Anti-vaccine chiropractors 4

The Chiropractic Board of Australia has had enough:

“We will not tolerate registered chiropractors giving misleading or unbalanced advice to patients, or providing advice or care that is not in the patient’s best interests,” chairman Phillip Donato said.

Dr Donato said chiropractors should only provide evidence-based treatment and anyone with concerns should report them. [Sydney Morning Herald August 9 2013]

Today’s episode stars Chiropractors’ Association of Australia member, Simon King. King practices at Tweaks – Health Solutions, in Grafton NSW.

I’m not going to bother debunking obvious anti-vaccination misinformation. Especially when the sources are so far down the rabbit hole they’ve struck essential oil. Let’s see what Simon says is good immunisation information, worthy of being shared from his business’s Facebook page.

Simon says: Sanevax.

King 1 sanevax Gardasil deathsSimon says: Health Danger.

King 2 Natural News untested vaccines PolioSimon says: Gary Null vaccines/autism zombie epidemic. No, really.

King 4 Gary Null vaccines autismI also want to point out a section of the Chiropractic Board of Australia’s advertising guidelines, for no reason:

Guidelines for advertising of regulated health services

5 What is unacceptable advertising?

This section is intended to provide a clear indication of the
type of advertising of services that the boards consider to
be unacceptable. Where examples are provided, they are
intended to assist practitioners and other persons who
advertise regulated health services to comply with the
advertising provisions of the National Law. They are not
intended to be exhaustive.

To comply with s. 133 of the National Law and these
guidelines, advertising of services must not:

(d) use testimonials or purported testimonials

Oh, okay. Of course there is a reason:

King 3 testimonial

Over to you, CBA.

About reasonable hank

I'm reasonable, mostly.
This entry was posted in anti-vaccination dishonesty, chiropractic, stop the australian vaccination network and tagged , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

36 Responses to Anti-vaccine chiropractors 4

  1. How the hell did a chiropractor ‘treat’ a hiatus hernia to begin with? Especially if he had to google the symptoms? Don’t tell me he’s diagnosing outside of his scope of practice?

    Snake oil, unless it’s to do with musculoskeletal back pain.

  2. Simon King says:

    I did not say “Sanevax.” I did not say “Health Danger” I did not say “Gary Null vaccines/autism zombie epidemic.” I did post 5 links with interesting information about vaccines out of 130 posts which I thought some people might find interesting. I did not endorse these views and I do not let my private views on vaccinations affect my advice to patients. If I have posted misinformation then please argue the misinformation rather than my right to post. You calling stuff you don’t like misinformation does not make it so. If you want a debate, fine, argue the points but don’t selectively quote in order to defame me. I know and understand the CBA’s views on chiropractors’ right to free speech on vaccination and that is why my own views are private and were not stated on this page.

    • I didn’t put quotes around those terms. You did. You are an anti-vaccine chiropractor. I have presented anti-vaccination posts you have made on your business’s public page. There is no defamation here. Do better.

  3. Simon King says:

    Dear Unreasonable Hank, “Simon says: Health Danger.” is clearly fraudulent (Simon didn’t say it – you did) and defamatory and intended to be so. As an ex-paid schill for Big Pharma (according to selectively misquoting your publicly available website) hiding behind a pseudonym while making defamatory attacks with no substance, why should truth and justice matter to you? It is right and proper that the largest health profession not in the pay of and under the influence of the Pharmaceutical Industry is able to reference and provide factual information in the public interest about any subject related to health. You have presented those posts as somehow illegitimate or wrong without investigating or debating their veracity or their substance. Such matters of fact are obviously too triffling for someone of your ilk. I wonder what you will make of this post?

  4. Simon King, now that I know you are reading this, can you please advise how you can make a diagnosis of ‘hiatus hernia’, what symptomatology triggered that clinical diagnosis and exactly how chiropractic can treat it?
    Why do you think the doctor missed it? Misdiagnosis can happen, but it is a heck of a claim to make to a patient about another heal

    Posting links without qualifying the information, by the way, is tacit agreement with the content of the links. The links you posted are anti-vaccination. I don’t care what your ‘personal opinion’ is, and good on you if you don’t let it advise your interactions with your patients. But your own regulatory board is calling for all anti-vaccination paraphernalia to be removed. This includes, in my humble opinion, demonstrably anti-vaccination links on your business page.

    And the information for information’s sake, informed choice, interest or whatever else it can be labelled will not fly with no context added by yourself. Like I said, tacit.

    • Simon King says:

      Yes Wendy, recent unofficial advice (last week) is that there is a gag order on chiropractors having a public opinion on vaccination and even though my views on the posts were not stated I have removed all 5 of the posts. My diagnosis of hiatus hernia is not based on symptoms, nor is the treatment. I don’t remember the details of the case nor am I responsible for my patient’s interpretation of the events but treatment would always be aimed at restoring normal/optimal neuromusculoskeletal function although the specific chiropractic treatment would vary according to the patient (not the condition).

  5. Sorry, the end of the first paragraph should read: … about another healthcare provider.

  6. Scott Lewis says:

    Simon – The fact that you think that ridiculous paper indicates anything at all indicates very poor things about your scientific literacy. A case series of 3 (2 of which are sisters), with a non-existant relationship between HPV and ovarian failure shows absolutely nothing, no matter how the anti-vax authors try to spin it. The fact that 20 of their 64 references are self-citations should speak for itself.

    Chiropractors – Misrepresenting science since 1895…..

  7. Simon King says:

    Possibly. Without accepted scientific criteria to define causation, it’s impossible to know either way.

  8. You stated that there are no accepted scientific criteria to define causation. You are incorrect. Further, epidemiologic data has shown vaccines to be safe and effective. Case studies imparted by a “researcher” with a clear anti-vax agenda are not data.

    • Simon King says:

      No, they’re not data, they’re people. People who want to know why they are sick. Do you know what caused their illnesses? Maybe you could ask Bradford-Hill? And while you’re at it – define “safe,” define “effective.”

      • Andy says:

        While we await skewed’s definition of safe and effective, can I ask you, Simon, if you think seat belts are safe and effective?

  9. Simon King says:

    Irrelevant diversion tactic Andy. We can’t answer questions of safety and effectiveness until we have defined the terms. So define them – please.

    • It would appear that you are working towards claiming that vaccines are neither safe nor effective, Mr King. How about you stump up your evidence for this, seeing how it is you who is making the claim against the safety and effectiveness of vaccines. Stop the crap about definitions or you are gonzo from this forum. I’ve given plenty more latitude to you as an anti-vaccinationist than I usually do.

    • Andy says:

      So chiropractic can’t be described as safe and effective either then, I guess.

  10. Simon King says:

    No, I’m not claiming they are unsafe or ineffective, but it is interesting that nobody here can answer the simplest of questions, perhaps it’s because they know that if they do, the whole crusade will be shown to be based on deception. Because while they can quite rightly claim that vaccines have been shown to be safe and effective in epidemiological studies based on statistics, they know that when your average Mrs and Mrs Parent with baby Zoe hears that statement, they will presume that it means that the vaccination will be safe and effective for their child. And it doesn’t mean that does it? That’s why we must define our terms – as a lawyer, you should know that. But when you do, the deception is exposed – and I’ve got $1.7 billion compensation (to 2008) in the US alone to prove it.

    • Well, if you aren’t saying they are unsafe or ineffective, why don’t you go away and stop concern trolling?

      You think I’m a lawyer? Have you been doing your internet detektiving with Mr Croke? I lold hard at that.

      You are not very good at this, and you are not doing your profession any favours by acting like this on a public forum.

    • Andy says:

      Ahh, I get it. It’s the Nirvana fallacy. If it’s not a 100%, it’s 0%.

      By that reckoning, being born is not safe or effective. Nor is breastfeeding, or bottle-feeding, or eating, or drinking, or breathing, or walking, or sitting, or standing, or riding a bike, or driving, or flying, or sailing, or trains, or buses, or chiropractic…

      Everything carries a risk. If you’re alive, you’re at risk. Every minute of every day. From everything.

      And who, outside of the alt-med crowd, ever insists that vaccination is 100% safe and effective anyway? Despite your “deception” claim above, it’s not like it’s some big dark secret that there’s risks.

      But how do people with such an incredible fear of miniscule risk get out of bed in the morning – except, of course, to escape the risks of lying in bed? The paranoia must be incredibly debilitating.

      • Simon King says:

        No, if it’s not 100% safe, then it’s anything from 0% to 99.9% safe.

        “And who, outside of the alt-med crowd, ever insists that vaccination is 100% safe and effective anyway?” Everyone actually. From Government to doctors to the crusaders, they all say “vaccines have been proven to be safe and effective.” This statement is not qualified by “very” safe, or “somewhat” safe, or “sort of” safe – it’s safe, which in normal usage refers to being free from potential harm. Only people with vaccine-induced brain damage can claim that vaccines are both safe and unsafe at the same time. It’s a logical inconsistency that should be shown for the lie that it is.

        Of course people accept the minor risks of everyday life, but they are risks they can determine and minimise for themselves. They don’t have society and government telling them there is no risk and using extortion, fear and guilt to ensure they put themselves and their children at risks which are unknown and unstudied (I am talking about long-term randomised placebo-controlled studies of the current vaccination schedule, which should be the minimum requirement before anyone makes claims of safety).

      • Andy says:

        Vaccines are safe and effective. The lack of a qualifier makes the statement no less true. Any serious risks are so minimal that such qualifiers are pointless in abstract discussions of the subject but people are advised that risks exist when the appropriate time comes. The same cannot be said for all the other risks we face every day – risks we cannot possibly hope to “determine” or, therefore “minimise”. Do you know the risk of choking on a sandwich? What are the stats? If it’s one-in-a-million, is the risk worth it or do you avoid sandwiches altogether? But what risk is there in the alternatives? Do you have those stats? How can you possibly make a decision on what to eat today, without that data?

        Nothing is free from potential harm. t some point, if we are not to drive ourselves insane with wide-ranging phobias, we have to accept that the significant benefits far outweigh the miniscule risks.

        I note, as an aside, your FB page is titled “Health Solutions” – not “sometimes solutions”, or “possible solutions” or “attempts at solutions” or “solutions for some things”. So, is your treatment guaranteed to solve all health problems, every time, as the title implies, or is it, by your own standard, a lie?

    • “No, if it’s not 100% safe, then it’s anything from 0% to 99.9% safe”

      Dude. Do you even fallacy?

      Show me an example Mr Dorey/King of where anyone has claimed 100% safety or efficacy in any vaccine.

      You are Strawmanning the world with the Nirvana Fallacy.

      Last chance.

      • Simon King says:

        Dude, did you even read my post or do you live in some alternate universe where truth is fallacy? You’ve got no argument against logic, consistency and morality and it’s becoming increasingly obvious why that is.

        • Marty says:

          You’re not about to tell us that you’ve extrapolated one strawman from another are you? That would be like having an argument about whether we landed on the moon or not then jumping in and saying “roses are red therefore christmas.” The argument we have is the demonstrable science. It’s in the literature already produced, therefore, it is the general scientific consensus, as demonstrated by science, that available vaccines are safe and effective. Nobody here is required to defend that, because it is the assertion in the negative that citation is going to be needed for.

          In other words, it’s not us that needs an argument to prove they’re safe and effective, the burden of proof lies on you to prove the assertion, against all available evidence, that they are not. If you make this assertion without evidence, Hank and others will probably just continue to find you annoying and ridicule you until you go away.

    • Bye bye Mr King. Now you’re just trolling with terms you clearly don’t understand.

  11. Marty says:

    Of course, if you do have proof, simon, that vaccines are so terrible, then we are all dying to see it. So is the Nobel Prize committee.

  12. Andy says:

    I wanted to ask Simon about the poster on his Facebook page – the one that says patients whose primary physician was a chiropractor experienced 60% less hospital admissions, 59% less days in hospital, 62% less outpatient surgeries and 85% less in pharmaceutical costs – and advising, “for the health of your loved ones… choose chiropractic”.

    It seems like a bold claim lacking nuance – a bit like saying “vaccines are safe and effective” without adding any qualifiers. Does every chiro patient get exactly the same results, every time, as this poster implies? Are the stats really so straight forward that no clarification is required?

    I guess the stats provided must be perfect and universal because only people with chiro-induced brain damage can claim that chiro can result in 60% less hospitalisation and not 60% less hospitalisation at the same time. It’s a logical inconsistency that should be shown for the lie that it is.

Leave a Reply