Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

American Scientist study

I removed the following sentence: "The only study on chiropractic published in a peer reviewed scientific journal ( not a journal dedicated to chiropractic) was in "American Scientist" "[A Scientific Test of Chiropractic's Subluxation Theory" [1]". Per American Scientist's submission guidelines, "American Scientist is a general-interest, nonrefereed [emphasis mine] science magazine". It also states: "If your article is accepted, an editor will be assigned [emphasis mine] to work with you on revisions—which may be extensive—captions and the plan of illustration. You will be asked to check illustrations and editorial revisions to ensure that accuracy is maintained. Our goal is to help you write and illustrate your article in such a way as to attract and hold the interest of the reader." Hence, the study is not peer reviewed. AED 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Magnet therapy

The article on chiropractic notes that DD Palmer was a magnetic therapist. This according to all evidence is a valid assertion. However, the article has a link to magnetic therapy. Unfortunately while these sound the same they are vastly different. Palmer appears to have been a student of Paul Caster. Mr. Caster taught magnetic therapy in the later part of the 20th century in the Midwest. This type of magnetic therapy had nothing to do with magnets and appeared to be related to Franz Mesmer's animal magnetism. The practitioner attempted to force their own animal magnetism into the patient and thus affect a cure.

Thus the link would be more appropriate to go to Mesmer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer Or animal magnetism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_magnetism

Here is a link to an article on Caster

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11619056&dopt=Abstract

Caster called himself a magnetic and that is probably why chiropractic ends similarly.

Smperle 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions

202.129.51.103 has twice made unexplained deletions of material that has earlier been a part of the article. The last edit summary stated:

• (also falsified, read talk page on double-blind studies and chiropractic)

This User hadn't written anything on the Talk page that seemed to apply, nor could I find it anywhere else. I would like to have a link to the mentioned content.

The word "falsified" was used in two edit summaries, but I wonder if the User is using the word properly. Here is a whole article on falsification, a concept originated by Karl Popper. If the User would explain in what sense the word was being used, then it might make more sense. Without any context it's hard to know for sure if it was being used correctly, or if the User doesn't understand the concept.

I invite 202.129.51.103 to explain what is meant by these edit summaries, and also to justify such sudden removals of the work of other editors, without any discussion or proper explanation here on the Talk page. -- Fyslee 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review

Peer-reviewed journal articles should be referenced. Not all journals were created equal. The article states: "There is some objective clinical data and peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the efficacy of certain therapeutic techniques used by chiropractors."

I think it is important to note that evidence for the effectiveness of the practice is not the same as evidence for the underlying theory or philosophy.

Responding to RfC by Fred-Chess

Hi.

First of all, I'd consider myself neutral in this question as I have no previous experience in this, have not written about this topic or read about it.

My impression of the "Critique"-part is: no offense, but I find it comparatively poor, although not negligible. Specifics:

• "The Chiropractic community maintains that serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine are extremely rare, being 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. This figure, which is based on over 40 years of chiropractic research and millions of cervical adjustments, is echoed by extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation. However in one other study, Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000. [27]."
  • This is not much of a critique of the topic. It should be integrated into another section in the article. 1 / 400,000 sounds harmless to me.
• Many parts read like trivia. It would be better to reference from the NCAHF Position Paper on Chiropractic than to just mention it. To quote from every conducted study might well expand and become incomprehensible.

Ok that's my input. Take it or leave it. Fred-Chess 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1/400 000 sounds rare, but if 400 000 are done per year then that is one serious adverse outcome per year - do we have an idea of what the total number per year, or per year per million population or whatever, is? Midgley 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll clarify my opinions:

I don't think the critique sounds like anything. Is there nothing more serious to complain about?

1. The Norwegian study ( I read the web page references ) showed "Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement." -- so chiropractice is only slightly better?
2. 1/400,000 gets serious complications from chripractice. -- Aren't maltreatement in traditional health care far more common than that?
3. I did find the NCAHF paper interesting but it was so long, and this article does not mention anything therein.

Fred-Chess 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

intro

You may not like to admit there is pol and sci controversy, but the fact remains that such controversy exists. WP guidelines say that in that case we should point it out to the reader. What we are doing here is creating an encyclopedia, not arguing one way or the other whether we like chiro or not. Pls discuss before making more intro changes. Mccready 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the controversy is apparent in the article but is not one of the major tennants of the page nor chiropractic. Therefore it doens't belong in the first sentence. It's bad enough that the article jumps back-and-forth and in-and-out of opposing POVs. Stating it in the first sentence (one which is now a very basic definition of what chiropractic is) seems argumentative and the result of soapboxing. TheDoctorIsIn 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I am helping to create an encyclopedia. That the issue has had such high level attention in the courts and elsewhere is obvious evidence of controversy which I reader should know about up front. If you are accusing me of soapboxing I hope you can apologise. I look forward to your cooperation in removing all POV.Mccready 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for accusing so quicky, but my accusations are proving more true with your recent edits...

You added the following to the portion before the intro: Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer who claimed he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance.

That doesn't belong in the general intro to the page but rather in the history section (where it is repeated). Thus I removed it for this intro. What was your purpose in adding this sentence there if not to cast chiropractic into a bad light in the opening of this article. You are asking to help make the page NPOV when you are demonstrating just the opposite. Clearly, you are adding the seance bit to make chiropractic seem ludicrous. I'm not trying to sweep the seanace bit under the rug, but is it really such a big tenet of chiropractic that it needs to be in the opening sentences? Hardly. As it is now, the opening is a clear definition of what chiropractic is. No POV at all. I think it is complete. Leave it be. TheDoctorIsIn 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. The logic you use is not impregnable (ie if it's POV it's POV wherever it occurs in the article). If it does make Chiro look ludicrous then we must face that fact. However, for the moment I am prepared to compromise. Let us put "politically and scientifically controversial" up top. Thanks for agreeing (and polishing) my attempts to have one scientific section. I will work on it some more to try to find a mutually agreeable formulation. Mccready 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think pol and sci controversary needs to be mentioned in the opener. Sorry. It is not part of the main tenet, broad overview, nor even the definition. The rest of the article does a fine job of showing the contraversy. But contraversy does not define chiropractic. I must strike it again. Sorry. Be taht as it may, I would like to work together. TheDoctorIsIn 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're both in danger of violating 3R here so I'll refrain from editing it for today and leave it to your good judgement to make that decision for yourself. The "main tenet" is an encylopedic article about chiro - not the main tenet of chiro. This is an important distinction and one I urge you to consider. We both agree that the controversy is fundamental. Therefore what words would you suggest to convey this fundamental point? You may like to review the discussion elsewhere on this page before formulating your response. My preference, given the discussion elsewhere on the page is "politically and scientifically controversial" which I think you will agree is NPOV. Yes good to work with you too and I look forward to more cooperation. Mccready 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am breaching the 3R rule so I shall revert it. It is a significant part of the whole article to indicate that chiropractic is controversial. Thus, to take it out of the introduction fails to indicate to the reader that there are many POVs about it. I'm not sure if it is politically controversial so I shall simply say 'scientific'. Maustrauser 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spinal subluxations are controversial. Writing in the opening sentence that the belief is that they exist and cause disease and that those diseases can be treated by adjusting them is NPOV. The current state asserts that spinal subluxations exist. I recall a randomised trial of xray interpretation in which chiropractors were unable to distingusih those spinal films which had been been used to diagnose subluxations to adjust from the controls that had not. Someone will provide the reference I don't doubt...

Manipulation fixes back pain in many people and is good enough empiric treatment, but the system of belief that underpins a claim to be a complete system of medicine is based on a poorly supported assumption which is hard to demonstrate. Midgley 13:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is enough scientific evidence to say that subluxation exist (see Maigne). However, that is regardless to this point. For this is an article about Chiropractic... not subluxation. Yes, it is clear now that Chiropractic does cause so contraversy. Lots of things do. Israel, penecilin, Paris Hilton... however, the contraversy doesn't define this things (sorry to reduce Paris to a thing). The current chiro article already points to the contraversy to a degree that is sufficient to let the reader know that the contraversy exists. Please leave it out of the topic sentence. 68.3.136.145 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the following message on User:TheDoctorIsIn page: There is little doubt that part of chiropractic's 'fame' is that some believe it works and others don't. Therefore, an important aspect of defining chiropractic is that it is controversial. Hence it is part of its definition within the introductory paragraph. What is your problem with that? It is a 'fact' that it is controversial. As you are a chiropractor you do not believe that it is controversial. As a scientist I believe that it is controversial. We encapsulate the two sides of the debate. By your continual removal of 'controversial' you are claiming that the modality is generally accepted when it isn't. This is not a neutral POV. I look forward to further discussions. Maustrauser 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

May I draw editors' attention to the following NPOV guideline: "neutral point of view NPOV means, among other things, that a reader should walk away from an article with a clear sense of what the controversy is all about." Given there is no disagreement that chiro is controversial politically and scientifically, a good introduction would point this out. An introduction would ideally cover what, who, when, why in 100 words or less. What we are doing here is writing a helpful encyclopedia, not defending a position on chiro. Mccready 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So why create a position by calling it controversial in the first sentence? I think Israel is so more controversial and yet its first sentence doesn't mention contraversy. I feel you are trying hard to insert your own POV slanted against chiropractic by continuing to add "contraversy" here. Leave it out of the first sentence. This is not an article about contraversy. This is an article about chiropractic. TheDoctorIsIn 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

History section

The references to greeks and ancient history contain no mention of vertebral subluxations. Before reverting please provide references. You have had many more than 3 reverts today and have not discussed your reasons on the talk page. May I suggest you read WP guidelines on dispute resolution. Mccready 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from revert wars. Please consider the following and discuss each point separately so we can come to agreement.

"==History== Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer in Davenport, Iowa, USA. He said he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance.[2] [3] Palmer’s son, B. J. Palmer initiated research, development and promotion of chiropractic.

DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column. (From: Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.) The term chiropractic originated when Palmer asked a patient - Rev. Samuel Weed - to come up with a name from the Greek language to describe his practice. Among other terms Weed suggested combining the words chiros and praktikos (meaning "done by hand") to describe the adjustment of a vertebra in the spinal column.

Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation

Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.

Palmer’s account

Palmer says that in 1895 he was investigating the medical history of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years prior, he felt a pop in his back and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this as it was accomplished with an object in view and the expected result was obtained. [4]

Lillard’s account

Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures.

Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960s, it’s popularity is decreasing. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002. Chiropractic patients numbers dropped 25% from 1997 to 2002.

Mccready 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Science section

I have refrained from revert war. Please discuss this proposal item by item here so we can come to an agreement.

"==Science and chiropractic== - There is scientific agreement that an evidence based medicine framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential. Organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier publish such reviews.

For the following conditions the Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

• Asthma
• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• [http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002119.html Painful menstrual periods

For the following conditions Bandolier found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

• Migraine
• Chronic low back pain
• Menopausal symptoms

Mccready 07:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already far too much info in this science section and I believe this entire article already exceeds the recommended page size. I don't know how reliable Cochrane is considering they state quite plainly on their site: "We make no representations and give no warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information." They don't seem credible in that resepect. I am not trying to squelch anti-chiro info from being posted. It just seems that the science section already has it in there...and then some. Adding more seems to me as though there is a clear anti-chiro agenda at work here rather than an agenda of creating an encyclopaedic article. The anti-chiro agenda is furthered by repeated attempts to add "controversy" to the opening sentence on this page, as if "controversy" surround chiropractic and is a defining element. It is not. I tried to appease the anti-chiros by including "controversy" in the latter Introduction section - where it is more apropos than the topic sentence. However, my attempts at a compromise didn't seem to work. But I'm trying. I am a chiropactic. McCready, just curious, what are you qualifications on this subject? TheDoctorIsIn 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with Cochrane is that these reports are about spinal manipulation... not chiropractic. Spinal manipulation is performed by all sorts practitioners other that chiropractors. The same goes for the VBA and strokes as a result of neck manipulation. How many of these 1-out-of-4-million strokes were caused by chiropractic adjustments and how many by another practioner who was less skillful than chiropractors? The report dating back to 1965 and covering millions of chiropractic adjustments found no accounts of strokes. But the reports that only cover general neck manipulation show the 1-out-of-4-million figure. I think that if the reference or research is not specifically about chiropractic spinal adjustments (manipulation) than it is irrelevant to this article.

There is a clear agenda at work here trying to turn this article into a biased piece against chiropractic. It needs to stop. What is the motivation? Is there that much chiropractic hate out there that people feel it neccessary to spend their time bashing it on WP? I am postulating that these people feel threatened for one reason or antoher. Maybe they fear losing patients. Maybe the fear having to face that the knowledge that they accepted as fact for so long is incorrect. Maybe it is laziness. I don't know, but I am continually astounded by detractors and the way they spend their time and energy spreading hate rather than love; doubt instead of curiosity; and promoting illness instead of health. TheDoctorIsIn 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you willingness to talk about the science section. Do I take it you are happy to have an EMB statement. I rechecked the cochrane references and I am afraid you are mistaken, each one discusses chiro. I agree the section needs to be shorter but in the meantime we need to agree on how to shorten it. Removing well referenced scientific material on the basis that the website it is posted on has a disclaimer is not IMHO the way to go. I look forward to your further discussion here before I begin to edit the section again. Mccready 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane is very credible and reliable. Osteopathy and Chiropractic articles would benefit from a cladogram showing where they split off from each other and the subgroups formed. The things that cause me disquiet about this are the origin with a single chap who decided that all disease came from one cause, and then that he could cure it by making movements that in bones that are variously claimed to be out of place (but in no way that can be demonstrated in blind trials of xray images) or that are not actually physical displacements but something more mystical. At this point we hear there is already too much science in the article, and that all of conventional medicine is untrue and causing harm not benefit. Credibility was mentioned... Midgley 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

History manipulation

Bone, joint and soft tissue manipulation has been and is still practised by traditional Chinese healers for thousands of years, where these practitioners are addressed as Doctors. This discipline is known as 'Tie-Da' in Mandarin Chinese and 'Ti-Da' in Cantonese. The meaning of this term is 'to be hit by a metal object', presumably because of the pain experienced in the treatment. So chiropratic is not really a new Western treatment. However it has to be said, Western society has been able to develop this and other treatments into a viable commercial franchise and to make investments into the study of the subject so that it could be studied, recorded and advanced in a scientific, profitable, professional and open manner; rather than the Eastern way of transmission of a 'secret knowledge' from father to son, which is not very profitable nor very open to further developments and advances. The unprofessional transmission of this traditional knowledge puts the discipline at risk of dying out altogether as patients seek treatment from more available commercialised forms of treatment. JC, 27 April 2006.

I have removed the following sentence from the history section. "Writings from China and Greece written in 2700 B.C. and 1500 B.C. mention spinal manipulation and the maneuvering of the lower extremities to ease lower back pain." The source quoted does not mention China and does not assign these dates. In fact the source says "Chiropractic is 105 years old."

TheDoctorIsIn says on this talk page that manipulation is not the same as chiro. His logic is flawed if he then wants to claim manipulation as essential to the history of chiro. I don't think we can change the definition as will.

I would also like to remove the reference to Hippocrates. If you check the context (part 44 on the referenced translation) you will see Hippocrates was discussing succussion. What do you think, DoctorIsIn. Mccready 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No logic flaws. Spinal and bone manipulation were predecessors to chiropractor and thus part of its history. TheDoctorIsIn 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The logical flaw is to claim, as you incorectly did, that the Cochrane material referred to spinal manipulation and not to chiropractic and that therefore it wasn't relevant. ie your claim was that if it didn't mention chiro then it wasn't relevant. Now however you claim that any reference to spinal manipulation is part of the history of chiro. You can't have it both ways. Chiro was invented by Palmer who, unless you have evidence to the contrary did not base his arguments on succussion mentioned by Hippocrates. You have not addressed the issue of succussion. H was refering to it, not to chiro. I will amened the article accordingly until you provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the souce referenced did not support the claim. Again you have failed to address this crucial point. If the reference cannot support the claim, it is unverifiable and therefore according to WP policy, does not belong. Mccready 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

I will lay this out quite clearly for you. Ancient bone and spine manipulations were the predecessors to chiropractic adjustments. Therefore, it is part of the history of chiropractic. However, chiropractic adjustments evolved beyond these techniques and now are something different entirely. "A" led to "B" but "B" is no longer "A". A study of "A" is thus not a scientific study of "B" but rather a historical study of "B". I will now revert. TheDoctorIsIn 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

By your logic witch doctor bloodletting of the head should be included in an article on nureosurgery. Can you demonstrate where Palmer saw his lineage including Hippocrates. Until you do there is no justification for including it in the article. You have failed to address each item in my above post. Mccready 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy in the articles topic sentence

Chiropractic's fame is not founded in contraversy. Chiropractic's fame is founded in its continued success. That something so noninvasive and simple could be the answer to so many health problems that humankind have sought to cure with everything from drugs to leeches to ingesting chemicals is how chiropractic derived its fame. That the solution to much disease was founded in optimizing the body's nervous system so the body could heal itself is how chiropractic became famous. The contraversy is merely a side-effect of people clutching onto their old way of thinking about health and the body. TheDoctorIsIn 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial or hatred?

Very well said Doc. There isn't so much controversy, as there IS a lot of chiropractic-hating extremists. If an ex-psychiatrist, a few MDs and a PT are filled with enough chiropractic hatred to carve out a career actively taking part in things like preventing chiropractic schools from opening, creating multiple websites attacking chiropractic and recruiting others to add statements to Wikipedia so it appears that chiropractic is controversial, this doesn't make chiropractic controversial.

Millions of people utilize chiropractic care, MDs go to chiropractors and send their families as well as refer to chiropractic doctors, US Congress, states, countries, insurance, laws, licensing bodies, Olympic teams, athletes, committees, etc., etc., recognize chiropractic. So if it is OK with all of them and, of course, 75,000 DC's, doesn't this make chiropractic mainstream? Why isn't it OK with Maus and the others? If they have a vendetta or something, that still doesn't make chiropractic controversial, just because they say it is.

Steth 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you the first sentence would usually be a simple defn. I'd like to put the controversy in the second sentenc of the top Mccready 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is filled with the legal contraversy (Wilk) and the differing scienitific opinions. The introduction already mentions the controversary in the medical community. Adding it anywhere else would be overkill and would tip the scales of this article even more towards and anti-chiro POV than it already is. TheDoctorIsIn 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks guys, it would help to remain unemotional and objective here. We have all agreed it is controversial, the only question is whether it should go at the top. Argument saying no relies on the idea that it is not part of the defintion. Argument against this is that WP is not a dictionary. We are writing an article ABOUT chiro, not merely providing a dictionary definition. Once again, I will refrain from reverting until we sort this out. Looking foward to your answer. Mccready 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly not a dictionary. You are right. But the first sentence of an encyclopaedic article can provide a broad definition of the topic before the rest of the article dissects the topic. And in a broad definition of the word, chiropractic shouldn't be characterized as "controversial". Adding that word provides unneccessary POV. Do a search for chiropractic in a dictionary - here I did one for you. There is no mention of this controversy. Why? Because a good dictionary doesn't provide POV... just a definition. Beyind the topic sentence of this article is another matter. But the first sentence should not have the word "controversial" in it just as it should say "amazing". TheDoctorIsIn 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The introductory sentence states: "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a system of health care that is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease." "A system of health care" in this context obviously means something different than what appears in the Health care system article. I would like to know if this sentence should be changed, or if a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Thoughts? -AED 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a general term that means the same as a service provided by doctors to promote health? Also, the Healthcare System article treats "Healthcare" as one word. On Chiro, we treat it as two words. Is this grammatically incorrect or does this provide the disambiguity that you are seeking? TheDoctorIsIn 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Science section

There would have to be very strong reasons why non RCTs should go in the science section. The study reported said "Chiropractic office costs were higher for both acute and chronic patients (P < .01). When referrals were included, there were no significant differences in either group between provider types (P > .20)." The .2 figure is crucial here. Mccready 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A 2002 investigation supports that spinal manipulation may benefit patients afflicted with asthma. This was not a RCT study, no references are given in the study to check the assertions made, it is not a scientific study in any sense of the word. Where are the confidence intevals? Where are the footnotes? How can we check its verifiablity? In any case the cohrane work of 2006 supercedes. Mccready 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have gone to the trouble of reviewing each link:

• glaucoma - single case study proves nothing - the link says MAY
• Bell’s palsy - single case study proves nothing - the link says it's possible
• Allergy and Crohn's Disease - not double or even single blinded, not RCT - the link says "the possibility may be considered"
• infantile colic - "suggest a possible association" - not good enough, not proven, 2 case studies
• duodenal ulcer - control group not the same as trial group - you've got to be joking; in any case the "pilot" concluded "under discussion as a possible mechanism for the treatment effect." this is dangerous stuff. How can people rely on this to treat ulcer???
• PARKINSON'S DISEASE - case study again, but at least the author has the decency to say "No firm conclusion can be obtained from the results of one case."

These links are not science and don't belong in the science section unless to say that they are unscientific. May and possible are words that anyone can use. It MAY be POSSIBLE that the moon is made of green cheese. Without double blind RCT we are pretty much wasting our time trying to argue these studies are scientific. Mccready 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I must say that you've done a good job of cleaning up this mess. I've been over this ground before without success, since the one who placed all those links has little understanding of what consitutes good scientific research. Discussion was a waste of time. If you will look in the archives at my analysis of the links to so-called research, you'll see his remarks immediately before, where he considers it good research. He and his supporters have repeatedly claimed this junk was proof for many weird chiropractic claims, but have failed to realize that those links only place chiropractic in a very bad light, since better research regarding manipulation (not adjustments) is available from non-chiropractic sources, but certainly not for such wild claims. If that is the best that chiropractic can come up with, what a pity. Such claims and attempts to "document" (sarcasm!) them should be buried out of sight, and many enlightened chiropractors will thank you for your efforts. Those links were an embarrassment! -- Fyslee 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Question for Mcready

Hello Mccready. I read your CV. My homepage Very interesting background. Was wondering why you harbor what appears to be tremendous animosity towards the chiropractic profession. What's behind this? Have you had personal experience with chiropractic? I would be interested in knowing what's behind it all. Thanks Steth 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular animosity at all to chiropractic. You need to show me a meta-analysis reporting well controlled double blind RCTs. This is the standard usually required in science. Looking forward to futher discussion. Mccready 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mccready. Have you had any personal experiences with chiropractic? Steth 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you are thinking about attacking the man and not the argument here Steth? The fact that those sceptical of chiropractic are interested in the scientific evidence doesn't mean that they have had some dark experience with chiropractic in the past. I personally was sceptical of the claims made well before a close friend's spine was broken by a long practising and highly qualified chiropractor. But I know that a simple case study of a smashed spine proves nothing. Only double-blind random controlled trials prove things. And given the claims made by chiropractic, this is hardly much to ask. Mirasmus 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Something to ponder Miasmus. Being skeptical and asking for RCT's is one thing, but actively engaging in full-time chiropractic-hating extremism is certainly something else.

As for smashing someone's spine, I think you are prone to hyperbole. Likely it didn't happen, especially from a "long practising and highly qualified chiropractor." So why you added that is questionable.

Mcready's silence answers the question. He is here on a mission to ensure that this article paints chiropractic in as bad a light as possible. This is radically different than asking for RCT's.

He was probably recruited by someone who is also on a mission to do everything possible to damage chiropractic. Steth 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is the value of case studies - NONE AT ALL. You claim that my friend's spine was not smashed and he didn't die six weeks later. I cannot prove it to you and you choose not to believe it. I could provide evidence to you in the form of press material from 1993 but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has such a pro-chiropractic stance. I am not pro or anti-chiropractic. I simply ask for the same evidence that every other medical claimant must provide to claim that their professed miracle cure works - randomized controlled double-blind trials. Why is that so difficult? Mirasmus 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

i am reporting user:steth for vandalism to the chiropractic article: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy. Mccready 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked, in depth, at User:Steth's edits, so I can't comment on any charge that he is vandalising the article. However, I should be clear that there are serious issues with the version of the article seen on the left here. I can't find any dictionary which refers to the subject of this article as a religion, and the phrase crank has the distinct smell of non-WP:NPOV. Certainly, if it can be properly sourced, a section of this article, or perhaps a separate article, could investigate the concents of this subject as a religion, but I cannot find a WP:RS that would support such a direction in this article at this point. Justen Deal 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmer himself calls it a religion. Isn't this sufficient? The definition of crank fits Palmer. If this doesn't meet your concerns I'd be pleased to discuss further. May I urge you to look at this in depth. We could welcome more independent editors on this page. Mccready

Chiropractic's dismal future outlook

Rand Baird analyses 20 predictions that have come true, all pointing downward:

Back to the Futurism of Chiropractic - Revisited -- by Rand Baird, DC, MPH, FICA, FICC

-- Fyslee 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outlook dismal for NPOV too

And you feel the need to gleefully point out the above why? It won't help to create accord, build bridges and improve communication and agreement between editors/contributors. It won't help stop the revert wars.

So why post it at all? Is it to demonstrate further your biased agenda here? To me, this example only serves as more proof why NPOV is difficult (more likely, impossible) for you when it comes to chiropractic (and other non-traditional medical approaches.)

Posts like the one above indicate that you are still using Wikipedia as your free blog, behaviour which is clearly not Wikipedian. I think this is also a case of 'sour grapes'-type behaviour more fitting for a five-year-old child. That's why Mccready's heavy-handed tactics has gotten him branded as a 'Bad Boy'.

Kindly stop the chiropractic attacks and we will all get along just fine. Steth 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert War – Attempt at Resolution

Dear Editors of this page. Please do not bulk revert without discussing the following items. I will not edit again on this page for 24 hours, so you will have plenty of time to put some consideration to your work. User:Leifern says the indiscriminate bulk reversion is vandalism. In my revert, I have taken pains to examine each edit by looking carefully at the history page. I have also compromised by taking the claims for religion out of the introduction section (I have left in the statement about nerve compression, but I’m not sure it applies to NACM adherents.

If you revert in bulk you will be undoing my work and that of many editors. The issues you need to consider before reverting are:

No, if you don't want your edits reverted in bulk, don't mix good edits with borderline vandalism ones. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Is chiro a religion - Palmer said so, why is that not enough? Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987).

Calling chiro a a religion in the first sentence, without any qualifications is confusing and misleading the reader. A paragraph stating "Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987)" would be probably be fine. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 2. Is Palmer a crank - check crank and explain if you disagree

From your point of view (maybe even mine) Palmer is a crank. Again calling someone, without any qualifications or reliable sources to back it up, a crack is in gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 3. Is the section on Australian training OK
• 4. Whether the comments about chiros having rooms in malls belongs in an encyclopedia
• 5. Whether chiropractors should be called doctors in the article. I understand this term is only allowed in the United States, so we have to be careful to distinguish
• 6. The copy edit I have done to the US Bureau of Labor Outlook section. If you want to revert to the old version please say why my version is not clearer to the reader (the information content is the same)
• 7. Whether the warning by 62 neurosurgeons should be deleted – if so, why – it is not good enough to allege conspiracies of chiro haters.
• 8. In the legal history section whether at that stage of history chiros could call themselves doctors (I could be wrong and I hope you check before any bulk reverting)

Further areas in the article which need improvement:

• 1. Intro is biased against chiro – let’s just get the beliefs down and address the science later
• 2. History – the “chiro primerall72.pdf “ though biased in favour of chiro seems the best history available on the internet – does anyone know of a better one and shouldn’t we link this?. At the moment the history section is biased because it doesn’t show the attempts by some chiros since the 1975 conference to adopt a scientific framework. It doesn’t discuss the Alberta pediatricians campaign or the Rand Baird analysis either.
• 3. Provision of scientific proof of chiro - not isolated case studies by believers.
• 4. Future of chiropractic – the diminution of the profession as outlined for example by
• 5. should we expand on the history to note the hundreds of California chiropractors incarcerated for unlicensed practice prior to passage of the Chiropractic Act in 1922. (if someone has a link to this Act pls provide)
• 6. links to the history of medicine would be useful
• 7. The Lon Morgon quote needs a reference – whoever deleted it before may know.

For your information, I’ve also found the William T. Jarvis article “Why Chiropractic Is Controversial (1990)” inaccurate in reporting Wilk, though worth a read.

Please remember we are all here to create the best possible article taking into account all views and representing them as fairly as possible. I aim to gain you agreement soon to remove the NPOV tag. Once again if my edits are incorrect please correct them, don’t revert wholesale and don’t respond with vitriol. I have avoided saying so until now but I fully support any chiropractic within an evidence based framework and I deplore any conventional medicine which operates outside such a framework. Happy editing. Mccready 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally would have a difficult time defining any of the reverts made to this article's page as "indiscriminate[ly] bulk," as that is a fairly arbitrary and subjective description, at best. Also, I would hesitate to accept the opinion of one Wikipedian, or even two, as consensus. For all intents and purposes, none of the reverts I've seen to this page, by any editor, yet fall into the category of vandalism. I, personally, would hesitate to deem anyone's edits (or reverts) vandalism, as it seems to stem from a lack of WP:FAITH.

Crank. All of that being said, I will continue to keep the article on my watchlist, and unless there is a consensus on this page otherwise, I will continue to revert any inclusion of the word crank in the article (within the limits of WP:3RR). From that very article: "Crank" (or kook, crackpot, or quack) is a pejorative term... Wikipedia is not a place for editors to determine who is a crank, kook, crackpot, or quack. That is up for our readers to determine that on their own.

Religion. Further, to date, the only sources I have seen defining this article as a religion don't seem to pass muster as WP:RS. The one (unreliable, IMO) document linked from this article, which claims to be a letter from the gentleman who created (is that the right word?) this "system of care" is not accurate today, insofar as what this "system of care" is today. Every definition I can find defines it as just that, again, a "system of care" -- not a religion. Certainly it seems reasonable to note, in an appropriate section in the article, that historically, chiropractic may have had some (apparently economic) interest in being defined as a religion. That is, if it can be reliable sourced.

I don't really have anything to say about your other points right now. I agree that the article has quite a ways to go, and, thus, as do the editors. I think this revert business is a bit on the ridiculous side, but, again, it isn't Wikipedia's place to define people or things in pejorative terms. I think we'll do well to stick to the facts, and in doing so, I think this article could well become a model article citizen here on Wikipedia in the process. Justen Deal 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical about Mccready's contrition

Well, based on Mccready’s return bulk revert vandalism and another whack in the head by the Admin, it would appear that Mcready hasn’t really changed much since his 24 hours in the ‘naughty chair”.

After reviewing the bulk reverts he made and his plea for understanding, he has certainly convinced me – he really is intent on turning Wikipedia into his soapbox to ensure that the topic of Chiropractic is portrayed in as negative a light as possible.

His edits are largely unacceptable and should be removed to restore this to a neutral informative article, not a personal blog/soapbox for his anti-chiropractic agenda and a link repository so donations can increase for his like-minded friends.

Hopefully the more than fair and neutral Admin will begin to do this. Thank you very much Steth 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Chiropractic is a religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer. It is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease.

If it were a religion there would be churches. Christian Science is a religion. It is alternative medicine. If it is a religion then it has a prophet or teacher, not a "crank". Fred Bauder 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of a citation

I have eliminated the very misleading section:

"Many doctors warn against the dangers of chiropractic. Sixty-two clinical neurologists issued a warning about the dangers of neck manipulation. The signers include private neurologists as well as chiefs of neurology departments of major teaching hospitals. Calling their concerns significant,..."

The head neurologist of SPONTADS, John Norris in Canada whose report this 'warning' was based on confessed under oath that he had nothing to base his findings on and couldn't remember how he arrived at them. In other words he made the whole thing up. He has since left his position and this unfortunate episode is now a permanent black mark on his record. This was in 2002 and the neurologists were threatened with legal action for this 'warning.' They have since distanced themselves from this false decree when they found that they were long on hate and short on facts.

Also the 'website' listed as a reference is yet another site owned by an ex-psychiatrist who has a long history of chiropractic antagonism and should be suspect and viewed as unreliable. Why hasn't he changed his site to reflect the true accuracy?

Admins should note: Other misleading statements about stroke should also be viewed with skepticism and eliminated from this article as should be any other uses of biased websites owned by individuals who flagrantly solicit donations when you visit. Wikipedia should not be used to increase the donation flow to private individuals.

John Norris's apology for knowingly making false statements under oath.

I have noted this before in the Talk section but Mccready seems to have overlooked this. I am sure it was just an oversight on his part and would expect him to be more careful in the future about including this. Thanks Steth 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that this citation from an organization called "Chiropractic is Safe" could be just as suspect and unreliable as your claim that chirobase is. I will revert your removal of the anti-chiropractic material. It seems that you are intent to remove anything remotely indicating that chiro is unsafe from this article. I think you have an almighty large barrow to push yourself. If you wish to balance out the your claimed bias in the article then put it in the text without removing large slabs of the controversy. Maustrauser 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. But I AM intent on removing things that are being misused such as a statement that is really false and POV and should not be included. Dr. Norris recanted his findings which the 'warning' was based on. This was widely reported. Do you have any citations to the contrary I would be happy to reveiw them? If you post them here, I will leave the warning in. Otherwise, I believe the paragraph in question should be removed. Thanks. Steth 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can find no shortage of citations relating to the Norris study, such as http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1914 but nothing (other than from chiropractic newsletters) saying that Norris has recanted. You show me a citation showing that he has recanted his research from something other than a chiropractic newsletter or supporter of chiropractic. Perhaps the Canadian Journal of Medicine where the Norris research was first published, or perhaps a newspaper? If you can do that then I am happy to admit I am wrong and will happily delete the reference to the Norris research. Maustrauser 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maustrauser in this and will, meantime, reinsert controversial in the top, having accepted the majority view re religion (though I must say that if you check the definition is fits). Mccready

Adding "controversial" to the introduction of the article does not have even a plurality of the support of the editors on this page, let alone a consensus in support. Until that time comes, and I think it won't, adding it back will simply be reverted. The reality is, it's an adjective (the word, controversial, that is)... Once more, our job here is to state the facts, in the article. If the facts support the notion that the subject of this article is controversial, then so be it. But again, whether they do or don't, it isn't our job to whack Wikipedia readers over the head with any of our particular beliefs. Justen Deal 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Justen Deal above, and with Maustrauser on Norris - I have searched and not found independent evidence that he has recanted, or that any other signatories have done soGleng 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to find a neutral reference where Norris recants his findings as proof. Then, in the interest of fairness, websites that still have the Norris study posted should also be viewed as unreliable and should also not be allowed here and deleted. Is that OK Justen, Gleng and Maus?Steth 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that websites are a good source for anything much anyway, and should generally be treated as unreliable, as they are likely to be there to propogate a particular viewpoint rather than objectively display evidence. However, of course they might be helpful in tracking reliable sourcesGleng 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. I think websites that are set up to be pro-chiro or anti-chiro are unacceptable as they are pushing a POV. Neutral websites that exist for the exploration of science and human knowledge (eg Nature, Scientific American, Cochrane Collaboration, New Scientist) and that are peer reviewed from experts outside the area of professed expertise, should be considered acceptable. The reason I can't accept blanket 'banning' of websites is that much research is simply published electronically now and no longer on paper. Maustrauser 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng. So is that OK with Maustrauser and Justen?

Steth 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensible people don't see chiropractic as controversial or dangerous, just ineffective and more expensive than a placebo needs to be. Millions of people swear by it and for them it seems to work. Fred Bauder 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The blanket argument that websites are not a good source is absurd. Sorry Gareth. If you hold this view, what do you think of WP? How do you expect readers to view WP? Pleeease! As to Fred's argument, millions of people used to say the world was flat. I kinda like the idea that most humans aspire to be more than dumb suckers. And there is plenty of evidence for the dangers of chiro, not to mention the utter waste of human resources devoted to it. Mccready 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS is very sound advice. Websites vary massively, and judging their reliability is not always easy, though many are fine; certainly they are fine to cite as sources of opinion rather than fact. The general problem in citing them for fact is a) content on a website can change and so any citation is insecure and b) the status of the material cited is uncertain - exactly what is peer reviewed etc. So I would recommend references to peer-reviewed archived secondary sources, published in very reputable journals as the ideal source for potentially controversial statements about science. Where the evidence is strong and the consensus is there, there will be such sources, and if they can't be found it is a cause of concern. Obviously I think WP is great, but it is not itself authoratative (not yet at least), although at its best it cites authoritative sources. If a website posts as facts things that are demonstrably false, knowing them to be false, then I would consider it discredited. Websites that expect to be taken seriously should respect truth, even when inconvenient. Gleng 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Neurologist Norris

Hi Gang, Had a busy weekend. Anyone see the film, "V"? Very powerful, very interesting and different. I recommend it.

Wow, Mccready really let his anti-chiro bias show with statements about "the dangers of chiro" (Where? Compared to what?) His chiro-hatred really comes shining through, and he obviously hasn't learned anything from 24 hours in the naughty corner.

Anyway, I agree with Maustrauser that sites that are used as references on WP shouldn't be pro or anti-anything. So after sifting through the morass of chiro-hate spin websites from angry shrinks, acne docs and a PT, I will reference the transcripts directly to answer the Norris issue so we can delete the so-called neurologists'warning' and put this thing to rest and move on. Websites that cite the neurologists 'warning' or the Norris study without noting that he publicly acknowledged that he had no basis to draw any conclusions, do not meet the WP standards and should be deleted.

From Inquest Transcripts

"(John) Norris states that the Stroke Consortium lacks the knowledge about chiropractic manipulation, chiropractic science. There is no evidence-based data, no concrete scientific conclusions, to show that what a chiropractor does stretches the artery in such a way to cause a dissection." Ted Danson, testimony of May 16, 2002 from transcript of Lana Lewis Inquest, pp. 72-75.

Norris: (regarding SPONTADS), “So I think that it is an essentially hypothesisgenerating, interesting case series, but no more than that ... It is just that. So I think, well, I agree with Mr. Danson, it's irrelevant to this inquest.'" -- pp.27-28.

In response to the total patient size of SPONTADS study being 180, Norris replies: “It is a drop in the ointment. You can’t do a study based on figures like that. You need a large study to do it.” Transcript May 16, 2002, pp 156-157.

Responding to the questions as to how many manipulations are done in Canada and how many of them lead to Stroke – Norris: “I think probably until we get a collaborative study going, we really can’t answer these questions, and they are really very critical, I think.” May 16, 2002, pp 113-114

Responding to the question as to why he knowingly made public statements for which there was no scientific substantiation, Norris: “I can’t explain that to the jury. I’m sorry.” May 16, 2002, pp. 113-114.

Steth 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Steth has made a good case that the warning from Canadian neurosurgeons is not really a reliable source for strong evidence, though it would be nice to be able to see the transcripts to check the full context.Gleng 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure is a bias Steth and it's called science. You have yet to show me a single large RCT that supports your belief. Your snide comments about being banned apply to yourself when you were blocked by the same trigger happy admin. And no I do not agree the case has been made for deleting the canadian material. We need to see the whole transcript and even then that leaves 91 other signatories does it not. Mccready 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep cool here. As far as I can see, the SPONTADS study is ongoing ad hasn't reported properly yet, until it does the jury is out. Norris and others may have jumped the gun with early data, and it seems that they might not have taken account of referral bias which might have exaggerated the effect of chiropractic. A group of 62 (not 92) Canadian neurosurgeons signed up to the warning, but the case they make is based on a few isolated case reports, and doesn't amount to compelling evidence, and I haven't heard widespread concern from other quarters like the AMA. The citation to this statement was from a strongly opinionated website. If this is the evidence for lack of safety of chiropractic, then it's not strong in my view. If it is unsafe, let's see the authoratative secondary sources in peer-reviewed reputable journals.Gleng 12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure Mcready that you can find the transcripts and read them for yourself. I have given you the references. Then after reading them, I guess you won't hate chiropractic anymore and will post neutral information, right? Steth 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting to Steth's version; it seems to me that the EBM side is covered in detail later, and the statement from Canadian neurologists is not sufficiently authoritative evidence to put up front, and it's reasonable to hold it back, at least pending discussion. There are separate sections on safety and scientific validity, and no need for overkill. Gleng 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleng and Steth reverts

Gleng said before that Steth should provided evidence, other than on a chiro page, that Norris has retracted. Steth has not done so. His claim to have done so points to a chiro page. I have redited having considered carefully the edits since my last edit - for example, Steth's removal of the note on NCAM. The systematic attempt to remove EBM is deplorable. Please discuss why EBM should be deleted. Please also discuss the deletion of Lon Morgon's summary - it is in the religion section and therefore apposite. Mccready 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

1) I would resist any attempt to remove EBM - but this is extensively covered later in the article and just doesn't need to be in the lead. In the lead it is simply a judgemental statement; later it is backed by fact. 2) On the safely issue, I have looked at inquest reports, and looked for outcomes of the Canadian work. It certainly seems likely that Norris said nothing at the inquest that was taken as evidence that chiropractic was unsafe - at least nothing mentioned in the summing up. It seems to me now that yes, clearly many neurosurgeons are concerned about possible health risks - but also many do not think that there are serious health risks, and work with chiroprracters; so where is the evidence - let's cite that; find a peer-reviewed analysis of health risks, not a press statement that may have been rash. As far as I can see, the statement was triggered by early data that showed a high risk in patients who had been treated by chiropracters - but this may have been misleading because early recruitment to the study was biased by preferential recruitment of such cases to the study cohort (referral bias). I'm not saying suppress the facts, I am saying let's get unarguable facts. 3) Lon Morgan and religion. I don't know enough here to comment. Is this really germane to chiropractic? Perhaps the historical origins are mystical and fraudulent (and I'm not saying that they are), but the same might be argued for much of modern medical practice, and the sins of the fathers etc. History is interesting and relevant, but needs to be handled carefully to avoid guilt by association. Gleng 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Science belongs in the lead because it's in the article. That's wikipedia policy -see WP:LEAD. "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Show me neurosurgeons who work with chiropracters - sounds like propaganda to me. Happy to move it to history section if you can show neurosurgeons don't still have such concerns. I can't see how you can rewrite history to exculpate fraud and guilt if it's already present. Mccready 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the AMA, [[5]] "Manipulation has been shown to have a reasonably good degree of efficacy in ameliorating back pain, headache, and similar musculoskeletal complaints" and "In a national survey of referral patterns by board-certified family physicians and internists ... 47% said they would refer for chiropractic" I haven't found a direct and serious health warning from the AMA. I'm open on this, I just don't see hard evidence of health risks. Where is the evidence? Studies, not opinions. OK on the lead. As for history - no I just don't go along with this at all. Mendel's data were fraudulent, this doesn't taint modern genetics.Gleng 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's Reverts (29 March 2006)

(Originally posted by User:Newsmare to User_talk:Justen.)

You are in danger of violating the three-revert rule on a page. Please cease further reverts or you may be blocked from further editing. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I was aware. Justen Deal 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)" I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V. An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed... I don't. I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced. Certainly User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified. These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Wikipedia requires the statements be verifiable and reliable. So far, you, nor User:Mccready, nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article. I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself. That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd warning on lead

To Steth, Justen and others who are in violation. This is your third and final warning on reverting the lead to remove mention of science. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy and this is a serious matter, not a mere content dispute (you have not objected to the content in the body of the article).

[Steth revert of lead] [Justen revert of lead]

The information, contrary to Justen's illfounded claim IS in the science section.

NO ONE has yet provided a souce (other than a chiro site) that says Norris retracted. I make the point again, even if he did, that leaves 60 signatories.

The puff on the olympic games needs to be encylopedic. Words preferred by early editors are do not fit that category

Finally, in order to remove the tag, which FACTS are disputed. Mccready 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the disputed tag until there is consensus on this page supporting its removal. Asking your fellow editors what their specific concerns are is a great first step, but it doesn't constitute consensus for removal (yet). Please add the tag back. Justen Deal 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have searched Norris' articles on PubMed; he stresses the need for studies and evidence,(see PMID 12195462), but does not clearly establish a link between chiropractic and stroke, and the citations in the statement do not clearly demonstrate a link. The warning is a warning - take care because there might be a link. Is there any evidence that it was taken seriously by authorities and acted on? Again, it looks to me as though the warning may have been premature, it arose from retrospective analysis, which is flawed by referral bias and other problems, and the prospective studies are not out yet. In any case, the statement does not constitute evidence of a health risk, only evidence of opinion by some that there might be a risk. Now lots of people see risks in lots of things, let's just stick to established links (the claims on health risks don't satisfy EBM standards). Gleng 10:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No edits allowed by Mccready?

It seems that Mccready is not allowing any edits of any kind to take place here. Have others found this to be the case? Maybe he could explain why he has assumed a role of an administrator. ThanksSteth 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractors as "doctors"

I probably share some of Mcready's opinions on chiropractic, but when he states that chiropractors are only called "doctors" in the US, this is slightly misleading. See section 20 of the British Columbia Chiropractors Act. I believe most Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws (but I haven't checked).

Agreed, especially since many foreign doctors graduate in the U.S. (and Canada) with the Doctor of Chiropractic degree. Drdr1989 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Practice styles and schools of thought...

In reviewing all the articles and links in this extensive work, it occurs to me that the discussions relating to each section are being edited and re-edited by parties that must belong to either the so-called "straight" or "reform" POV's. Unfortunately, they aren't described until nearly the end of the piece. Perhaps if you were to move the information from the "Practice Styles and schools of thought" section that describes straight,mixer and reform to somewhere in the beginning (mabe even the intro), then instead of saying "chiropractors believe X", you can say "straight chiropractors believe X" or "reform chiropractors believe Y". That way, each of the POV's are described, and you don't have to keep deleting each other's hard work. The viewers can decide for themselves what they choose to believe. Believe it or not, some people will only choose scientifically based methods and some people will only choose faith based methods. You can't change that, just show each POV and let it stand. Can't wait to see the finished work. Who knows, maybe these discussions will eventually lead to a scientfically proven definition of the vertebral subluxation someday? Then we can work on proving whether or not there is a God? -- DeMatt 03:31, 1 April 2006

Unfortunately, your assumption that there are two groups of chiropractors doing the editing is incorrect. There ARE two groups editing and re-editing here: One group is made up of chiropractors and those who are OK about chiropractic. The other group are those who are not chiropractors or doctors of any kind, but are very much anti-chiropractic and seem to be obsessed with a hatred of chiropractic.

So I believe it is best to leave the ‘Style of Practice’ just the way it is. Right now it is neat and organized in one area. Your suggestion would, I believe, only make this article more confusing for the reader. Steth 05:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic Doctors and Mccready's behaviour

Mccready, you slapped my wrist with the notation that chiropractors are only doctors in the US. Apparently, you were stating your opinion as fact since it has been pointed out to you by two other editors, that chiropractors are recognized as doctors in other countries as well, Canada for example. Also most chiropractors are trained in the US where they receive the D.C. degree and then go to other countries. This still doesn't seem to satisfy you.

You seem intent on A) only allowing edits that portray chiropractic negatively -- my opinion and B) monitoring my edits very closely and reverting them. Is there such a thing as a WikiStalker? In my opinion, this is very unWikipedian behaviour.

Has anyone else experienced this or have any thoughts on the subject? I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks Steth 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Mccready

I am seeking community input regarding the behaviour of Mccready and his attitude towards editors and their contributions to the Chiropractic article.

Discussions have been attempted in order to resolve disputes, but this has yielded no progress.

If other Wikipedians feel that Mccready has engaged in violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or has been unreasonable in his edits and reverts of your contributions despite presenting your rationale to him, kindly go to this page and record your comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steth/RfC

Thank you Steth 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC against User:Steth

I am beginning an RfC against this user for violation of WP:LEAD. This user's constant reverts removing mention of science from the introduction are in violation of policy. If you are concerned by Steth's behaviour and wish to contribute to this RfC please leave a message on his/her page trying to get him/her to desist from violating policy. The RfC page states in part:

"For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.” Mccready 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

His/her reverts can be seen here:

• The most recent revert despite warnings and requests [6]
• This edit shows he/she is confused. This time he/she thinks chiro has same scientific basis as psychiatry and that both do not satisfy evidence based medicine. Blatant attempt to introduce POV. [7]
• This edit deleted the part of the lead he/she didn't like and asked for a source when it was already in the article as a complete section [8]
• This was another attempt to introduce POV re psychiatry. Confused again. [9]
• He/she deletes science entirely this time and asks for refs even though they are in the article [10]
• More POV claims about ALL non-allopathic medicine [11]

These six edits by [User:Steth] prove the point. He/she has violated WP:LEAD and should give an undertaking not to do so again. Mccready 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng's Suggested Changes

Well, it’s a start, Gleng. However, I don’t see the necessity of having the last sentence in the introductory paragraph. Not only is it a POV, but this is not what chiropractic is The first paragraph is a simple, clean statement of what chiropractic is, not what standards some people think it has or has not met. This POV statement should be deleted.

Also, the last sentence in the second paragraph should be removed as well. That chiropractic is controversial is certainly a biased, POV, who thinks that? Those who don’t like chiropractic? Duh. Chiropractic is recognized by the US Federal government, all states, Medicare, medical/car/work insurance, Olympic Committee, pro/amateur atheletes and teams, countries, courts, WHO, etc., etc. So it doesn’t seem to be controversial with them or the millions of people who use it. Today chiropractic is mainstream.

You see, adding statements like that, insinuate that something is controversial, making it seem that there is controversy. It may fly on hate-blogs and self-serving websites asking for donations to those who come across it, but it is certainly not worthy of and encyclopedic endeavour.

Science/evidence statements should be restricted to the ‘Science’ section. Steth 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng, that is an improvement. However, the last sentence in the very first paragraph still is a wide-sweeping POV that sets the tone of the whole article. I believe it should be removed per my suggestions previously. Steth 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready has an honest and honourable point, that the Lead statement should serve as a summary of the article, and should observe that the article discusses the evidence for the efficacy of chiropractic. Equally, you have a point in that the opening paragraph should not appear to define an opinion, either pro ar anti. Mccready's statement is objective, but in context it appears to be judgemental, so this appearance needs to be modified, so that the factual content remains but without appearing to declare a conclusion. In any case it's not our job to draw conclusions, but to present the evidence and facts as honestly clearly and objectively as we can, and we are all trying to do that - I'm not preaching here, I know how tough it is. There are some articles in WP that I find sickening and think are appallingly biased and nasty, but I keep away from them because I don't trust my own NPOV when I feel too strongly. I don't think this article is bad, far from it. I would like to see the account of chiropractic expanded to explain the spectrum more fully, and then it would probably be apparent also that within the spectrum there is common ground with conventional medicine, even though there may be bitter controversy at the extreme. However, what do I know? Maybe I'm wrong. I'd suggest Steth that you develop the account of chiropractic in an objective way, (avoiding claims for efficacy and equally avoiding challenges to efficacy). Leave the science aside for a while, and maybe some of the steam will just evaporate when the article is fuller and richer in history and explanation of the practice. Certainly the wording of the lead should be considered, but omitting mention of the controversies isn't going to work. And there are controversies - but personally I don't regard the word controversial as perjorative, if you do then find a synonym without the overtone. In my area controversial = interesting. For what it's worth, I think that sanitising chiropractic will lead to an uniteresting article of zero credibility, equally damning it without appearing to allow a fair account will be counter productive. There is dissent and criticism about chiropractic within chiropractic - as there should be, which shows it isn't dogmatic and is evolving. Anyway, I hope you both stay with this and try to work together, it will be a more lively and interesting article for it. I've done too much here and so would like to leave, but good luckGleng 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On lead; re Mccready. Strictly I don't think you can say that chiropractic doesn't meet EBM criteria, only that claims for its efficacy haven't been validated to these standards. On referrals, the AMA say that 47% in USA were willing to - this is many, not some, but I don't know how many actually do, so the wording is precise here. I know that in the UK some NHS doctors refer patients to trusted chiropractors for specific conditions.Gleng 08:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy; many are willing (reference is AMA report cited later), how many actually do is not verified by me, if there is a source quantifying referrals it would be better to be precise somewhere in the text and reconsider many or someGleng 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, the last sentence, IMO, marginalizes chiropractic right from the start. Is it a logical conclusion that ONLY in the US do the medical folks refer to the chiropractic folks? Does this sound like an encyclopedic fact? Does this sound logical? Why would it be in anyway? You know, well-intentioned people might actually work together with others that they know and have confidence in. This is not a US thing, it is a human thing. It can happen in other countries, you know. Where there are chiropractic practitioners and medical practitioners, they might actually work together for the benefit of the patient. Are there studies? I don't know. Are there studies that show it doesn't happen? I don't know. So leave it out.

Why would you want to marginalize chiropractic? Steth 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to marginalise chiropractic, far from it, I know it's a very widely used and deserves to be treated with respect. I honestly do not know whether referral is common or rare. I know it happens, and I know that lots of medics are open to this. The statement is meant to reflect the fact that there is a spectrum of opinion within the medical profession, that some are very skeptical but others believe that chiropractic is useful. I suspect that it would be true to say that many are skeptical and that many are open or supportive of chiropractic for particular conditions. However I don't know. At present the article says what can be verified. Where there is dispute about what constitutes NPOV I think it's not a bad idea to proceed cautiously with verified information. I know there's a danger that a POV is implied even when it's not intended, let's work on the basis that we try to avoid thisGleng 13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still there seems to be a prepoderance of negative, anti-chiropractic spin running through this article. I believe this is very unencyclopedic and very unWikipedic. Statements that appear to be pro-chiropratic seem to have been added in response to the negative/spin statements. So now we have something not resembling neutral anymore, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Steth 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't like spin, if you mean dishonest indirect insinuation. However I'm happy with direct open statements where they can be verified. I really am open here; I think it is possible that chiropractic is an honeorable profession pursued mainly by honest intelligent people working sincerely in the best interests of their patients and with in some cases good results. I think it is also possible that chiropractic has a spectrum ranging at one end to venal and fraudulent quackery exploiting vulnerable patients sometimes at risk to their health, (there is a rogue fringe in any profession and there are some disgraceful doctors, but medicine is probably more closely regulated and tightly accountable than most professions). I think it is possible that most medical doctors think that chiropractic is at worst harmless and at best efficacious sometimes by suggestion and sometimes by real clinical benefit. I think it is also possible that many medical doctors are profoundly skeptical and have been badly influenced by the excesses of some. I think it is possible that this is an overreaction, and not informed by a real understanding of what most chiropractors do. What I think and what you think and what Mccready thinks is not the point though. For an interesting and useful encyclopedia article we need to state the facts as truthfully and honestly as we can, avoiding spin but also avoiding distortion. If facts make chiropractic look bad, they go in, so long as they are verified, authoratative and reasonably representative. If they are favorable, then similarly, they go in. But we try to give the facts, not select them to tell the story we want, nor spin them one way or the other. The reader has a right to know the facts and make up their own mind. To be honest, I think you are worrying too much; telling the whole truth sometimes means showing the skeletons as well as the trophies, and if you show the skeletons honestly then the trophies will have more credibility too. This topic is controversial, you can't escape it, but controversial does not mean dishonest and does not mean wrong. There's no need to lead the reader particularly, just explain.

Identify any bits of particular concern on Talk, but it might be even better to add text with verifiable sources, the article has plenty of scope. For instance, the worst thing I find about the article is that vertebral subluxation isn't explained in a credible way, so if anything is anti-chirpractic it is this. I know there is a controversy within chiropractic with some pressing for internal reform and accepting some of the criticisms about the science base - knowing about this would help to understand chiropractic as an evolving disciplineGleng 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Chiropractic model of disease ...

Which are the diseases which are not caused by misalignment of the spine? My understanding was that the assertion was that these were the cause of all diseases. Midgley 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From the article as it stands, the assertion ascribed to Chiropractic still appears to be that no causes for disease exist other than misaligned joints "DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say A subluxated vertebra . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column." 1910. Is that incorrect, as to the assertion on which it is based? If it is not incorrect, then it should be represented in the wording of the first paragraph of the article. "... cause of all diseases ..." or similar. If it is not a claim made by Chiropractic in general, now, then indicating when it changed is in order.Midgley 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim is a historical one, and still forms the foundation of chiropractic. Some chiropractors still hold this view, but such dinosaurs are extremely rare, mostly being represented by the F.A.C.E. group, and among members of the ICA and WCA (who have about the same number of members as the NACM - 2%. Even the ACA only has 15%.). Even among members of the ICA and WCA one would be hard pressed to find many that would make such a claim. They reluctantly must admit that there are other causes of disease, but they will still ridicule the germ theory, even now in 2006, and they still use "adjustments" as if the claim was 100% true. The NACM is the only group that has officially distanced itself from this claim.

Chiropractors have gradually been willing to openly admit doubts about the claim, but since it was heresy, it has only been in recent years that more and more have been able to do so without being sanctioned, either officially or privately. I doubt one could place a date on it. It has happened gradually, in tact with the fact that fundamentalists have been losing their absolute control. In 1963, when Samuel Homola wrote his classic - Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism - it cost him his membership in the ACA. They refused to accept his membership renewal. He finally was invited to join again in the 1990's. They were forced to acknowledge that his dire predictions had proven to be true, and that critics were needed.

Reform efforts do exist, but reformers must struggle hard because of the entrenchment of still-living dinosaurs of the Palmer type. Reformers still get criticized. We've seen a bit of this from some editors of this article. EBM gets lip service, while straight schools still exist, with Life in Marietta, Georgia refusing to teach differential diagnosis or allowing any diagnosis other than subluxations until quite recently (this century). Many chiros consider Sid Williams, the founder of Life, to be one of the biggest disasters the profession has ever had. He has single-handedly prevented chiropractic from progressing, and has educated more subluxation-based chiropractors that most of the other schools combined. It's incredible that at this late date in history so many chiropractors have received so defective an education. -- Fyslee 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting notions, but your opinions present more like conspiracy theories than facts. Fundamentalists, reformers? Religion may have played a part in 1895, but these terms aren't used today. I recall you posting things like this before.

From your links to yourself you provided on WP, it appears you are not a member of the profession or any other kind of doctor, and don't live in the US. So what credibility do you have in the area of the history of chiropractic in the US? Any particular motives to follow this so intently, as you have exhibited, and present your so-called view of the history of chiropratic? I would be curious to know, as I am sure others would also. ThanksSteth 12:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So what else is new?! Yet another ad hominem attack from User:Steth, whose ignorance of the history of chiropractic is becoming more evident. Who I am (which I don't hide, unlike Steth), my profession, and where I live, have nothing to do with the credibility of information. If you have evidence showing that what I've written is wrong, please present it. Show us that you know something more about chiropractic. So far your repeated and consistent use of ad hominem attacks seems to be a poor covering of the less you have been offering. I'd like to see you start dealing with the issues, instead of attacking other editors:

WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

-- Fyslee 12:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now no need to get defensive. I apologize if it came across as an 'attack'. I was merely trying to point out that when someone states things with such certainty, the source of the information should be considered. In your case you have stated elsewhere in Talk that you despise chiropractic, and you have added links to your grossly anti-chiropractic sites to articles, which I felt were self-serving and edited out in the spirit of neutrality. If you had just made public that you were a PT, well, no problem. But it was you who use Wikipedia to send visitors to your personal 'why I despise (your word) chiropractic' websites/blogs. So I take issue with you that your background/history has nothing to do with the credibility of your information.

In my opinion, these "issues" you mentioned have only become issues because several editors have, for some reason, a strong dislike for chiropractic, so their contributions are extremely colored by their anti-chiropractic beliefs. What happens then is that pro-chiropratic editors feel the need to balance the anti's and the whole thing becomes a revert war as has happened many times. Those who are neutral about the subject try to act as diplomats and appease both sides, but soon find it is impossible to do so and gracefully bow out, leaving us back to square one.

See what I mean? Your 'thots. Steth 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

EBM

Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine (EBM), but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors. EBM is a relatively new and untried set of tenets touted by some medical authorities as a potential gold standard, either to bolster their own credibility or to further monopolize the field of medicine. Tried to npov the preceding intro passage. The intro is supposed to be about chiropractic, not about dubious initiatives by mainstream practitioners to prop up the sagging credibility of their orthodoxy while trying to cast aspersions upon alternative practitioners. The issue of scientific verifiability seems to belong, but not the dubious EBM verbiage that was previously in the intro. Ombudsman 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article really ought to indicate when chiropractic was invented - it is relatively recent. One of the points of EBM is that the tenets are not new and untried, they derive from around 1600 and the Royal Society - empiricism rather than seances and religious leaders. Applying EBM as a deliberate and specific set of techniques and a movement dates from Cochrane et al. Midgley 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The passage Ombudsman took out was this:-

"Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors."

I'm unconvinced that it asssists us to have it transmuted into the passage Om describes as his attempt to NPOV that, above here. In fact the result is nothing like neutral, even with a unique slant on it. I am sure it is more helpful to other editors to present removed material in its original state, along with proposals to discuss on how it should be changed. WP:SUG is worth looking at. Midgley 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the need for a 'Warning' in the first paragraph

Sorry Fyslee, I should have consulted you before making the changes. Placing a 'warning' in the opening paragraph seems to be important to some editors here. I was wondering if Fyslee or others feel that since enough 'warnings' have been added in further paragraphs, perhaps it isn't needed in the opening paragraph. Considering, that this isn't found in other articles regarding health, I would like to see it removed. It just sounds too much like it is trying to cast aspersions on Chiropractic. Too much like a warning, see what I mean? Is it really necessary?

I was wondering if others felt the same way, before it is changed again. Thanks Steth 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Steth has a fair point. If the lead was longer, and summarised the whole content of the article, then the disputed material would be properly in the lead. As it is, selection of this point to highlight in the lead implies that this is what the article is "about", when the article is not just about this but also explains the safety and practice and history of chropractic. In other words, the choice of the lead is strongly "editorialising" the content. So I would suggest either lengthening the lead, or else removing the sentence and simply inserting the word "controversial" appropriately. If the lead mentions no claims about efficacy, then criticisms of these claims is jumping the gun. Steth is not objecting to the Science section content, where there are verifiable sources in abundance, but only to the sort of insidious insertion of POV that makes it seem from the outset that the article is written from a particular POV. Nobody should want that. Gleng 12:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with Gleng. I don't see any "warning" in the first paragraph, but the last sentence could be deleted and replaced with a very short sentence mentioning that chiropractic has a controversial history, without going into detail. The article could go into more detail, explaining the different ways it is controversial (both past and present) and presenting both sides of the controversies. I'm all for the inclusion of verifiable and factual information, both pro and con.

Let's try to formulate a sentence we can agree on. -- Fyslee 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested lead section

Original lead section::

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a system of alternative medicine, founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using adjustments of the spine and sometimes other joints to correct "subluxations", which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of all disease. Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.

Proposed new lead section:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine, founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer. It was originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using "adjustments" of the spine and other joints to correct "subluxations," which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of many diseases. Chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and legal disputes since its inception.

Suggestions appreciated. -- Fyslee 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence looks less POV to me, however, I wonder if supporters of chiropractic will take issue with the quotation marks around "adjustments" and "subluxations". -AED 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AED. Not bad, but the the ending is still not very neutral. I agree that no warning is necessary. The only way to have a NPOV is not by adding a new warning, but by having NO warning. Why have a STOP-LIGHT when you first get started?? How about this:

Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

This is from The World Federation of Chiropractic. What do you think Gleng, Ombudsman? Steth 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it all. It sounds like it is a non-controversial, perfectly scientifically based health system. Which it isn't. I prefer Fyslee's earlier version. Maustrauser 12:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an incredible coincidence! Returning from holiday just when I made the change. What good luck! Almost like an alert was issued or something.

Maus, I think you are reading too much into it. It says in a factual, neutral way that chiropractic is 'concerned', which it is, and what the empahsis is on. Nothing about perfection. The rest of the article covers your 'concerns'

Unfortunately, the other version, IMO, sets too much of a POV tone.

I believe it should be changed back. Steth 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Steth my friend, a look at my editing history will show I haven't edited a thing for a whole week! No need to cast stones. Maustrauser 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK guys keep cool. For what it's worth, I'm tending to back Steth on this. My reasons are these; the article does not "set out" to discredit chiropractic, this is not its purpose in any sense, and if the lead implies that this is the purpose of the article then it should be corrected. Nobody wants a reader coming to this article to think that this is just an anti-chiropractic diatribe, that wouldn't be true, and it wouldn't be fair on the contributors who all of us in our own ways have tried to keep this NPOV. On the other hand, and for the same reason, the word controversial should appear in the lead; again this is not a 2bland2 article or an article endorsing chiropractic, but an honest account of it and of the differing views about it.

Look, I think we are surely close to getting rid of the POV tag, and we should really all want this; while the tag is there, it's an open licence to come and disrupt the careful work that has been done to build consensus. Try this:

"Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial."

-- Gleng 16:18, 8 April 2006

I understand your reasoning, Gleng. But, I still think that 'controversial' doesn't need to be in the lead. This is a POV. After reading the article a reader can draw their own conclusions. It has already been inserted many times in the article. We shouldn't be coloring their perception from the start.

Millions of people don't think it is controversial, and neither do the laws of US/Canada/Australia, fifty state governments/provinces/countries, Medicare, Car/work/auto insurance Olympic/pro/amateur sports teams/atheletes, not to mention MD's who go to chiropractors and send their families. So doesn't that make it more non-controversial than controversial? BTW, what health method has no controversy? Is that mentioned in the lead paragraphs of psychiatry, physical therapy, medicine, etc., etc.?

Steth 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By this reasoning homeopathy isn't controversial. Millions of people don't think it is controversial, and the laws of the US protect it so much that it isn't required to even prove efficacy. (That it is the subject of much controversy is apparently irrelevant.....) Apparently being the subject of controversy is not the same as being controversial. -- Fyslee 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again you're equating controversial with unsound, and I don't read that meaning at all. Controversial just means that there are strong opinions on both sides held by substantial numbers of people, and the article does explain these differences of opinion, as it has to to be credible; leave the controversy out and who would want to read the article or believe anything in it? If an article on psycho surgery has an important section discussing opposing views, then it would properly mention the controversy; I haven't looked at these articles but I would expect them to state that the treatments are controversial, and it doesn't mean that they aren't effective - ECT does seem to be very effective. In fact the article at present does not hammer the "controversial" line - the word only appears once outside the lead. I think you can relax Steth, but see what others think.Gleng 18:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For a little confirmation of the controversial nature of chiropractic, especially on the inside, read this insightful article.[12] -- Fyslee 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section: Synthesis

I think we need to take another look at the Wikipedia guidelines for lead sections:

"The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article."

In keeping with these guidelines, I basically support Gleng's proposal of adding the last sentence to the WFC version:

"Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial."

The sentence stimulates interest. If anything in it could be moderated, it could be the removal of the next to the last word - "very." (Even "very" is putting it mildly!) "Controversial" is an undeniable fact, not just a POV, and makes the lead interesting, and not bland (which it would be in the extreme without it). A removal of the mention of "controversial" would be like suppressing the fact that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. No other healthcare profession has such a controversial history. Small controversies happen in all professions, but chiropractic has always been characterized by internal and external controversy, both past, present, and future. That's not just a POV, but also a fact. The controversies surrounding this article and the tags on this talk page are ample proof of this fact.

As Gleng mentioned, "controversial" has nothing to do with the soundness of chiropractic. It has to do with the history of chiropractic. No reader of the article should be surprised to find mention of controversies in the article. The lead should prepare them for that fact. Following the Wikipedia guidelines above should ensure that that won't happen.

Above I wrote "basically" for a reason. The WFC version includes a very strong and manipulative POV: it deliberately avoids using the word "subluxation" (for the first time in history), yet retains the scientifically disputed assumptions of their supposed effects - "effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health."

Without the mention of subluxations, the description is actually more similar to a description of the Physical Therapy profession than of chiropractic. Since everything else about chiropractic is predicated on treatment of subluxations, this concept should be included in the lead section.

I propose a synthesis of the (1) existing lead, with the (2) WFC version, and the (3) last sentence proposed by Gleng:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

This synthesis retains the identifying and unique features that characterize chiropractic (philosophy, methods, and goals of treatment), while eliminating some of the more specific aspects in the current version, that can be left for the contents to explain. It contains no negative or judgmental POV, and is entirely factual. -- Fyslee 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy with your suggestion Fyslee. Maustrauser 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent proposals for lead section

1) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

• Overall, I like this suggestion but think it might be more accurate if "alternative" (not in quotes) preceded "health profession". With that adjective, I think I would be fine leaving out mention of controversy in the lead (because alternative medicine will be interpreted as controversial by some anyway) as long as the controversial aspects of chiropractic are addressed in the body of the article. -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

2) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial.

• Would striking the last sentence and adding "alternative" (not in quotes) in front of "health profession" be acceptable to Steth? -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial.

• I like the incorporation of "alternative medicince", but like the two above a little better. "System of alternative medicine" is unclear to me, and chiropractic is a health profession. -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I would go with AED's suggestion as it seems to make the most sense.

1) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

Adding 'alternative' is not necessary, since it is not really an alternative to medicine, but distinctly different. Just stating it is a health profession is neutral and adequate without coloring the reader's perception. So AED's suggestion above seems fair, accurate and neutral and would work for me. Steth 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This version is unsatisfactory, as it is the unchanged WFC version. It is a deceptive spin-doctored POV definition, which hides the real character of chiropractic in order to make it seem mainstream. (The WFC is just doing its job....) The only part that is uniquely chiropractic mentions the scientifically disputed effects always attributed to subluxations, which are claimed to affect "the function of the nervous system and general health." Such a statement, being disputed, cannot stand alone without a disclaimer or qualifiers to help maintain NPOV, which I feel should be reserved for the body of the article. It should be possible to keep the lead section free of disclaimers and qualifiers. Statements of fact should be enough.

The lead should include several facts:

Scope of practice: primarily diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the musculoskeletal system

Place in the healthcare spectrum: not just "alternative," but more precisely "CAM" (all classifications list chiropractic in this way, including chiropractic and governmental sources)

Methods of treatment: emphasis on manipulation / adjustments

Reasons for treatment: correction of subluxations

Historical development, as well as relation to law, science, and other professions: controversial, both internally and externally

The expression "manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation" (with emphasis on "to correct a subluxation") is uniquely chiropractic. It is the legal and philosophical foundation upon which the chiropractic profession has always been built.

No subluxations, no chiropractic. Without subluxations chiropractic has no foundation or uniqueness and thus no right to exist. To give up subluxations would be professional and intellectual suicide. Chiropractic has not dropped its belief in subluxations. It only downplays them in public statements for public relations purposes.

My original version:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Modified version, taking into account some of AED's suggestions:

Chiropractic is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health profession primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Here are a few comments on this proposed wording:

1. Chiropractic claims that subluxations have "effects ... on the function of the nervous system and general health." Since this claim is disputed by anatomists and physiologists, it would best be left out of the lead section, but can be dealt with in the article. False or disputed claims shouldn't be allowed to stand unopposed in the lead section. The part that is included is accurate enough (although incomplete): "...primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system." The inclusion of the word "primarily" indicates to the observant reader that there is more to the picture than meets the eye.....;-)

2. Chiropractic also claims that subluxations affect other conditions than the musculoskeletal system, including diseases in the inner organs, and many other conditions. These are likewise undocumented and disputed, and can be dealt with in the article.

3. The use of the word "emphasizes" (the use of manipulation....) is a signal to the observant reader that manipulation is the method of choice which is always used, in addition to other methods. Those methods can also be mentioned in the article.

4. CAM is better than "alternative." Either word can work as a red flag or a positive endorsement, depending on one's POV. They are basically neutral, the interpretation depending on the POV of the eyes of the beholder.

5. I have deleted the word "very" from the last sentence. "Some" is accurate and neutral enough.

Proposed:

Chiropractic is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health profession primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation - termed "adjustments" - of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Fyslee 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Adding 'alternative' is not necessary, since it is not really an alternative to medicine, but distinctly different. Just stating it is a health profession is neutral and adequate without coloring the reader's perception. So AED's suggestion above seems fair, accurate and neutral and would work for me." I just wanted to clarify that version #1 with the mention of "alternative" is my suggestion. If "alternative" is left out of version #1, then I agree that "Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial" should be added per Gleng's suggestion. -AED 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fyslee for your exhaustive analysis on the controversy of chiropractic. Of course I take issue that, as you state: “No other healthcare profession has such a controversial history.” “That's not just a POV, but also a fact.” Well there you go again, passing off your opinion as fact.

A few that come to mind of course that beat chiropractic hands-down is psychiatry: frontal lobotomies, Electro-convulsive therapy, giving the big thumbs-up to Hitler's ideas to help the Holocaust be such a big hit. How about medicine: HRT, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, endorsement of smoking, 700,000 deaths each year from errors Death by Medicine, etc., etc., etc., Anyway, you get the picture.

Compared to medicine, I believe that chiropractic is one of the least controversial professions.

You write "I believe...." Yes, that sentence is interesting. It reveals a simple fact of human nature that affects all of us, myself included. We do not consider something controversial if we agree with that viewpoint. Very natural. Now, since this article must not be written exclusively from the chiropractic POV, we must step back and look at the big picture, which includes viewpoints outside of chiropractic. That larger picture reveals much controversy about chiropractic (and to those who know it from the inside, there is much controversy on the inside as well). So chiropractic is controversial, even if one doesn't personally think so. That fact needs to be represented in the article, since it must represent all POV. -- Fyslee 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the more anti-chiropractic sites and blogs one participates in, the more one believes that chiropractic is controversial. All spin-doctoring, doncha know. Say it enough times....

Contrary to Fyslee's assertion that adding controversy would stimulate interest, stimulating interest through POV is not how it is done at Wikipedia. Chiropractic is a health profession, so just stating it is a health profession is a simple matter of fact (and courtesy). This is what it is concerned with, plain and simple. What's the issue? Manual treatments, etc. are the methods. It doesn't get any easier than that. You guys are reading WAY too much into this and spending WAY too much time on one paragraph.

So this is nice and neutral. It doesn't assault the senses:

Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

Is it possible to have a paragraph in this article not sprayed with the smell of anti-chiropractic POV by so-called experts in despising chiropractic?? Steth 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks by Steth. -- Fyslee 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bend a little. I will accept that lead provided that the article addresses what the skeptics believe to be the more controversial aspects of the profession and underlying theory. -AED 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well OK then. I believe the article certainly already addresses what skeptics believe is controversial. Steth 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Gleng: I would encourage you to accept Steth's lead. The section entitled "Introduction" can be used to touch on some of the other points (i.e. that some aspects of chiropractic are controversial, etc.). What say you, Steth? -AED 06:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. You know I'm easy. Steth 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My objections still stand. Nothing has changed, except that Steth's repeated proposal for an unchanged WFC lead has been met by adopting it without any change.

That lead is too generic and unspecific. It contains little if anything to distinguish it from Physical Therapy, and leaves out many uniquely distinguishing features that define chiropractic. I listed a number of points above that should be included, and which are not included. Anyone finding this article will not learn anything uniquely chiropractic from that lead, and the lead violates the Wikipedia policy for lead statements, as quoted above. It does not cover the subject matter of the article. It cannot stand alone as a mini-representation of the article. It should. Chiropractic's place in the spectrum of healthcare professions is not identified (CAM), it is not indicated it's unique

Now that the uniquely identifying features are moved to the article, you can bet that Steth and other editors will begin working to eliminate those with which they disagree (using accusations of POV, and forgetting that they are exercising their own POV). That process which he and others have been engaged in is continuing with the "recommendation" (demand) below. If one expresses even a bit of doubt, Steth will just delete Morgan's excellent quote himself. Steth apparently believes in Innate Intelligence and wishes to make sure that no one discovers that there are more and more chiropractors who don't believe this metaphysical nonsense.

The religious section has already been removed [13] by Gleng. It surprises me that this user would help the efforts of chiropractic revisionism.

It was also surprising to see that the tag was removed without discussion. Removal should have been discussed before doing it. As long as the antagonism and removals of factual material that Steth doesn't like goes on, it should remain in place. When he and other subluxationist editors start allowing both sides of the story to be told, without deleting factual material (even removing solid scientific references), then we can begin discussing removal of the tag. We need to see some evidence of good faith from these editors. I have allowed plenty of pro-chiropractic stuff that was documented and verifiable, only editing (and usually only commenting) outright undocumented nonsense. I have no problem with pro-chiro stuff that isn't soapboxing and unscientific. I would like to see that same attitude from the other side. He claims to be "easy." Yes, as long as he's getting his way, and he's even getting help from unexpected quarters! Very disappointing. Without watchdogs this article will become another chiropractic "education" piece, representing only one side of the story. -- Fyslee 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my contributions and ideas to better this article are not always in agreement with yours. -AED 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)edited 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect them to be. Actually your ideas and edits are often excellent. I was just voicing my frustration about the whole situation, not with your edits in general. Sorry about that. The article will be better if more editors have their input, so I appreciate that you are here. Now if this article was about eyesight....;-) (Maybe it is, because you may see more clearly right now!) -- Fyslee 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear AED: My deepest apologies for offending you. I have the utmost respect for your editorship here at Wikipedia, and was just frustrated. I had been away for awhile and came back to find a number of changes had been made. It surprised me that the discussions and attempts at reaching consensus hadn't continued and was disappointed, and I let my frustration go out over you. Please forgive me. (I have expunged my offending remark above.) -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said and seconded, AED.

Wow, Fyslee, attack me why don’t you! "Intense struggle" "warning of what's going on" "Innatist, subluxationist, revisionist", oh my! Are you nuts? You are the only one who uses these terms.

I didn’t bring up changing the ‘Religion’ section, I only seconded the idea, since chiropractic is not a religion, except in your view. I asked for opinions regarding Lon Morgan, yet didn’t remove it although I believe it should be removed. I had nothing to do with removal of a tag.

Strawman attack .... -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So might as well attack the messenger, why don’t you!? These sort of attacks are unnecessary here. I am trying to maintain some semblance of NPOV. You seem to be getting quite emotional about this.

What is your agenda here? Surely it can’t be to maintain a neutral article. I am of course basing this on your history, past additions and deletions, your “internet responsibilities” of severely anti-chiropractic attitudes. I don’t see how you can claim to have a NPOV and expect us to believe you with this background!

Strawman attack .... -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are the one who is having trouble with neutrality. It seems that you have created attacks and animosity with several other Wikipedians already. Have you noticed that you don’t play well with others? Are we just more targets for you to add to your “list”.

How many links to sites owned by a certain anti-everything that is not drugs, ex-psychiatrist that you work closely with and webmaster for, have you peppered Wikipedia with lately?

Strawman attack again. Ad hominem attack too. I haven't posted any links to my knowledge lately. Even if I had, so what! Accurate information is hard to find on some of these subjects. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, how about proving your accusations of inaccuracy. You haven't even attempted doing that yet. What you do is find and delete every single link to anything by Dr. Barrett, only because it's Barrett. That is not legitimate. Links with well-referenced and good information from highly respected websites should be used. His websites are only disrepected by quacks and their supporters. Governments, organizations, universities, professors, medical schools, and professionals in all walks of life who deal with the subjects of quackery and healthfraud use and commend his sites. They have received numerous awards. If you can find anything inaccurate, I would like to see it and I'll try to get him to revise it. I know his email address and can, just as easily as you can, write to him. Let's see what you've got of real problems, instead of repeatedly hearing your ad hominem attacks. -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if my views/edits don’t agree with yours. Fyslee, have you considered that you are too involved in chiropractic? Considering your very active participation and public despising” of chiropractic through your blogs and websites (you provided the links at WP), I think it would be appropriate that you recuse yourself from this article due to your severe anti-chiropractic bias. You are just hindering progress, IMO. Steth 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone would like to start a RfC on Fsylee, let me know. I would be happy to sign-on. Steth 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey calm down chaps. Your last line sounds like a threat Steth:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC: RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community...Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste. Maustrauser 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Steth has done this. See: User:Steth/RfC. Here's my comment:

Comment: User:Steth is being very hypocritical here. Of all people, his personal attacks and comments have been very unpleasant and aggressive. A quick look at his edit summaries reveals a very POV agenda. The rest of us (who aren't perfect either) have simply tried to deal with things, while he/she pretends to be some kind of angel and runs for help. He seems to be unable to recognize that he himself has a POV that needs balancing. One shouldn't cast stones when one lives in a glass house. This kind of thing (Rfc) is necessary, but should not be initiated by someone so guilty of doing the same things he accuses others of doing. -- Fyslee 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His hypocrisy is quite amazing. Somehow his POV is "neutral," but other POV are violations of NPOV....! He's no angel when it comes to personal attacks and shouldn't be pointing fingers. The rest of us just try to work things out right here, while he attempts to get outside help. -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic education, licensing, and regulation

Currently states: In the United States of America chiropractors receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and are referred to as "doctor" and are licensed in all jurisdictions.

Suggested change: In the United States, graduates of chiropractic school receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), are referred to as "doctor", and are eligible to seek licensure in all jurisdictions.

Reasoning: 1) "United States" should be sufficient. 2) A student of chiropractic isn't a chiropractor until he or she graduates and receives his or her degree. 3) A chiropractor isn't automatically licensed in any jurisdiction - examination and licensure is needed first, I believe. Objections to this change? -AED 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Having received no objections, I'm going to make this change. -AED 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

trouble with a link..

Fyslee - I'm having trouble with the new citation link for Lillard's account (James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America)[8]? I get the 23 pages but page 7 is missing and no mention of Lillard. It could be me, but if not, maybe you can fix it. Otherwise I'll look elsewhere for the source. Thanks!Dematt 01:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what's happened to that link, so I've found another one that is verifiable. -- Fyslee 19:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Section entitled "Introduction"

It seems that we may be coming close to an agreement on the lead section. Are there suggestions for the section entitled "Introduction"? I would like to see some version of the following sentences included in that section:

1. Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using adjustments of the spine and sometimes other joints to correct "subluxations", which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of all disease.Moved to "Introduction".-AED 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial.
3. Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.

I am very much open to changes in wording. -AED 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it to you; I've said my piece, I think controversial is an honest and factual statement without prejudgement, but if it's not in I won't think the alead is POV necessarily. On the issue of whether it is controversial - I did a bit of searching for surveys of medical attitudes to chiropractic. There are plenty of doctors who say that they are willing to refer patients to chiropractors - not a majority, but a lot. However there are also surveys out there that indicate that slightly more doctors think that chiropractic is more likely to do harm than good than think the reverse. So it seems to me that there is no consensus in the medical professsion- there are some who think it is beneficial, some who think it is harmful, and probably the jury is out for most. In my book this makes it controversial; the verdict could go one way or the other in time. Now it's not our job to arbitrate about who is right here, we're not the judges. We just give the facts and information as best we can. We can do that, I think, the lead shouldn't express an opinion - I don't think "controversial" is really opinion, but if its a word with negative connotations then maybe it's better avoided, it doesn't have those connotations for meGleng 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Section entitled "Claims for chiropractic religious status"

Innate intelligence is mentioned in the article prior to this section. I cannot see how this section adds anything to the article or is necessary. Can we have some more discussion on whether this should stay or go? -AED 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It needs expanding to say that Palmer also used the claim of religious status to avoid prosecution and jail - he was jailed in the 1920's from memory for violations of medical legislation. Mccready 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on religious status detracts from the article. Its length elevates its importance, while it is only a footnote in history. It can be mentioned in a sentence elsewhere, but serves no basis since chiropractic is not a religion.

The entire section on religious status should go. The article is already too long. Steth 14:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the first quote should stay and be put in the History section; my main problem with the other quotes is that I have no idea what they are saying, and a quote that needs extensive explanation probably isn't the best quote to choose. The origins of chiropractic are clearly mystical, and properly part of history; having a separate section for religious claims suggests that this is a current rather than a historical issueGleng 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) OK, understand a bit better now, I see the point of the quotes but if they are kept they should be integrated with the rest of the text better, in context.Gleng 17:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section is not warranted. If innate intelligence is no longer part of the chiropractic mainstream, should that be mentioned in the "Chiropractic subluxation" section? - AED 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

About 80% of chiropractors ("mainstream," "majority," call it what you will....) are not members of any national organization. The ACA only has about 15,000 members, and the ICA, WCA, and NACM make up the other 5%.) The WCA and ICA are openly subluxationist and innatist, and many of the 80% are as well. Some ACA members are as well. Innate Intelligence and subluxationism are very much alive and well in the mainstream. Many of the best selling CED seminars are subluxationist propaganda, marketing machines, while ACA seminars have few participants. Please do not aid revisionist efforts here. This side of the story needs to be told, not only from a historical perspective, but as a warning of what's going on now. There is an intense struggle going on between an enlightened few and the masses. Steth and his cohorts here seem to represent the masses, and would love to see this side of the story buried. They thus attempt to use Wikipedia to give support to the "old" viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag gone, please justify its replacement

OK, I've kept the two key quotes but moved them to relevant places in the text. Hope this is OK. I've removed the tag - if anyone wants to replace the tag, please do so with very specific statement on the talk page about exactly what is seriously POV, or factually inaccurate, and needs specific attentionGleng 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It surprises me to see that the tag was removed without discussion. Removal should have been discussed before doing it. It should also remain in place as long as the unsatisfactory lead section is in place.

It should also remain in place as long as the antagonism and removals of factual material that Steth doesn't like goes on. When he and other subluxationist editors start allowing both sides of the story to be told, without deleting factual material (even removing solid scientific references), then we can begin discussing removal of the tag. (see my comments above. [14]) -- Fyslee 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Current opening section does not reflect the underlying basis of the disciplines

I write disciplines, since it is clear that the article now asserts there are at least two varieties of people practicing as chiropractors - the old school ones (a minority, no need to worry aboutt hem, nobody believes their view ...?) who hold that all disease comes from "misalignments" in joints, and all disease can be cured by manipulating these invisible subluxations... and a second and new lot who say that they just bend bones to have an effect on the musculoskeletal system and whatever is connected to it.

It won't do.

Midgley 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

I would like to propose the deletion of the "opinion" of a Lon Morgan, D.C. under the section entitled 'Chiropractic subluxation'. It is just that, an opinion. His article is an opinion piece, expressing his thoughts. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to showcase opinions. There are opinions to the opposite, so who is right? Wikipedia articles are not the place for philosophical debates. Thanks. Steth 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I feel that an "Opinion" is not appropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, so I recommend deleting it and will do so, unless there are convincing reasons not to. Thanks, Steth 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Describing it as an opinion isn't really helpful (to me in working out whether it should be in tehre or not). More useful would be an indication of why it was put in there - and of whether the publication in which (it is a verifiable fact that) he wrote that is a reliable source. As an opinion of one fraction of the group of people doing Chiropractic, it looks like an illustration that they are divided into those who harbour the original fantasy and those who have pragmatically and empirically added a collection of idas that allow them to actually diagnoses and treat some condtions - and to avoid "treating" the untreatable and send it to someone who can do soemthing for the patient. The extent to which that debate is being resolved,and the basis of the people's practice established as sound and on reproducible findings linked to a real model of the universe is the extent to which a profession of chiropractic is on th way to being established. I suspect you'll find when and if it is that there already is one in that space, but reinventing wheels has never been prevented. Midgley 12:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

:: This quote should stay. It was published by a chiropractor in a chiropractic journal! Why is it unacceptable? I hazard to suggest that most of the case studies quoted in the chiro journals are simply opinion and yet they seem to be acceptable. If we are only going to include RCT scientific trials then I would agree with you, but we don't and therefore his opinion is perfectly valid and demonstrates the range of views on chiro even within the chiropractic community. I believe it should stay. Maustrauser 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the quote as illustrating that chiropractic had moved on from its mystical origins to engage in a thoughtful and critical self-evaluating debate. Gleng 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, my thoughts on this mirror Gleng's. The idea in the quote should stay, but I think it's a lazy way to build an article or to make a point by simply quoting what someone else has said. I would rather see the sentence paraphrased and referenced rather than appear in its current form. -AED 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous Link

OK, at the risk of being accused of another ad hominem attack, tell me if I am wrong about this.

It appears that Fyslee has added another link to a Stephen Barrett website. I personally think that none should qualify due to their severely biased anti-chiropractic nature and are filled with opinions and unprofessional editorial comments by an ex-psychiatrist who has declared war on chiropractic decades ago.

The new link is a plug for a book by a disgruntled chiropractor whose 43 year career didn't quite live up to his expectations. Was this supposed to bolster the NPOV standard of Wikipedia?

This raises some serious questions. Fyslee has a close relationship with Stephen Barrett. He is, among other appointments, assistant webmaster and listmaster to various Stephen Barrett enterprises. Doesn't that sort of taint his POV, making these links a bit self-serving? Should visitors to Wikipedia be sent to sites and then be solicited for donations?

Also, why plug a book by a disillusioned retired chiropractor? Can we now start listing books? Is that encyclopedic? There are many other books out there claiming the opposite. I think this sets a bad precedent.

I am not picking on Fyslee despite his attacks and emotional rantings about my alleged behaviour. I just feel that this sort of thing (perhaps inadvertantly) uses the Chiropractic article as a soapbox to drive traffic to sites that he has a vested interest in, which, IMO, just isn't a good thing.

This is also especially curious because Fyslee just got finished protesting above that he hasn't posted any links lately to Stephen Barrett's websites. I would be curious to know exactly how many links there are now throughout Wikipedia that Fyslee has placed that send readers to a site owned by Stephen Barrett.

I am not going to delete these links until we discuss this and see what other views there are on this. As my history on the talk page proves, despite what some may think, I talk and discuss before I edit. Thanks Steth 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick remark before I leave to paint our clinic. The link is to the only source of an out-of-print classic - in its entirety. The URL itself is not the point (which Steth is attempting to claim, which is an ad hominem attack against a URL!), but the material it links to is of great importance to the "Critiques" section. The book is to chiropractic what Luther's 95 Theses was to Christianity. If Luther's 95 Theses were only available on one particular website, then that URL would be legitimate as a source, being the only source. The book was the first significant exposé of problems in the profession written by a chiropractor (second generation).

Dr. Homola has had a successful career, and the ACA finally admitted that his dire predictions had proved to be true and offered to readmit him, long after they booted him for writing the book. Their actions revealed just how significant the book really was, and is to this day, since much of what was written then still applies. He has since written many other books. The latest is also excellent - Inside Chiropractic. I can recommend both of them as very informative and well-docuemnted sources of information. They deal with the problems, but also with the positive aspects, of chiropractic practice and history.

Regardless of Steth's POV, the Critiques section is expected to contain POV sources, not NPOV sources, just as editors may have POV, as long as they don't editorialize their POV in the articles. (The alternative would be to only allow editors who have no knowledge of a subject do the writing of articles, and preventing anyone with knowledge from participating, which would be foolhardy. Experts are welcomed at Wikipedia.)

The Critiques section should be protected from the deletionist work of pro-chiropractic editors. If Steth's objections were to be applied to all the links in the pro-chiro sections of links, then a number of them should be deleted, since they are filled with advertising for dubious products, the writings of chiropractors who proposed unscientific ideas, soapboxing, salesmanship, and outright quackery. While those sections have grown larger and larger, the pro-chiro editors have deleted links in the Critiques section, simply because they were not in harmony with their POV, or were linked to sources they didn't like, regardless of the importance of the content. This process needs to be reversed, and the pro-chiro links need to be reexamined. -- Fyslee 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think "classic" is a very subjective term, as are book reviews. I do agree with you, (surprise!) that links, both pro and con should be examined and possibly eliminated.

I would be interested in others views on this, should anyone like to respond. Thanks Steth 11:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Examining the links, I think the inclusion of Chirobase is warranted; Barrett and the other authors involved have done a good job of presenting the skeptic's POV. I also think mention of chiropractors who reject mainstream chiropractic beliefs is warranted because an insider's critique of the profession has some value to the article. -AED 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can Dr. Homola or his book really be compared to Luther and his 95 theses? I wonder how Dr. Homola would respond to that comparison by Fyslee.

Then following this logic, and that of AED's, it is OK to also start listing links to books written by other chiropractors, about what they believe about the profession? Steth 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That might be your logic, but this is mine: Per WP:WWIN, Wikipedia is not a repository of links or an indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:NPOV, majority and significant minority views should be represented, but not necessarily tiny minority views. (Yes, the distinction is somewhat subjective, as alluded to in WP:N.) Listing links to books written by other chiropractors might be considered indiscriminate if it is simply duplicating material in the article or in other links, or not representing either a majority or significant minority POV. -AED 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My "comparison" of Homola to Luther was of course not a direct comparison in terms of historical importance to the world, but limited to the chiropractic situation. Chiropractic also has reformers. I know of no other chiropractic reformer that holds the position of Homola, both regarding pioneering reform efforts, the resulting impact on the profession, and regarding publication of his views and his "excommunication" by the ACA for expressing his heretical views. (If you know of earlier reformers who are eligible for such a comparison and position, I'd love to know about it.)

He became a chiropractor against his own father's wishes (his father was a chiropractor), practiced successfully, wrote the book and was promptly denied membership in the ACA. He continued to practice until his retirement. During this time he remained a chiropractor, practicing in an ethical and scientifically valid manner (no subluxationist nonsense, practice building, patient "education"/brainwashing), and participated in public discussions with colleagues by writing books and publishing articles in chiropractic journals and publications. His views are widely known and have been promoted and defended by other reformers. While he has received some support, he has also been treated in the most abominable manner by other chiropractors and the leadership, including personal threats and villification. This type of response is typical cult behavior. Cults don't take kindly to reformers.

What Sam would think of my comparison? He is a gracious gentleman and would likely provide a humble "thanks for the appreciation" in response.

I provided the link to the (one) book because it is the only source for the whole book. I have not posted links to "books" - as in a "list of books." The book's contents are extremely significant for the Critiques section and for the article. The Homola story actually deserves mention in the article, but don't expect that to happen, considering the repeated deletions and denials of the legitimacy of the NACM and reform viewpoints. (The interpretation of NPOV in these deletionist efforts clearly reveals that to Steth and other pro-chiro editors here, NPOV is limited only to viewpoints that sell chiropractic and paint it in a positive light, not other sides of the question, as required by Wikipedia guidelines.)

I would encourage all to read his book, especially Steth, since - without an understanding of the history and issues covered in the book - Steth speaks and edits from a position of ignorance. One cannot really understand chiropractic without the knowledge found there. There is also an update (one of the last links on the URL) regarding the current situation. -- Fyslee 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would a physical therapist act so unprofessionally?

Steth's edit summary: "Fyslee's uncivil behaviour" -- Fyslee 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fyslee. Your response has given me new insight into how much you really do despise (your word) the chiropractic profession.

You know, I have asked a legitimate guestion in a proper and civil way in order to gain understanding and get feedback. So what does Fyslee do? Never misses an opportunity to attack and insult (or add another link to his friend's website). This is very un-Wikipedian behaviour, which he has demonstrated many times in his heavy-handed way to force his hatred of chiropractic onto a neutral article. I don't need to provide the numerous Wiki-links about uncivil attitudes. You would think I insulted his mother or something. This is very unbecoming and unsavory behaviour from a "so-called" professional. I am certain this does not represent all physical therapists. That would be a very sad commentary on the profession.

If Fyslee can place his friends links and books (that he ranks up there with the bible) as he wishes, then others can do likewise, should they decide to do so, IMO. Steth 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no hatred of chiropractic. The fact is, some people have strange beliefs (like Earth sucks and there is no gravity, sun is asleep behind the mountain during the night, having my left ankle massaged in some special way could fix my prostate cancer). All we are doing is, that we are trying to prevent people from presenting their strange beliefs here as "facts". FYI: There is no country other than USA and Australia that would provide any higher education in chiropractic, and there is a reason: the effectiveness of the treatment couldn't be proved. Why do all the creepy losers who made up some fabulous theory believe that their theory is not accepted just because they are too smart for the rest of the scientific community? I don't know. But I know the reason for the existence of chiropractic schools in America: profit, money, kohle whatever you'd like to call it. ackoz 11:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All "we" are doing? Have you been recruited to edit here? Steth 11:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No.. I havent, have you??? - ackoz 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. So let me see if I understand you: You don't like chiropractic either? Steth 11:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know that this is not about liking or disliking something. This is about accepting that some things can't be proven, and even if I would like to believe them, I shouldn't present them anywhere as facts. If 99% of the non-chiropractic doctors of medicine all over the world believe that this thing doesn't work, don't you think that saying "Hell yeah, it DOES work coz I KNOW." and writing stuff like this is unacceptable? Do you really think that you are so much smarter than all of the MDs around? You might have some good experience with chiropractic, but you are actually noone to decide if the thing that helped you was chiropractic or something else. But believe me - if it worked, it would be widely accepted. And it's not. Sorry ackoz 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html HONcode rules, and then check than http://www.pathguy.com/index1.htm the page of Ed Friedlander MD is certified by HONCode. After that, you can proceed to his lecture on Alternative medicine: http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/alternat.txt listing chiropractics. After you read the article written by full qualified, board certified MD, please return here with your arguments. ackoz 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, now Steth, who pissed in your coffee? You come on pretty strong with your accusations of "unprofessional," "uncivil behaviour," etc.

You say that you "asked a legitimate guestion in a proper and civil way in order to gain understanding and get feedback." That could certainly be disputed in light of your earlier statements in this thread.

Now precisely what about my reply was "unprofessional," "uncivil behaviour"? Are you again trying to divert attention from all the good information in my reply, by attempting to insinuate that some little thing I wrote has hurt your feelings? You seem to have very thin skin. You can dish it out, but you can't tolerate a civil reply that rebuts your false assumptions and accusations (in what you claim to have been a "legitimate question in a proper and civil way." You got plenty of information in my feedback, but you conveniently ignore that I successfully rebutted and answered your questions.

My very civil and informative reply gets used by you for another attack, where you spew out the follow epithets:

• unprofessional
• uncivil behaviour
• attack
• insult
• un-Wikipedian behaviour
• heavy-handed
• force
• hatred of chiropractic
• uncivil attitudes
• unbecoming
• unsavory behaviour
• "so-called" professional

Look who's talking! Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. -- Fyslee 12:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know what Steth is up to, he promptly followed me and attacked me again, using his typical ingratiating way of approaching other editors, to get them onto his side and against me and other chiroskeptics. I have replied to him there.

My other comments there might be worth reading. The editor in question had apparently forgotten it was the vertebral subluxation (VS) article, and not this Chiropractic article, and had written a lot of stuff about chiropractic, not VS, and added a lot of links about general chiropractic, but not about VS. It's an easy mistake to make, and I'm sure he did it in good faith. I simply explained the situation to him, and then Steth followed me and used the opportunity to attempt to poison the well against me. This is malicious behaviour worthy of a Wikispanking, if not outright banishment to Wikipurgatory....;-). If I wasn't so used to his behaviour, I'd get upset and complain to the higher powers here, but I'll let others do that if they see fit. -- Fyslee 12:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would complain about him if he destroyed the intro again and replaced it with his personal beliefs once again. I hope he will not do it. And I hope he will stick to ad rem arguments rather than to ad personam. Still I don't really know how to complain about him :-) ackoz 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the tidbits (chiropractic sources) I provided on the vertebral subluxation talk page. You all might find them interesting:

• Subluxation: dogma or science?

• A comment on the article above

• Some interesting observations

• Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession

• The Specter of Dogma

• It Works, It Works, It Works!

Other significant articles on the subject:

• Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation

• How Chiropractic Subluxation Theory Threatens Public Health

• Analysis of a Misleading Chiropractic Article in a Major Medical Journal

• Serious pseudoscience

• Subluxations not backed up by proof

Good reading! -- Fyslee 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Colleges in external links

What does the list of colleges in the external links add to the article? External links serve two purposes: to provide further information that Wikipedia itself can not provide; and to help verify the information in the article. I took a quick look though a few of the colleges pages and most of them don't appear to provide much, if any, relevant information that Wikipedia does not already cover. There are already plenty of external links that do an adequate job at providing further information and verifying the content of the article, the list of colleges appears to serve only to bloat the external links section such that it's more difficult to find the useful sites. Unless somebody can think of a reason why they might be useful they should be removed. Joe D (t) 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Science in the lead

"Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."

No one has given proper justification for removing this from the lead. There is nothing in the science section which contradicts the claim. If anyone has evidence of systematic reviews with strict protocols which contradict the claim, then these need to be provided. Mccready 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts not myths

I changed the article to contain the facts not myths about chiropractics. If somebody was creating an article that would claim the gravity doesn't exist and the Earth sucks, I would change it too. Sorry for your loss. Your arguments of editism vandalism revisionism anti-chiropractism and all the -isms are only funny. ackoz 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What are we trying to do here. I've looked at WP policy on NPOV. "The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. ... so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion)." This is what we're aiming at, and I believe it's in all parties' best interests that the introduction should studiously avoid implying any judgements. The judgements are not for us to make, but for the reader to make, informed by the facts and details that are presented fairly in the body of the article. I'm not even going to get into a discussion about whether Ackoz is right or not, because it isn't the point. What is certainly and obviously true is that his views whether right or not are disputed. This is not an issue of censorship - the body of the text gives the relevant facts, and if Ackoz feels that these should be added to then propse these additions to the text. So I'm reverting to Steth's summary, with addition of the CAM label which is a separate issue. Gleng 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, this is not a matter of MY judgement. If I dispute the reality of the Holocaus, and bring a substantial group of supporters (perhapst people who make BIG money by performing anti-holocaustic manipulations on someones ears), will you really think it is a good idea to include the dispute in the first few lines of the article? This is actually a WP:NOT situation, where chiropractors are able to advertise their "healing techniques" as if the efficacy of them was somehow proved - even if there is no single controlled study that would provide us with some evidence that this actually works. One of the users vandalizing the article (i.e. deleting anti-chiropracic link) even used a nickname "chiropractor". Do a search on a PubMed (as I have read your Userpage, I suppose you know what it is) and then post the randomized study that would prove the efficacy of chiropractic treatment here.

As you said, it is not the point to push the things I think are correct to the intro, but what I push there is what the majority of on-the-matter educated people think - it doesn't mean that if we have a bunch of chiropractors here advertising their thing that we should try to reach consensus with them. Revert as violation of WP:NOT.

I'm obviously happy with this version, as it is virtually the same as the version I proposed a while ago. As I said then, although this was my preferred version, I did not think that the alternatives were necessarily POV given the article as a whole. I don't object to facts, only to opinions masquerading as facts, even when I happen to share the opinions. Yes I do know how to use PubMed, and if you want to find out who I am and what I think, you will find it on PubMed, and you won't find any vested interests here, except maybe in science and rigor.Gleng 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Already searched for your name on PubMed. Greetings. ackoz 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering who the "bunch of chiropractors" are who are advertising their thing. -AED 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a qualified chiropractor and the MAJORITY of chiropractors have to believe in subluxions. If they don't then they can't be real chiropractors. Thats why I have changed the introduction. Chiropractor 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

TO AED: You don't see that????? ackoz 10:54, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

So Steth and Chiropractor, who just made his seventh contribution to Wikipedia, are the "bunch of chiropractors"? -AED 17:48, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sure there are more of them. Wanna watch this page and wait? Maybe some other chiropractor comes next week, first deletes the skeptic anti-chiro link from the page and then states that he is a qualified chiropractor on the talk page. Or maybe do a more thorough search in edit history of this page. ackoz 17:58, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

This article has been on my watchlist for about a year; my first edit to the page was a year ago this week. Their have been very few chiropractors who have made steady contributions to the page, nevermind a concerted effort by a bunch of them to push a particular POV. There have also been very few skeptics who are willing to add anything other than criticism to the article. -AED 23:33, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Keep cool, why on earth shouldn't we welcome the contributions of chiropractors, and while you might disagree with Steth's views he's certainly been good at finding weak points in arguments. Personally I think that if an argument is weak it should be strengthened or go, and the article is better either way. Steth has also engaged extensively in Talk. Maybe he's been intemperate at times, but maybe we all seem that way sometimes. We need all sides to contribute to present all sides fairlyGleng 18:17, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome on board Chiropractor. Believe it or not, I happen to think you may be right with your edit. It may well be a majority. About 80% of chiropractors are not members of an organization. The ACA has about 15%, and the ICA, WCA, and NACM make up the other 5%. Even though the ICA and WCA (innatists and subluxationists) are relatively small in membership, they exert a very strong influence, as evidenced by their marketing, the attendance at their seminars (for example, Parker seminars have far larger attendance than ACA seminars), their brochures in chiropractor's offices, and their POV on chiropractic homepages.

While I personally, as a chiroskeptic - along with chiropractic reformers - consider belief in subluxations to be an antiquated belief from the prescientific era, you and I know that these beliefs are very strong today, and are far from dead or held only by a little minority. The occasional articles by chiro reformers who object to subluxation beliefs are always met with a large number of very strong letters of protest. That wouldn't happen if these beliefs were dead. Likewise, the most influential and wealthy members of the profession are believers in vertebral subluxations, and their finanacial base would dry up if their practice building organizations and schools were to admit that there was no such thing as a subluxation. It would be professional suicide!

Your other point is also right on, since "real" chiropractic is defined by a belief in subluxations, and it is still the legal (as in laws of the land!) and philosophical foundation of the profession. A chiropractor who doesn't believe he is "correcting subluxations," is not practicing according to his legal scope of practice, nor is he a "real" chiropractor. That's why reform chiros are in such a connundrum. They have the title, but are practicing like PTs.

The next problem is how to put this information in the article. It needs to be in there, since it is factual and verifiable, but it can't be put in there as if vertebral subluxations are real, in contrast to orthopedic subluxations. It needs to be there as what chiropractors believe to be real. There is a difference. -- Fyslee 20:23, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I would like this included somehow. Being new to Wikipedia I have not had an opportunity to read all the material here. There is an awful lot of it! I never knew that my field was so contentious. I do feel that we must somehow incorporate the view that failing to believe in subluxions means that one isn't a real chiropractor. One cannot be a Christian and not believe in Christ. One cannot be a chiropractor and not believe in subluxions. Even if it is a matter of faith. Frankly in my day to day activities I can cure diseases caused by subluxions. I do not need science to tell me that I can do that. I know I can do that. Chiropractor 02:16, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Introduction - first paragraph

Fyslee,Steth,AED,Gleng,and Ackoz - I too am a chiropractor and have been watching your debate over the last month with great interest. I am very pleased with your work to date and feel that you are doing a great job sifting through the different POV's to arrive at what seems to be a relatively accurate account of chiropractic. As it appears that you all may be taking a break, or burned out=) I have some suggestions for rearranging the first paragraph in the introduction so that it flows better. I don't think I've changed any of the referenced facts, but feel free to change it back if I went too far. I have taken out the "In the U.S. and Canada, chiropractors are also commonly referred to as "doctors of chiropractic" or "chiropractic physicians"." I would put it at the end of the section.

Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, and was based on the belief that all health problems could be prevented and treated using "adjustments" of the spine, and sometimes other joints, to correct what he termed "subluxations". He postulated that these subluxations occurred from nerve compression or "interference" when two adjacent vertebrae became misaligned causing subsequent problems in more distant body parts or organ systems connected by that particular nerve. For a variety of reasons, this one idea has yet to pass scientific muster and has led to controversy among chiropractors and allopaths as well as parts of the scientific community. Regardless, a majority of chiropractors still believe that subluxations play a significant role in all or most diseases and practice accordingly, while others choose to limit their practices to the care of low back and neck pain. -- DeMatt 02:42, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Welcome on board, good to see some fresh enthusiasm; hope you register as a user. Your suggestons look good to me. As you've indicated, I think it's time for me to step away, but I'll be keeping an eye on this for a whileGleng 17:55, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm signed up. Good to be here. Any more comments on the paragraph? I'm ready to put it in if you are.--Dematt 03:23, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

paragraph 2

Check out the end of the first paragraph and beginning of the second. I tried to keep it balanced, let me know if I went I went too far. The original was:

In the U.S. and Canada, chiropractors are also commonly referred to as "doctors of chiropractic" or "chiropractic physicians".

The main chiropractic technique is joint manipulation (called "adjustment"), especially of the spine.

New version:

In the U.S. and Canada, licensed individuals who practice chiropractic are commonly referred to as "chiropractors", "doctors of chiropractic", or "chiropractic physicians".

Initially, the primary chiropractic technique was manipulation of the spine(called "adjustment"). Depending on the chiropractor, today's adjustment may include a broad range of techniques that are directed toward "correcting" subluxations and/or relieving pain.

So far so good? Dematt 04:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

First, I hope my reformatting of your entry didn't change the meaning.

It looks pretty good to me. You have retained the essence and it flows better.

There is one thing that needs attention: manipulation (adjustments) is still the primary chiropractic technique, not just initially. It is so primary that the ACA has openly declared that it is working to get the use of manipulation (in a broad sense) forbidden for all others, including MDs:

“ACA President James A. Mertz, DC, DACBR, said, "With the latest response from HHS, the ACA's lawsuit against the Health Care Financing Administration (HCFA) has reached a critical point. While the ACA views the decision on physical therapists as a victory in itself, our fight is certainly not over. Nobody but a doctor of chiropractic is qualified to perform manual manipulation to correct a subluxation-not a medical doctor, not an osteopath. We will continue to pursue this lawsuit until we're assured that only doctors of chiropractic are allowed to provide this service to Medicare + Choice beneficiaries." (emphasis - Fyslee)

Anyone who is knowledgeable about the finer details of this matter will notice that I (quite deliberately) wrote one thing, while Mertz wrote another:

• I wrote: "...the use of manipulation (in a broad sense)..."
• Mertz wrote: "...perform manual manipulation to correct a subluxation..."

Mertz identified the unique reason for chiropractor's use of adjustments, BUT previous and later history has shown that chiropractors and their associations are interpreting this as I have written ("broadly"), even successfully prosecuting others (including an Arkansas PT) for performing manipulation (for normal reasons, not chiropractic "correction of subluxation" reasons) at all. This reveals the real intent: to get control of manipulation, no matter who does it, or for what reason.

So....taking this (the primacy of the method) into account, I'd like to slightly modify your version, and hear what you think about it:

In the U.S. and Canada, licensed individuals who practice chiropractic are commonly referred to as "chiropractors", "doctors of chiropractic", or "chiropractic physicians".

The primary chiropractic technique is joint manipulation of the spine (called "adjustment"). Depending on the chiropractor, today's adjustment may include a broad range of techniques that are directed toward "correcting" subluxations and/or relieving pain.

I have attempted to retain your wording as much as possible, while modifying the first few words of the second sentence, and Wikilinking "subluxations." You have successfully incorporated all of the key elements of the legal framework under which chiropractors work (in the USA) - "manual manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation." This is important and you have done it well.

"The only thing that makes a chiropractor distinct and unique is their ability to locate and correct the vertebral subluxation." - Eric McKillican D.C.

This uniqueness needs to be plainly elucidated in this article. You have captured it above, and it could be elaborated even more in the article.

Comments please. -- Fyslee 20:32, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent - You are absolutely right.

I changed yours some to try and hint at the fact that chiropractic has evolved into several additional techniques while still respecting those who use only manipulation as the adjustment("straight" chiros as an example). At the same time, it includes those who use other techniques (regardless of their beliefs as to why) in leui of manipulation, such as activator to correct the subluxation. I am not fond of the word "joint". It sounds so oversimplified and I'm not sure I can sell that to chiros. Is that something that is important to you? Can we leave it as "manipulation of the spine" Or maybe think of another word? How about this:

The initial chiropractic technique was manipulation of the spine(called "adjustment") and remains the primary technique even today. Depending on the chiropractor, current techniques may also include a broad range of methods that are directed toward "correcting" subluxations and/or relieving pain.

Your Mertz comments are valid and are at the cutting edge of this entire article and probably of both professions. I suppose chiropractic, in an effort to validate itself, has inadvertantly been comparing itself to physical therapy. Ultimately that would be an attack on physical therapists. I truly apologize for that. The funny thing is, we probably work really well together. You guys have never gotten the respect you deserve either.

Mertz's comment was not an accident, as you know. You don't make a comment like that without choosing your words very carefully. IMO, it is "true". For those who may not know, federal law governs Medicare reimbursement for senior citizens in the US. The law was written about 30 years ago - before the Wilk anti-trust case. It was a hard fought battle with a strong AMA presence that apparently resulted in a political compromise limiting the reimbursement. Chiropractors were to be paid only to treat subluxations with manual manipulation of the spine. Since no-one else diagnosed or treated subluxations, this was not an immediate problem. However, with the advent of managed care in the late 1990's, Medicare attempted to allow anyone to treat subluxations with manual manipulation of the spine, opening the door for it's managed care arm to contract with PT's, Osteopaths and MD's to perform spinal manipulation on patients diagnosed with subluxation. The concern is that PT's, Osteopaths and MD's don't acknowledge the existence of subluxation, so how could they treat them. These patients would be sucked into a system and the chiropractic benefit would be essentially lost.

The subluxation is the difference between what you do and what I do. With subluxation, we don't treat each other's patients and everybody is happy (other than a few light bulb jokes). But if this is to work, we all must work to integrate the vitalistic concept of subluxation into a model that works for everybody. But that's another story for the future. Are we on the same page?

Keep it up! Dematt 04:09, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

We're definitely on the same page. Getting the various viewpoints represented is important. Straight chiros deserve to get their POV represented just as much as any other group in the chiro spectrum of things, and of course other techniques deserve mention, which you have also done.

It's good you caught the "joints" thing. That was a sort of "typo," that didn't get fletted in properly when I tried to modify your good start.

I like your version very much. It reads easily, includes the essential elements, and is encyclopedic.

Here it is, with "subluxations" Wikilinked. The only other change is the moving of a few commas in the last half of the first sentence. Just move them back if I'm wrong. (I've been living in Denmark for the last 23 years, so my grammar and punctuation aren't always correct.)

Latest version:

In the U.S. and Canada, licensed individuals who practice chiropractic are commonly referred to as "chiropractors," "doctors of chiropractic," or "chiropractic physicians."

The initial chiropractic technique was manipulation of the spine (called "adjustment") and remains the primary technique even today. Depending on the chiropractor, current techniques may also include a broad range of methods that are directed toward "correcting" subluxations and/or relieving pain.

Regarding Mertz .... he was extremely precise, much more precise than was perceived by most. He hit the nail right on the head, both philosophically and legislatively. He identified what is the unique part of the chiropractic scope of practice. I understood it immediately, but by then the APTA had already responded. They didn't understand the finer nuances of Mertz's statement, and reacted in a blundering manner. The AMA (they think they're invincible) probably didn't even understand that anything was going on....;-) Of course politicians.....they understand nothing about such matters. That's the way it goes!

The one thing that is absolutely essential to an understanding of real chiropractic is an understanding of "The Big Idea." Whether one agrees with it or not, one cannot understand chiropractic if one doesn't understand this concept. (B.J. Palmer and Fred Barge (may he rest in peace), etc., are the ones to read.)

Understanding is the basis for any cooperative effort, even when there is disagreement. One does not have to agree with a concept in order to be able to discuss it, as long as one understands it: "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." -Aristotle

The wording in the original Medicare legislation wasn't just a "compromise," but involved a carefully laid trap that backfired on an AMA doctor named Doyl Taylor. The behind-the-scenes story is found here. It's quite interesting:

• Some Notes on Subluxations and Medicare

-- Fyslee 11:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Lets put those two sentences in. We may need some help with the comma thing:0 Anyone who knows for sure please feel free to fix it.

The next part is going to get a little dicier, but we should be able to work through it. I think I can work to get the same facts out without leaving the reader with a negative sense. I'll work on the first draft tonight.

On "Some Notes on Subluxations and Medicare". Pretty much the way I remember it. The statements made by chiros in the OIG review were similar to those I heard at conventions, district meetings and even written throughout chiro magazines. My opinion was certainly on the list;)

Obviously I wasn't privy to the upper level discussions and can't comment on them, other than that was the rumor that I eluded to above with Medicare. To have a name, Doyl Taylor, attached certainly drives it home for me.

IMO the article reflects a fair assessment from a OIG POV. It was honest and thorough. From a MD POV, I'm sure it looks like chiros are criminals(though incredibly candid). From a chiro POV, it confirms the conspiracy to keep chiropractic down by the AMA. Not to mention it confirms Gabriel Biel's famous quote, "Pro tali numismate tales merces".

The question has to be asked; "What would have happened to the subluxation concept, and thus chiropractic had the AMA let nature take it's course?". It's interesting to see that the make notice about the 18% increase, but don't you wonder what the meidcal % increase was? We can only imagine. But, that probably depends on your POV, too:) Dematt 16:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

A divided profession deserves a sectioned article

I have long contended that chiropractic is a very divided profession, and the controversies have been just as strong within as without. To do the subject justice, I see no other way than to identify the key subjects of contention, then present the various POV on each contention. This would amount to enlarging the Straights, Mixers, and Reformers sections. That way each group would have a legitimate place to present its viewpoint.

An alternative (maybe more realistic) would be to have three articles, with this one representing the middle (Mixer) position. Then viewpoints that are clearly more representative of Straights or Reformers could be mentioned very briefly and linked to the appropriate article, where the matter can be dealt with in depth.

I suspect that Straights would appreciate this, since the FSCO probably doesn't feel this article is doing them (the "keepers of the flame") justice:

• The Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations

Vertebral Subluxation Correction:

Nothing More - Nothing Less - Nothing Else

Reformers would also find this to be a better solution, as the other (two) articles will tend to paint the profession as backwards and old-fashioned:

• National Association for Chiropractic Medicine

-- Fyslee 18:43, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

A self-serving suggestion

I believe expanding and dividing an article on chiropractic into several sections, would result in discussing endless minutia in even more excruciating detail. This esoteric information would be of little interest to most people and would only leave the door open to more confusion and POVs, resulting in eyes glazing over.

It would appeal to a very small group of people with fanatical anti-chiropractic views who have made the study of the history of chiropractic a full-time occupation. My sense is that it would be a copy and paste of the several hypercritical sites and blogs already out there by a few connected with the medical field, that feel chiropractic is the greatest danger to mankind ever discovered. These sites are available to anyone already, so making Wikipedia a soapbox and link repository to these sites, as has already happened and would happen again, would be exactly what Wikipedia is not about.

In my view, NPOV cannot be expected from an American physical therapist living in Denmark. Since Fyslee is the only editor here who owns websites and blogs with severely anti-chiropractic messages, he has even publicly stated in these Talk pages that he despises (his word) chiropractic, I am extremely skeptical about his suggestion. All it will create would be, yet more, new outlets for links to sites that he is the webmaster/assistant webmaster/ moderator/ manager or has other relationships with. He has already demonstrated this abuse by sprinkling Wikipedia with dozens of links (anyone know the exact number?) to an ex-psychiatrist’s website, with whom he has a close personal relationship with, and creating a WP article that is an homage to this person.

Given the evidence of his anti-chiropractic agenda, blogs/sites, as well as his participation in activities that harm the chiropractic profession and attempt to dehumanize chiropractors and their patients, it is my conclusion that he is incapable of NPOV and his suggestion will end up becoming a self-serving opportunity.Steth

Yet another example of Steth's ad hominem attacks, insults, false insinuations and allusions (without proof), and general poisoning the well against me. He has done all he can to prevent significant minority viewpoints from being represented in the article, but maybe now that real chiros are represented here this will stop. -- Fyslee 05:24, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I would go with the first option. You guys have been working so hard and are very close to finishing this thing. And besides, more links would just be more opportunities for bigger and better advertising.

I think there is room enough in this article for all POV's. If you have a degree from a chiropractic college, like it or not, you are a chiropractor. You have just as much right to have this 'chiropractic' article describe what you do as anyone else. Personally, I have friends in each of the categories (straights,mixers,reformers, PTs, and MDs) and all of them play a pretty good round of golf, not to mention they are good people. The funny thing is that we are all skeptics. I do agree that expounding on the straight, mixer, reform (and maybe even the new FysleePOV category) could allow all to express themselves and end up with a balanced article Talk:Chiropractic#Practice styles and schools of thought.... Other than the already hashed out ground rules that you have so painstakenly set up, I don't think it would work unless each section could only describe themselves without bashing the others;) I may be dreaming though.Dematt 03:15, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. Expand the article to reflect majority and significant minority POVs, but forking is a big no-no. -AED 04:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

AED, you're quite right. There should be no forking! (I was suggesting separate articles, since these differences can be significant.) But I still consider the first option to be the best one. This would involve editors who are willing to allow "the article to reflect majority and significant minority POVs." Right now we have a mix of editors, and some of them have held that their private POV is a NPOV, and attempted to prevent the article itself from mentioning "significant minority POV." Fortunately we now have some real chiropractors to help. They know that there is controversy, and they can make sure that all POV are represented. -- Fyslee 05:16, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It sounds to me as though Dematt has a vision that would really enliven this article and make it a lot more interesting and informative. Could do with more illustrations somewhere?Gleng 08:22, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

This page needs major improvement!

Hi all, new here so bare with me. First off, I am a chiropractor. I graduated from Palmer/Davenport in 1999. My interest is keeping this as fare and unbiased as possible. I see a lot of room for improvement. Compared to other pages with controversial topics, they seem rather simplified and easy to understand. The chiro page reads like a confusing and quite opinionated piece of work, which I understand is not supposed to be the intention of WP.

The first paragraph is mildly derogatory. Why the need to state it is controversial. Most things are. That is a given. You don't see other topics with an obvious controversy needing to state that in their opening...it needs to go. I saw in a previous talk piece about using the ACC position paper as a first paragraph. It is concise and was signed by all the college presidents, even the ones at both spectrums of this debate. An anti-chiro said it sounded too scientific...? Maybe they could clarify before I change it. Thanks. -- Hughgr 20:01, 20 April 2006

Hello Hughgr, great that you want to participate. First off, I am a sceptic - I do not believe in things that should be possible to prove yet they stay unproved and are only supported by beliefs (that is why I dont believe in telekinetic manipulations but I do believe in God). What I believe in is, that Chiropractors can help - with back pain etc, but are extremely dangerous when it comes to anything else, for they can cause a delay before the patient in need of a rapid treatment sees an MD who can actually treat him (search for such case reports and studies on PubMed). For me, the most important information is not what chiropractic can do, but what it CANNOT do. People with a tumor seeing a chiropractor have obviously been misguided somehow. However, I do not deny you the right to express your own POV in the article, so that the reader will be able to choose for himself.

Anyway, there is nothing more controversial than a "science", which is NOT accepted anywhere in the world except from two countries. And it wouldn't exist in those two countries either, if it wasn't so well paid. That is why

• I oppose deletion of the controversy statement. ackoz 20:31, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi ackoz, thanks for the timely reply and thanks for the "upfront" comment on being a skeptic. I am curious if anything could sway your opinion of having the first paragraph changed.

Your example of a patient having cancer is interesting. Do you mean someone should not have a choice of their treatment, or that chiropractors may miss the diagnosis, or that the body doesn't have the ability to "cure" cancer by itself? Why aren't you concerned about what chiropractic CAN do is interesting as well.

A controversial science? Three points taken from Dr. Virgil Strang's book on chiropractic. He was a past president of PCC.

1. Homeostasis - living things tend towards a stable internal environment. In any ever-changing external environment, the internal environment remains relatively constant.
2. The role of the nervous system. It is widely recognized that the nervous system is the bodies master control system. How does the heart "know" what the legs are doing?
3. Fault musculoskeletal relationships can cause neuropathies. In other words, the control system has lost some of it's control. Invariably, without control, there is chaos. Isn't this why cancers are so bad, they are outside of the control mechanism of the body.

And finally, being accepted around the world, I'm sure in all your chiropractic research, you've learned that chiropractic is recognized in more than two countries. Be honest please. -- Hughgr 21:46, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Answers to your points:

• That is right, homeostasis is in fact maintained by the CNS. But at the time when chiropractic was invited, people didn't know much about the CNS or PNS functioning. That's why they must have thought that the problems are in the wires (nerves). You must admit, that if there is a ion/energy dysbalance caused by nervous system malfunctioning, 99.9% of the cases (secondary Cushing, central hyperthyreoidism, diabetes insipidus etc..) will be caused by brain lesions, not lesions of spinal cord or spinal roots.
• Again, you are right somehow, but chiropractic overstresses the importance of semi-blocked wires ie mild PNS lesions.
• If you bang your head against the wall, you will probably remain conscious. BUT the nervous system will be affected somehow, and the impact will create some degree of chaos. That doesn't mean that you can get cancer from banging your head against the wall. You can, and probably will get cancer if your immune system is somehow "banged on" - by radiation, HIV, drugs etc - the growth of your cells is NOT guarded primarily by the nerves, but by the NK cells. And the NK cells are not in a direct contact with the PNS.
• What I am trying to tell you, is that I know, that the nervous system is the master control system of the body, but chiropractors only try to affect the periferal part of it and, moreover, overemphasize it's meaning - you can have a beating heart with dead brain, you can have a transplanted heart with no nervous control over it and still functioning, the whole immune system is influenced only very indirectly by the nervous system etc.. if you want some holistic aproach, you shouldn't stick to the wires.
• The cancer thing - it is certainly true that the body has the potential to elminate cancer cells - to some extent and under some circumstances. But typically, the patient will be seeking help when he is already loosing the battle and starts having symptoms. At that point, the immune system (the only cells of human body that can actually kill other cells of your body are the NKs) already lost the battle, and must be helped. Any delay caused by performing spinal manipulation instead of proper exam, workup and treatment is dangerous, as the disease can become untreatable with time.

I don't have no hatred towards chiropractic or chiropractors. I just don't believe in it and I think it is controversial and dangerous. You have your own POV and both of those should be equally represented here - to create the neutral POV for the reader. I am looking forward to your answers. ackoz 22:47, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hughgr,

Welcome aboard. Hope you have plenty of time to follow through with this. I think removing the "beware of the the chiropractor" warning is a good thing, too.

Here are two other suggestions to work with. In fact one of these was used earlier, but then later changed by those who object to everything unless it casts aspersions on chiropractic:

1) Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

2)A drugless health care profession with a relatively broad diagnostic practice scope and a treatment scope that emphasizes structure and function of the body’s musculoskeletal framework and the relationship this has to health, in general. The practice of chiropractic is closely associated with spinal manipulation, a key intervention, but the range of services provided can include physiotherapy, lifestyle and dietary counseling, a variety of myofacial and rehabilitation approaches, as well as alternative medical procedures such as acupuncture and homeopathy. State jurisdictional regulations, the training which a chiropractor has received and individual practice preferences determine the specific practice patterns of individual chiropractors.

Also could Ackoz tell us how he knows that delay of treatment is a big problem. IOW, are there numbers that show this to be a problem or that chiropractic is as dangerous as he states it to be?

There are numbers about preventable deaths from medical errors: Death by Medicine. Is chiropractic a problem of similar size? Thanks Steth 22:59, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steth, please read these few abstracts on pubmed first before you talk again:

PMID 16436942

PMID 10199269

PMID 16398590

PMID 8328326

Sorry Steth, I am really starting to dislike your ad personam type of argumentation. "Also could Ackoz tell us .. " whatever. In your suggestions, you are pushing your POV and advertising chiropractic over medicine, and chiropractors do need patients to pay their bills, so advertising this is WP:NOT - no advertising .. again, whatever. The others of us who think that chiropractic doesn't work also don't write "it's all crap etc" in the first paragraph.

One more thing - medical doctors DO save lives, they DO occassionally put the various organs of people who are stupid enough to ride a motorbike on a highway back into their bodies and the people live on. (You wouldn't use spinal manipulation on a wound would you?) They even know how to prolong lives of people by using medicaments (and I suspect that drugs are what you hate the most), and these effects are proved by controlled trials. If something goes wrong sometimes, someone makes a mistake, it doesn't mean that the whole thing is wrong. You can check on - for instance, childhood ALL mortality 30 years ago and now. The difference is 80% as all the children died back then, now 80% survive with the help of doctors, not chiropractors. Moreover, chiropractic techniques also have complications and some chiropractors are also quite clueless - there are cases of strokes after VBI or epidural hematomas etc. Its like medicine but smaller as there are less chiropractors. But you see the world in black and white. ackoz 23:32, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

-They still don’t know everything about the nervous system, but it’s role in controlling and coordinating the body is indisputable.

-How can we chiro’s “overstress” the importance of the above?

-You seem to think that because there is no direct nerve to the cell ie.NK cells, that there isn’t any influence. I could point out chemicals released into the bloodstream as an example, but I’m sure you already know about those.

-Only affecting the peripheral part of the N.S.? Again I’ll quote from Dr. Strang’s book,

"On occasion, critics will observe that a spinal adjustment cannot affect certain areas –like the brain- because the spinal nerves do not extend into the encephalon. This kind of statement reveals an incomplete understanding of neural anatomy. Sympathetic nerves arising in the lateral horns of the upper thoracic levels of the spine form the upper cervical ganglion with postganglionic fibers ascending to supply, among other things, blood vessels of the brain."

To gain a cursory appreciation of the breadth, power and complexity of the nervous system, one only has to look at the hypothalamus. Gray’s Anatomy makes these observations regarding the hypothalamus:

"The hypothalamus is the head ganglion of the autonomic nervous system. More recently, intensive investigation has not only confirmed in greater detail the controls exerted by the hypothalamus on the endocrine system and the lower autonomic centres, but has also emphasized that hypothalamic action depends upon afferent (sensory) information channels, both nervous and vascular, and that it is interlocked, both structurally and functionally, with higher regions of the nervous system….In mammalian, the frontal cortex, limbic system, hypothalamus, and lower regions of the brainstem and spinal cord are conveniently regarded as forming a hierarchy of controls particularly directed towards those homeostatic cycles, which are mediated by the autonomic nervous system, the endocrine system, and the locomotor patterns associated with them." Grey’s Anatomy p.971”

Why can’t we use the ACC POSITION ON CHIROPRACTIC signed by every chiropractic college president:

"Chiropractic is a health care discipline which emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body to heal itself without the use of drugs or surgery.

The practice of chiropractic focuses on the relationship between structure (primarily the spine) and function (as coordinated by the nervous system) and how that relationship affects the preservation and restoration of health. In addition, Doctors of Chiropractic recognize the value and responsibility of working in cooperation with other health care practitioners when in the best interest of the patient."

This should be the opening paragraph, nothing more, nothing less. Yes there are disagreements within the profession on the scope of, and role of chiropractic. But this has been agreed upon by a broad consensus, thus is the most articulate.

The history section needs to be edited as well. The whole piece of D.D. Palmer should be on the D.D. Palmer page, not here. If memory serves, he wasn’t even at Palmer at the time. In fact, the letter referenced shows he was in Oregon. This is an obvious attempt to portray chiropractic in a bad light.

Hi Steth, “our work cut out” is the understatement of the year, and it’s only April.J -- Hughgr 00:01, 21 April 2006

One good reason for not using the ACC position is that it is a Chiropractic POV (point of view) whereas the article on Wikipedia should reflect the NPOV (neutral point of view). This means - me and you and all the people should settle on something that would reflect both our POVs, not only one. Otherwise we can do the edit and revert and edit and revert wars. It doesn't matter what I believe in, or what you believe in, coz I think I am right and you think you are. If the DD Palmer section is wrong, correct it and provide sources. See WP:NPOV for reference.

ackoz 00:49, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Of course it's chiropractic POV. The TITLE is CHIROPRACTIC. I'm sure you didn't miss this.I'd be interested to see if other pages have a "controversial" statement in their opening.

I never said D.D.'s info was not correct. I said it doesn't belong here. It's from 1910 and after he'd left the school. This is 2006. I will move it to the D.D. Palmer page.

By the way, I'll be waiting for your POV on my last entry, thanks. -- Hughgr 01:45, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the references Ackoz. I believe that medicine does an unbelievable job at organ transplants, Emergency department, reattaching fingers,etc. with microsurgery, etc., etc. Truly amazing stuff. I would want to go the ED of my hospital without hesitation if the need arises. Who wouldn't? Chiropractors would.

I was asking you how you know that all of chiropractic is a big problem. Are people getting killed, dropping dead, being injured in droves, like you imply? Likely, most tumors are missed by MDs anyway.

I was just politely asking you how you knew, and was wondering if you could point us to where the information was. That's all, no need to get all emotional and insulting on us now.

Hughgr, do you have any friends that might like to add their input here? They are more than welcome, you know.

BTW, Ackoz, Fyslee is sleeping now and cannot be disturbed....shhh! Dreaming in Denmark

Hughgr, please feel free to go ahead and make some changes to the article, and we will give you our input. BTW, do you have any friends that might like to add their input here? They are more than welcome, you know. Steth 02:00, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sure there are others that will want to have an input as well. I went ahead and made some changes to the history portion. I'm not good with making links and such, so anyone can help. I'll check tomorrow to see if ackoz has responded to my earlier reply. Good day. -- Hughgr 03:06, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I am confident that Ackoz will reply with some friendly suggestions, so be sure to check back bright and early. Fyslee will also be one of the Welcome Ladies, I am sure.

BTW, nice edits. Perhaps you could also work a little on the lead paragraph, too. Don't forget, tell your friends! G'night Steth 03:16, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

2 Hughgr: Come on, don't say that you don't get it. It shouldn't be the chiropractic POV. The article about Nazism also shouldn't be written from the Nazist POV. Well that might be a pretty strong example and I dont want to compare chiropractic and nacism, but it's just to illustrate the point of NPOV.

Steth, you are welcome. You know that the only problem I have with chiropractic (compared to medicine etc) is that most of its effects cannot be proved in controlled trials. This is weird, as if you want to start selling a drug, you must test it and prove the efficacy and reliability. If you want to start some new type of operation, you must do the trial aswell. Even old traditional treatment protocols were tested and abandonned if found unreliable.

Could you both now answer my question: How did chiropractic avoid this EBM testing? Is it a cult? Is it a religion? Coz I dont see no other explanation.

ackoz 08:31, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

This article is clearly in for some interesting times. I'd just like to try to head off an edit war and to try to avoid the kind of nasty personal exchange that puts people off from contributing; there's no reason we can't all get on, inded, we have to, whether we agree or not.

First, please assume good faith; if we argue, we're testing out positions, finding out what the facts are, and what is verifiable, what seems like an attack can always be taken as a challenge to prove your ground by verifiable reputable sources, and this will lead to a stronger article; we need critics, without challenge you'll just get a flabby article with no interest and no authority.

Second, what's in the article may not be perfect, but start by adding material, not deleting material. Add additional verifiable information freely. Delete or change material that is demonstrably factually inaccurate, edit to express it more clearly, add reputable sources for facts, but don't delete without discussion. If you think that something is inaccurate but can't show that it's indisputably wrong, challenge it first on the Talk page, to allow the editor who introduced it to show sources.

Please leave the lead alone for now, it's been through too much discussion and argument already; the lead should express the whole article, if the article is going to evolve then the lead can change after that. It's something to come back to after the article has got bigger and richer, tackling this again now will be premature and just exhausting and unproductive. As for the history, maybe there will come a time to take it out into a separate article on History of chiropractic, or into the biographies; at the moment this article is still short for its potential scope, and the History section gives it life and spark.

I don't know much about chiropractic, but what I see in the Talk pages, from all editors, from the chiropractors and skeptics, is a lot of interesting, information, live issues, and debate that needs to find its way into the article. WP MUST NOT hide disputes, the article shouldn't take sides, but should try to characterise the disputes and disagreements fairly and objectively, all the time giving the facts and verifiable sources for any claims that might be disputed. Any idea that this article should try to sell chiropractic is as wrong as any idea that this article should set out to ridicule it.

So please, add to the article,the more the better, the article needs raw material to work with and develop. Needs pictures too please.

And please, find stuff that's interesting ; the list of colleges is worthy but it's not exactly bedtime reading, not going to make anyone want to know more. Sometimes, things that seem to be mischievous are worth leaving in because they will provoke interest; I like the account of the conflicting stories of the origin of chiropractic - it is well sourced and verifiable, it makes people come alive, it feels true, and it makes things human - lots of scientific advances started in this sort of way, maybe by accident, maybe with a lot of historical revisionism in the telling over the years, and it's more likely to make people want to find out more about chiropractic and about Palmer for themselves. Gleng 09:24, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry - another thing, if you really could heal everything by influencing the nervous system, why don't you use the eye? Eye is much more connected to the brain, in fact it is a diencephalic evagination. Don't tell me that I could cause cancer by punching someone in the eye. ackoz 09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again ackoz. First, who reverted my change to the History section? Second, your adherence to better scientific controlled studies is commendable, although perhaps a bit mis-guided as well. While double blind studies are the current gold standard for testing a new drug, or old, and surgical techniques, it is NOT without flaws and limited in what can be tested. For example, while the best designed study can rule out most bias, the results from said test are still SUBJECTIVE in the interpretation of the RESULTS. What do I mean? Take the results from any test, show the results to 10 people, more than likely, more than one of those 10 will interpret the results differently. Your assertion that with negative results that abandonment of ineffective treatment would cease. I would like to point out a study that was done by the Houston Veterans Affairs Medical Center a few years ago. A popular (300,000 per year) knee surgery was tested, and by all means failed the test as the results were no better than a placebo, yet this surgery is still performed. Why?

Could you cause cancer by punching someone in the eye? I’ll give you that it is unlikely, but perhaps two points could be taken under consideration. One, cancers are more likely in areas of high cellular division. If said injury to the eye caused damage to the cells, couldn’t you deductively come to the conclusion that said risk of cancer is increased, however slight, and without doing a controlled clinical trial? Second, in reference to my above example of the hypothalamus being dependent upon nervous and vascular messages from the body, if said punch to the eye caused a vertebral subluxation somewhere in the cervical region, interfering with the transmission of afferent (sensory) impulses from the body, it is reasonable to conclude that the hypothalamic release of hormones would NOT be of the correct quantity in response the that bodies needs. Now, if the hypothalamus has an effect on the ovaries via the release of FSH and LH, would if be too far of a leap for you to come the conclusion that the ovaries production of estrogen would be incorrect. Now the excess of estrogen has been shown to be related to an increased risk of breast cancer. Could you follow that line of reasoning?

If chiropractic a cult or religion? You must be kidding. I’m going to ignore that statement as I find it inflammatory and insulting seeking only to incite or ridicule my position as a chiropractor.

Now, finally back to the opening statement. After a cursory search of other controversial topics covered in WP, I could find NO other examples of their needing to add the statement that their topic is controversial in the opening paragraph. It is taken as a given that most things are controversial and opposing points of view are discussed further down on the page. My main problem with the opening paragraph is that it does little to inform the reader of what chiropractor does. I don’t have a problem with the factual part of it, simply that it doesn’t add a lot to inform the reader about chiropractic. Would there be any objection to my adding to it, or can I expect any changes I make to the page, as a chiropractor and not an ant-chiropractic heretic, expect to be reverted? Your reply should be interesting, none the less.--Hughgr 18:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Sorry not much time right now .. just for the "who reverted" I didn't, you can always check on the history tab. Greetings. ackoz 19:48, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Ok .. first, it was not me who reverted your edits, you can find the nick and his reasons stated on the history page.

Second, the answer to your question: why the knee surgery is still performed : is either money, or money, or money, or perhaps is the study perceived as biased.. somehow, that can happen. I am not familiar with this and I am not going to study this just in order to find (or not to find) an argument against you. Here's the lowdown:

• You believe in vertebral subluxations, your arguments are logical.
• I dont believe in vertebral subluxations because I dont think that the subluxation does so much damage to the spinal nerve root to cause any trouble (unless there is a real compression).

It is a matter of POV. I also believe there is only one truth, and I will always say that you are wrong. BUT you have the same right to express your "truth" here as I do. The decision is upon the reader to make.

The other things are unimportant to the article (ie we can use the arguments about the studies and their necessity in chiropractic and interpetation, but we are only persuading each other about our "truths" = POVs). You certainly admit that my POV is shared by quite some amount of people, so you should accept that if we want to maintain the neutral point of view, which is an official wikipedia policy (see WP:NPOV), we should include both POVs in the lead.

Here are my suggestions:

• You (chiropractors) will propose a new lead for the article on this talk page, we will discuss it and during that, we will also try to include "my" POV into the lead. OR, if you would be so nice, you can try to include "my" POV in the lead yourself. After we find the ideal words, we will put it into the article.
• We ("anti-chiros" :-) will add a table into the article or another section, and list the 10 most important "FOR" and "AGAINST" arguments we have used here. We have to find out which arguments are the most important. We should be able to provide sources for the arguments. There is no need to discuss our arguments, if they are all listed on the page.

Other users too, please state if you Support/Oppose + reason + signature below like me.

• Strongly support (these are my suggestions). ackoz 20:19, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at the history but my "new-ness" to this forum is showing. Could somebody tell me here who reverted my editing, please.

-In regards to the knee surgury, your apathy to search for fault in your own arguement; your quote "I am not going to study this just in order to find (or not to find) an argument against you" is very telling of your desire to besmirch chiropractic with your case. When fault is pointed out to you in YOUR EXAMPLE, you are disinterested in researching furthur. Very scientific of you.

-You state my arguements are logical but it won't change your opinion. Isn't that the definition of insanity?

--There is more than the "nerve compression" hypothesis. For yours, and others reading this, there are 9 currently hypothesised means of interferrence to nerve transmission. In no particular order:

• Nerve compression hypothesis
• Propriceptive insult hypothesis
• Somotosympathetic reflex hypothesis
• Somato-somatic reflex hypothesis
• Viscerosomatic reflex hypothesis
• Neurodystrophic hypothesis
• Dentate ligament-cord distortion hypothesis
• Psychogenic hypothesis

(if the reader is interested on an example of research done on an example of vertebral subluxation, other than the compression hypothesis, this is interesting [15]

What are you asking to vote on. A bit of clarificaton please. And where have all the other detractors gone since I've come in here.

And finally, I hope it's becoming clear to people reading this, I have not used POV, but rather scientific examples for the use of, and need for furthur research of chiropractic. Any comments are appreciated.--Hughgr 21:11, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation

I can see that you guys are discussing VS.

I think the scientific approach using good research is the way forward. On that we are agreed. I am disturbed by the example you (Hughgr) have chosen (which, BTW, is interesting), simply because it is a familiar example of chiropractic "research": It starts (backwards) with a premise that is assumed to be true (right in the title!), and then seeks to prove it, instead of seeking to find the facts, even if they were to prove the assumption to be incorrect.

Since you determined the topic and provided an "example of research done on an example of vertebral subluxation," I'll let another chiropractor provide his opinion of these types of lists (not specifically this one) regarding the topic of vertebral subluxation:

While many factors contribute to this crisis in chiropractic, foremost is an issue of perceived credibility, or lack thereof. As the world moves steadily towards an evidencebased model of validating health care services chiropractic stands relatively empty handed. When policy makers ask for credible evidence for our claims we reflexively offer a mystical model of subluxation silliness and then wonder why we are criticized.

A current chiropractic fad sees the subluxation as having three, five, seven, or nine “components”. (my emphasis - Fyslee) The number depending on the whim and motives of the promoter. These “components” have impressive sounding nomenclatures such as myopathology, histopathology, etc. By substituting complexity for substance proponents of this model imply that these “components” uniquely identify, define, and somehow validate the concept of subluxation.

In reality these “components” are just generalized physiological descriptors that apply equally to any joint injury anywhere in the body. These “components” are not unique to the spine, do not correlate with general body health, and do not confirm subluxation. But since we need something to justify our existence, and since we are loath to submit to a credible scientific model, we instead conjure up and hide behind vague “components” that fail to predict health status.

We then proceed with a infinite number of incoherent and conflicting methods to identify these spinal “booboos”. We follow that up with an equal number of exotic “techniques” to excoriate these “spinal demons”. These methods of “analysis” and treatment of the holy subluxation are more dependent on the promotional personality of the “technique” peddler than they are upon credible evidence. All too often these “analysis“ and “technique” methods and gadgets are packaged and sold to students and practitioners with a messianic fervor that obscures their lack of credible verification.

Evidence continues to accumulate that joint manipulation procedures can be beneficial for many specified musculo-skeletal conditions. This in no way validates the theological dogma of subluxation. The benefits of manipulation are achievable by other practitioners outside of chiropractic without any reliance on the mystical nonsense associated with subluxation. This sobering realization should itself be enough to give subluxation addicts pause for thought.

Dr. Carter observes that “evidence for subluxation is almost non-existent in peer reviewed data.” The only thing sadder than this is the absence of a collective critical thinking mass that can guide our profession out of this morass. Addiction to antiquated tradition all too often takes precedence. Had the medical profession followed a similar model they would still be relying on blood letting as their primary approach to treatment. Dr. Carter’s commentary is a breath of fresh air offering hope that a shift towards professional critical thinking in chiropractic is possible. It is time to assign subluxation theology to the dustbin of history.

Lon Morgan, DC, DABCO

J Can Chiropr Assoc 2000; 44(3) Letters to the Editor

http://www.ccachiro.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/Letters+to+the+Editor-September+2000/$file/10-Letters.pdf

-- Fyslee 22:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr suggestion to add to lead..

I have no problem with you adding to it. I would suggest you make your additions here in the talk section first though, let everyone look at it, make their pros and cons, and then change it accordingly. You would have more of a chance of it not getting "fried"=) A little friendly discussion can only help the final product anyway.

Keep in mind that you are not alone here and this is still a work in progress. From what I'm seeing, you've got some good input, and I would love to hear it, but take your time and let everybody digest your information. A lot of it has already been discussed and with new proof, perhaps some could be brought up again. So go through the archives and see what's been done already.

A lot of thoughful people have been gathering information, making suggestions and sifting through mounds of information. Most of them have been working for months. Don't destroy their work, add what you think will make it more real, but be ready to back it up. There are people on the other side of the world that won't see this till you're fast asleep and we need to hear from them, too. So wait a day.

Remember, some of them have never been to a chiropractor and are only advancing what they have read or heard. Some are in direct competition with chiropractors, etc., etc.., So there are as many POV's as there are people. All look at chiropractic from different vantage points. And as the word suggests, that is the "ad"vantage to this forum. Your POV is from the inside of chiropractic, that is important, but no more important than any other POV outside chiropractic. Sure, I know "but medicine isn't any better", you and I both know that(..and so do they), but this is about chiropractic. When we're done here, we can move over to the medicine or even the PT site and have some fun:)

BTW, you will probably notice that there are several hundred different POV's within chiropractic as well:) You have some convincing to do. You might even learn something about chiropractic, or at least what others think about chiropractic, that you did not know. Dematt 20:40, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt, I appreciate the input. Thanks for the suggestion, I will wait longer in the future to see if additional input is given to suggested changes. But, if someone reverts without adding anything here, what then? BTW the changes I made were to the history section. I didn't delete, just moved some info and added my own. I fully realize the varying schools within chiropractic and I will do my best to represent them. This is why I am suggesting the lead being re-worked.

--For those interested, [16] the ACC position paper on chiropractic is a consensus that every chiropractic college president within the USA, signed within a few years ago. I'd say that makes for a broad enough definition.

The current lead is:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.

The lead I'm suggesting is:

Chiropractic is a health care discipline which emphasizes the inherent recuperative power of the body to heal itself without the use of drugs or surgery.

The practice of chiropractic focuses on the relationship between structure (primarily the spine) and function (as coordinated by the nervous system) and how that relationship affects the preservation and restoration of health. In addition, Doctors of Chiropractic recognize the value and responsibility of working in cooperation with other health care practitioners when in the best interest of the patient.

Chiropractic falls within the United States governments definition of Complimentary and Alternative Medicine [[17]]

Input on this lead change is encouraged. Please give reasons for or against. Putting the "controversial" sentence is not deemed necessary as it is a "given" that chiropractic is controversial. For comparsion, other WP sites with controversal topics do not include this in their lead. The EBM sentence belongs in the science section, IMO. Thank you.--Hughgr 22:18, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I've just looked at three articles, electroconvulsive therapy, homeopathy acknowledge that they are controversial in the lead, naturopathy rather more strongly. On your suggested lead, the second sentence is leading and suggests an overt intent to promote chiropractic, which must be avoided as much as an intent to disparage it; I'd be happy to keep it and the EBM statement or to lose both. Gleng 22:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gleng, you suggest the 2nd sentence is leading?

"The practice of chiropractic focuses on the relationship between structure (primarily the spine) and function (as coordinated by the nervous system) and how that relationship affects the preservation and restoration of health."

If you wouldn't mind elaborating on why you think it's leading. It's at the heart of "What is Chiropractic" and was agreed upon by every chiropractic college president. It "feels" like a dictionary def. to me.

After further inspection, the elec. conv. therapy page mildly mentions the conroversy. The homeopathy page has the exact same sentence you suggest here, not suprising since you helped edit that one also. The naturopathy page, like you mentioned is worded "rather strongly". In perspective of your examples, the more the lead includes the word "controversy", the more hotly debated the topic seems to become. Just an observation, but it seems to lend itself towards a POV. Rather than simply starting by giving the reader information about the topic, it tend to create controvery when that will come out on it's own by reading down the page. Wouldn't you agree?

The second sentence must stay as it is at the very definition of the modus oporandi of chiropractors. -- Hughgr 23:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr

First of all, you are in no position here to accuse me (even indirectly) of insanity. When I said your arguments were logical, I didn't mean that you were right. I should have written "sound" logical, however.. whatever. Secondly, my apathy to researching your statement has two reasons: 1. I assume good faith, thus I believe you. 2. I had some work to do and then some friends and drinks waiting for me in a bar, and I am not going to spend my life researching everything I have been told. I just simply believe you in this. Sorry.

I already stated that I don't believe in chiropractic. If you want to know my reasons, read the older discussions and you will find them there. I assure you, I do not want to besmirch chiropractic here. I just want both main POVs to be represented in the article. If the lead you are suggesting is an ACC's (which I think stands for American Chiropractic CSomething) official position, it surely isn't representing both POVs. Reconsider adding the skeptic POV to your suggestion.

I still assume good faith and I'm waiting for your input. My suggestions are:

• You (chiropractors) will propose a new lead for the article on this talk page, we will discuss it and during that, we will also try to include the skeptic POV into the lead. OR, if you would be so nice, you can try to include the skeptic POV in the lead yourself. After we find the ideal words, we will put it all into the article.
• We (skeptics) will add a table into the article or another section, and we alltoghether will list the 10 most important "FOR" and "AGAINST" arguments. We have to find out which arguments are the most important. We should be able to provide sources for the arguments. There will be no need to discuss our arguments, if they are all listed in the article.

Do you agree on these two suggestions? ackoz 02:35, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Although I think it may be important for everyone's bias to be known, I am concerned that the "We" versus "They" approach to creating an article is an oversimplification that won't work best. I will admit to having much skepticism regarding chiropractic's claims, but I don't view my role here to build the skeptic's POV. Not too long ago, the lead stated: "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment." My (skeptic) POV is that those two sentences appear informative, accurate, and neutral. -AED 03:11, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

AED, I like that for a lead paragraph. I said before that it is neat and neutral. But while it is encyclopedic, it was then vandalized because it didn't have enough of the 'why we are filled with chiropractic-hatred' viewpoint of a so-called "significant minority".

I would like to see that as the lead.

The 'us' versus 'them' mentality would work well at a Klan meeting, but not here. Steth 04:10, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi ackoz, lol, yea that was a "not so sly" personal attack. Thanks for the good faith, I'll keep exercising mine, good point. I'm used to using smilies, or whatever their called, to represent my sarcasm. Not that this is the place for that either. As can be seen from past discussions, this can become a heated topic, with such divergent views. Anyway, sorry brother. My point I was trying to make was that by deductive reasoning, one can come to a perfectly logical conclusion, without the need for a double-blind study to be done.

Hello AED and Steth. That lead you have is O.K., but the way it states, "an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment" sounds vague. What are "manual treatments"? Where does this definition come from, just curious. thx Have a great weekend-see yall on Mon.--Hughgr 04:48, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi again.. OK, as I understand it, you don't like to say that you (chiropractors) are Complimentary/Alternative? Is it perceived as something bad? Sorry for asking, I really don't know. ackoz 09:44, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I, nor other chiropractors (I believe) have a problem the the CAM catagorization. My point would be that this is an international forum (the internet)and CAM is US Govt. description. Your thoughts?--24.237.112.179 17:28, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr, Chiropractic is actually considered Complimentary/Alternative in Europe too. Maybe we don't use the exact term (and most of us just don't speak english), but the meaning is the same. ackoz 21:19, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) is an international English description (this is the English Wikipedia...;-), and the phenomenon exists many other places than the USA. It simply means any form of alternative medicine that is used concurrently (=complementary) with modern medicine, as well as alternative medicine that is used alone.

The legal aspects may of course differ from land to land. For example (fresh news):

BMJ: Dutch doctors suspended for use of complementary medicine

Tony Sheldon

Utrecht

The Amsterdam Medical Disciplinary Tribunal has struck off one doctor and suspended two others for their exclusive use of complementary treatments—including "vegatests," homoeopathic medicine, and food supplements—to treat Sylvia Millecam, the Dutch actor and comedian who died from breast cancer in 2001 at the age of 45 (BMJ 2004;328: 485[Free Full Text]).

In the high profile test case for use of complementary medicine the doctors, who were not identified by the tribunal, were judged to have ignored existing standards for treating breast cancer, used unsatisfactory methods, and withheld information during their treatment of Ms Millecam. She opposed conventional medicine and sought help from a doctor who also practised complementary medicine after she was given a diagnosis of breast cancer in May 2000.

The stiff measures are seen as a strong warning that doctors must urge seriously ill patients to seek conventional care. The tribunal found two of . . . [Full text of this article]

In the above case we have medical doctors who chose to ignore best practice and used alternative medicine to the detriment of the patient. This type of thing happens all the time without any consequences for the doctor involved, but this was a high profile case, so it is now getting attention. The results may protect non high profile people who get suckered into using unproven and often disproven methods by medical doctors and others who fail to use available best practice. We already know from good research (Norwegian) that cancer patients who use alternative methods concurrently with modern cancer treatment, have a 30% higher mortality than those who use modern cancer treatments alone. Of course those who use alternative methods alone suffer the same fate as all others before the advent of modern cancer treatment - nearly 100% mortality. "Natural" is not always better!

As to whether Chiropractic should be classified as CAM - it does it itself, and practically all lists of CAM practices list Chiropractic, but not Nursing, Physical Therapy, etc.. The reasons are myriad: self-identification (Chiropractic is very emphatic about being considered a unique and independent profession), cooperativeness, politics, traditions, evidence, etc. -- Fyslee 21:56, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for demonstrating my point, that chiropractic (as one of the CAM methods) can be dangerous. This case also demonstrates that the patients are misguided by the information presented by CAM care providers (and occasionally, their supporters who once were "helped" by a healer or homeopathic doctore when they suffered from some psychosomatic / back pain problem). I myself have seen a patient dying from breast cancer after she refused "traditional" methods and chose to be treated by a healer. Maybe this will explain my so-called hatred towards CAM. Moreover, patients who were indoctrinated by some popular "natural/oriental healing" methods are much more difficult to treat as they don't trust the doctor who is actually the only one who can help them, and all of us know that the trust is quite essential for the whole process. I believe that complementary methods can help - in some patients and some diseases. There should be no alternative methods allowed. In my opinion, the lead of the article should contain a warning, that patients should also see an "allopathic" doctor if they have a health problem, and not only a CAM practicioner. As for the medical errors, mentioned by Steth, they will always exist as doctors are no gods and will always make mistakes. But, in a seriously diseased patient, an "allopathic doctor" will at least give him a honest shot. I suggest that we should search for more evidence that CAM treatment can be dangerous, and then place the warning into the lead of all CAM articles. ackoz 23:00, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I wish it were that simple. I doubt that you would succeed in achieving that ideal situation here at Wikipedia. Such warnings could be placed on all health pages here, but better placed at the bottom, like disclaimers on many websites. In fact the laws governing ordinary websites where health claims are made could apply here as well, so such disclaimers could be appropriate, but the NPOV way of writing articles makes it less necessary, since actual claims aren't allowed. Unfortunately some articles still can leave people with the impression that the ideas presented are rational or safe, and then they might do something stupid.

I don't propose forbidding the use of CAM for responsible adults. I go in for Freedom of Informed Choice. There are different kinds of CAM, and chiropractic - in spite of being based on a pseudoscience (VS) - includes many chiros who don't believe in VS, who practice sensibly without getting involved with practice building, who help a lot of people because they actually use some legitimate methods, and who know their limits. One mustn't lump them all together as if they were all the same. That's why my objections are related to the profession itself, and not so much about chiropractors themselves, since they are so different. John Badanes put it like this:

"In short, there is no standard of care in the profession. As Forest Gump might say, "A chiropractic office is like a box of chocolates: YOU NEVER KNOW WHAT YOU'RE GOING TO GET!""[18]

You should see the PBS special - Keeping Your Spine In Line. Then go to the video section. Then turn on your speakers and watch the "Adjusting the Joints" video. -- Fyslee 00:43, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

___Hello Fyslee and aczkoz, I will not disagree with you that chiropractic is a cure for cancer. What I would like to point out, what was lacking for your study you linked, is the patients point of view. Your verbage suggests they were mis-informed or mis-lead. What were the patients reason for making their decisions? What I'm alluding to is that patients have a freedom of choice. Wouldn't you agree? Does a cancer patient have the freedom to choose their own care, right or wrong in your POV? (I wonder what the scientologist do :) If a patient's diagnosis is grim, that current allopathic treatments are unlikely to "save" the patients life, shouldn't they have a choice of going through things like chemotherapy, with the resultant side effects? Would it bother you if a patient with cancer found some pallative relief of their symptoms through chiropractic, not expecting a cure, but to ease their suffering, I think it's called "end of life care", in this example.

___Lastly, I'm pointing out the 'new zealand commision' report'. Yes, I've read William T. Jarvis, Ph.D's report, who in my opinion seem's upset that his opinions were not taken as seriously as he thinks they should have been, whatever. I'm not going to get into a debate about the contents of the actual report, nor conclusions, but rather why there was the need for the report in the first place. If memory serves, New Zealand has a national health care system, which prior the the commission, didn't include chiropractic. A newborn child with jaundice was being treated at the hosptial. The childs condition was not improving and the parents, after several weeks, asked if they could take their child to their chiropractor to see if that might help. To which the medical doctor told the parents that if they took their child out of the hospital, they would not re-admit him. They tried to be resonable by suggesting to have the chiropractor come to the hospital, but that would not be allowed by them either. So the parents took their weeks old child out of the hospital, with the realization that he may not be let back in, to their chiropractor. See the problem? Are you contending the the 93,000 people that signed the petition for the commission were psychosomatic? --Hughgr 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

More self-serving links

I find Fyslee's continuous use of links to his opinion sites that he owns/moderates/super-moderates/webmasters/assistant webmasters/etc., to be very self-serving. Isn't this using Wikipedia to drive traffic to his sites? Does anyone else do this? Does anyone know how many of his self-serving links he has populated WP with already? How would we find this out?

As long as he continues to prove that he really does hate chiropractic more than anyone else on the planet and feels it has no right to exist (his thought) by sending us to read his extensive opinions from the viewpoint of a Physical Therapist , why does he think that we should take his suggestions at WP seriously since he will never provide anything even close to objectivity or NPOV?? He accuses me of "poisoning the well" yet he provides the poison!

Didn't Badanes appear on the PBS program that ridiculed chiropractic along with Fyslee's chums dentist Baratz and ex-psychiatrist Barrett who set up the whole 'show'? So what does that show prove? Badanes is a pharmacist now. Why are his thoughts important anyway? Fyslee quotes his friends as if they represent the gospel.

I think it stinks. Steth 02:55, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Steth's behavior [19]

Yet another example of Steth's vicious ad hominem personal attacks, insults, false insinuations and allusions (without proof, and in the form of questions...!), and general poisoning the well against me. I think his behavior stinks. Apparently the "thoughts" of anyone he doesn't approve of are considered by him to not be "important," so he also indulges in ad hominem attacks against them as well.

What do others here think of him playing the "hate" card so often against chiroskeptics? Is this proper Wikipedia behavior for an editor? Is this assuming good faith or is it harassment, for

"the purpose of causing negative emotions in a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of intimidating the primary target. The purpose could be to make editing Wikipedia unpleasant for the target, to undermine them, to frighten them, or to encourage them to stop editing entirely." ?

Traffic to my sites isn't that important (I gain absolutely nothing from it), and I have replaced the link with the one I had hoped to use, but SkepticReport was down at the time. You can find other articles there by myself and others.

Thankfully others here can focus on information, and not on people. They "comment on content, not on the contributor." -- Fyslee 09:49, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Strange how a google search for "new zealand commision on chiropractic" the first several links are to chirowebs link to Jarvis' opinion on the report, and not the actual report, eh Steth? ;) And I disagree with you fyslee, your "sites" ask for donations.--Hughgr 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

New Zealand report not "trustworthy"

A review of the New Zealand report prepared by the United States Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found "'serious problems' in the Report's treatment of safety and efficacy issues..... It concluded .... that the New Zealand Report's review of the safety issue was 'unsatisfactory.'...In light of this thorough and well-considered appraisal of the New Zealand Report, with which I agree, I do not find the Report's conclusions trustworthy. The request for admission for the purposes of showing the truth of the matter asserted is therefore denied." [20]

Donations? Not to my knowledge. Please provide the URL(s). Even if they did, what would be wrong with that? Many of the external links to chiro sites not only solicit donations, but also advertise for quack products. Wikipedia also solicits donations. Just look at the left side of this page! I believe in being an equal opportunity skeptic. If you tried applying the same standards to all the external links, you'd be surprised. There are even links that aren't to chiropractic sites, like Mercola, a promoter and seller of quack methods and products. Soliciting donations does not disqualify websites.

Now please provide the URLs for the places where I solicit donations. Maybe I should make those links larger, since I can't find them myself....;-) I guess I could start doing it, since I receive nothing now. I get mail, both positive and negative. Mostly hate mail and threats from chiros and alt medders. Fortunately my sites are linked to by many other good sites who find the information valuable. -- Fyslee 10:46, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Self-serving URL's

Well, aren’t you the assistant list-master for Stephen Barrett? Have you or have you not added links to Wikipedia that he owns that solicits donations? How about Chirobase (Your Source for Chiropractic Information!) Or Quackwatch, NCHAF, Dental Watch, Homeowatch, Internet Health Pilot, MLM Watch, Naturowatch, and Nutriwatch, just to name a few. You have added many of these links to many Wikipedia articles. Isn’t Stephen Barrett a close, personal collaborator and friend for whom you webmaster for? Doesn’t that sort of thing smell of a cozy relationshipe and self-serving agenda that goes counter to the neutrality that Wikipedia is trying to achieve as an encyclopedic effort? Just my opinion.

Of course Wikipedia is allowed to solicit donations on its own site. It’s their site! That’s a lot different than you using Wikipedia’s popularity to send people to sites/owners that you are connected with and have an intimate relationship, oh, and then be asked for donations, isn’t it?

So let's remove privately/individually owned sites that sell stuff or solicits donations. OK? Anyone agree with this. This includes the chiropractic sites also. After all, they are not very encyclopedic are they? Steth 03:45, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Funny, I thought it was YOU who plays the chiro-hate card... As for the hate card. I am sorry. Your word was "despise". Isn't this the card you play on all of the sites/blogs you own, listmaster/webmaster? Correct me if I am wrong, but don't you feel that chiropractic has no right to exist? That is featured prominently on your website, isn't it? I can provide the link. That sounds like hate, er, ah, sorry, I meant strongly despising to me. Sounds more like bigotry actually.

I am trying to keep an open mind when you edit all articles related to chiropractic (where you seem to spend ALL of your time compulsively formatting and reformatting, dotting 'i's and crossing 't's), stroking them like they are your own little collies or pussycats, (hey, it was on your user page before you removed it!)but as you can see, it is a little difficult. I can't seem to find an edit you 'contributed' that doesn't cast aspersions on the profession of chiropractic or chiropractic doctors. See what I mean? Steth 03:53, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Here is the accusation:

And I disagree with you fyslee, your "sites" ask for donations.--Hughgr 10:24, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

No URL has been provided to any of my sites where I supposedly ask for donations. I do not "webmaster for" (Steth's repeated accusation) Barrett in any way, shape, or form. Period. My sites are my sites. No requests for donations, although that would still be appropriate. -- Fyslee 04:46, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hughgr

Hi, and welcome. Yes I've edited at homeopathy, if you look through the Talk archives on that page and those on this page you will see the detailed arguments over a very long period that led to these leads, and what my role was. Why is the second sentence "leading"? Because it makes it sound as though the article that follows is going to be a publicity piece advertising chiropractic, just as the EBM piece is disputed in the lead because it makes it seem as though the article is out to disarage. The EBM sentence is at least defensible because it is backed by V RS. Where a subject is controversial, the role of editors is to produce an article that characterises the dispute without engaging in it - i.e. the article does not take sides but states facts. Whch facts are stated comes down to verifiability and reliability of sources (V RS). When opinions are stated they should be declared as opinions and attributed to some notable source - so for instance a consensus statement on what chiropractic is an be quoted and attributed to the source. In a controversial subject, any sentence might be challenged - is it a fact or is it an opinion, if it's a fact, what is the evidence for it, is it a V RS, if its an opinion, is it generally held, who by, is there significant dissent. The second sentence characterises a view of chiropractic. Another sentence might describe chiropractic in equally valid but wholly derogatory terms and would also represent a body of opinion that is very sigificant. What we have been trying to do here is to reconcile different views into a text that all can live with and see as fair - we will all see bits that we think should be worded differently, but as a whole we can see that a balance has emerged that can be built on. This is of course not the only way to have gone about this - another way would be to have a section that makes the strongest possible and most positive possible account of chiropractic (within constraints of WP policy and V RS), and to have another section to characterise the skeptical position as strongly as possible, again within policy VP and RS. Collectively, we have to decide which way to go, so far I think we have tried to avoid this. Now I do not care what facts are put in this article, so long as they are notable, interesting, and verifiable. The more the better, this is an encyclopedia. I don't care what opinions are expressed, so long as they are cited as opinions, attributed to a significant, notable source, whether majority or significant minority. The more the better, so long as the opinions are cited accurately and attributed correctly and verifiably. Remember WP is not about telling "the truth" but about "giving the facts" What I do not like and will try to eliminate it when I recognise it, is opinion masquerading as fact to express a POV. You will see from my edits (see the Natural Selection page for instance) that I try to apply this consistently, regardless of whether I agree with the opinion. So the consensus statement you give could certainly be quoted in full in the article for what it is - a consensus statement from the College presidents. That's certainly notable and appropriate. As a fair characterisation - it's a fair characterisation from one side of a debate. Should it be in the lead - there's a WP policy on leads, and in the end disputes between editors are resolved by policy. The lead should reflect the content of the article as a whole. This is why I'd strongly suggest forgetting about the lead for now. The lead is defined by the article as a whole and if the artcle is going to change a lot, and I hope it will grow and be livelier and richer, then the lead will change anyway as a consequence.

Finally, are these articles hotly debated because of the word "controversial" in the lead. No. I think you'll find that controversial is the most neutral sustainable characterisation, and has replaced other more nuanced terms.Gleng 10:16, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

What you don't see here, Gleng, is that for chiropractors, the College presidents position is "the facts", whereas other POVs are, citing Steth:

        chiropractic-hatred' viewpoint of a so-called "significant minority"

or at least "an opinion". For instance, holocaust is a fact for most of us, but it is a myth, an opinion for a significant minority of people. I am saying this just to demonstrate, that facts are also a matter of POV. As for the V RS, there are lots of books from chiropractors, their college teachers, presidents. The whole article could be filled with facts presented in these books, with proper sourcing etc. The only objection to this would be that these are not reliable sources. And - again - who will decide what is and what isn't reliable? Again - a matter of POV. I think we should start working on the table with main arguments of both sides. ackoz 11:27, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

This is really well covered by WP policy on V RS and elsewhere. I'm a scientist, and disputes and controversies are everywhere; where there's a dispute, the resolution is in giving the verifiable evidence (V), selecting the most reliable sources (RS), relevant to the claims. In the case of a claim that "In addition, Doctors of Chiropractic recognize the value and responsibility of working in cooperation with other health care practitioners when in the best interest of the patient" I think that it might be fair to look at evidence for how common such cooperation is, i.e. surveys of attitudes of doctors to working with chiropractors. There is such evidence, and this would be a reasonable fact base, and if there is a section in the article that discusses the evidence on this, then it might be that this sentence would seem appropriate in the lead, if the facts back up the case that this such co-operative involvement is the norm rather than the exceptionGleng 12:55, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with you. However the verifiable evidence in z.B. Cochrane Collaboration says, as you probably know, that there is not enough evidence to support the use of chiropractic for anything else than back pain. Chiropractors here argument that the results are subjective in interpretation, citing Hughgr:

For example, while the best designed study can rule out most bias, the results from said test are still SUBJECTIVE in the interpretation of the RESULTS.

So, for this group of people, what you (and probably most people you work with) perceive as verifiable evidence, is unreliable as it is subjective in the interpreation. They will be able to provide you with their evidence, which is (to them) more objective and verifiable than yours. There are two solutions to this: 1st WP policy states officialy and explicitly, which sources are reliable, and the editors will have to follow this policy, or 2nd there will be an edit war with periods of peace until the end of Wikipedia. ackoz 13:54, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

WP policy always decides; we are servants of an encyclopedia. Assume good faith, everyone learns, Gleng 15:39, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gleng, you make valid points. My concern is the lead should be the starting point and thus the rest of the article will follow it. That is why I feel it is necessary to begin with the most accurate lead, keep reading.  :)

__The edit wars on this topic I doubt will ever cease. There are too strong of emotional ties by some to this topic (for and against). But I can't fathom as to why chiropractors definition of their profession is wrong to use here. Because some think it "promotes" chiropractic? Umm, should non-chiropractors define their profession?

__The consensus over all the world is that 'the body heals itself'. What resources would be needed to back this up? It is not opinion, but a fact. If you don't know that a cut on your finger will heal itself, you've got bigger problems. Is this statement too POV for WP? I suppose the qualifier, "most of the time" would make it a more neutral statement, there is obviously a point at which the body can no longer adapt(death) and a multitude of other factors.

__The addition of EBM doesn't belong in the lead. You can't say chiropractic isn't allopathic medicine and in the same breath use allopathic medical standards to judge chiropractic. I agree that some methodologies of medical testing can be applied, but while EBM may be the best form of testing allopathic medicine currently has, the implication is that it is flawless. Vioxx was approved using EBM. Chiropractic is (CAM) would be appropriate as it is neutral but consideration should be paid to readers of WP from around the world, and CAM is a USA term, thus it may have no meaning to them.

__My problem with the current lead is it is vague. It begins, "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care" ; isn't it saying the same thing, why two ways of saying the same thing? It could be clarified better. It reads like they could be two different things. Remember, the lead should arouse interest for the reader to read furthur down the page.

__From WP guidlines: An article should usually begin with a good definition;

__Because there is a widely differing POV within the profession on the application of the chiropractic principles, for example some think we should only adjust patients to remove vertebral subluxations to increase the bodies perfomance, and some feel we should be able to prescribe drugs to help relieve suffering until the body has had the chance to heal itself. With such divergent views (one not relating to disease and one treating disease(s)), the ACC position paper meets all the differing points of view within the profession, that all the various views could agree on. It is a definition written by chiropractors on chiropractic. Do you think a non-chiropractor should define chiropractic, even in WP? I'm all for including differing POV within the article, but the lead should read more like a definition rather that POV. But, because those with a viewpoint that chiropractic is limited, and want some kind of statement of that nature included in the lead, then per WP policy, that should be included as long as it is stated as a NPOV.

_____Your comments are appreciated. Oops, forgot to sign in the above is from Hughgr --Hughgr 20:40, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Personally I would like to see that chropractors views of, and pride in their profession, are shown clearly in this article, and that it should also explain both the diversity of views within chiropractic, and other significant views of chiropractic, including especially criticisms. I'm starting from honest curiosity, I'd like to understand all sides, whether in their own words preferably,or in words commonly agreed as fair, so long as all sides are described civilly and responsibly, respecting facts and verifiability. If we hold different opinions does not mean that I cannot respect yours. Nobody is always right, many questions are undecidable, and we will all be wrong about some things we believe to be certain. So, with mutual respect and some humility and goodwill we can either agree or agree to disagree with good humour.

(Yes, I agree that the body is extremely good at curing itself, but I think it doesn't necessarily need chiropractic or conventional medicine to do what it can do on its own).

I think it would be a perfectly reasonable way to begin the article with your lead, if it is explained at the outset that this is a quote from the ACC position paper. I've looked at that paper, and in fact think that it might provide a good template for a restructured article. For example, the paragraph after the two you cite states

"The Association of Chiropractic Colleges continues to foster a unique, distinct chiropractic profession that serves as a health care discipline for all. The ACC advocates a profession that generates, develops, and utilizes the highest level of evidence possible in the provision of effective, prudent, and cost-conscious patient evaluation and care."

This position paper thus accepts the importance of the highest level of evidence possible - and might be used to introduce the scientific validity section, leading into an objective account of the best evidence.

The position paper also refers to the foundations of chiropractic, and again sets a possible template for expansion and discussion.

However, it is not up to me to decide anything at all. I am just a passing observer, wishing you all well, because when different talents and views combine the result is better, and these are just suggestions.Gleng 20:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

Question for the group

Gleng, I thank you for your much needed level-headed professionalism and continued participation here. I am truly sorry if I said things that didn’t sit right with you. It is just a little hard for me to see Fyslee’s objectivity, when he owns/moderates many sites that call for the extermination of chiropractic. Perhaps if it wasn’t for the fact that practically all of his edits cast aspersions on the chiropractic profession or doctors of chiropractic, maybe I would see things differently.

Question for the group… Just because someone like Ackoz and Fyslee don’t agree with chiropractic, why should their viewpoint be in an encyclopedic article? Shouldn’t it just be clear, clean, matter-of-fact type material, like this is what it is, here is what it does, here is who does it, here is where you find it, how you get it, etc. etc.? Thanks Steth 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Answer for the group. Steth's attacks on anyone he/she disagrees with are unconstructive. If we REALLY want a good article on chiro, we must ack its tawdry beginnings. Palmer was on the make in a time when society was just beginning to crack down on medical charlatans. He tried to avoid the laws by claiming religious status; hell, he may even have convinced himself of his claimed godhead. In the long run perhaps society will have one medicine - ie EBM medicine that works, no matter what tradition or culture it originated in. Under this scenario subluxtion will die and decent chiros will practice massage and PT in the allied health professions. I hope Steth doesn't blast me with his/her usual I'm a chiro hater, but I won't hold my breath.Mccready 07:30, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

You can breathe easy now, Mccready. No need to blast you. Your own words above and edits reveal your anti-chiropractic viewpoints and intentions, and provide adequate examples of this. Steth 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK everyone. This is WP, and in the end WP ethos and policies rule. WP:NPOV makes good reading, sorry to quote at length, please all refresh on WP policies. " we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases, ...We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all....There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence"

There are good guidelines on controversies, for articles like this it is just very important that we reepresent all significant views fairly, i.e. represent the different positions honestly and accurately, with careful use of verifiable, reputable sources. On the history issue (Mccready): I like history, it enlivens and enriches. BUT if a history section becomes a way of weasel-like denigration, then this is a misuse in this article, and if it goes that way it should split off into a seprate history article, so that the history doesn't contaminate the present. I'm not suggesting that history should be rewritten/misrepresented at all, only that if it becomes difficult to introduce the history without it apparently slanting the article then it should be separate.Gleng 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Gleng, I too like history. As a student of chiropractic history, clearly D.D. Palmer was the discoverer of chiropractic. He was an uninhibited individualist. Facts are important, and the letter referenced clearly shows he was in Oregon at the time of writing. The college is in Davenport, IA and at the time the letter was written was being run by his son, B.J., whom by all accounts, was given the college and it’s debts. Where as the letter is a reflection of D.D. Palmer’s thoughts, they do not represent chiropractic then, or now. The desire by some here with an obvious and self-proclaimed dis-like (to put it mildly) for chiropractic to include this and refuse to have it moved is just another example of their agenda to paint chiropractic in a bad light. --Hughgr 17:55, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, well I think you have a point. As I've read about chiropractic I've realised that it certainly has a colourful history (I don't mean that in a derogatory way) and I've been thinking that this article is inhibiting the telling of what is a fascinating story for which there are very extensive sources. Maybe the right path is to cteate a separate article for history of chiropractic, with minimal mention here but a link. I strongly agree that it is not honest to disparage a subject by implication by describing it in terms that require thinking in a historical context - I know what I think about articles that describe biomedical research by accounts of 19th century practices, before the discovery of anaesthetics. It's dishonestly prejudicial. See what others think, but I propose a separate linked article for the history.Gleng 19:09, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Proposal to remove reference to chirobase website

___The chirobase website clearly has an anti-chiropractic agenda, which on it's own is of little concern. The problem is within the website, chiropractors are commonly referred to as quacks, cults, and falsely claims that chiropractic is a religion.

___Besides being a conflic to WP:NPOV, this is a violation of the Wilk et al. vs. the AMA anti-trust lawsuit [21] which concluded:

The American Medical Association and its 275,000 members, when working in concert with the AMA, were permanently enjoined today by United States District Court Judge Susan Getzendanner from "restricting, regulating or impeding or aiding and abetting others from restricting, regulating, or impeding the freedom of any AMA members or any institution or hospital to make an individual decision as to whether or not that AMA member, institution, or hospital shall professionally associate with chiropractors, chiropractic students, or chiropractic institutions."

Of particular importance to this topic:

Describing chiropractic as an "unscientific cult" does not, however, necessarily mean that everything a chiropractor may do when acting within the scope of his or her license granted by the state is without therapeutic value, nor does it mean that all chiropractors should be equated with cultists. It is better to call attention to the limitations of chiropractic in the treatment of particular ailments than to label chiropractic an "unscientific cult."

Additionally the ruling found:

Through the date of the trial, the AMA continued to respond to requests for information on chiropractic which it received from AMA members and others by sending out anti -chiropractic literature. The old boycott language has been eliminated, but the AMA has not had anything positive to say about chiropractic. It was not until mid-way through the trial of this case that the AMA announced that chiropractic has improved and that at least some forms of chiropractic treatment and joint adjustments are scientific. The membership has never been informed of this position.

I'm proposing a removal of any reference to the chirobase website and also suggest other area's of wikipedia be checked for references to this website and be summarily removed. I am completely in agreement with showing differing views of opinion and collaboration on the WP:chiropractic page, but I cannot not sit idly by and allow such a derogatory link be included in keeping with WP:NPOV, and in particular is against the law, per Wilk et al. vs. the AMA anti-trust lawsuit.

I am also suggesting that users fyslee and azkoz are hindering furthur development on this page in particular, and that they be removed from furthur editing on this page as they seem to only want to allow their opinions to be permitted. On a side note, user Gleng, while openly being skepticle of chiropractic, has shown respect to the differing points of view and I enourage users like him to continue to contribe so the page will be as balanced as possible. As a new contributor to wikipedia, I had hoped this conflict could be resolved peacefully, but the history has shown revert wars due to these two users in particular, seem to be hinder the progress on this page.

Your comments are greatly appreciated. Respectfully,--Hughgr 08:08, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

How is including this link against the law or in conflict with the court ruling? Are you implying that the Wikipedia editors adding the link are the "American Medical Association [or some of] its 275,000 members"? Is including the link affecting "the freedom of any AMA members or any institution or hospital to make an individual decision as to whether ... to professionally associate with" chiropractic-related entities? I don't understand. — Knowledge Seeker দ 08:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me. Wikipedia is an international database, not some plaything of the US court system! Of course it isn't illegal to link to Chirobase. What a ridiculous assertion. I suggest this is nothing more than censorship! Maustrauser 08:33, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Give me time on the links, I want to look at them carefully. As for barring editors, no, ackoz and fyslee are expressing their opinions freely on the Talk page, this is a good place for frank exchanges even if they are sometimes stated over-strongly. Every significant opinion (ie an opinion held by a significant number) must be characterised fairly in the article, obviously especially those of chiropractors themselves: their views should maybe take "pole position" amongst presentations of different views.Gleng 09:12, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I've looked through this site, (chirobase.org) fairly quickly, so I'm sorry if I missed something important, I may well have, but not deliberately. I did not find that chiropractors are collectively denigrated, called quacks or cults or religious - there are obviously many highly critical comments, but they didn't seem to be generally offensive; the criticisms seem to be for some particular practices, particular claims etc. Although there is e.g. opinion that many chiropractors are not scrupulous, the site makes it clear that that this is not universally true and that some chiropractors have very high standards. I'm not getting into the rights and wrongs of the claims, only stating my quick view of how the opinions are expressed; this is not a "hate" site but an opinionated site, a site that makes it clear that it is expressing a viewpoint, and making it clear that there are other, different views. The site at least broadly, obeys the formalities of civilised debate and discussion. It might be worth contrasting this with other sites - the whale.to site, currently subject of an RfC is a different beast altogether and for instance hosts personal attacks on WP editors. The case for banning this site while this continues is in my view clear, whether people agree with the opinions or not. The BUAV site is commonly linked to by animal rights related artcles, and banning such sites just won't get consensus, whatever one thinks of them (it's obvious what I think of that site, but I wouldn't support it being banned from WP, though I think it is used as an RS when it shouldn't be). There are certainly things on the chirobase site that I think it would be better without (the personal experiences section), but the only very nasty comments I saw were in the correspondence critical of the website (at least this website hosts attacks on it, though it could be argued that the attacks are in effect the worst publicity for chiropractic that I can imagine). WP is about facts, but, importantly, this includes "facts about opinions". An opinionated website is a bad source of facts in general, and should be avoided (V RS), but may be the best source for evidence of an opinion. We have to report what opinions are held, so we have to give references for the source of what we know those opinions to be. So maybe where opinionated or partial websites are cited, this should be as evidence of opinions that are held, not as evidence for facts which if they are disputed need independent verification. To cite a website in a Critiques section, in a way that makes it clear that this is a source of opinion, seems fine. I'd suggest though that it be avoided as the direct reference for facts. The Wilks ruling does not limit any PR activity critical of chiropractic - the basis of the judge's opinion was that the AMA was at fault because it chose to express its view of chiropractic by restraining its members from cooperating with them rather than by using its funds to educate the public about the dangers of chiropractic, as is clear in the transcripts.Gleng 14:07, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I see that the way I wrote the above, it could be interpreted wrongly. A better way to phrase the law point should have been, “in the spirit” of the ruling. I also find it self serving of fyslee to misrepresent a quote in the summation to try to prove his point. We were talking about the New Zealand Commission on Chiropractic, to which he referenced the Wilk case. He then used a partial quote to make his point. A part of the truth is not the truth. What he left out was, “I hold, accordingly, that the New Zealand Report may be admitted, but only for the limited purpose stated.”

I am not implying they are editors for the AMA, and we are all protected by freedom of speech. After reading the entire summation, they appear to be instep with the reason the injunction was given. Knowledge seeker, I recommend you read the entire report.

I don’t seek censorship, just NPOV and fair play. I have not searched the internet, but I would contend that the information contained in chirobase’s web site related to this article could be linked to other, less POV websites. I also find it interesting that there is an inter-relationship of chirobase with other self-serving web sites, (with more derogatory comments) all run by the same person, fyslee. That they are taking advantage of internet search engines to self-promote their POV is also suspect.

Fyslee also maintains that there is no validity to the chiropractic vertebral subluxation. I provided a link to recent research, to which he replied the title of the research proved this wasn't reliable, without any comments on the actual research. I maintain my position that his extreme bias is hindering progress on this page.

In a previous discussion on this talk page with fyslee and acknoz, they have not responded to a question I asked of them. I will assume good faith and that perhaps they didn’t see it, (this page is getting very long) so I would like to ask it again and I’m also wondering what Maustrauser’s opinion is also:

___Hello Fyslee and aczkoz, I will not disagree with you that chiropractic is a cure for cancer. What I would like to point out, what was lacking for your study you linked, is the patients point of view. Your verbage suggests they were mis-informed or mis-lead. What were the patients reason for making their decisions? What I'm alluding to is that patients have a freedom of choice. Wouldn't you agree? Does a cancer patient have the freedom to choose their own care, right or wrong in your POV? (I wonder what the scientologist do :) If a patient's diagnosis is grim, that current allopathic treatments are unlikely to "save" the patients life, shouldn't they have a choice of going through things like chemotherapy, with the resultant side effects? Would it bother you if a patient with cancer found some pallative relief of their symptoms through chiropractic, not expecting a cure, but to ease their suffering, I think it's called "end of life care", in this example. ___Lastly, I'm pointing out the 'new zealand commision' report'. Yes, I've read William T. Jarvis, Ph.D's report, who in my opinion seem's upset that his opinions were not taken as seriously as he thinks they should have been, whatever. I'm not going to get into a debate about the contents of the actual report, nor conclusions, but rather why there was the need for the report in the first place. If memory serves, New Zealand has a national health care system, which prior the the commission, didn't include chiropractic. A newborn child with jaundice was being treated at the hosptial. The childs condition was not improving and the parents, after several weeks, asked if they could take their child to their chiropractor to see if that might help. To which the medical doctor told the parents that if they took their child out of the hospital, they would not re-admit him. They tried to be resonable by suggesting to have the chiropractor come to the hospital, but that would not be allowed by them either. So the parents took their weeks old child out of the hospital, with the realization that he may not be let back in, to their chiropractor. See the problem? Are you contending that the 93,000 people that signed the petition for the commission were psychosomatic?

I await your replies.--Hughgr 19:20, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hughgr,

You ask a lot of questions of both of us, and I can only speak for myself. Please be more precise and shorter. In the future, please try one question at a time, please.....;-) I'll try to do what I can now, using numbers you can refer to in the future:

1. You mention "your study you linked,...". What study is that? Is it something I linked or something that Aczkoz linked? Please provide a URL, maybe then I can help you.

2. You also mention the need for the NZ report, and in that connection mention a jaundiced child. Are you suggesting that chiropractic treatment (adjustments) is an appropriate treatment for jaundice in a child (or an adult for that matter)? -- Fyslee 21:01, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

(sigh)

I'm getting confused here, too many threads. Can we just re-focus the discussion a bit?

1. I've proposed (above) that we split off History of Chiropractic into a separate article. The reason is that the History is interesting and colourful, deserves space, there are lots of good sources - but including it in this article seems prejudicial in that chiropractic today should not be judged by its origins any more than say modern psychiatry should be judged by an account of phrenology.

2. I've proposed that we use the best V RS wherever possible - so if a link (to any website) can be replaced by a more secure link to a V RS then we should do so. For instance, any website is transient in its contents, but PubMed citations for instance are solid.

3. Partial websites should be cited sparingly and as sources of facts about opinions rather than as sources for facts.

4. Please forget about barring editors and keep the sniping down. It's wearing. Assume good faith

5. Please ADD material to the article in preference to deleting. Let's move ahead with expanding this. I'm lost on the NZ issue now I'm afraid. If you have facts with V RS just add them.Gleng 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Science Section - 2

I don't understand the inclusion of Cochrane and Bandolier links in the science section. I'm sure that those organization may be reliable, but the provided links don't really say anything. First, one of the links goes to a page that is nonexistent. Some go to research that discuss chiropractic only in passing. The specific research on chiropractic performed in these studies is so miniscule and inconclusive that it isn't really worthy of posting on this article. Some of the studies linked here were focused on manipulative therapy and not chiropractic specifically. That these research orgs have insufficient evidence of anything amounts to just a waste of space in this already huge article. The most conclusive thing that these pieces of research says is that the research is inconclusive. I would like to see these removed and have better, more focused research link in their place.This page provides links to dozens (if not hundreds) of research reports (most of which can be found posted in PubMed as well). Perhaps some of these can be included in the science section with their PubMed citations.

Gleng, thanks for assuming the role of mediator here. I've been away for awhile due to shear frustration caused POV revisionism that frankly had turned this article into a wishy-washy page of arguments. I am feeling a new sense of hope for this article with you here. Thank you. I will certainly stand back and give you time to review the research I linked to above. I look forward to hearing your thoughts. Levine2112 23:38, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

We've been over this again and again. Sorry Levine I and others disagree with you. If you read this talkpage you will understand the point of view of people who disagree with you. Which link is broken? Mccready 07:54, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Asthma link is broken in that it goes to a page that no longer exists.

I've read this talk page and I understand your POV. But it is just that. POV. I fully support your ability to express that POV. I'm just trying to add substance to the scientific section (which yes, in the example I provide supports my POV). Right now it just says that there's nothing conclusive to say but phrased in such a way as to say science and chiropractic are completely at odds. This is just not true and is apparent just in the research behind the link I provided. And that's just a small fraction of the science that is in support of chiropractic. Show me that in this article. Until then the scientific section remains non-neutral and factually inaccurate... two very bad qualities for an encyclopedic reference. So what can I do to help? Levine2112 08:30, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

The Asthma link is now working.

The suggestion of adding a link to the collection of links at chiro.org is worth considering, as long as it is accompanied with the caution that it is a very mixed bag, with many references to junk science, one case studies, uncontrolled observations by single chiros, etc.. It would be better to link to the individual studies that are of good quality. There may well be such studies listed there, and if so, they deserve to be used as references here. -- Fyslee 09:21, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

But if you add that comment to chiro.org source, it only seems fair to add a comment to the EBM statements that states the difficulty in structuring a double blind test to prove the existence of subluxation, doesn't it? Either you should do both or do neither, doesn't really matter. The net effect is the same.Dematt 16:41, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

As Fyslee suggests, I wasn't thinking that we should add a link to the whole sha-bang at chiro.org but rather just a selection... expecially those that were reposted a PubMed since that seems to pass the standard of reliability on Wikipedia. However, all of the studies listed on the Chiro.org are based on real science... not junk. Or else they wouldn't have been posted there. Dematt is correct. Doing a double-blind study on chiropractic is unfortunately impossible or so extremely difficult thatno researcher has figured it out yet. Double-blind would mean that neither the "patient" nor the "doctor" would know whether the adjustment being applied was real or only a placebo. Maybe you could fool the patient - though that would be difficult - but there's no way to fool the doctor such that he/she has no idea if the adjustment he/she is performing is real or placebo. GlenG is going to review the studies at Chiro.org and throw in his two-cents here, but I'd love for others to pull some selects that they find to be of value for the Chiropractic article. Levine2112 17:04, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

I hear the comments, and will try to come up with something that respects all concerns, without being unwieldy. Give me time on this, I'll try to find the best, verifiable sources and base it on those. Anyone wants to point me at a study of particular note feel welcome (all sides). Obviously I'd be wasting my time if I don't come up with something that I hope all can feel is fair, so that's what I'll be trying to do, whether I succeed or not, but I have a busy time just now.Gleng 19:42, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Dematt, your suggestion sounds perfectly reasonable. Not because it is a requirement that there must always be tit-for-tat, but because the comment would be relevant. Of course double-blind studies are not the only method for producing scientifically valid evidence. There are a number of methods of varying quality and validity, such as single-blind studies, epidemiological population studies, etc. Some are considered very strong proofs, but others are sometimes better suited, including for the reason you mention.

I'll let Gleng comment on the merits of postulating a single-case study of something like Parkinson's disease [22], (to use an example)[23], as a proof that chiropractic or adjustments are a scientifically proven method for treating MS, or worthy of being included in a section entitled Scientific Support for Chiropractic. Actually these additions were evaluated/analyzed and found to be woefully lacking, with few exceptions. Future additions need to be of better quality work. I'm sure that Gleng's evaluations of proposed additions will help to build a better scientific support for certain interventions often used by chiropractors, and that would be just fine. I'm certain we can all agree that a little good support is better than lots of poor "support." -- Fyslee 19:47, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree. I get bored with shabby science, and links to pages that are lacking quality data only make this work look shabby as well, so no problem with wanting only quality work. I hope we can find some. Dematt 20:53, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, Try searching for Lawrence,DJ who edited the JMPT and Triano,JJ who is a chiropractor out of the Texas Back Institute, a multidisciplinary institute. I'm probably telling you something you already know. Both were, and still are, considered very researched oriented and have a reputation in the chiropractic community for putting out quality research work whether anybody wants to hear it or not. If I see an article with their name on it, I read it. I'm pretty sure your not going to find the strength of evidence that everybody is looking for, but you should get an idea of the difficulty in designing the studies necessary. I also believe that The Mercy Guidelines (Chiropractic Quality Assurance and Practice Guidelines that came out in the early 1990's) were based on a massive review of current research and cited all of it's sources at the time. I believe that is when the profession was working on a consensus that we could all work under. There was a huge uproar among the profession when it came out, but you couldn't argue with the facts. I have been watching for 25 years and have yet to see the article that finally proves DD's definition of subluxation or Noah's ark for that matter, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't keep looking.

While you guys work on this, I'm going to work to see if I can clean up the rest of the introduction section. Won't change anything significant without checking with you first. Dematt 03:39, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Good suggestions. Both Triano and Dana Lawrence are among the better chiro researchers.

• Lawrence

Other names that come to mind are Scott Haldeman and Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde. Charlotte has done some of the best work I've seen yet from a chiropractic researcher:

• Charlotte Low back pain study

-- Fyslee 09:03, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Pubmed

thanks guys/gals good to see more cooperation on this page. A warning on pubmed. just because something is in there in NO WAY means it can be relied on. just about anyone with a publishing house and an arrangement with them can put stuff on. Even in the best journals in the world mistakes are made and retractions have to be published - the good journals do this, the bad ones cover up or publish gobbledigook. I stumbled on this screamer for example [24]. have fun. Mccready 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

That's a new one! Interesting. wonder where i can get some of that glucose stuff with the lidocaine?..=) not for me, of course. for a friend. Dematt 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had a spot of tea, and I feel better :)

My response will be fletted in at the appropriate places... -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Hi all, I had a cup of tea and I feel much better Sorry for the previous rant. After reading the Wilk case, I got pissed because it seems like some of the anti-chiros here reflect what that case was trying to change. It stirred up negative emotions and I over-reacted. I will try to be more “level headed” from now on, but I can’t promise anything. LOL

All forgiven. I understand your feelings. Unfortunately for chiropractic, the Wilk's decision was only directed at an illegal boycott, not against personal opinions or freedom of speech, or against the duty of physicians to warn against what they consider to be unsafe, quackery, or to engage in whatever else they consider to be consumer protection efforts. They just mustn't use illegal boycotts. Needless to say there are plenty of viewpoints for endless discussions above! (Just not here.) -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I have seen the results of subluxation removal during my short (5yrs) career, and it insults my intelligence by some to claim that those results were merely coincidental, or psychosomatic or …….whatever reason you can come up with. In an attempt to keep with Gleng’s suggestions, I will try to work with, rather than against other editors. But with such diverging viewpoints, it’s going to be difficult.  :)

I wouldn't dream of making any such claims. Regardless of your motivation (removal of subluxations), you are no doubt doing plenty that can help people. I might put another explanation on any improvement (not crediting the removal of subluxations...), but I wouldn't say that it is merely coincidental or psychosomatic (although that can always be a part of any treatment, including for MDs and PTs.) Manual therapy is still the treatment of choice for many conditions in the musculoskeletal system, at times in combination with pharmaceuticals for certain conditions. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, without putting you in the hot seat, which I admit I was doing, the same as you do to the chiropractors who post here. The points I was making are:

I'm used to being in the "hot seat." I'm a big boy. As long as I'm being treated fairly, I can take it calmly....;-) -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

1) By taking an exclusionist POV, it leads to BIG problems. There was a NEED for the New Zealand commission because of the exclusionist mindset of the doctors in those hospitals at that time. By having a cooperative environment, humanity is the better for it. I hate to think that people have died because the medical establishment refused patients the right to their freedom to see if some other treatment could help them, especially when medicine offers little or no help.

I can't really address that point, since I haven't been involved with it, nor have I studied the background of the NZ situation. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

2) There are no health care methods that work 100% of the time in 100% of cases. Chiropractic works better on some, medicine better on some, acupuncture, PT, etc. Historically, chiropractic successes were medical failures. Perhaps the medical institution doesn’t like to admit they can’t help everybody with their approach, and some chiropractors too, for that matter.

Spot on! We agree. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Like medical diagnosis, locating, analyzing, and adjusting vertebral subluxations is an art. There are going to be variables, not just differing opinions from different chiropractors, but because every patient is unique as well.

4) Historically, and today, chiropractors get results in all kinds of cases. Due to the enormous variety (not just back pain and headaches) of disease conditions that have been helped, it doesn’t make sense to say chiropractic isn’t allowed help you because only 1 out of 100 people have shown benefit with your condition. That excludes that one person. Which is why a lot of chiropractors will say, “I look for vertebral subluxations, when I find them, I adjust them back into place, that is all I can do”.

5) I suppose I could easily post information regarding some dubious aspects of allopathy and describe the once widespread use of COX-2 inhibitors, HRT, thalidomide during pregnancy, and innumerable other catastrophes. Maybe somebody should, if only to keep people like Dr. Barret and fyslee a little more humble.

No need to do that, since the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry already disgust me. OTOH, I am experienced enough to not take setbacks (that doesn't include abuses) too seriously, since no progress can be made without occasional setbacks. The advantage of modern scientific medicine is that it's self-correcting. It keeps track of failures, self-corrects, and then moves forward. It's a slow process, but it does happen, and it works, although imperfectly. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Any comments are appreciated.--Hughgr 19:21, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your candor and wish we could share a cup of tea, coffee, or better yet a bottle of Zinfandel: "To err is human, to Zin is divine!" -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Well I've had a hard day so am just about to pour myself some Scotch - cheers to you all. I agree, pharma is not all clean (yes sometimes appalling) but they fund me, so it's not all dirty either). Yes modern med is self correcting, and it needs to be because it makes plenty of mistakes. Modern basic science makes different sorts of mistakes. We can learn a lot from our mistakes, if we recognise them. Gleng 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

I'd join you, but it's only lunch time here! Hey, just had a patient referred back to me from an MD. Physiatrist actually, one that I don't know. I had diagnosed a patient with disc bulge and somatic referred pain and suggested spinal manipulation and physiotherapy. The short version: The patient's employer forced him out of my office to a Physician's Assistant(PA) who told the patient I was a quack(PA's words) and sent him to a Physiatrist. The Physiatrist performed a CT scan, diagnosed a disc bulge and told him the PA was the quack(his words), commented that he used a chiropractor and sent him back over to my office. Go figure. I know you were discussing previously whether this kind of thing happened, so thought I would pass it along. This kind of thing is happening more often. I don't think it is because of anything I am doing. I do think the attitudes in the MD profession are genuinely changing. Thank Wilk. Dematt 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't put yourself down. It may very well be "something you are doing." If you have gotten a good reputation in the area, you may find some MDs will trust your judgment and send patients your way. Good luck! -- Fyslee 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Not to start a "I had this happen, so there" comparison, but I thought I'd share an experience I recently had. An existing patient with an 10 month old that had not begun to crawl was told by their pediatrician to try PT and/or chiropractic. After a couple weeks of PT with no change, they figured to try chiropractic. They didn't get a specific referral, but since I was already known to both parents, they brought their 10 month old into my office. I was skeptical that it would help, I'd never heard of such a thing before, but I try to keep an open mind. Anyway, checked the kid out and only found and adjusted a v.s. at C2. Within on week, the kid started to crawl. At one week's interval, checked and again adjusted C2. Within another week, the kid started walking. Checked again at 3 weeks and did not need adjustment. Nice to be able to help, even if there's no EBM study (yet).  :)--Hughgr 19:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Great resources (add to the list)

Though the school ended up voting against opening a chiropractic school, the efforts did produce this report which is filled with facts and figure all of which may be useful for our article. It's over 200 pages! But it does include a detailed outline of the Chiropractic history, verifiable statistics and so much more. I've read the first 50 pages so far. Thought I'd share it with you all. -- Levine2112 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Excellent choice! This might be a good place to list more good resources, starting with Levine2112's contribution. (I've experimented with a workable format.) -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Chiropractic Profession and Its Research and Education Programs. FSU, Dec. 15, 2000

-- Levine2112 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• The Future of Chiropractic Revisited: 2005 to 2015

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• CCP Guidelines - 2003: Vertebral Subluxation in Chiropractic Practice

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Chiropractic History Archive - Joseph C. Keating, Jr., Ph.D

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• G. Douglas Andersen, DC - Articles

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Stephen M. Perle, D.C., M.S., lots of good stuff

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Dr. Perle's ethics articles

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

• Chiropractic Medicine Internet Resources

-- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

---

Alright, I'll spend tonight reading through these before I work on the next part of the introduction. May find something that will make it more interesting.--Dematt 21:37, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Nice find Levine, maybe we could just delete the whole page and put a link to that. HAHA gonna take some time to pour over all this info. It's getting time to consider starting a new talk page.--Hughgr 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Wow. If we can't write something with this info, then nobody can. --Dematt 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready is right!

Palmer initially did not talk about prevention, till much later. My sentences do tend to run. Feel free to shorten them if you want. Also feel free to join the introduction talk and the last section. It must be tough keeping up with everything. This page is certainly getting long. Let's get rid of the whole science question in the introduction for now and when Gleng is finished evaluating the scientific info, we might be able to improve it even more.--Dematt 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

science

This is not going to be easy, so what I’ll do, next week I hope, is set up a sandbox to evolve a new section with inputs from anyone who wants to contribute. I don’t expect to get it right without help and criticism.

I’m not going to get into evaluating the details of the research – this is OR, but I will be looking for the best sources; these might include large recent studies in top journals, but might also include older studies or reports that have been influential in being widely cited in the profession. I’d want to include examples of the strongest tests of the effectiveness that support particular claims as well as examples of significant tests that fail to support particular claims. A plan might be to cover the following (not necessarily in this order) – your comments are welcome.

a) Report the major claims for the benefits of chiropractic – i.e. which conditions is there most acceptance for its efficacy. Report the evidence on which these claims are based (i.e. report the nature of the evidence that led to these claims, without criticising that evidence, give a V RS for one or two good examples))

b) Report that there are other claims less widely accepted within chiropractic. (Give an example of some of the disagreements within the profession with V RS)

c) Observe (neutrally) that the evidence supporting chiropractic is mainly empirical (reported clinical experience of chiropractors and patient reports).

d) Observe (neutrally) that the scientific foundations of chiropractic are not accepted as well established, and that this was at the core of the historically hostile attitude of the AMA pre Wilks (quote AMA here?)

e) quote statements from chiropractors and chiropractic organisations reflecting their endorsement of the importance of evidence-based evaluation of benefits.

f) Observe the particular difficulties of designing such tests.

g) Report the outcomes of major, significant tests of chiropractic efficacy and of comparisons between different therapies. (selection based on best RS)

h) Report significant published policy statements of medical organisations and comparable significant bodies where they indicate establishment views about chiropractic

i) Report any significant evidence about current attitudes of conventional medics to chiropractic. (V RS studies).

I will aim to say nothing without V RS, aim to report claims without appearing to endorse them, aim to report evidence whether pro or con without judging the quality of evidence and without appearing to endorse any studies. By selecting studies to cite there is inevitable editorialisation, but I’ll aim to do this on quality of the source not on the conclusions,– good sources include peer reviewed journals of high status within the profession, not just good mainstream medical journals.

Comments welcome from everyone.Gleng 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree. We have to start somewhere and you are the one to do it. It's going to be tough waiting a week though, you don't need that much sleep do you? Take a couple days off work, crack open the Scotch and enjoy! You know you want to. --Dematt 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Commendable Garth but please note that your c) is not best EMB. Wouldn't it be better to frame article in terms of those chiros supporting those opposing emb? Mccready 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I don’t think it’s a matter of opposing EBM, it just needs to be clarified better. In addition to adding, “double-blind studies are inherently difficult to test chiropractic methods”, something like the following should be added:

“Evidence-Based Medicine has evolved substantially from its origins a decade ago, becoming less pretentious and more practical. Nonetheless, it must continue to evolve and address several important issues that will otherwise limit its value as an adjunct to health care decisions. Pressing matters include agreement on what constitutes "best" evidence; appropriate generalization beyond research projects; accurate and efficient communication with practitioners, patients and policy makers; and moral issues including distributive justice and individual autonomy. Given the substantial investment of society and commerce in fundamental and applied health research, and the high expectations of society for reducing the burden of illness, attention to these matters should have high priority.” [25] --Hughgr 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Response to Hughgr

I would like to respond to two of your statements.

>3) Like medical diagnosis, locating, analyzing, and adjusting vertebral subluxations is an art. There are going to be variables, not just differing opinions from different chiropractors, but because every patient is unique as well.

This is not a valid comparison. In medicine assessments are tested for evidence showing that they describe a legitimate condition, are reliable and specific. Chiropractic is based on largely erroneous biomechanical assumptions but instead of updating its theory, as medicine does, it uses misleading citations to pass it off as legitimate diagnosis. You sir are perpetuating the fraud.

The best medical diagnosis is accurate 70% of the time(mayo clinic). That means 30% of the time the “best” are wrong or can’t explain why there is a problem. Hmmm. Also, the “legitimate” profession is somewhere between the 1st to 3rd cause of death in America. In my opinion, I’d say the fraud is so close to you, that you can’t see it.

>4) Historically, and today, chiropractors get results in all kinds of cases. Due to the enormous variety (not just back pain and headaches) of disease conditions that have been helped, it doesn’t make sense to say chiropractic isn’t allowed help you because only 1 out of 100 people have shown benefit with your condition. That excludes that one person. Which is why a lot of chiropractors will say, “I look for vertebral subluxations, when I find them, I adjust them back into place, that is all I can do”.

The evidence you describe is not really evidence at all, merely anecdotal stories from field chiroprators who are known to suffer from observation bias, they want to believe that their treatment is effective. Once again, you are pepetuating false information.

Case reports and case series have their own role in the progress of medical science. They permit discovery of new diseases and unexpected effects (adverse or beneficial) as well as the study of mechanisms, and they play an important role in medical education. Case reports and series have a high sensitivity for detecting novelty and therefore remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress; they provide many new ideas in medicine. At the same time, good case reporting demands a clear focus to make explicit to the audience why a particular observation is important in the context of existing knowledge. [26]--Hughgr 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

So stop writing this nonsense.

Abotnick

Now, now. I thought we were through with the attacks. Let's not call anyone's opinions here "fraud". Keep it friendly. Levine2112 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Hear hear. Welcome Abotnick, but please try to express your opinions forcibly without being offensive. This is a collaborative venture, and we need mutual respect despite differences in opinion. We cannot discount the clinical experience of practitioners; yes we can be aware of the problems of reporting bias, observational bias etc - these are not fraud, they are intrinsic difficulties. The practice of most medicine evolves through exchange of accounts of clinical experience. These are evidence; not proof, but evidence.Gleng 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Pinched hose theory of subluxation

Levine2112 repeatedly seeks to include this unusual claim in one way or another:

"This pinched hose theory has long been abandoned, but the concept of the subluxation remains an integral part of the typical chiropractic practice, though there is limited scientific evidence that exists to support it." [27] [28] [29] [30]

(That's four reverts!!!) WP:3RR

Since the rules of logic demand that the burden of proof falls on the claimant (Levine2112) ("Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof." - Sagan), and those from the scientific community (and many chiropractors as well) have not been convinced by the unusual and undocumented claims of a healer who got his ideas from a long deceased medical physician, I request that Levine2112 provide some non-chiropractic citations right here from good research to back up his unusual claim, before we can accept it in the article. We'll then evaluate its quality here.

For a chiropractic viewpoint from six very significant chiropractic personalities:

Subluxation: dogma or science?

Abstract

"Subluxation syndrome is a legitimate, potentially testable, theoretical construct for which there is little experimental evidence. Acceptable as hypothesis, the widespread assertion of the clinical meaningfulness of this notion brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities and confusion within the chiropractic profession. We believe that an evidence-orientation among chiropractors requires that we distinguish between subluxation dogma vs. subluxation as the potential focus of clinical research. We lament efforts to generate unity within the profession through consensus statements concerning subluxation dogma, and believe that cultural authority will continue to elude us so long as we assert dogma as though it were validated clinical theory."

Joseph C Keating Jr1 , Keith H Charlton2 , Jaroslaw P Grod3 , Stephen M Perle4 , David Sikorski5 and James F Winterstein6

1 6135 North Central Avenue, Phoenix, AZ, 85012, USA

2 School of Medicine, Mayne Medical School, University of Queensland, Herston, Queensland 4006, Australia

3 Department of Graduate Education and Research, Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College, 6100 Leslie Street, Toronto ON, M2H 3J1, Canada

4 Department of Clinical Sciences, College of Chiropractic, University of Bridgeport, 225 Myrtle Ave., Bridgeport, CT 06604, USA

5 Department of Chiropractic Procedures, Southern California University of Health Sciences, 16200 E. Amber Valley Drive, Whittier, CA 90604, USA

6 President, National University of Health Sciences, 200 East Roosevelt Road, Lombard, IL 60148, USA

If there had been convincing scientific evidence for the theory, then the chiropractic profession wouldn't have been discussing its existence and continually redefining it for the last 111 years! That in itself is good proof of its undocumented nature. -- Fyslee 20:28, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are some more tidbits (chiropractic sources) you all might find interesting. It might be good to read them before editing:

• A comment on the article above

• Some interesting observations

• Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession

• The Specter of Dogma

• It Works, It Works, It Works!

Other significant articles on the subject:

• Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation

• How Chiropractic Subluxation Theory Threatens Public Health

• Analysis of a Misleading Chiropractic Article in a Major Medical Journal

• Serious pseudoscience

• Subluxations not backed up by proof

Good reading! -- Fyslee 20:36, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

I am copying this information here, since it is very relevant for this thread:

Subluxations are not a "system". It is a misalignment of bones. Levine2112 08:19, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

True enough, but we're not talking about orthopedic subluxations, but about chiropractic subluxations (VS), which are far more than just a "misalignment of bones." They can exist with absolutely no objective or subjective evidence for their presence, other than the pronouncement of a chiropractor. They can be asymptomatic, and yet be considered to be a legitimate object for non-stop, lifelong "wellness care."

They are also the legal and philosophical foundation of the chiropractic profession, in spite of their being considered by many chiros and all scientists outside the profession, to be the biggest hindrance to the advancement of the profession. The most adamant promoter of their existence admits that they are not a proven entity, but that "The vertebral subluxation cannot be precisely defined because it is an abstraction, an intellectual construct used by chiropractors, chiropractic researchers, educators and others to explain the success of the chiropractic adjustment." - Koren

They are not only a system of thought, they are currently (not just historically) the foundation of a whole profession, and practically the only thing uniquely chiropractic. If that doesn't qualify them for inclusion here, then the whole concept of pseudoscience loses all meaning. In spite of chiropractic being based on a pseudoscientific concept, I still don't consider placing chiropractic itself in the list, although good arguments could be made for that possibility. -- Fyslee 20:20, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Vertebral subluxation is simply a misalignment of the vertebra . Are we to add scoliosis to the list of pseudosciences too then? Levine2112 21:29, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. Misalignment of the vertebra would be fairly striaghtforward to objectively detect.Geni 05:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

But yet that is precisely what Vertebral Subluxation is. Just a misalignment of the vertebra. Now then, when bones move out of place, the soft tissue surrounding the bone becomes inflamed. In the case of the vertebrae, this tissue can cause pressure on the nerve stem and interfere with nervous message flow. It is this point - what chiropractor's believe to be the result of Vertebral Subluxation - that is contentious; albeit not pseudoscience. Vertebral Subluxation is the foundation of a concept, but are in themselves not a concept. Levine2112 17:15, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

"Just a misalignment ....?" Not quite, by a long shot (111 years of contention and changing definitions within the profession).

There are myriad significant differences between the chiropractic vertebral subluxation (VS) and an orthopedic subluxation. I'll name just a few of them here:

• An orthopedic subluxation is always objectively verifiable and no one questions its existence, including chiropractors. It is also nearly always symptomatic, and it usually is not amenable to manipulation of the HVLA thrust variety commonly used by chiropractors. In fact, its presence is usually considered to be a contraindication to the use of manipulation.

• The chiropractic VS is a "claimed" diagnosis: It is "claimed" that there is a "misalignment." This claim is nearly always false, since it is only the chiropractor who determines its existence and location; no two chiropractors find the same "subluxation;" it is not objectively verifiable on x-ray or scans; it is often asymptomatic, yet is the subject of lifelong so-called "maintenance care" (which is expressly excluded from insurance coverage by several major health insurers); ad libitum....

• The very existence of the VS is vigorously debated, even within chiropractic circles, with more and more chiropractors openly expressing "heretical" doubts. This would not be the case if VS were "just a misalignment" that was easily objectively confirmable.

• Only VS is the foundation of a profession, and since it is debated and unproven, it makes a very shaky and unstable foundation, which is the biggest cause of most of the problems chiropractic has endured throughout the years. Of course chiropractors attempt to get around this fact (it's pretty nearly impossible to admit that one has a false belief...) by blaming their troubles on persecution from the medical profession. While there certainly has been persecution, the reason has basically been because of the false VS belief being perpetrated on the public, with its resulting quackeries and scams.

• VS is a confusing and false diagnosis, because it attempts to misuse and twist an existing and legitimate subluxation diagnosis. There is only one "true" subluxation, and that is the orthopedic subluxation.

-- Fyslee 07:40, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Added here: -- Fyslee 21:01, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

---

An interesting entry on the subject of vertebral alignment. -- Fyslee 22:24, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

"Evidence in intro" - I think present phrasing is fine. Think Fyslee you might be overreacting here - the word "though" clearly sets the meaning on my reading, unless I'm missing something (always very possible, I'm tired here). It is hard to sustain a claim that there is "no" scientific evidence for anything without getting into interpretation of what would constitute scientific evidence for this. Don't see why we can't all live happily with the present phrasing. Minor point - "its popularity is declining" - is popularity the right word here?Gleng 20:42, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Well put, Gleng. Thanks. We must all look out and not overreact. With regards to the "popularity" bit. There is evidence and statistics to the contrary... that Chiropractic "popularity" is growing still. What should we do when we have two resources saying the exact opposite thing? Should we give both statistics? Levine2112 00:01, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I must say I am surprised that Gleng takes party with one who

1. violated Wiki policy (3RR),

2. while reverting against the edits of multiple editors.

3. is under obligation to provide citable evidence for entries (the burden of proof is on the claimant, as stated above):

""Unless you can find a reliable, solid source for ANY information in Wikipedia ... it must not be included in the article if it is under dispute...."--Jimbo Wales 20:02, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

The provision of such a source of evidence by Levine2112 would remove my objection. It's basically a problem of falsifiablity. "No evidence" can easily be modified to "some evidence" by the mere provision of "some" evidence! Levine2112 needs to provide it.

Weird situation that all three violations get ignored and defended. I suspect that we are both tired!

As far as conflicting statistics, let's see the others. If there is a real conflict, then we'll need to discuss what to do with them. -- Fyslee 00:18, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Okay, Fyslee. Time for you to have your spot of tea and calm down. You're getting in that aggressive mode of yours again. Let's remain calm and not point fingers. We're doing so well.

With regards to 3RR. I didn't violate it. If I did, I certainly apologize. It wasn't intentional. And please understand that I wasn't editing against multiple editors (as you put it), but rather with them in this highly collaborative process. Clearly, there is sore spot in the article that needs to be smoothed out with some manual adjustments. So please, boil up some water, break out the Earl Grey or Chamomille. Or maybe it's time for the 18-year old single malt you've been saving. We're all working together here to make the best article possible.

I would think that all of the research that I have pointed to thus far (the hundred or so links at chiro.org, the MGT research for FSU, et cetera) is enough to at least say that there is "some" evidence. But just in case you want more, you may wish to check out the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research. It is a respected peer reviewed scientific journal dedicated to chiropractic research. Their website is chocked full of evidence. And I know it's not at all scientifically conclusive, but positive anecdotal reports from an overwhelming amount of patients and doctor is certainly evidence. You can't just discount those. I'm not trying to say that there is conclusive proof. (My POV is that there is no conclusive proof of anything.) But you must concede that there is some evidence.

We're all making great headway. Let's stay rational and calm and keep up the good work team. Levine2112 07:33, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Some more statistical evidence. Levine2112 15:19, 30 April 2006 (UTC)