ChiroACCESS Article



A Cornucopia of Slings and Arrows: Straw Men on Parade



This information is provided to you for use in conjunction with your clinical judgment and the specific needs of the patient.

Anthony L. Rosner, Ph.D., LL.D.[Hon.], LLC

  

ChiroACCESS



Published on

May 25, 2010

Text Size:   (-) Decrease the text size for the main body of this article    (+) Increase the text size for the main body of this article
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo
The simplest way to explain a straw man argument is that it is a fallacy which is based upon the misrepresentation of an opponent’s position.1  Like a marine monster or one in Greek mythology, it can assume many forms.  It may oversimplify the opponent’s position or quote it out of context, stacking the deck so that one’s argument may run over the opponent with the crushing totality of a Panzer division.  In its worst incarnation, the straw man misrepresentation is deliberate so that only the weakest target is chosen—and that target is then held to represent the totality of the opponent’s being.2

Lady JusticeHistorically, the term seems to have been taken from using human practice dummies made of straw, such as used in military training and thus a cinch to knock over.  Another makes reference to a traditional fairground game in the U.K. and calls it an Aunt Sally.  An even more unusual origin suggests that it was used to designate men who stood outside the courthouse with straw in their shoes indicating their willingness to be false witnesses—but that notion itself seems to be an urban legend if not a straw man in itself.3,4

What is obvious and disturbing is that straw men are not just marketing ploys that we’ve become jaded to seeing in TV commercials, but also finding in even the highest echelons of the peer-reviewed journals in the medical literature.  Straw men seem to have been particularly dominant in publications critical of alternative medical approaches, even appearing in at least one instance in a pharmaceutical company’s attempt to denigrate another.
  1. In a strongly condemning chapter, Robert Houston eloquently suggests how no less prestigious a body than the National Cancer Institute at the NIH took away an anticancer approach [called antineoplaston therapy] developed by Stanislaw Burzynski with rates of complete remission ranging from 10- 40% and redesigned protocols that Burzynski knew would not work to be run at the Mayo Clinic and Sloan-Kettering Institute.  The NCI disowned Burzynski and did not allow him to participate in future studies.  Predictably, the rate of complete remission delivered by the NCI-backed studies was a paltry 0.16%, or just 0.4% the rates produced by Brzynski’s original design.  As Houston puts it, “They want to stamp out the innovator, crucify the discoverer, while running away with his discovery to bring it out under the respectable auspices of the National Cancer Institute.”5  This was not only a straw man, but one that was burned at the stake.

  2. A comparison of new antifungal agents [fluconazole, developed by Pfizer, and amphotericin B, a product of Merck] was conducted over a series of clinical trials.  Nearly 80% of the patients randomized to the amphotericin B cohort received the drug orally—when it was known that the drug normally has to be administered intravenously due to its poor absorption.  Quite obviously, the Pfizer product prevailed.  Turns out that nearly all the authors and patients of these studies were funded by Pfizer.  Understandably, when authors of the study were probed about details, they ran for cover, claimed ignorance, and otherwise refused to cooperate.6  So this one’s not only a straw man, but one with the legs cut off.

  3. A widely publicized clinical trial appearing in The New England Journal of Medicine, considered by many the hardest of all to gain the publication of one’s research, compared chiropractic to two other approaches: the distribution of an educational booklet and the application of the McKenzie method.  All were found to be equally effective, such that the authors concluded in a blatantly editorial comment that far exceeded what was shown by the data that, “Given the limited benefits and high costs, it seems unwise to refer all patients with low back pain for chiropractic or McKenzie therapy.”7  In addition to stepping out-of-bounds with a statement such as this, the authors give the misleading impression that the single side-posture manipulation used in this study represented all of chiropractic.  In addition, the proportions of patients who had previous experience with chiropractic and who were experiencing more severe back pain seemed decidedly stacked against the chiropractic cohort—despite the fact that the statistics run on a decidedly small sample failed to reach significance.  Type II errors with undersized populations are known to mask effects such as this.  So in this instance, we not only have another straw man—but one wearing a grass skirt.

  4. In the very same journal—in fact, appearing adjacent to the Cherkin study—was a second paper that discredited chiropractic in that it was judged to be ineffective in managing childhood asthma.  Only problem here was that the placebo treatment to which chiropractic was compared involved physical applications to the cranial, gluteal, and scapular areas of the patients—in other words, anything BUT an inactive sham treatment.  Understandably, both sham and chiropractic treatments delivered measurable effects; however, the authors chose to base their conclusions upon the (lack of) difference between sham and active treatments.8  Problem here is that elsewhere the sham treatment was shown in a massage study of proper design to significantly improve childhood asthma symptom, attitude, and lung function scores.9  I guess this one would have to go down as a straw man with asthma.

  5. A litany of studies have criticized the nutritional component of Applied Kinesiology by failing to find  positive results involving a variety of substances affecting muscle testing results. Problem here is that all have avoided having the patient insert any substance at all in the mouth and thus bypassing the gustatory response.  Instead, patients in all these studies have simply held bottles of sugar,10-12  sand,10-12 sucrose,13,14 or the toxins hydroxylamine hydrochloride,15 or even snake venom.16  Can’t convince me that holding is the same as tasting, nor do I  know offhand how straw men taste....

  6. Elsewhere, a randomized controlled trial which debunks AK and challenge procedures employed 68 naïve volunteers from a chiropractic college.  The provocative vertebral challenge applied was a standardized 4-5 kg force delivered with a pressure algometer to the lateral aspects of the T3-T12 spinous processes.  The therapeutic intervention was a manual high velocity low amplitude adjustment or a switched-off Activator instrument used as a sham.  Reactivity of the piriformis muscle following a vertebral challenge was assessed, together with responsiveness following spinal manipulation.  Because the percent of reactivity to the vertebral challenge was only 16% with 0% responsiveness to spinal manipulation, it was judged that the muscle response seemed to be only a random occurrence which was unrelated to the manipulable subluxation.  The authors concluded that manual muscle testing was of questionable value for spinal screening and post-adjustive evaluation.17

    The problem with this trial was that the majority of subjects investigated [60%] lacked pain—with only half having stiffness in the thoracic region.  Challenging the normally functioning vertebra in most of these cases would necessarily lead to a negative result, such that positive tests performed in this experiment would not be expected.  Furthermore, the specific vector to challenge must match the specific subluxation of the vertebra if changes in manual muscle testing are to be found and the challenge procedure to be of any use in guiding subsequent therapeutic interventions.  So with the deck stacked as it turned out to be in this experiment, one would not expect positive results.  I’m still trying to imagine how a subluxated straw man would look...
Drawing from the classic computer mantra GIGO [Garbage In, Garbage Out], we need to be increasingly vigilant as to how false representations will lead to foregone, erroneous, and misleading conclusions.  The vetting of false information is not merely something we need to be mindful of when contemplating blogs, websites, or supermarket tabloids—but also when consulting some of the most trusted tomes in the literature.  Straw men may never quite measure up to the horrifying visage of Freddy Kruger, but they are certainly enough to disturb one’s neural circuitry.
Share this:  Add to TwitterAdd to DiggAdd to del.icio.usAdd to FacebookAdd to GoogleAdd to LinkedInAdd to MixxAdd to MySpaceAdd to NewsvineAdd to RedditAdd to StumbleUponAdd to Yahoo



References

1.   

Pirie M. How to Win Every Argument: The Use and Abuse of Logic. UK: Continuum International Publishing Group, 2007.



2.   

The Straw Man Fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/strawman.html). Retrieved 12 October 2007.

 [ Full-Text Link ]

3.   

”Idioms around the world” (http:disted.tamu.edu/classes/telecome98s/eva/week2.htm) Retrieved 13 May 2009.

 [ Full-Text Link ]

4.   

E. Cobham Brewer 1810-1897. Dictionary of Phrase and Fable. 1898. http://www.bartleby.com/81/10919.html. Retrieved 13 May 2009.

 [ Full-Text Link ]

5.   

Houston R. In Hess D. Evaluating Alternative Cancer Therapies: A Guide to the Science and Politics of an Emerging Medical Field. New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1999. pp. 134-135.



6.   

Johansen HK, Gotzsche PC. Problems in the design and reporting of trials of antifungal agents encountered during meta-analysis. Journal of the American Medical Association 1999; 282(18): 1752-1759.



7.   

Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339(15): 1021-1029.



8.   

Balon J, Aker PD, Crowther ER, Danielson C, Cox PG, O’Shaughnessy D, Walker C, Goldsmith CH, Duku E, Sears MR. A comparison of active and simulated chiropractic manipulation as adjunctive treatment for childhood asthma. New England Journal of Medicine 1998; 339(15): 1013-1020.



9.   

Field T, Henteleff T, Hernandez M, Martinez E, Mavunda K, Kuhn C, Schanberg S. Children with asthma have improved pulmonary functions after massage therapy. Journal of Pediatrics 1998; 32(5): 854-858.



10.   

Radin DI. A possible proximity effect on human grip strength. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1984; 58(3): 887-888.



11.   

Quintanar AF, Hill TV. Sugar proximity and human grip strength. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1988; 67(3): 855-854.



12.   

Brand WG. A possible proximity effect on human grip strength: An attempted replication. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1989; 68(1): 157-158.



13.   

Arnett MG, Friedenberg J, Kendler BS. Double-blind study of possible proximity effect of sucrose on skeletal muscle strength. Perceptual and Motor Skills 1999; 89(3 Pt. 1): 966-968.



14.   

Kendler BS, Keating TM. Re-evaluation of a possible proximity effect on muscular strength. Perceptual and Motor Skills 2003; 97(2): 371-374.



15.   

Schwartz SA, Utts J, Spottiswoode JP, Shade CW, Tully L, Morris WF, Nachman G. A study to assess the validity of applied kinesiology (AK) as a diagnostic tool and as a nonlocal proximity effect. Journal of the American Medical Association 2009, Submitted for publication.



16.   

Ludtke R, Kunz B, Seeber N, Ring J. Test-retest reliability and validity of the Kinesiology muscle test. Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2001; 9(3): 141-145.



17.   

Haas M, Peterson D, Hoyer D, Ross G. Muscle testing response to vertebral challenge and spinal manipulation: A randomized controlled trial of construct validity. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics 1994; 17(3): 141-148.