"Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
Harlequin
Darwinism in medicine.
"Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
p
http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
has a VERY poor track record.)
--
Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
"...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
- Harlan Ellison
Lane Lewis
"Harlequin" <use...@cox.net> wrote in message
news:Xns93BADE30A2367u...@68.12.19.6...
> Today's feature at Answers in Genesis is an attack on
> Darwinism in medicine.
>
>
> "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
> by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
> p
> http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
>
> Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
> has a VERY poor track record.)
>
> --
[qt]
Modern research has found that back problems are due largely to lack of
exercise, a highly sedentary lifestyle and, in some cases, an inherited
weakness
[fin]
They didn't mention what that inherited weakness might be (evolution), but
then what can you say about so called scientist who believe the "Fall " is
responsible for back pain.
[qt]
The further we move from the Fall the greater becomes the mutational load
and the more likely ‘poor mutations’ for disk strength and longevity become
the norm rather than the occasional.
[fin]
Oh my our children are doomed. Actually its been over two hundred years
since any legitimate doctor blamed back pain on sin yet they do so without
any compunctions whatsoever.
Note they also blame every other disease (wisdom teeth) on sin also. Such
are the ways of AIG.
Lane
The gene pool needs more chlorine.
observa
> Darwinism in medicine.
>
>
> "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
> by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
> p
> http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
>
> Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
> has a VERY poor track record.)
Sounds accurate. Can't see that it has anything to do with invalidating
evolution. I mean, I'm an evolutionist, and I teach Tai J'i, and that
increases lordosis as well. Because the chin is tucked in, the chest sunk
(inwards, not down) and the upper back rounds slightly. So what?
Alan Jeffery
>
> --
> Anti-spam: replace "usenet" with "harlequin2"
>
> "...Everybody has opinions: I have them, you have them. And we are all
> told from the moment we open our eyes, that everyone is entitled to
> his or her opinion. Well, that's horsepuckey, of course. We are not
> entitled to our opinions; we are entitled to our _informed_ opinions.
> Without research, without background, without understanding, it's
> nothing. It's just bibble-babble...."
> - Harlan Ellison
>
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.498 / Virus Database: 297 - Release Date: 8/07/2003
Bobby D. Bryant
> [qt]
> The further we move from the Fall the greater becomes the mutational
> load and the more likely ‘poor mutations’ for disk strength and
> longevity become the norm rather than the occasional.
> [fin]
Apparently they don't think God originally did a very good job of The
Fall. Not only are we moderns being punished for their ancestors' sins,
we're being punished more severely than the sinners were.
Such are the theological idiocies creationism invariably leads to.
--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas
Dave
The Honourable Harlequin wrote:
> Today's feature at Answers in Genesis is an attack on
> Darwinism in medicine.
>
>
> "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
> by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
> p
> http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
>
> Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
> has a VERY poor track record.)
From the article
"In the words of Krogman: 'Although man stands on two legs, his skeleton
was originally designed for four. The result is some ingenious
adaptions, not all of them successful.'"
Oh dear. I am overcome. What next? AiG offers Ed Conrad a position on the
board?
Their Ref 4 is:
Krogman, W.M., The scars of human evolution, Scientific American
185(6):54-57, 1951; p. 54. Return to text.
--
Intelligent and witty comment.
Seamus Ma' Cleriec
Harlequin <use...@cox.net> wrote in message news:<Xns93BADE30A2367u...@68.12.19.6>...
Alan Wright
> Darwinism in medicine.
>
>
> "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
> by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
>
http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
> p
> http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
>
> Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
> has a VERY poor track record.)
Fine logic:
- TOE says humans evolved from quadrupeds
- spinal problems in humans may relate to this
- treatment for spinal problems tried based on this idea
- treatment fails
- THEREFORE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG!
Non sequitur.
Alan
ReidRover
>From: "Lane Lewis" lanej...@hotmail.com
>Date: 7/16/2003 8:34 PM Pacific Daylight Time
>Message-id: <CToRa.29046$k85.1...@twister.tampabay.rr.com>
Didn't excavations at the earliest agricultural sites find that people had
horrific back ( and knee) problems..these must have been pretty close to "the
fall".
Lane Lewis
"ReidRover" <reid...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20030717230928...@mb-m07.aol.com...
increase. Inventually we will be nothing more than slugs crawling underneath
rocks. Thank goodness the second coming is right around the corner :O)
Lane
Viv
<alanatya...@giganews.com> uttered:
>> Today's feature at Answers in Genesis is an attack on
>> Darwinism in medicine.
>>
>>
>> "Back problems: how Darwinism misled researchers"
>> by Jerry Bergman, _TJ_ 15(3):79-84 (2001)
>>
>http://www.answersingenesis.org/home/area/magazines/tj/docs/v15n3_misled.as
>> p
>> http://tinyurl.com/h6l0
>>
>> Anyone have a response? (Besides the obvious fact that AiG
>> has a VERY poor track record.)
>ALAN
>Fine logic:
>
>- TOE says humans evolved from quadrupeds
>- spinal problems in humans may relate to this
>- treatment for spinal problems tried based on this idea
>- treatment fails
>
>- THEREFORE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG!
>
>Non sequitur.
As Alan says, the logic is rotten. The premises they are arguing from are
also a misrepresentation of spinal therapy. Evolution was not the rationale
for spinal treatments that I learned while studying to become a
physiotherapist (USA: physical therapist) many years ago.
By the 1980s it was presented as long-known information that the double-S
curve of the spine was biomechanically essential for pain-free loadbearing,
and that anything which interfered with the normal double-S curve i.e.
increased *or decreased* curvature (also asymmetries of course) tended to
produce pain/immobility. Depending upon the variation from normal alignment
that was producing the pain, the exercises/joint mobilisations were
prescribed *as indicated by X-ray and mobility measurements*. Some
prescriptions were for flexion, some for extension, some for rotation and
side-flexion. It is simply not the case that lumbar flexion exercises were
the only ones prescribed for people with lumbar pain due to some
evolutionary dogma.
Williams' exercises were, according to one of my old textbooks, especially
popular in the USA at one time, and his rationale was that a minimal lumbar
lordosis was a healthier spinal posture than an exaggerated lordosis *in
cases of posterior disc bulging*. My textbook states that part of his
rationale was that African and Asian cultures where people sit on the floor
with a curved lower spine experience less back pain than Western cultures
where our chairs encourage an exaggerated lordosis. There was no mention of
any evolutionary rationale in my textbook (Williams perhaps indulged in some
evolutionary speculation as to the reason why African/Asian hypolordotic
spines presented with fewer instances of pain/injury, but the authors seemed
clear that his initial observations on differences in injury/pain frequency
in non-Western cultures were what drove his postural thesis). There book
mentions that Williams also prescribed extension exercises where indicated
by clinical signs, which would seem to contradict any alleged evolutionary
dogma about what the spine ought to look like - his primary goal was to
decrease pain. (White and Panjabi, _Clinical Biomechanics of the Spine_,
Lippincott 1978 pp.305-6[1])
Mackenzie's lumbar extension exercises made a sensation in the early 1980's
certainly, but not because nobody was prescribing extension exercises before
then or not performing extension mobilisations/manipulations. Mackenzie's
exercises made a sensation because they were a stunningly simple set of
exercises requiring no special equipment which a patient could easily follow
at home. Therefore patient compliance with home-exercise regimen was greatly
increased, with the result that the Mackenzie therapy got greatly superior
results in decreasing pain and increasing lumbar function, including a
drastic reduction in the number of cases needing to be referred for surgery
of doubtful utility.
Also, the recent ability (1970's) to measure _in vivo_ intradiscal pressures
during certain exercises showed that the traditional Williams exercises were
too severe in some instances (especially situps[2] and HIS EXTENSION
EXERCISES )[p.306] and Mackenzie's exercises managed to have beneficial
effects on pain and mobility without causing a dangerous rise in
intra-discal pressure. Other tests showed that a slightly extended spine
showed less activity in paraspinal muscles and a lowered intradiscal
pressure, which was the discovery that finally put paid to using Williams
flexion exercises in cases of back pain due to disc trauma. It is worth
noting however that not a few of Mackenzie's extension exercises are
described by him as "modified Williams posture", where he has modified them
only to keep any increased intradiscal pressure in safe bounds.
In my own experience, while *hypo*-lordosis as a clinical sign in actual
traumatic lifting injuries is a definitive sign of posterior disc injury, it
is far more common in gradual onset diffuse lumbar back pain to find that
the client is *hyper*-lordotic and requires exercises the diametric opposite
of Mackenzie's extension exercises and far more of the ilk of the Williams
flexion exercises in order to diminish spasm and pain. Even the AIG article
acknowledges that the Williams flexion exercises are of benefit in cases of
spinal stenosis.
I have a suspicion also that AIG have looked at figures illustrating
"slumping" postural exercises meant to be held for a few minutes at most and
misrepresented these as some sort of ideal permanent posture that Williams
was advocating.
Summary: they have overstated the reliance upon an alleged "Williams dogma"
regarding a perceived need to eliminate the spinal double-S curve, when my
textbook from 1978 shows that Williams advocated extension exercises as well
as flexion exercises depending upon the clinical signs. They have also
overstated the influence of Mackenzie extension exercises - their effect is
spectacular in cases of acute traumatic lumbar injury involving disc
displacement/rupture, but the Mackenzie extension exercises have no special
benefit over flexion exercises (Williams or other) in other cases of back
pain, particularly chronic back pain due to degenerative bone/joint changes.
1. this was a standard undergraduate and postgraduate text in many medical
and paramedical faculties around the world at the time. It is still in
publication in updated and revised editions (latest 199?), and Panjabi and
White are still researching and publishing other biomechanical treatises,
although now they are published by Churchill Livingstone (this may be why
there are no more recent editions). Their 2000 book _Biomechanics of the
Musculoskeletal System_ is on the reading list of many facculties..
2. the discovery of this increase in intradiscal pressure to dangerous
levels during straight-leg sit-ups is why gyms nowadays teach people to do
situps with knees bent.
Vivienne "the rapist" Smythe
--
"Usenet is like a herd of performing elephants with diarrhea --
massive,difficult to redirect, awe-inspiring, entertaining, and
a source of mind-boggling amounts of excrement when you least
expect it." - Gene "spaf" Spafford (1992)
John Wilkins
Viv <v...@viv.id.au> wrote:
Suitably edited, this would make a nice FAQ.
--
John Wilkins
It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
Truman Capote
Viv
uttered:
> Viv wrote:
[snip 100-ish lines of rebuttal to AIG article]
>Suitably edited, this would make a nice FAQ.
Why thank-you kind sir. I could tighten it up a bit and find a few more
references over the next few weeks if the t.o. cabal (TINC) would like - the
kids will be back at school and I can go visit the uni library and look
through some older and newer textbooks/journals, specifically some of
Williams' actual writings.
That way I could end up with an article about half as long again with some
specific refutations of the AIG material from long-ago published materials.
Would be kinda fun.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"True Love is just codependency with a better soundtrack"
[Charles Peterman]
Fight gullibility now: see www.urbanlegends.com
Lilith
course yet another counter to AIG distortions from an expert in
physical therapy.
<v...@viv.id.au> wrote in message news:<6mqehv0k68te6rmbp...@4ax.com>...
catshark
>On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:59:54 +0000 (UTC), John Wilkins <wil...@wehi.edu.au>
>uttered:
>
>> Viv wrote:
>
>[snip 100-ish lines of rebuttal to AIG article]
>
>>Suitably edited, this would make a nice FAQ.
>
>Why thank-you kind sir. I could tighten it up a bit and find a few more
>references over the next few weeks if the t.o. cabal (TINC) would like - the
>kids will be back at school and I can go visit the uni library and look
>through some older and newer textbooks/journals, specifically some of
>Williams' actual writings.
>
>That way I could end up with an article about half as long again with some
>specific refutations of the AIG material from long-ago published materials.
>
>Would be kinda fun.
Go for it. This is a fairly novel attack by AiG and one outside the usual
references we consult. It would be most helpful.
---------------
J. Pieret
---------------
Cogito sum, ergo sum, cogito.
- Robert Carroll -
Pithecanthropus erectus
"Seamus Ma' Cleriec" <zawa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1720ec78.03071...@posting.google.com...
In the final analysis, we are all transitional species. Unless a species is
extinct before branching out.
When a creationist says "No Transitionals unless you can show me one" I like
to raise my hand and smile sweetly.
---
Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
Version: 6.0.500 / Virus Database: 298 - Release Date: 7/10/03
Lane Lewis
Anything we can do to show that AIG's science is bad not to mention its
theology. Vivienne said she might revise it and I do encourage her.
Lane
"Lilith" <lil...@umich.edu> wrote in message
news:75200cbc.03071...@posting.google.com...
Harlequin
news:nc7fhvo2s74sohhu3...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:59:54 +0000 (UTC), John Wilkins
> <wil...@wehi.edu.au> uttered:
>
>> Viv wrote:
>
> [snip 100-ish lines of rebuttal to AIG article]
>
>>Suitably edited, this would make a nice FAQ.
>
> Why thank-you kind sir. I could tighten it up a bit and find a few
> more references over the next few weeks if the t.o. cabal (TINC) would
> like - the kids will be back at school and I can go visit the uni
> library and look through some older and newer textbooks/journals,
> specifically some of Williams' actual writings.
>
> That way I could end up with an article about half as long again with
> some specific refutations of the AIG material from long-ago published
> materials.
>
> Would be kinda fun.
I will second this (well third since catshark has also posted...).
I was going to nominate it for PotM since it would be a shame for
something this good to be lost in the thousands of articles in
Google. But if it can go the FAQ route, it is all the better.
This was interesting, I learned something, and it debunks some
creationist stuff which I have not seen rebuttals for.
(I now see that Lilith did nominate it for PotM. I bet it will
win if not left out of the voting because of being on FAQ-track.)
Earle Jones
> On Thu, 17 Jul 2003 18:18:25 +0000 (UTC), "Alan Wright"
> <alanatya...@giganews.com> uttered:
[...]
> >Fine logic:
> >
> >- TOE says humans evolved from quadrupeds
> >- spinal problems in humans may relate to this
> >- treatment for spinal problems tried based on this idea
> >- treatment fails
> >
> >- THEREFORE THEORY OF EVOLUTION IS WRONG!
*
I hope you can follow this logic:
1. Rainbows are multicolored.
2. Skin is flesh colored.
3. Close cover before striking.
4. The Giants won the pennant in 1951.
THEREFORE THERE IS NO GOD!
earle
*
Viv
uttered:
>Viv <v...@viv.id.au> wrote in
>news:nc7fhvo2s74sohhu3...@4ax.com:
>> On Fri, 18 Jul 2003 06:59:54 +0000 (UTC), John Wilkins
>> <wil...@wehi.edu.au> uttered:
>>
>>> Viv wrote:
>>
>> [snip 100-ish lines of rebuttal to AIG article]
>>
>>>Suitably edited, this would make a nice FAQ.
>>
>> Why thank-you kind sir. I could tighten it up a bit and find a few
>> more references over the next few weeks if the t.o. cabal (TINC) would
>> like - the kids will be back at school and I can go visit the uni
>> library and look through some older and newer textbooks/journals,
>> specifically some of Williams' actual writings.
>>
>> That way I could end up with an article about half as long again with
>> some specific refutations of the AIG material from long-ago published
>> materials.
>>
>> Would be kinda fun.
>
>I will second this (well third since catshark has also posted...).
>I was going to nominate it for PotM since it would be a shame for
>something this good to be lost in the thousands of articles in
>Google. But if it can go the FAQ route, it is all the better.
>This was interesting, I learned something, and it debunks some
>creationist stuff which I have not seen rebuttals for.
My memory is that in the early 80s there was a *lot* of stuff in the
orthopaedic literature regarding the comparisons between the Mackenzie
programme and other exercise programmes such as the Williams exercises,
including the work of Mackenzie himself. Biomechanics was the Big new Thing,
and every physiologist and hir dog was measuring intradiscal pressure on
every activity in sight and playing with CAT scans. I should be able to find
some specific references to refute the AIG claims.
I should also be able to check the alleged Williams quotes from the AIG
article in context and see if they are candidates for the quote-mining
project.
>(I now see that Lilith did nominate it for PotM. I bet it will
>win if not left out of the voting because of being on FAQ-track.)
I'm thrilled to get such a strong response. And all I did was go and look in
a textbook with references to peer-reviewed literature. Creationists such
as those from AIG rely on "baffling 'em with bullshit" and pile their
articles full of references to journal articles that most of their readers
have no idea how to find, and so can't determine whether a quote is in
context or not.
Does the t.o. archive have an article about finding cited journal articles
for the benefit of those who've never been taught how? It's a long time
since I've done it, so researching the "back problems" rebuttal will be
verrrry interesting. It would certainly be intimidating for someone who's
never used an academic library before.
Vivienne Smythe
--
"Some believe all manner of hearsay evidence; others twist truth
into fiction; and both sorts of error are magnified by time."
[Cornelius Tacitus, _The Annals of Imperial Rome_ c.100CE]
Harlequin
news:mrahhvoa91h2uenjv...@4ax.com:
[snip]
> My memory is that in the early 80s there was a *lot* of stuff in the
> orthopaedic literature regarding the comparisons between the Mackenzie
> programme and other exercise programmes such as the Williams
> exercises, including the work of Mackenzie himself. Biomechanics was
> the Big new Thing, and every physiologist and hir dog was measuring
> intradiscal pressure on every activity in sight and playing with CAT
> scans. I should be able to find some specific references to refute the
> AIG claims.
Sounds great.
> I should also be able to check the alleged Williams quotes from the
> AIG article in context and see if they are candidates for the
> quote-mining project.
[snip]
If they are out of context it would probably be more effective to just
document them in the FAQ. Quite a number of Archive files
document quote mining.
catshark
>Viv <v...@viv.id.au> wrote in
>news:mrahhvoa91h2uenjv...@4ax.com:
>
>[snip]
>> My memory is that in the early 80s there was a *lot* of stuff in the
>> orthopaedic literature regarding the comparisons between the Mackenzie
>> programme and other exercise programmes such as the Williams
>> exercises, including the work of Mackenzie himself. Biomechanics was
>> the Big new Thing, and every physiologist and hir dog was measuring
>> intradiscal pressure on every activity in sight and playing with CAT
>> scans. I should be able to find some specific references to refute the
>> AIG claims.
>
>Sounds great.
>
>> I should also be able to check the alleged Williams quotes from the
>> AIG article in context and see if they are candidates for the
>> quote-mining project.
>[snip]
>
>If they are out of context it would probably be more effective to just
>document them in the FAQ. Quite a number of Archive files
>document quote mining.
Not to say that any such won't wind up in the QMP. I've been keeping any
examples I run across and if anyone has any good ones, they can email them
to catsh...@yahooSPAMX.com (doing the obvious). Once we get the
original lot up, we can start adding others.
Ian H Spedding
CC239E.170...@ariel.ucs.unimelb.edu.au>,
wil...@wehi.edu.au says...
[...]
I found it very informative - and it will probably get
creationist backs up as well...
> John Wilkins
> It is not enough to succeed. Friends must be seen to have failed.
> Truman Capote
Ian
--
Ian H Spedding
By all means marry: If you get a good wife, you'll
become happy; if you get a bad one, you'll become a
philosopher.
(Socrates)
Scott Rutter
wrote:
>something this good to be lost in the thousands of articles in
>Google.
Speaking of which, Google has seemed to hit a storage limit, some of
the oldest posts are disappearing. For a while the speed of this is
going to greatly increase given the ratio of current posting volume to
past volume. A days worth of posting now is going to take as much
space as a a whole month or more from the early days.
-
To Reply: Take off every Zig!
EAC - Director of Quantum Computing
Ordained Minister - Universal Life Church