adjustment of subluxation to restore the neurophysiological mechanisms which maintain optimal function for an individual.
According to the Tokyo College leaders subluxation is well established and for anyone to ". . . imply that ‘belief in subluxation’ is divisive in the profession is to resort to argumentum ad terrorem, opinion designed to induce fear of alternate consequences when such consequences lack an evidential basis."
They go further arguing:
"It is not possible to argue that organ tonicity is not a factor under neurological control and it is not possible to argue joints do not subluxate."
They further state that its nonsense for any scientist to argue the concept of subluxation on the basis of opinion and without evidence asserting that "The reliability of some clinical tests thought to identify components of the vertebral subluxation have been reported . . . "
And in perhaps the best line of reasoning directed at the Deniers, Ebrall challenges Leboeuf-Yde and the assertion that her ‘evidence-friendly group’ do not subscribe to concepts such as subluxation and the spine as the centre of good health. Ebrall asks: "What is it their group actually does in the name of chiropractic?"
Ebrall and Murakami seize on Leboeuf-Yde's "Unhappy Marriage" analogy stating:
"We object strongly to sensationalism of social and scientific matters. After all, if we lower our own dignity and allow marriage conflict as an analogy of chiropractic, we make the observation that any divorce would see Conventional Chiropractic retain the family name with its major assets of subluxation and adjustment."
CLICK HERE for more on Leboeuf-Yde
Blogs
- The Chiropractic Cartel: A Look Back at Bias in Accreditation and its Imact on Today's Profession
- Inside Montana's Chiropractic Monopoly: ACA & MCA's Brazen Board Takeover
- Concerns Grow About Control of the NY State Chiropractic Board by the ACA - Use of X-ray in NY Under Threat
- Mark Bronson's Conflicted Role in NBCE’s Pilot Exam: Magical Thinking and Hidden Agendas
- How One Consent Mistake Exposed a Chiropractor to Serious Risk and How to Avoid it