I'm having a thoroughly annoying time of it at the moment, so what better way to vent than through the medium of Science?
“Dear Chiropractology (that right?)
It’s me Science. Can you refrain from suing me for 5 minutes and read this?
I really didn’t want to have to do this, but you’ve pushed me to it. I’ve tried ignoring you, I’ve tried using reason and logic to dissuade people from listening to you, I’ve even taken another look at the fundamental nature of biology, chemistry, physics and anatomy on the off chance you may have a point.
You don’t, by the way. And it didn’t take long to look up the basics, I left the bookmark in my notes from when I last looked after Homeopathy started making noise again.
So, Chiroprology, it’s come to this. Me writing you a bloody letter, like some sort of 18th century scribe, just so you’ll have what I’m telling you in a visible format to double check for hidden meaning and all that. I’m the anthropomorphic personification of Science, I don’t have time to write pointless sarcastic missives to my detractors (and yes, I realise that plenty of evidence to the contrary can be found on this blog, but since when is evidence important, right?)
Basically, this is your last warning. Cut your crap and know your place, or you’ll get to see what I do when I’m REALLY angry.
You want to sue my boy Simon Singh? Shows how stupid you can be, I wouldn’t dare start on someone with the initials SS; I won’t be restraining him, and trust me, he’ll go Gestapo on your ass!
So listen, Chiroproctor and Gamble, we both know, as does Simon, that what you claim to be able to do is bogus. Yes, that’s right, I dropped the B-bomb! What you going to do? Sue me? You genuinely think you can sue an abstract concept? Admittedly, it’s only marginally more absurd than thinking you can cure bedwetting with a back-rub, but either way it won’t work.
What is it about the word ‘bogus’ that bothers you so much, anyway? Do you thing, we’re using some offensive acronym? Chiropractors are bogus (Blatantly useless guff, obviously stupid?)
Thing is, you campaigned for so long to be regarded as separate from medicine when you first started peddling your wares, so you could get round the whole inconvenient 'having to prove you have the first clue about human biology' thing that medics need to deal with, but now you want the same level of credibility? You can't have your cake and eat it!
Actually, that saying seems quite logically flawed to me, as having and eating a cake are intrinsically linked. What would be the point of having a cake if you couldn't eat it? They do sometimes look nice, but if used as ornaments they could only fill this role on a short-term basis. And it's logically impossible to eat a cake without 'having' it. If anything, consuming something and incorporating it's mass into your own is as extreme a degree of 'having' something as you can get, I think. Of course you could hurl yourself and the cake into a black hole, thereby merging yours and the cakes mass into the singularity at it's heart and unifying in one space-time flaw, but that seems needlessly complex a manner for disproving the whole have/eat cake cliché. I don't think we need to involve quantum physics in baking, it's tricky enough already. Ever tried making a flan? The mind boggles.
Bloody hell, got distracted again. Thing is, Chiropractus Rex, I'm willing to take on any wild notion as long as there is some proof of it. So you can see how extreme it is when I tell you that you're demonstrating yet another alarming case of colonic vocalisation (figure it out).
Thing is, that thing where I use big, complex words and make it hard for everyone to understand what I'm talking about? I try my best to not do that, it makes my job a lot harder in the long run, but sometimes it's unavoidable. It's an unfortunate side effect, it's not the thing that makes me credible. To put it more succinctly for your already bilge-filled brains, I'm not doing it on purpose!
I've had to point that out to Homeopathy, Nutritionism, Gillian McKeith, Fundamentalists, and now you. You're one of the worst, Chiropratacomefromalanddownunder. Vertebral Subluxtion? Sounds like something you'd treat with high doses of fibre.
If you genuinely believe that all that stuff about 'blockages' in the spinal column being responsible for disease, I can point you in the direction of spinal trauma victims who'd dearly love to make your acquaintance. Their bodies seem strangely reluctant to heal themselves, and seeing as you have the ability to help them along then perhaps you could spare them some of your talents? I know you have a lot of vitally important bed-wetting and colic to deal with, but could you take a moment to help out the paraplegics?
You're right though, the body does have a tendency to heal itself. While it's doing that, it might not be a great idea to keep pummelling it randomly though.
Seriously though, do you need some pointers on how the human body works? I'm happy to help if so. And this isn't me offering a 'contrasting opinion', this is facts, this is based on stuff you can see, and change, and adjust, and pull out and have dribble all over your hands.
If you want some cadavers to see what I'm on about, I'd happily provide some. Please, take them off my hands. I've got loads. In fact, I'll take a tip from your book and keep badgering you until you submit and just admit I'm right. I want you to take a look at my cadavers, so I'll be flinging them at your establishments, on the hour, every hour, for the foreseeable future. You want people to think you're buildings are just like hospitals? Then you need more dead people in them. Although if you keep offering to treat serious illness with your biobabble, you'll probably have more than you can deal with soon enough.
This is your last warning Chiropracorganic produce. You drove me to this, the gloves are off, and I'm sorely tempted to make some spinal adjustments of my own with a variety of my heaviest and bluntest tools.
Science (BA hons)
P.S. Are you and Osteopathy related? You look sort of the same"
email: humourology (at) live.co.uk