Use of fallacious arguments, Ad Hominem attacks, and biased 'expert opinions' can make CBP research 'appear flawed'.
Year: 2006
Type: article
Abstract: In a recent editorial, Cooperstein et al.1 made numerous claims, supported only by their Level 5 evidence (opinion), concerning an article which we authored in the December 2005 issue of this journal.2 Our original article was a review of publications of structural rehabilitation methods utilized in CBP® technique.2 The criticisms of Cooperstein et al.1 can be categorized into 8 points and is simply a long letter to the editor on our original manuscript2:
CBP® technique is not popular and well utilized,
Our classification of Diversified is not correct,
Our review of the literature and we are inexperienced authors,
We ‘invented’ ‘structural rehabilitation’ of the spine and posture in 2005,
We are self-serving and our experience and neutrality is questioned
CBP® trials are flawed due to use of SMT in the first 1–3 weeks,
CBP® trials are flawed due to our recruitment method of control subjects,
CBP® should leave its’ review to ‘independent’ researchers.
In this editorial, we rebut these criticisms and will show them to be based on ‘fallacious arguments’, Ad Hominem attacks, and inaccurate Level 5 ‘expert opinions’. In reality, the criticisms offered by Cooperstein et al.1 have no legitimate scientific evidence verifying that these actually affected the results and conclusions of our 6 clinical trials3–8 and original manuscript.2
In their introduction, Cooperstein et al.1 claimed that our methodologies in all our 6 CBP® Clinical Control Trials3–8 were so poor that “we do not think they would satisfy the inclusion criteria for a rigorous, unbiased systematic review.” To claim that 6 clinical control trials are all flawed, without any evidence other than Level 5 (opinion), points to a strong bias against CBP® in general. The discriminate reader will note that the supposed flaws from Cooperstein et al.1 only loosely applies to one3 of the CBP® trials and no scientific references were offered to show the ‘flaws’ confound or cause errors in the reliability and validity of the data collection and analysis in CBP® trials.
In fact, the reader will note the remarkable consistency of our findings in our six separate trials in terms of chronic pain improvement and spinal correction in the treatment groups compared to no change in these variables in the control groups.2–8 If the flaws1 were legitimate they would not have manifested themselves in such consistent, predictable outcomes2 and the data would have been unpredictable and variable.
Before we begin our itemized rebuttal, a review of a few “Levels of Evidence” from different sources9–11 is necessary. This information reveals that 5/6 of CBP’s clinical trials can be classified as non-randomized clinical control trials (NRCTs)4–8 (second highest rating) where three of these4–6 have 1.5 year follow-ups and one3 can be classified as a Level 3 observational cohort control study. It is interesting to note that Cooperstein et al.1 insult us by referring to our studies as “spiffed up practice-based research”. The opinions of Cooperstein et al.1 are categorized as Level 5 below and do not supersede Levels 2 and 3 evidence by themselves without supporting evidence. For example, we quote from the United States Department of Health and Human services9:
“Level 1. Randomized controlled trials–
Level 2. Non-randomized controlled trial – a prospective (pre-planned) study, with predetermined eligibility criteria and outcome measures.
Level 3. Observational studies with controls.
Level 4. Observational studies without controls.”
Level 5. Expert opinion.
In our rebuttal to their editorial, we will use abbreviations of Cooperstein et al.’s1 section titles for the reader’s ease to compare their points and our replies.
Source: Europe PMC (PubMed Central)
Language: English
Field: Health Professions
Domain: Health Sciences
Open Access status: green
OpenAlex ID: W1571963246