Re: Cranial Adjustment?


"JanD" <JanD@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:JtSif.367673$084.95670@xxxxxxxxxxxx
>
> "Happy Dog" <happydog@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
> news:sDQif.1586$Et5.127212@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>> <dalyjason@xxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
>> news:1133232077.118804.232210@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
>>> This is the first time I have posted here. I was looking for
>>> assistance. I was not looking to be insulted.
>>
>> In what way have you been insulted?
>
> Professional pick pockets distract the mark in various ways. Cranial
> manipulation must be a new one.
>
> You got the best advice you could pay for in usenet.
>
> The fact is that the claim that the bones that comprise the skull can be
> manipulated is utterly absurd.
>
> Further, the idea that this can address AD/HD is even more absurd.
>
> So, do you want advice or warm fuzzy support for something you really want
> to be true? The truth is that once the sutures fuse, (and a baby's
> fontanelles or 'soft spots' close) the cranium is one solid sturdy box,
> and
> even the strongest chiropractor's thumbs are not going to be moving the
> bones around. Only the mandible, the hyoid, and, to some extent the nasal
> septum are mobile. Moving those is not going to help autism or ADD, nor
> would moving any of the bones comprising the cranial vault. "Cranial
> Adjustment" is a fraud, designed to extract money from the naive.
>
>
>>>
>>> Here is a link that you may find interesting.
>>> http://www.turnerwellness.com/media/cranial-adjusting-mike.pdf
>>
>> It isn't. It's a hodgepodge of long-discredited
>
> Discredited by whom?
>
> ancient ideas that have
>> been resurrected to make a worthless "treatment" seem useful.
>
> WRONG.
>
>
> Ask yourself
>> this: If the claims are true, why isn't there any decent
>
> ZZzz.
>
> *Substantial* *real* *solid* *convincing* *hard* *clear-cut* *reasonable*
> *significant* *credibile* *compelling* *copious* *direct* *unreliable*
> *decent*
>
>
> research that
>> confirms them? Why isn't there any theory that predicts them to be
>> likely or possible?
>>
>> moo
>
> http://www.chiropractors.asn.au/cjournal/vol35/cjamarch05.html

"Discredited by whom?
WRONG.
ZZzz."

And your usual list of qualities that you don't find important in research
or science opinion, are the sum total of your own words in this post. There
is no discussion here, no content, no contribution, only disruption. You not
only are incapable of discussion, you can't resist the temptation to disrupt
a discussion when one begins in this newsgroup. I'm all in favor of free
speech, but nothing you post here really qualifies as speech. So, either
*** or get off the pot; contribute or go away.
--


--Rich

Recommended websites:

http://www.ratbags.com/rsoles
http://www.acahf.org.au
http://www.quackwatch.org/
http://www.skeptic.com/
http://www.csicop.org/


.

Quantcast