Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] Popularity

It must be this paragraph you're referring to:

Although chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960's, its popularity is declining. The U.S. National Center for Education Statistics reports that enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell by 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002, and the number of chiropractic patients fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002. [1]

Maybe another word might be good, although "popularity" fits the bill without being explicitly POV editorializing. I'm not averse to trying other synonyms. "Utilization" applies to the patient part, but not to the educational part. -- Fyslee 21:18, 29 April 2006 (UTC)

Utilization works for me, though I am still trying to figure out the numbers as well. It sounds steep. --Dematt 04:34, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
I have reworded it now. I hope it is more accurate. The 39.9% number is very steep! It is quoted here. Just search for 39.9%.


I still think "popularity" makes this sound more judgemental as it makes it sound like the "people" no longer favor it. The next sentence in the source says:
Possible causes for the decline, identified during our recent interviews with chiropractic experts, include raising admission standards to 90 semester credit hours, a demographic drop in eligible students, rising tuition costs, the increasing burden of student loans, managed care’s affect on the chiropractic profession, and a reduction in referrals, recruiting, and encouragement from practicing chiropractors. In all likelihood, the drop in enrollments is due to a combination of factors mentioned. It was also noted that virtually all health professions saw a drop in applications during this period. In medical schools, where applications vastly exceeded openings, there was not a drop in enrollments.
Our interviews with the presidents of chiropractic colleges confirm a rise in enrollment levels since 2002. Some of the college presidents also noted that this increase will be supported by the demographic bulge as more of the millennial generation graduate from undergraduate programs and pursue graduate degrees. Chapman-Smith, David. (2000). The Chiropractic Profession. p. 51-2. Des Moines, Iowa: NCMIC
I think the statement above about "all health professions" puts the "steep" 39.9% drop in enrollment into perspective with what was happening in the US at the time. The contoversial rise of HMO's was painting a bleak picture for anyone who might be considering a career in the healthcare arena back then. Why would anyone go into any healthcare field? This was a time when every parent was pushing there kid into the computer industry. Now that's a number I would like to see:) If we use popularity, we at least have to give some reasons. --Dematt 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Regarding chiropractic income levels, a survey by the ACA noted a decline in net chiropractic income from $101,000 in 1989 to $86,000 in 1997. [1] This information could also be included, as it is a significant factor in decision-making regarding choice of education. -- Fyslee 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
This may tie in with the reason doctors were less likely to refer students to schools. Would you suggest someone go into a your career when your income was dropping? --Dematt 21:46, 30 April 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Conflicting "popularity" statistics

The U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics says just the opposite about chiropractic's popularity. Employment of chiropractors is expected to grow faster than average for all occupations through the year 2014 as consumer demand for alternative health care grows. So according to the U.S. Gov't Bureau of Labor Statistics, chiropractic's "popularity" or "utilization" is growing not declining. The lowered enrollment rates is not an indication of declining popularity with patients, but in the raising of admitance standards for chiropractic schools. The way it is worded now in the article seems to take a false logical leap... that because enrollment is down in chiropractic school, then the utilization of chiropractic by the public must also be down. Whether or not the enrollment stat is true, I don't see how that would be a direct indicator of chiropractic's popularity with patients. Levine2112 07:53, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Here you can find an Analysis of the Chiropractic Section of the Occupational Outlook Handbook. -- Fyslee 13:28, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
Pretty much all of Stephen Barrett's analysis of anything chiropractic with be from avery negative POV. The Bureau of Labor Statistics on the other hand, is a non-biased agency. The report that the give on Chiropractic is also non-biased. Just statistics and information that can be concluded from said statistics. The main point of me mentioning it here is that it negates what is written in our article. Chiropractic is thriving as a profession despite the efforts of the Stephen Barretts of the world. Levine2112 04:55, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
The Bureau's publication is a predictive (not totally factual) work, largely based on the profession's own spin-doctored version of what they wish, and ignores actual statistics in its predictions. A more accurate picture is painted here - The Future of Chiropractic Revisited: 2005 to 2015 - where the various possibilities are painted, including the very real threats posed by other professions, and including the real statistics of what actually is happening. That publication was not influenced by Barrett, but was made with the cooperation of the profession (yet - amazingly! - containing very negative actual statistics and predictions). Barrett's own analysis should stand or fall on its own merits, and not on the usual ad hominem attacks on him as a person designed to detract attention from what he writes. To understand the issues, one needs to read and understand both "sides of the coin." -- Fyslee 07:01, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
You have made an accusation that the Bureau of Labor Statistics' report is the result of chiropractic spin-doctoring. Can you back up this claim? Levine2112 19:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, maybe that sounded too strong. Do you have another explanation for the very rosy picture that is painted? There isn't a single cautionary note (or reference to real statistics, which don't all point in the direction the report points). It seems to be a report based entirely on information supplied by the profession. Let's drop the word "spin-doctoring." Can you supply a better word that realistically explains the very one-sided sales talk? I have already supplied some statistics from real life that contradict this rosy prediction, and these two analyses are still very germane and reliable, because they reveal that there are more sides to the question:
I would like to hear your explanation for the one-sided rosy picture. -- Fyslee 21:02, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I think it the outlook is "rosy" because of chiropractic's success with patients. More and more people are waking up from the mass hypnotic spell that the AMA and Big Pharma has over this country. Chiropractic attracts health-conscious people who are aren't neccessarily satisfied with taking drugs to cover up symptoms of illness, but would rather prevent much dis-ease by keeping their bodies functioning the best is can. I think the non-invasiveness of chiropractic has also contributed to its rising popularity. It's also can be a low-cost alternative. Basically, I think an unbiased agency of the US Gov't such as The Bureau of Labor Statistics would paint such a rosy picture for chiropractic's future because the unbiased statistical evidence is pointing in that direction. Levine2112 00:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Gee, Levine. I would imagine that since no one is killed going to a chiropractor, well OK maybe one or two a decade, compared with medicine's whopping 700,000 killed each year just from preventable errors (not counting the ones killed from proper practice or intentionally!), it is no wonder that maybe the outlook for chiropractic is rosy because it is safe.

Which is why I wonder why the article on Chiropractic seems to have a note of warning in practically every paragraph. What's that all about? I think this needs to be looked at again and corrected. What do you think? Steth 03:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Statement retracted.-AED 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Whoa! I think we are getting really off topic here and unneccessarily argumentative. My point -which hopefully isn't lost - is that this article makes a claim that chiropractic's popularity may be diminishing. However, I have provided evidence to the contrary. I am asking for a revision.
Here are a couple more links to articles all of which suggest that chiropractic's usage is increasing. With conflicting data, should would leave the part about chiropractic's popularity decreasing in the article?
Levine2112 05:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I think Fyslee's links suggest that there may eventually be an oversupply of chiropractors, but I cannot find anything to suggest that the usage of chiropractic is decreasing percentage-wise or in the total number of chiropractic visits.-AED 05:50, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
So can we delete or change this to reflect that these statistics of a decling popularity may be subjective and/or inaccurate?
Although chiropractic experienced a boom in popularity from the 1960's, it has since experienced severe declines in enrollments and patient utilization rates in the U.S. The U.S. National Center for Education Statistics reports that enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell by 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002,[8] and the number of chiropractic patients fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002.
Levine2112 06:49, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


Please indicate which part of the statement above is subjective or inaccurate. It mentions two factors:
1. Enrollments: National Center for Education Statistics, Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System, Retrieved online 8/15/2004 at [2] Quoted here: [3]
2. Patient utilization rates: Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9. [4]
Are these statistics inaccurate? If so, in what way, and why do chiropractic authorities quote them? -- Fyslee 08:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
One trouble with the Tindle comparison is that there were 31,044 subjects in the 2002 survey, but only 2,055 subjects in the 1997 study. The methodology of collecting data was also different between the two. -AED 18:05, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
AED brings up a very good point. But I'm not trying to dismiss the stats that Fyslee is defending. I'm only demonstrating that there are conflicting stats out there. That's where the subjectivity and possible innacuracies lay. So before we leave a loaded statement such as "the popularity of chiropractic is declining" in the article, I think we should look at all of the evidence. I have cited a large body of evidence that shows that chiropractic's popularity is increasing not just in the U.S. but globally. Levine2112 18:27, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
You are using a straw man argument. That paragraph has long since been revised by myself. Here is what you just wrote:
"So before we leave a loaded statement such as "the popularity of chiropractic is declining" in the article,...." [5]
You are beating a dead horse, right down to the precise wording.
Here is what the article now says:
"Although chiropractic experienced a boom in popularity from the 1960's, it has since experienced severe declines in enrollments and patient utilization rates in the U.S."
The original wording was much worse and it got changed. Now deal with the new wording. It seemed to be accepted as a much better, more accurate, and absolutely precise wording. -- Fyslee 21:16, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, "patient utilization rate" is not the same as "percentage of the population that uses chiropractic". Secondly, it appears to states that the usage of chiropractic has declined since the 1960s. What figures do we have from the '60s to verify that that is accurate? -AED 21:22, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with AED. The wording is rather misleading. Also, I don't appreciate Fyslee's remarks to us that we should just "deal with it". This is a collaborative effort. And while I appreciate his edits here, I don't find the current statement acceptable at all. Let's all work to revise it into something more accurate.
From the research that I have link to here, it seems that chiropractic has seen a steady growth since the 1960's in the United States. Plus, globally, chiropractic is recognized in so many more countries today than yesteryear. So, if we are to say anything at all about chiropractic's popularity, we should recognize its extrordinary growth. For a discipline that is but a 120 years ago, its popularity is rather remarkable. As the U.S. Dept. of Labor says: Because chiropractors emphasize the importance of healthy lifestyles and do not prescribe drugs or perform surgery, chiropractic care is appealing to many health-conscious Americans. Chiropractic treatment of the back, neck, extremities, and joints has become more accepted as a result of research and changing attitudes about alternative, noninvasive health care practices. The rapidly expanding older population, with its increased likelihood of mechanical and structural problems, also will increase demand for chiropractors. Levine2112 22:17, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Suggesting what someone thinks about chiropractctic's future may be better under an article entitled "why my crystal ball is better than your crystal ball" but not here. Speculation over surveys should be removed. There are new schools opening in ever-increasing numbers in foreign countries. So it looks like chiropractic's popularity is doing OK. Steth 11:00, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


That's why the statistics that are cited are real, not predictive (like the ones cited by Levine2112). They are WP:VS, and not POV. They are established facts. The future outlook is also interesting, with several different scenarios. The profession considers it important enough to study and publish. BUT, the paragraph in question is not some POV opinion and speculation about the future. You apparently don't like those facts, and - not having answered my legitimate questions above - insist on deleting those facts. -- Fyslee 11:48, 3 May 2006 (UTC)


You are correct about the confusing wording. I have reworded it now. I hope it is more accurate. -- Fyslee 13:52, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that the school point and the patient visits point both add to the article, but it needs at least possible reasons why. It would be great if they can be citations. For instance, is the decline in patient visits because of HMO's? etc... or is it because, people are looking for more EBM? etc... --Dematt 15:42, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Rewording of "popularity" paragraph

Portions of the following have been highlighted to make it easier to follow the revisions.

The original:

"Chiropractic has gained general acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back, neck and other spine-related problems."

That statement wasn't all that bad, but it didn't take into account the latest developments, which are reflected in the statistics.

That was then replaced with the following "popularity" wording that was problematic because it was too general and non-specific:

"Although chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960's, its popularity is declining." [6]

I recognized that and revised it to this:

"Although chiropractic experienced a boom in popularity from the 1960's, it has in the later years experienced severe declines in enrollments and patient utilization rates." [7]

Then it got changed to this (without me noticing it):

"Although chiropractic experienced a boom in popularity from the 1960's, it has since experienced severe declines in enrollments and patient utilization rates in the U.S." [8]

That's where we are today, and that needs some revision, since "popularity" is too vague a word, and "since experienced" is not the same as "in the later years." There can be no question that chiropractic is "popular" among its users (7.4% of the USA population), and CAM is also popular. The question to be decided here is how to deal with the statistics that were so surprising to the Tindle group and those who did the Chiropractic Futures study.

I propose that we use some of the old wording and add something to account for the statistics:

"Although chiropractic has gained more acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back, neck and other spine-related problems, statistics in the later years have been conflicting, and in some cases worrisome. Student enrollments fell 39.9% between 1996 and 2002, [2] and adult patient utilization rates fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002. [3]
  • (Other actual statistics from real life, with the numbers and refs, can be added here to show the diversity of angles from which this subject can be analyzed. Merely listing references isn't good enough. Readers shouldn't have to read the references to find the numbers, only to check the context.)


The relevant enrollment statistics (in context) are quoted below:

The most important story about chiropractic education, and one not foreseen in our 1998 report, has been the dramatic decline in chiropractic enrollments. According to data published by the National Center for Education Statistics, fall enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002.37
Possible causes for the decline, identified during our recent interviews with chiropractic experts, include raising admission standards to 90 semester credit hours,38 a demographic drop in eligible students, rising tuition costs, the increasing burden of student loans, managed care's affect on the chiropractic profession, and a reduction in referrals, recruiting, and encouragement from practicing chiropractors. In all likelihood, the drop in enrollments is due to a combination of factors mentioned. It was also noted that virtually all health professions saw a drop in applications during this period. In medical schools, where applications vastly exceeded openings, there was not a drop in enrollments.
Our interviews with the presidents of chiropractic colleges confirm a rise in enrollment levels since 2002. Some of the college presidents also noted that this increase will be supported by the demographic bulge as more of the millennial generation graduate from undergraduate programs and pursue graduate degrees.

Another quote in the same document:

According to the National Center for Education Statistics enrollments in chiropractic colleges dropped 42.6%.128 Based on our interviewees, and a recent upswing in enrollment numbers, it appears that enrollments will return to their prior levels and ultimately grow.
However, there are many additional major threats to chiropractic that were not recognized in 1998. These include the rise of DPTs and studies indicating equal efficacy for back problems from physical therapist, massage therapists, self care and chiropractors; and highly publicized lawsuits against chiropractors. All of these are addressed above in scenario 2. -- National Center for Education Statistics

The utilization statistics:

Overall CAM use for the 15 therapies common to both surveys was similar between 1997 and 2002 (36.5%, vs. 35.0%, respectively, each representing about 72 million US adults). The greatest relative increase in CAM use between 1997 and 2002 was seen for herbal medicine (12.1% vs.18.6%, respectively), and yoga (3.7% vs. 5.1%, respectively), while the largest relative decrease occurred for chiropractic (9.9% to 7.4%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of CAM use has remained stable from 1997 to 2002. Over one in three respondents used CAM in the past year, representing about 72 million US adults. -- Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002.


I have a question: What have been the highest patient utilization rates for chiropractic in the USA? Has it been much over 10% at any time? Something tells me it has been over, but I wonder what the numbers were? -- Fyslee 18:47, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I will look into the stats as well. But in the meantime, what you have quoted above makes it sound that chiropractic college enrollment dropped for a little while but is now (as of 2002) on an upswing. Given the ebb and flow of things in the world, why even mention the temporary drop in enrollment if it only went back up? Further, perhaps this all would be better suited for the newly added Chiropractic Colleges wiki-article than here. Levine2112 18:57, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Good. I think as long as we thoroughly cover the reasons why, it will all come together. I have a feeling the managed care problem is the big one. 1997 - 2002 were big managed care takeover years. Patient's were being pulled form our offices like candy because we weren't allowed on the lists. Of course we stopped referring patient's to schools. We were being pinched. Our big source for patients is word of mouth. And when you take them away, they also can't refer. It took chiro a little while to recover from this new tactic. I still don't like the word popularity just because I don't think it was actually by patient "choice" that they couldn't come. IMO with a level playing field, the numbers would have been different.--Dematt 19:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I'd like to see that "colleges" link Wikilinked. Sounds interesting. -- Fyslee 19:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
It is wikilinked in the article under the education portion. Chiropractic schools I also think that Dematt make a great point above. It puts the figure in the context of the time. Manage care was responsible for the so-called numbers drop. It wasn't due to a lack of popularity with patients, but the inability to choose. It's not fair to say that the patient numbers dropped without putting it in context. And we certainly can't say that chiropractic lost popularity given this context. Levine2112 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the link. The reasons for the statistics certainly should be explained. The "popularity" issue is a half-dead horse, since it was revised a while back (Wikitime). My proposition above removes the word completely. The education statistics didn't even take into account the Life debacle, since it happened later. The enrollment there is starting to climb again, so it would be truthful to say that the statistics are moving upwards again, although still far from up to what it was. It may get back up to the niveau before the Life debacle, but since there are more and more potential chiro students that are going other routes, it's hard to say. The Life debacle scared many away, and the huge student loan default rate among chiros is also very scary. Stanley Paris is now getting chiros into his school. He's started a special program that will allow chiros to upgrade to a DPT. Needless to say it's controversial. Will they really become PTs, or will they be Trojan Horses that just seek the degree for its prestige? -- Fyslee 20:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the following proposal: "Although chiropractic has gained more acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back, neck and other spine-related problems, statistics in the later years have been conflicting, and in some cases worrisome. Student enrollments fell 39.9% between 1996 and 2002, [2] and adult patient utilization rates fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002. [3] I have a couple concerns:

  1. "statistics... have been... worrisome" 1) doesn't make sense and 2) could be interpreted as POV.
  2. As I mentioned previously, I'm not convinced that Tindle's comparison of two studies suggesting that there is a decrease in usage should be held as Gospel. That is what the above statement does.
  3. Utilization of chiropractic by a percentage of the population is one thing; the utilization by total number of chiropractic visits is another.
  4. If the rates are decreasing, why is there no mention of why that may be?

-AED 21:13, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

  1. It makes perfect sense, but different wording could be chosen, although articles by chiropractors express concern about those statistics. They believe them. Of course that would be chiropractic POV..... and because they are negative POV about negative very real statistics, would not be allowed here. Only positive facts or POV are allowed.
  2. Please provide links to the two studies for me to look at. I'd like to examine them.
  3. We're not talking about total number of chiropractic visits. (That's a different subject.) These statistics don't mention that. They are statistics of CAM use by adults. (There are fraud statistics regarding total number of visits. The larger the numbers, the greater the insurance fraud. Especially Texas has been notorious. Possibly Florida, if my memory serves me well. The numbers far exceed other professions and are indicators of exploitation of the system.)
  4. Good question. If there is an explanation, I'd like to read documentation for it. There may be an explanation somewhere out there. -- Fyslee 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
  1. To me, it reads as though statistics worry rather than cause worry. In context of "the last 40 years...", it also gives the impression that decreasing usage is cause for worry.
  2. 1997: Long-term trends in the use of complementary and alternative medical therapies in the United States. 2002: Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults: United States, 2002.
  3. I understand that you are not talking about total number of chiropractic visits. My point is that usage can be viewed in multiple ways, so to say that it is decreasing by only viewing percentages is not necessarily accurate.
  4. I think it may be notable to mention that chiropractors feel shut-out by managed care.
-AED 22:39, 4 May 2006 (UTC)


I just don't see the point of even mentioning anything about the dip without the mention of the Managed Care issue. Actually, I don't really see the point of having the statement about the popularity dipping then going back up at all. It's a pretty minor and speculative point in the grand scheme of this article that only seems to be added to take an unfair POV pot-shot at chiropractic. The numbers are unrreliable and the point is made without context. Maybe the Managed Care period could be brought up in the history and show how that lead to a temporary dip in chiropractic patient numbers but how the numbers have risen since. Levine2112 21:20, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Precisely. I mentioned that an explanation would be appropriate. We're not speaking about a "popularity dip". That's a dead horse. Why do you insist on beating it? Repeating a straw man argument doesn't make it true. I have suggested different wording.
It is not POV, but verifiable RS fact. Wikipedia allows (requires) it. You haven't yet replied to my request for proof of unreliability. Instead you just make the claim.
Managed care could be a part of the explanation, but you are confusing the enrollment stats with the utilization stats. Enrollments are beginning to slowly climb, but patient visits are down. You claim that "the numbers have risen since." Where are your statistics that show they are climbing again? Maybe they are, but without the stats, it's just an undocumented claim. -- Fyslee 22:06, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I was citing what you provided. Both articles say that there has been an upswing or rise in enrollment since 2002. Levine2112 21:48, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I have already mentioned the rise in enrollment. It's the patient utilization rates I'm talking about. Do you have stats for them? -- Fyslee 21:59, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you're looking for here other than an argument. We have already pointed out the flaw in the Tindle study (31,044 subjects in the 2002 survey, but only 2,055 subjects in the 1997 study). Also, "patient utilization rate" is different from "percentage of the population that uses chiropractic". Levine2112 00:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
The managed care issue needs to be dealt with somewhere. I like your idea of putting it in the history, though chiros are still dealing with it. That's where Fyslee's future outlook info becomes important, too. We should be able to put it all together. --Dematt 21:46, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Precisely. Managed care is affecting everybody. -- Fyslee 22:07, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Exactly. "It was also noted that virtually all health professions saw a drop in applications during this period. In medical schools, where applications vastly exceeded openings, there was not a drop in enrollments."[2] I imagine the only people that worried were those who pay the bills at the school. With vitually all sources noting that chiropractic patients are very satisfied with their care, the only thing chiros worry about is their patients not getting reimbursed, as do all health professions.(no reliable source:)--Dematt 01:53, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] New wording

It has been mentioned that there seems to be a discrepancy (or question of reliability?) between the patient use statistics between the 1997 and 2002 studies:

  • (1) the Alternative Health/Complementary and Alternative Medicine supplement to the 2002 National Health Interview Survey (NHIS, N = 31,044) and
  • (2) a 1997 national survey (N = 2055), [9]

Apparently some think that it isn't proper to compare studies with such different population numbers, and in some cases this would be true, but in this case the authors (which include the kingpin of CAM - Eisenberg himself), don't seem to see it as a problem. They conclude it represents a reduction in percentage of the adult population that uses chiropractic -- it fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002.

If we consider ourselves to be wiser than that research team (!!), we could use another possible interpretation, which is also used at times: the larger study is taken as more reliable. This would indicate that there may not be a reduction at all, but that the original numbers were simply too high. This line of reasoning would indicate that chiropractic use has not been as great as earlier believed. Unfortunately for this article, we can't use that line of reasoning without a reliable source.

I propose that we use the following wording as a (temporary) improvement of the existing wording:

"Although chiropractic has gained more acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back, neck and other spine-related problems, resulting in increased usage, [citation needed] statistics in the later years have shown some variations from these trends: student enrollments fell 39.9% between 1996 and 2002, [2] and the percentage of the adult population that uses chiropractic fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002. [3] The statistics for student enrollments seem to be rising again, while patient use statistics are still uncertain.[citation needed]

If anyone can provide reliable statistics for patient use trends, it would be helpful. -- Fyslee 22:45, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

The context is still missing. We need to discuss managed care here. Levine2112 01:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely. More context can be added when reliable sources have been found.
I'd still like to see reliable statistics for patient use trends since 2002. Was that dip a temporary one that has begun to turn upwards yet?-- Fyslee 07:35, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Future outlook analyzed

I would like to see how the following can be included in the article. It is such an excellent report (paid for and made in full cooperation with the profession) and analyzes the future of chiropactic (and chiropractic itself) in great detail. Such a resource deserves mention (with more than just a link) in the article. Just a casual reading of the report provides one with a great deal of knowledge about chiropractic - past, present, and future. This could be placed in the History section as the third subheading, or as a separate section:

Proposed heading: "Future outlook"

The future outlook for chiropractic is uncertain and has been analyzed in a report which describes four different scenarios based on an analysis of the following issues and trends in the profession:

  • Chiropractic in the Healthcare Marketplace
  • Chiropractic Education
  • The Philosophy of Chiropractic
  • Cultural Legitimacy and Integration into Healthcare
  • The Practice of Chiropractic
  • Managed Care
  • User Demographics
  • Technology
  • Research on Chiropractic Care

The four scenarios are described as:

  • 1. Slow, Steady Growth
  • 2. Downward Spiral
  • 3. Evidence Based Collaboration
  • 4. Healthy Life Doctors

The report ends with a series of recommendations for dealing with these predicted scenarios:

  • 1. Accelerate Research
  • 2. Continue to Strive for High Standards of Practice
  • 3. Develop Greater Integration with Mainstream Healthcare
  • 4. Anticipate and Engage Consumer Directed Care
  • 5. Create Greater Unity within the Profession
  • 6. Enhance Individual DC's Contribution to Public Health
  • 7. Prepare for the Future of Prevention & Wellness

[4]

From: The Future of Chiropractic Revisited: 2005 to 2015

-- Fyslee 09:17, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly have no trouble with that. It would be a great way to finish off the article with an outlook to the future. --Dematt 15:50, 30 April 2006 (UTC)
One thing I miss in the "recommendations" is a clear and separate point labeled "8. Dealing with quackery and unethical conduct." A search of the document for these key words - fraud, unethical, malpractice, straight - reveals it is mentioned (in passing), but since this subject is one of the major objections to the profession, it should be dealt with in a major way. Questions of effectiveness and appropriateness of the role of manipulation can always be cleared up by better research, but that doesn't solve the problem of widespread quackery, and thus the objections will continue to be raised. The problem needs to be dealt with more forcefully, since it creates undeserved problems for all the sincere and hardworking chiros who help lots of people.
Since the document fails to deal with it, this article can do so. Such a step would be hailed as a positive step by critics, and it would help to disarm them. -- Fyslee 07:22, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Introduction - next paragraph

Okay guys. I've been struggling here in the next paragraph of the introduction. The facts that I have left to work with don't really go together well, so bear with me while I throw something out there. Once it's down there, you can go through it with the fine tooth comb. I'll try to keep it as neutral as a mixer chiro can, but i do want it interesting. Any input you guys want to put in is fine with me, just throw it in there - the same rules apply. I'm not going to get too deep in the intro, but I think I'm going to have to touch on some of the politics within and/or without the profession to bring it up to the 21st century. You know we have to be real, painful or not. No judgements about any of it - it is what it is. We made it through the first part. Mccready, do me a favor, I'm not going to have the time to look for references this first time around, so pls don't just delete it - note it for me and maybe one of us knows where to find it - you guys are all powerhouses of knowledge, so do your thing!--Dematt 01:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

On my reading you've done a great job. I've made a few copy edits and one change that should be explained - changed "no scientific evidence" to "no accepted scientific basis". In my ignorance I guess that for me, to say that people believe something despite no scientific evidence is to declare their beliefs to be religious, and I'd be reluctant to say this without this being a true reflection of how they characterise their own beliefs. I'm guessing that the truth is that most feel that their beliefs are rationally founded (i.e. on some evidence) though the evidence might be unconvincing to others.Gleng 08:48, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

I do agree with your statement, I personally don't consider myself as believing in a religious sense rather than waiting for science to catch up. To reasoning that if it is not scientific then it must be religious would make it an either/or logical fallacy.--Dematt 17:37, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History revisited

I'm looking at the History section. I think this is where we can really spruce this thing up. DD was a very colorful man and apparently there was lots of contoversy and deceit, both for and against chiropractic. No-one really knows the truth here. I learned the watered down version at school, but now that I have read some of the Fyslee stuff, I am even more intrigued. I don't know the details like you guys do, so as I lay out the timeline, pls make any additions that you feel are necessary. We need it all, the osteopath link, the religious stuff, christian scientists, AMA attacks, DD's responses, the UCA, science of spinal manipulation, etc.. The problem is that I don't know where all the references are so I need you guys to put them in after I'm done. In other words, don't just delete something because it hasn't been referenced yet. Let me know where it came from or ask someone else to clear it up. If we have a conflict, we can discuss it here.

The important thing is that it all makes sense when we're done. When we put it into perspective of when all this was all happening, we should be able to get a feel for why it has happened. The amazing thing about chiropractic is that is still here. What is it that has allowed it to endure? Is it something special or is it stupid people who just don't know any better(you know what I mean:)? It is not up to us to decide. But, the premise of this exercise is that wikipedia has the potential of getting the story more right than it ever has been.

We should end it just after the Wilk case, somewhere before the beginning of managed care. The net effect should feel exactly like chiropractic is now. Not Gods gift to man, but not the devil either. Then we can make the new section that Fyslee talked about with the future of chiropractic.

What do you think? If we do it the same way we did the intro, we should be okay. I know you guys have worked hard here. If you would rather I left it alone, say so now. Otherwise, do we need to have the bid bold section saying "conflicting statements for..." or can we just work the conflict into the narrative?--Dematt 18:18, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Your track record speaks for itself. Go for it! (A little at a time....;-) When in doubt, try it here first. -- Fyslee 21:08, 1 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Introduction - First paragraph -2

I am not comfortable with the sentence. "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." Since evidence does exist, e.g. AHCPR guidelines, among others, then this sentence is not accurate. I feel it should be removed. Steth 22:19, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

There is a BIG difference between "clinically effective" and "statistically effective". I agree with Steth, there is evidence to show that chiropractic is clinically effective. -AED 23:57, 1 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree too, there is a lot of clinical data showing the effectiveness for chiropractic care. It should be said why it's difficult to test chiropractic with a double blind rct.--Hughgr 00:40, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Then it it essentially agreed that this is inaccurate, so I will remove it. ThanksSteth 01:43, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
How are the AHCPR guidelines evidence of anything? In any case what makes you think this evidence is up to the standards of evidence based medcine.Geni 01:48, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Geni, they (the guidelines) are evidence, regardless of what you or I think or feel. They are from an official sounding panel and body, what more do you need? They are about spinal manipulation which is what defines chiropractic.

Bigos S, Bowyer O, Braen G, et al. Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 14. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1994.

Here is what they said: AHCPR Guideline recommended Spinal manipulation of low back during first month of symptoms with a ‘B’ rating. B = moderate research-based evidence (one relevant, high-quality scientific study or multiple adequate scientific studies).

Manipulation for patients with radiculopathy (C). Manipulation for patients with symptoms > 1 month (C). C = limited research-based evidence (at least one adequate scientific study in patients with low back pain).

I am just saying that since evidence exists, the statement that no evidence exists is false and should be removed. There was agreement with this. So why would you want to keep it in?

Here is more, indicating that evidence does exist. So read through this and lets be open to adding much of this information to the article and remove anti-chiropractic biased statements:

Spinal manipulation Steth 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

(Regarding that last link, the two non-chiropractors authors, Shekelle and Cherkin, appear to have good credentials.) In my opinion there are a number of problems with this statement: "As with many alternative/complementary treatments, chiropractic is controversial, with sceptics claiming that evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine." First of all, the inclusion of "sceptics claiming..." without a source or without specifying which skeptics believe that could be considered weasel wording. Secondly, it conveniently dismisses chiropractic in one fell swoop without addressing specific techniques and specific problems. Even Quackwatch's sister site, Chirobase, cites a summary of spinal manipulation that indicates chiropractic spinal manipulation has some efficacy in the treatment of neck and low back pain[10]. If that summary, which suggests that spinal manipulation appears to be "extremely dangerous", is accurate, then the statement as written above is inaccurate. -AED 04:54, 2 May 2006 (UTC)


Although I agree with the statement "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.", that particularly statement is POV as there have been (IMHO, questionable) studies which show effectiveness. May I suggest, as an alternative, when I just entered: "There is little scientific evidence as to the validity of the theory or effectiveness of the treatments." (You may replace "theory" by "theories", if you feel there is more than one in question.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:05, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ethical regulation

I think that Fyslee raises an important point which needs to be faced. In any profession there are some rogues and frauds, some who manipulate vulnerable or naive people for either monetary gain or status and influence; there are some who are cavalier with the truth, and I think that exposure of these is a great public service, so I support strongly this intent of Quackwatch. Scientists (my profession) are shamed and outraged by frauds amongst us, and there are some, and when they are uncovered then we can be pretty merciless - if a paper is withdrawn on these grounds the shadow taints everyone associated with it irrevocably. Science shouldn't be known by its frauds nor medicine or chiropractic by theirs, but knowing that a profession polices itself, how it regulates its members and how it sanctions breaches of conduct seems to me to be an important matter of public interest, and addressing it can be in the interests of chiropractic. I start from ignorance here, I do not know about professional codes of ethics in chiropractic, and how they are enforced, or if they can be effectively except by word of mouth and spread of reputation. I am sure that there is deep pride and honour amongst chiropractors - how do you deal with those who are less competent or less honest?

I think the article is now making real progress, please let's not get too hung up on particular phrases while it's evolving because, the overall shape and tone seems to be moving forward. Yes we'll need to come back over things, but sometimes what seems to be POV in isolation may just not be an issue in the whole context. (and feel free to wish me a happy birthday). Gleng 08:46, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

HAPPY BIRTHDAY! to Gleng. May you be blessed with good health and good Scotch....;-) -- Fyslee 09:14, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
HAPPY BIRTHDAY! AGAIN Gleng! What a great way to spend your day:) I have three problems with the Quack thing;
    1. The first is the word itself; It stings like a racial slur such as WOP, wetback, etc.., it's hard to build consensus with a word that conjures up so much emotion. It does nothing to solve anything.
    2. In chiropractic's case, most Quackery comments are directed at whole professions rather than a particular professional. I think a more appropriate word would be charlatan for the issue that you raise.
    3. Who decides who is a quack or charlatan? There are too many unchecked judgements made already. Just because your competition calls you a quack, doesn't make it true. If that is the case, Louis Pasteur would have been a quack.
I think we should try to avoid the word "quack" when we deal with anti-chiro issues and be real careful who we call a charlatan.--Dematt 15:47, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh I agree fully. I apologise unreservedly for using the word, I shouldn't have - it didn't occur to me that any of you would feel sensitive, but I should have remembered how my hackles rise when people use certain words even though I know they aren't directed at me personally. I should make it absolutely clear that I was using quack as a word to describe individuals who the profession itself would consider to be disreputable. Let's avoid this word by all means, the issue is not how the profession deals with criticisms from outside, but how it polices itself. Let's take my line of work - because I know about it - experiments are a) subject to Home Office inspection by full time ispectors b) projects have to have approval by Ethics committees as well as by the Home Office c) the University has codes of research ethics d) journals have ethical guidelines and sanctions - i.e. there is a stacked regulatory framework. It may not work well, but it expresses codes of conduct with sanctions that have considerable teeth to express clear ideas of what is acceptable and what is not. It doesn't stop abuse, but it reflects professional standards expected. The Law Society here regulates law, and the GMC regulates medicine much more formally of course. I'm not suggesting that this article should name and shame, or throw accusations about, far from it, that would be inappropriate and unfair. I am just suggesting that you and the other chiropractics explain what professional codes of practice exist to regulate chiropractic and protect the patient.Gleng 16:18, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm with you(I've never seen you call anybody a quack).
In the US, every state has a body that regulates the profession and makes sure that everyone is practicing within the scope of the law of that state. Most are made of chiros and other citizens appointed or elected. Anyone (a citizen, an MD, a fellow chiro, etc..) can complain to the board of examiners in my state, and that will trigger an investigation. They may hire someone to pose as a patient and inconspiciously determine if you are practicing illegally or not. If they determine that you are, a hearing is scheduled where you are given a chance to explain your behavior. If it is determined that you are practicing illegally, your license may be suspended, revoked or you may be given a chance to change your behavior.
Advertising is strictly monitored in my state. Making false claims will get you in big trouble with the board.
You can lose your license if you are convicted of a felony, which potentially includes anything inside or outside the practice of chiropractic. I can cite some specific examples that I have been involved with if you would like, including one with a chiro who became bipolar and in his moment of grandeur started "treating" nearsightedness with rubbing alcohol claiming he had found the cure - even tried it on himself! But the board caught him and put an end to that before anybody got really hurt.
Most state associations have a code of ethics as well that usually go a step further to try to assure their memebrs practice even more ethically, but these can be skirted more easily and you don't have to join them. Same with the national associations.
I doubt this will satisfy those that think all chiros are charlatans by birth:), but it's a start. --Dematt 17:27, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm really grateful to you for this exchange, I knew it was going to be sensitive, but if handled properly I think that a section on this in the article can convey the ethical principles that the profession aspires to, and how the profession seeks to ensure these. Perhaps the way to do this is to indicate what the profession itself would like to achieve in this respect, and where the profession believes that further progress is needed. If we can get a self critical appraisal from chiropractic in here, then it can maybe pre-empt external criticism.Gleng 11:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think you're right. Another eye opener. I think we chiros forget that persons outside the profession aren't aware of the things we just assume everybody knows. Does anybody else have information that we can work into this? Hughgr, are they doing anything new at the college level? --Dematt 17:11, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know what would be new, since I have only my experience to compare with :) I guess an example would be the teaching of George's Test to help determine if someone is at risk for a stroke. But I think I heard or read that George's Test is only a mild indicator and not full-proof. People have strokes in all kinds of situations like laying their head back in a wash sink at the beauty salon, or turning their head to back up their car, and even doing nothing! But at least it's a step in the right direction. Emphasis was placed on how to determine when it is not safe to give an adjustment, i.e. rule out fracture, Chiari malformation, etc. Is that what you ment? Or did you mean jurisprudence, not making false claims and other unethical advertising claims, as that was emphasised as well. Was that what you were looking for, or something else, let me know--Hughgr 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
More along the lines of policing the profession to keep charlatans from making false claims. What the college position on it? Does your state have ways to police you? --Dematt 19:56, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, it's called the state board, doesn't every state have one? Anyone can contact the state chiropractic board (in my state made up of 4 DC's and one other person) and file a complaint. The board then investigates said complaint for merit, if action is required, they take action by the usual methods related to the level of the complaint.--Hughgr 00:36, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History rewrite - step one

This is the first step. I haven't put any of the references in, but all of it is in the information that each of you have provided at one time or another. It is really quite interesting and was hard to shorten it. I tried to give it a real feel of the 19th century to keep everything that happened in context for the times. Feel free to make suggestions now.

Daniel David Palmer (DD Palmer) was born near Toronto, Canada in the spring of 1845. His paternal ancestors came to this continent from England, and settled in New York State. His grandfather, Stephen Palmer, emigrated to what was then known as Canada West, now the Province of Ontario, where Daniel’s father, Thomas Palmer, was born in 1824. From all accounts, DD's father eaked out a meager existence as a shoemaker, then grocer and carried out functions as postmaster and school director for his community. When his business failed in 1856, he moved his family to Iowa, leaving 11 year old DD and his brother TJ in Canada.
In 1865 the War between the States had resulted in Canada's low wages and overrun labor markets. DD, now 20, packed his carpet bag and with his brother TJ made his way south to the states to rejoin his family. He spent the next 20 years in various occupations in teaching, raising fruit and honey, and the grocery business.
All the while, the country was well into the second industrial revolution, marked by innovation, invention and creativity. Man was conquering his environment with his ever advancing machinery. At this point, Medical science was in its infancy. Allopathy, fueled by Louis Pasteur's recent refutal of the centuries old spontaneous generation theory in 1859, was growing rapidly. Drugs and medicines were making their way across the countryside claiming cures for all sorts of ailments while Vitalists mostly in the form of magnetic healers continued with their claims of quick and drugless cures. Records indicate that it was during this time that Andrew Taylor Still, MD originally expressed his principles of osteopathy in 1874. A medical doctor, Still believed that diseases were caused by mechanical interference with nerve and blood supply and were curable by manipulation of "deranged, displaced bones, nerves, muscles -- removing all obstructions -- thereby setting the machinery of life moving." His autobiography states that he could "shake a child and stop scarlet fever, croup, diphtheria, and cure whooping cough in three days by a wring of its neck." [1]
In 1885 DD began a career as magnetic healer in Burlington, then Davenport IA on 4th floor of Ryan building at corner of Second and Brady Streets and was quite successful. His records indicate, "During this period much of that which was necessary to complete the science(chiropractic) was worked out. I had discovered that many diseases were associated with derangements of the stomach, kidneys and other organs... One question was always uppermost in my mind in my search for the cause of disease. I desired to know why one person was ailing and his associate, eating at the same table, working in the same shop, at the same bench, was not Why? What difference was there in the two persons that caused one to have pneumonia, catarrh, typhoid or rheumatism, while his partner, similarly situated, escaped? Why? This question had worried thousands for centuries and was answered in September, 1895. Harvey Lillard..."

Thats just the beginning. From here we would go to... wow, it could go on forever. Go ahead, make your changes. Make it brutally honest:) --Dematt 03:40, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

I think this is all great, but would be more apropos on the DD Palmer article than here. Levine2112 04:54, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point.--Dematt 14:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

Maybe, but it sounds so fresh it seems a shame too. It seems to me that Dematt has found a way of telling the story in the historical context that makes it just very interesting for itself. Go for it, whether here or there is a decision that can be taken later, and should be decided on what makes the articles best - and I can see here a real chance of everyone coming to agree. Sorry not to be doing more, I'm deep in exams and markingGleng 16:10, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem, do make sure and check in. We all need your input if we're going to get this thing right.--Dematt 02:38, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
For excellent sources on chiro history, check out the archives:
"Dr. Keating is a former president (1994-95) of the Association for the History of Chiropractic (AHC) and currently serves on the board of directors."
-- Fyslee 17:58, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's actually where most of it came from. I followed one of your earlier links. No doubt a lot of great information. Most of this was taken fromt he DD Palmer section as well as other timelines. --Dematt 18:13, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is another fabulous resource for chiropractic history: AHCPR. It moves past just DD Palmer and gives a great overview of the complete history of chiropractic. Also, fromt he same resource, here's some info about the history of chiropractic research and education.Levine2112 18:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
This is good info for the research section, too. We can touch on some of it in the history section, but it will definitely make it harder to keep it short.--Dematt 02:09, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
Of course that was that other fabulous reference I was talking about. I have that one in my office!--Dematt 19:52, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
IMO I think we should be making this page more consice and to the point. There is already a DD and BJ page in WP so a lot of what they said and thought could be on their respective pages, just thinking of keeping the chiro page "neat" and to the point. Also, wasn't the idea of "one cause one cure" common thinking at the time (late 1800's)as evidenced by the germ theory, one germ caused one disease? Correct me if I'm wrong, but to judge a man by his thoughts and actions from 100 years ago, without addressing what was common thinking of the same period is attacking the person with knowledge that they were not privy too. Any thoughts? Like should it be worded like, "As was the understanding at the time......led to their conclusion that....caused all diseases. What do you think. --Hughgr 20:03, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
Another good point! I like your wording. Let me make sure, though, are you thinking that we should get rid of the history section all together, or leave what we have, or make it shorter? Actually what I was hoping to accomplish was to do exactly what your saying about judging the man out of context of the time. That's actually why I added all the other information for the times. So that the reader could get a feel for the period before making a judgement. You are right about the DD and BJ sections. The question is - Will a first time reader click on the link? I don't know - If they don't, then all they get is a pretty dry article on chiropractic. The good part about chiro is the history. What do you think?--Dematt 20:55, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
That's tough. DD was such a very colourful character. But alas, this is a chiropractic article, so let's just limit it to his involvement in founding chiropractic and keep the details for the dedicated DD Palmer page. There's approximately 120 years of history to cover, and - if we are to keep this article succinct - we will have to give just the general overview and save the details about specific people and events to their own articles. For instance, I think there is a Wiki article dedicated just to the Wilk case. Certainly, it is a major part of chiro history and should be included in this article, but just to generally say what the trial was about and what the outcome meant for chiropractic. I realize that being succinct is tough. I pointed to some great history of chiro page and none of them are all that succinct - most are longer than a typical Wiki article. I will help out in any way possible. Levine2112 22:29, 3 May 2006 (UTC)
I’m not saying there shouldn’t be any history, just a concise way of stating facts without going into every thought anyone involved with chiropractic ever had. D.D. had his idea’s, which could be extrapolated on the DD page, and BJ has some 39 books and they paint an interesting evolution of his thoughts, but I don’t think the average reader of an encyclopedia article would want all that info. In contrast, the Florida report was just dates and events, which seems too simplified IMO. I think somewhere in between a balance can be found. Perhaps we could hit on the highlights without going into minute detail. Discovery of; development of; prosecution of early DC’s; Wilk case; etc. It could get long real quick, maybe a brief section like Florida synopsis would work best, with links to the respective pages for more information, if only to keep this page reasonable in length. --Hughgr 00:30, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, after reading all your sources including re-reading the florida report, let me see if I can make it more about chiropractic and not so much about DD Palmer. Can't promise that it won't get longer though:) You guys ask for a lot, but want it all in one sentence or less:) It would't be so bad if you all agreed. By the way, the research section is going to need some work, too after this.--Dematt 02:34, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

I want it in one word or less. ;-) Thanks, Dematt. Levine2112 06:48, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
LOL, Thank you, Levine2112, you started my day on the right foot:)--Dematt 12:16, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History rewrite 2

Try this one;

In 1885 the country was well into the second industrial revolution, marked by innovation, invention and creativity. Health care was no exception consisting primarily of competing treatments of vitalism, herbalism, magnetism and leeches, lances and tinctures. Scientific research played only a limited role, and often no role, in the choice of treatments. Neither consumers nor practitioners had much knowledge of either the causes of, or cures for, illnesses.[5]. Allopathy, fueled by Louis Pasteur's recent refutal of the centuries old spontaneous generation theory in 1859, was growing rapidly. Drugs and medicines were making their way across the countryside, mostly unregulated and claiming cures for all sorts of ailments. Andrew Taylor Still, an MD dismayed by the shortcomings of drugs and surgery[[11]], ventured into magnetic healing and bonesetting in 1875, opening the American School of Osteopathy(ASO) in Kirksville, Missouri in 1892.[[12]] Daniel David Palmer, a teacher, grocer turned magnetc healer opened his office of magnetic healing in Davenport, IA. In 1886. On September 18, 1895, DD Palmer gave the first chiropractic adjustment to a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard.

Of course there is more, but what do you think so far?--Dematt 15:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

At first glance, it seemed lengthy. However, on a second read, I think it does an excellent job of setting the climate in which chiropractic was born. We've never seen this approach before. I like it. Levine2112 17:35, 4 May 2006 (UTC)
I like it too. If you bring up osteopathy, I would describe the difference between the osteopathic manipulation and the chiropractic adjustment. Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the O.M. more general to an "area" of the spine to increase blood flow where as chiropractic sought to find a specific vertebral mis-alignment causing nerve interference and only adjust that particular one? If your going to mention osteopathy, I think it should be pointed out how the two are different as well. So far, looks good though. Keep it up! --Hughgr 18:19, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Me, too, Hughgr. That's what I learned in school as well - the whole difference was blood vs nerve and the more generalized manipulations vs specific, but I am not finding that yet in the literature. It does look awfully fishy though. I think that must be why DD made some changes shortly after he started, as did Still of course. Stay tuned though, we have to touch on that if we're going to be accurate, right! Get your sources ready:)--Dematt 19:53, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Well done. Heading in the right direction. But need to acknowledge the growth of the scientific method. Also need to say it was a time of quackery and EMB has been tightening the noose on that for a couple of centuries now. Daniel Defore (1661-1731) in an essay called "A Quack Doctor" said "the quacks contribute more towards keeping us poor than all our national debts" then "I have had the curiosity to examine several of his medicines in a reverberatory, reducing compounds into their simples by a chemical analysis, and have constantly found a considerable proportion of some poisonous plant or mineral in every one of them. Arsenic, wolf's-bane, mercury and hemlock are sine quibus non". Need also to show the legislative changes that cracked down on quacks. Mccready 17:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I would love to, although that would open a whole new bag of worms. Of course that would make it longer and if we added it to the chiro section, it would only be right that it was added to the medical section, wouldn't it? The Flexnor report closed more "medical" schools than anything else and that didn't come out till 1910. If we're not careful, it could come out looking like scientific medicine was conspiring to close down all their competition, though that would meld nicely with the next section of Wilk vs. AMA. Do we really want it to get that long?--Dematt
"The Flexner Report is the most important event in the history of American and Canadian medical education. It was a commentary on the condition of medical education in the early 1900s and gave rise to modern medical education." [13] One could consider it the dividing line between quackery and modern medicine. Now it became possible to start distinguishing between the two and separating medicine from its former association with quackery, which were often practices based on long-established and ignorant ideas. The resulting educational revolution got rid of substandard schools that taught quackery and promoted ignorance. Chiropractic is still in need of its "Flexner report." Unfortunately there are too many vested interests involved in too many chiropractic organizations and schools to get this done very easily. If Life U. could survive its debacle - and it did - I see little hope in the near future. -- Fyslee 21:44, 5 May 2006 (UTC)
Absolutely, the Flexnor Report came out in 1910 (15 years after Osteo and Chiro) because the world was full of medical quacks before 1895. Andrew Still and DD Palmer sought to "save" the world from the drugs and potions of the times that were being used by medical doctors and saw the "light" long before the Flexnor Report. Andrew Still, MD said it all in his autobiography;
"I saw men and women dosed with drugs whose poisonous fangs showed the serpent of habit, that was as sure to eat its victim as a stone would return to the earth when cast into the air. I dreamed of the dead and dying who were and had been slaves of habit. I sought to know the cause of so much death, bondage, and distress of my race. I found the cause to be in the ignorance of our "Schools of Medicine." I found that he who gave the first persuasive dose was also an example of the same habit of dosing and drinking himself, and was a staggering form of humanity, wound hopelessly tight in the serpent's coil. "[[14]]
Chiro needs high quality publicly funded research. IMO, the Flexnor report was exactly what we all needed, but it has allowed medicine to channel itself all the public money and the best minds. It is long overdue to share some, especially the minds. If they would've spent some of their "anti-quack" money on real research, we might not be having this discussion. I think chiros' fear is; if it is proven to work, the name will be changed to "physicalsomething" and it will be claimed for themselves. There is a lot of distrust. But I don't have to tell you that.--Dematt 01:46, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

Could get interesting, though. I need some more input before I move on.--Dematt 02:00, 6 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Science and relativity

Hi Levine, your hosepipe edit wasn't accurate for a couple of reasons. 1) Relative to what? 2) you will need to provide scientific evidence for chiro subluxtion. Anecodotal evidence, as you know, is not evidence. It's an oxymoron. 3) the form of words was already a compromise (see above). 4) your link to anecdote as a tale was probably not what you meant. Also Your edit summary didn't say you had changed the top. We have agreed through long discussion here on the lead. Pls don't revert before we have consensus. Mccready 17:58, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

I just wanted to reitterate that there has been long discussion but no agreement on the lead. Regarding: "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane collaboration).":
(a) It conveniently dismisses chiropractic in one fell swoop without addressing specific techniques and specific problems.
(b) The statement is inaccurate. There is no universally-acknowledged standard for what constitutes meeting "scientific standards of evidence-based medicine", and there is evidence to show that at least some chiropractic techniques have some clinically efficacy. Even Quackwatch's sister site, Chirobase, cites a summary critical of spinal manipulation that indicates chiropractic spinal manipulation has some efficacy in the treatment of neck and low back pain[15].
(c) There is a BIG difference between "clinically effective" and "statistically effective".
-AED 18:20, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Mccready, I'll have to back AED on this one. I've pretty much stayed away from the discussions and editing of this particular part of the lead, simply because I have mixed feelings about it in many ways. While I believe it is basically true, it is also imprecise and thus can be an unfortunate choice of words, especially in the lead.
When commenting on "chiropractic" efficacy, one should be precise, since it's not "chiropractic" that is efficacious, but some of the techniques used by chiropractors (and others) that are efficacious. Thus the discussion should be about the technique, not chiropractic. OTOH, when discussing the popularity of "chiropractic," it's perfectly fine to mention that those who are already chiropractic patients (7.4% of Americans) are very satisfied with "chiropractic."
AED's second point is also true. Anecdotal evidence is a type of evidence, albeit the most uncertain and often misleading, but it's better than nothing, when there is nothing better. Both Quackwatch and Chirobase don't hesitate to admit that chiropractic is popular with its patients, and that chiropractors help people in several ways when they use sensible methods.
I think the statement should not be in the lead in its present form. When something takes its place, we should discuss it here first and reach some kind of consensus. These constant revert wars are unhelpful. -- Fyslee 21:12, 5 May 2006 (UTC)


Mccready, WP:LEAD is not policy, but a style guide.
Your concern is legitimate, in that the lead section should be a mini version of the article.
Likewise that "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of most chiropractic interventions does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane collaboration)." Unfortunately that statement is too vague, and just mentioning Cochrane isn't a reference. It would be best to avoid using references in the lead.
The lead does need something to address this concern, but we haven't come up with anything yet. Start working on a formulation and let's discuss it here first.
The revert wars are very disturbing and since this is a collaborative effort we need to hammer this out together. See my earlier comments above.
-- Fyslee 07:28, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Although testing medical interventions for efficacy has existed for several hundred years, and arguably more, it was only in the 20th century that this effort evolved to impact almost all fields of health care and policy. Professor Archie Cochrane , a Scottish epidemiologist whose book Effectiveness and Efficiency: Random Reflections on Health Services (1972) and subsequent advocacy, caused increasing acceptance of the concepts behind evidence-based practice. Cochrane's work was honoured through the naming of centres of evidence-based medical research — Cochrane Centres — and an international organisation, the Cochrane Collaboration. The explicit methodologies used to determine 'best evidence' were largely established by the McMaster University research group led by David Sackett and Gordon Guyatt. The term "evidence-based medicine" first appeared in the medical literature in 1992 in a paper by Guyatt et al. I'd say that makes it pretty new. Also, Critics of EBM say lack of evidence and lack of benefit are not the same, and that the more data are pooled and aggregated, the more difficult it is to compare the patients in the studies with the patient in front of the doctor, i.e. EBM applies to populations, not necessarily to individuals. In The limits of evidence-based medicine, Tonelli argues that "the knowledge gained from clinical research does not directly answer the primary clinical question of what is best for the patient at hand." Tonelli suggests that proponents of evidence-based medicine discount the value of clinical experience.

Although evidence-based medicine is quickly becoming the "gold standard" for clinical practice and treatment guidelines, there are a number of reasons why most current medical and surgical practices do not have a strong literature base supporting them. First, in some cases, conducting randomized controlled trials would be unethical--such as in open-heart surgery--although observational studies are designed to address these problems to some degree. Second, certain groups have been historically under-researched (women, racial minorities, people with many co-morbid diseases) and thus the literature is very sparse in areas that do not allow for generalizeability. Third, the types of trials considered 'gold standard' (i.e. randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trials) are very expensive and thus funding sources play a role in what gets investigated. For example, the government funds a large number of preventive medicine studies that endeavor to improve public health as a whole, while pharmaceutical companies fund studies intended to demonstrate the efficacy and safety of particular drugs. Fourth, the studies that are published in medical journals may not be representative of all the studies that are completed on a given topic (published and unpublished) or may be misleading due to conflicts of interest (i.e. publication bias).[2] Thus the array of evidence available on particular therapies may not be well-represented in the literature. Fifth, there is an enormous range in the quality of studies performed, making it difficult to generalize about the results.

Large randomized controlled trials are extraordinarly useful for examining discrete interventions for carefully defined medical conditions. The more complex the patient population, the conditions, and the intervention, the more difficult it is to separate the treatment effect from random variation. Because of this, a number of studies obtain non-significant results, either because there is insufficient power to show a difference, or because the groups are not well-enough 'controlled'.

Evidence-based medicine has been most practised when the intervention tested is a drug. Applying the methods to other forms of treatment may be harder, particularly those requiring the active participation of the patient because blinding is more difficult.

In managed healthcare systems evidence-based guidelines have been used as a basis for denying insurance coverage for some treatments some of which are held by the physicians involved to be effective, but of which randomized controlled trials have not yet been published. See also [16]--Hughgr 19:38, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys - I really think you're getting on brilliantly without me, but I've set up a page to play with the science section on User:Gleng/chiropractic - so far I've just started to dump stuff in there, but please feel free to add suggestions and experiment. I've been a bit distracted by something else that seemed to need help, but will try to get to this soon. Have to say that I am really impressed with how this article is shaping up - I hope someone can import some illustrations, I've noticed some very neat cartoons on the web, some nice historical vignettes and some useful diagrams to explain subluxation. I think that this should become a featured article one dayGleng 19:47, 6 May 2006 (UTC)
Images
  • [17] has a photograph of BJ Palmer plus pony with legend that he adjusted animals?
  • [18] has a photo of Harvey Lillard and a photo labelled "first adjustment"
  • photo of plastic spine used by chiropractors on [19]
  • Wilk's book [20]
  • Manipulation in China [21]
  • Cartoons are probably impossible - there's one I like about the stone age chiropractor balking at a dinosaur.. but then I have a very childish sense of humourGleng 16:22, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I'll check into the copyright status and send off some emails to see if we can get permission to use some of these. I learned the hard way that wikipedia won't let you use anything but free use pictures.--Dematt 18:29, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Guys. Good discussion. I'll try to address all the points. First AED. 1.Yes I see it may dismiss chiro in one fell swoop - in that case we may have to talk about which parts of chiro it applies to and which it doesn't. 2. There is agreement on EMB -see cochrane 3. need to define what you mean by clinically effective. If a clinician thinks so, that is not sufficient for obvious reasons. That's why epidemiological stats are useful - a huge breakthrough in human health in fact. Thanks Fyslee I agree with your sentiments - which is why we need to define chiro in two ways - those who accept science and those who put their own clinical experience above science. We'd need to work on the wording. Your second point is covered by placebo - a very powerful thing. Hughgr, good points. yes lack of benefit and lack of evidence are not the same. However, it's still true to say there is no scientific evidence of chiro subluxation. i'm not sure you've interpreted Tonelli correctly. If you have then there's a conundrum to address ie lots of clinical experience combined = stats = evidence. In regard to using the lowest common denomintor in EMB - this is a course of action proposed by those whose evidence is not strong, and therefore we need to point it out. If I was dying of cancer i'd prefer a healthcare provider who knew the difference. The expense of trials is not a reason to accept hypothesis as fact. The NIH link you provided was interesting. But not all things in pubmed are true or can be relied on. I'm not saying this about Tonelli and agree with him that "The importance of clinical research for the practice of clinical medicine is immense and undeniable." The exceptions and their importance is where we may differ. Where would we be without the Ottowa protocols for example. And the Canadian initiative to publish "best practice guidelines" can only be applauded. I actually agree with him to some extent about hierarchies of evidence, though not with his application to all EMB proponents (like chiro it has shades of meaning)- which is why the gold standard should be the standard. Tonelli is certainly no green light for the anti-EMB anti-science portion of the altmed industry. Consequently I've compromised with the statement: "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of most chiropractic interventions does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane Collaboration)." The task then is to say which parts stand up to evidence.

Finally, I would appreciate some discussion about my edit: "This "pinched hose theory" has long been abandoned. However, the concept of the subluxation, for which there is no scientific proof, remains an integral part of the typical chiropractic practice." Nobody has yet shown this to be incorrect. happy editing. Mccready 09:04, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll just address your last comment about the "pinched hose theory." It has definitely not been abandoned by all chiros. One often finds variations on the theme in chiropractic literature and websites. One also often finds variations on the "adjusting misplaced bones back into place" theme. First of all they aren't "out of place," (a rare occurrence not usually amenable to HVLA manipulation/adjustment). -- Fyslee 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC) (continued below)
I'm not sure we can relate metaphors used to explain concepts to patients with the actual belief system of the chiropractor himself. For example, how many times do MD's allow their patients to believe the drug is to kill an infection when they know it is a virus and they are just trying to prevent the superinfection (or some other more important reason that the patient has no "tools" to understand). That doesn't mean the MD believes it.--Dematt 14:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


Secondly, even if they are pinching a spinal nerve (which certainly does happen), it has no effects on general health, but only to the part affected by that nerve, and that is usually (except for lumbar and sacral nerves, which can affect functions in the pelvic region) sensation and motor function. One can sever nerves to inner organs and they continue to function fine. And yes, the chiropractic vertebral subluxation is still in the pseudoscientific realm. Gotta run now. -- Fyslee 11:02, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we're probably getting down to the real crux of the problem. Maybe we should be looking for some research for this assertion; "One can sever nerves to inner organs and they continue to function fine".--Dematt 14:51, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Are we talking about CNS (Brain and Spinal Cord) or PNS? Cranial nerves are motor, sensory, or mixed, and all (but the vagus nerve) are involved with the head and neck region... (the vagus nerve manages the internal organs). So if we are talking about a spinal cord injury (SCI), then the first thing to note is that respiratory complications are often an indication of the severity of spinal cord injury. About one-third of those with injury to the neck area will need help with breathing and require respiratory support. SCI are classified either as complete or incomplete. An incomplete SCI means that the ability of the spinal cord to convey messages to or from the brain is not completely lost. People with incomplete SCI retain some motor or sensory function below the injury. A complete SCI results in a total lack of sensory and motor function below the level of injury. People who survive a spinal cord injury will most likely have medical complications such as chronic pain and bladder and bowel dysfunction, along with an increased susceptibility to respiratory and heart problems. Levine2112 19:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
Two MDs provided these commentaries to my assertion "One can sever nerves to inner organs and they continue to function fine":
1. "Transplantation. We take hearts and kidneys and other organs out of one body and put them in another; there is no nerve connection whatsoever, yet they function immediately."
2. "You don't need an experiment. Just look at those unfortunate enough to suffer complete spinal cord transection due to severe trauma. These patients are quadriplegic, incontinent, and may need help breathing but their kidneys function normally, their hearts beat unaided, their small intestine absorbs nutrients etc, etc. Chiropractors tend to forget this when they prattle on about subluxations causing organ specific disease."
Levine2112's comments above are correct. Other than that the inner organs still function fine with no nervous system control at all. This is where the subluxation based Meric system loses touch with reality. -- Fyslee 19:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not asserting that the spinal nerves have nothing to do with the bodies organs. Are you? As I said above... people who survive SCI are likely to have digestive, respitory and circulatory problems. Clearly there is a relationship. Levine2112 21:39, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

The “organs without nerves function fine” makes me laugh, sorry. Earlier it was said that the heart keeps beating without any nerves going to it. True, it has a built in (S-A node, A-V node) regulatory mechanism, but that doesn’t make it normal when it doesn’t have nerves from the CNS! Normal means it has a nerve supply. Without a CNS connection to the heart, it beats about 100 times per minute. It never varies, whether that person is running or resting. Are they alive? Yes. Are they normal? No. What is the consequence of not having CNS supply to the heart? I don’t know the exact physiological detriment, suffice it to say, the quality of life of that patient is not as good as one with a proper nerve supply. And with any transplant, the patient must take immuno-suppressive drugs for the rest of their life, which leads to, among other things, an increased risk of cancer.

It could be argued that all the internal abdominal organs of the body can carry on their functioning without any nerves telling them what to do, due to the vagus nerve, but what about the sympathetic nervous system. Without a control mechanism (CNS), there will not be coordination between all the various parts of the body. Lack of coordination leads to malfunction. Wouldn’t malfunction be the precursor to disease? Also, people with severed spinal cord have a much shorter lifespan.

On the “pinched hose” theory. I agree, it is commonly used as the average layperson can understand that, as opposed to “sensory apparatus in ligaments detect tension and reflexivly cause muscles to contract leading to spasm, and due to the close relationship of the nerves at the nerve root, a process called facilitation causes other nerves to fire aberrantly, which may be going to an organ, or changing the sensory input signal, there by leading to an incorrect response by the CNS”. Yes, it can be easier to say “pinching the hose” to get the idea across.

As far as the subluxation theory, it is true that in the lower lumbar area the disc and/or bony exostosis can “pinch” the nerve. Consider this, the disc is the largest avascular structure in the body. It gets nutrients in, and waste products out, by a process of simple diffusion due to “blood pooling” in the end plates of the adjoining vertebrae. What helps aid simple diffusion is motion. Even breathing causes a pumping action helping the diffusion process. Now consider that a vertebrae is not moving as it should. Wouldn’t that lead to an increase in the breakdown of the disc, all things being equal, even if the process takes years. The end result being a disc herniation, pinching a nerve. When was the prudent time to address the lack of motion. At the onset of symptoms? As far as existence of subluxation research, I also feel it is an area that needs attention. Some have taken it upon themselves to that end. Check this out. [22] Yes, it is only a one person study, but it should, at the very least, open the door for further investigation.--Hughgr 23:30, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: "True, it has a built in (S-A node, A-V node) regulatory mechanism, but that doesn’t make it normal when it doesn’t have nerves from the CNS!" What nerves from the CNS go to the heart? -AED 23:48, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
FYI Nerve supply eminating from the lower cervical and upper thoracic region join the vagus nerve in coordinating heart rate to regulate blood pressure and vasomotor effects in the extremities and head. In other words, when we go from laying to standing, there must be a cooresponding increase in heart rate to elevate blood pressure while simultaneously constricting the peripheral vessels to increase pressure so that we do not lose blood supply to the brain and pass out. Here's a simplified version.[23]
The autonomic nerves are part of the CNS and regulate the heart, blood vessel muscles and glands. Hughgr, please correct me if I am wrong... but a vertebral subluxation isn't exactly a pinched nerve. When the vertebrae move out of place, the soft tissue around it becomes inflamed and that is what presses on spinal nerves... not the actual vertebrae themselves. Levine2112 00:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I thought the autonomic nervous system was part of the peripheral nervous system (which I believe includes the vagus nerve), not the central nervous system. -AED 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

AED-a part of the peripheral nervous system is called the autonomic nervous system (almost automatic :). The visceral nuclei of origin are all located within the central nervous system. There are two neurons associated with the ANS: a preganglionic neuron in the CNS, and a postganglionic neuron outside the CNS. For the heart, these preganglionic nerves arise at the spinal levels of the 1st thoracic to the 4th thoracic.

From Guyton’s Textbook of Medical Physiology, pg. 107, “The pumping effectiveness of the heart is highly controlled by the sympathetic and parasympathetic (vagus) nerves, which abundantly supply the heart. The amount of blood pumped by the heart each minute, the cardiac output, can often be increased more than 100 percent by sympathetic stimulation. By contrast, it can be decreased to as low as zero or almost zero by vagal (parasympathetic) stimulation. Strong sympathetic stimulation can increase the heart rate in the human to as high as 200 and rarely 250 beats per minute in young people. Also, sympathetic stimulation increases force with which the heart muscle contracts, therefore also increasing the volume of blood pumped as well as increasing the ejection pressure. Thus, sympathetic stimulation can often increase the cardiac output as much as twofold to threefold.”

Levine-yes, I think it is rare to have a “bone on nerve” situation. Sure, joint inflammation can compromise the intervertebral foramen thru which the nerve root passes. There are other hypothesis’ that seem to “more correctly” fit at other times. There can, of course, be more than one thing going on at one time.

Lastly, I would like to add that sometimes a patient will come to a chiropractor because of persistent headaches. They’ll report taking a lot aspirin for a long time. Now aspirin is known to cause stomach and kidney problems when taken for an extended period of time. If the adjustment helps relieve their headaches, they no longer need to take aspirin, thus secondarily reducing their risk of stomach and kidney trouble.--Hughgr 02:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: "a part of the peripheral nervous system is called the autonomic nervous system (almost automatic)". Although your edition of Guyton's is probably more current than mine, I thought the autonomic nervous system was part of the peripheral nervous system, not the central nervous system. I believe the vagus and the spinal nerves are part of the PNS, but this is probably all semantics given the preganglionic role of the spinal cord. -AED 16:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
AED Check this out Especially note; "There may then be a reflex response to this involving autonomic efferent fibres causing contraction of smooth muscle in certain organs (e.g. blood vessels, eyes, lungs, bladder, gastrointestinal tract) and influencing the function of the heart and glands. The efferent limbs of these reflexes may also involve the somatic nervous system (e.g. coughing and vomiting). Simple reflexes are completed entirely within the organ concerned, whereas more complex reflexes are controlled by the higher autonomic centres in the CNS, principally the hypothalamus"
If there is anything that I hope we can get from this discussion is that science does have explanations that may explain the mechanisms for what chiros and their patients claim are happening. We just have to find a way to scientifically measure it that is acceptable for everyone.--Dematt 17:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you specifically want me to note. My point is that autonomic nervous system is typically considered to be part of the peripheral nervous system, not the central nervous system. The hypothalamus is part of the CNS that regulates the ANS, but is not considered to be part of the ANS. I'm fairly certain that there are no nerves directly from the hypothalamus to the heart. -AED 18:21, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I certainly didn't mean to make things more confusing. I took it a step too far. Suffice it to say the preganglionic fibers of the sympathetic ns originate in the spinal cord.--Dematt 03:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Hughgr for giving us all (doctors, health practitioners, and laymen alike) a good education on the complexities of the nervous system. I too was surprised at the misguided "inner organs still function fine with no nervous system control at all" comment above - I just couldn't answer it as descriptively as you have. Any comment on Fyslee's other assertion... that vertebral subluxations are pseudoscience - or rather in the realm of pseudoscience? Levine2112 03:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
To add to Hughgr's great description for Levine, and for the benefit of others, current thinking is also along the lines of innervation surrounding the facets and posterior disc feeding back to the different laminar levels in the spinal cord when injury and perhaps the stretch from misalignment occur in the joint. These nerves synapse(dump their chemicals)into the lamina where millions of interneurons may or may not respond by carrying that information to the brain and/or other spinal cord levels. This is where endorphins(the body's morphins) play their part along with several others including substance P that plays a role in injury and inflammation. It gets really interesting, but much more research needs to be performed to find out if this is where the effects of subluxation occur.
As far as pseudoscience.. how can you defend against that. The word's purpose was to discredit. Yet, I never hear it used on anything medical. Do YOU?--Dematt 03:44, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Good point. You never do hear it used that way. Hmm. Levine2112 04:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Here is another list of chiropractic research. Some more case studies but also some population studies. Levine2112 07:56, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys, just to let you know that I'm listening to you all here. Don't want to get involved in the arguments here, but just to touch base on a consensus 1) There is extensive efferent innervation of (I think) all internal organs, and afferent pathways arise from (I think) all of these to the CNS. Many (but not all) of these nerves travel via spinal pathways. The physiological role of these is often not clear. 2) How 'important' these are depends on what you mean by important. Organ transplantation would be pretty hopeless if they were critical to organ survival and essential function. However maintaining essential function isn't necessarily maintaining full normal function. 3) "pseudoscience" is actually often applied to medical topics in my circles, where it is used as a challenge, when the proposed explanation seems to have major gaps. Well most explanations have major gaps, but the problem I guess is when an elaborate explanation for an observed finding is proposed with rather sketchy foundation - the word doesn't question the truth of the finding so much as the value of the explanation. If the explanation can produce non trivial predictions then fine, but when an explanation has no 'meat', then it invites the term "pseudoscientific", meaning that it has the appearance of an explanation but doesn't actually explain anything. I guess I'm asking you to forgive us when we use the word, it's become a part of continuing robust and lively (and mostly friendly) debate between 'real scientists' (e.g. me) and 'pretend scientists' (e.g. medics). Hope you recognise the smile in this as I write. It's not a word we'd use in print, but if someone said that I'd given an explanation that was pseudoscientific, I'd take it seriously, and respond, but not feel that it was meant personally and not get offended. Gleng 09:11, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, thank you for that. I did not realize that it meant something real to true scientists and if that is the case, then you do have the right to use it in any discussion here. You do make two important points in your discussion.
    1. The organs are surrounded by "extensive" innervation which arises from the CNS. And your right, "the physiologic role is not always clear". That is what the chiropractor is waiting for. Lets find out if that is where the possible effects of subluxation occur. We know the vagus nerve is mostly parasympathetic and innervates the entire gut and exits the spine directily from the foreman magnum just above the atlas(C1). Could this be why BJ Palmer found that all he needed to adjust was the atlas(Hole in one) to have an effect on health? The thoracic region is full of sympathetic nerves that often "compete" with the parasympathetic nerves of the Vagus, perhaps having a balancing effect on smooth muscle peristalsis. Could this be why adjustments in the midthoracic region may sometimes improve different types of stomach upset? I don't know for sure, because nobody has looked into enough to find out. This in itself should be enough to pull chiropractic out of the pseudoscientific category at least until somebody checks it out. BTW, it has to be a real scientist if anyone is going to believe it. How about YOU!
    2. Pseudoscience. "It is not a word we would use in print" tells me that the intent is to challenge among fellow scientists as you said. It would be considered a cheap shot to use the word in an article where the uneducated mind would not understand. Your profession appears to respect that. We certainly can throw it around here in our discussions, but it does not belong in an article where it's only purpose is to defame so that the opposing argument sounds better.--Dematt 12:15, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


To keep things in perspective... I think that AED, Hughr, Levine, Dematt have summed things up very well. You have also demonstrated a clear command of the study of neurology, anatomy, neuroanatomy, etc., which should be enough to silence the critics.

But keep in mind, using weasle words like 'pseudoscience' and other phrases are deliberate attempts to disparage chiropractic. You must also keep in mind that they are added to this article by laymen/lay-persons with a pre-occupation with chiropractic, not by one trained/educated with the extensive background in the human body that one gets in chiropractic or medical school.

Just my 'thots. Thanks Steth 12:46, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2 forms

Re the two main groups of Chiropractors (mechanists v vitalists), is it true to say the former do not believe in chiro subluxation? Mccready 10:50, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Your terminology is a bit unfamiliar to me. The usual grouping is Straights, Mixers, and Reformers (Straights and Mixers try to ignore Reformers away as if they don't exist.....;-). All Straights and most Mixers believe in the chiropractic vertebral subluxation. All Reformers renounce it. There is a very wide variation in beliefs among chiropractors.. -- Fyslee 18:14, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I have heard the terms Mechanist and Vitalist used, but I wouldn't go far as to say that one believes in VS and the other doesn't. The difference is more about the intended purpose of the adjustment. A Vitalist, like a Mechanist, often adjusts to correct purely mechanical issues. However, a Vitalist also recognizes that the body functions better overall when musculoskeletal's mechanical issues are minimized. I wouldn't say that a Mechanist doesn't recognize this - it is pretty obvious - but the Mechanist's intention is just to correct the mechanical. The resultant benefit to the rest of the body is just a bonus. Oh, and Vitalist/Mechanist are not chiropractic exclusive terms... In the philosophical world, a vitalist and mechanist differ in the way they view what life is. A mechanist sees the living body as a machine, but a vitalist recognized that there is a life-force. Some call is a "soul". Some call it "energy". Some call is "innate intelligence". It's really just two philosophies that each attempts to answer that aged-old question that has plagued humankind for all of existence: "What is life?" Levine2112 19:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


DD Palmer claimed to have answered that question:
"I am the originator, the Fountain Head of the essential principle that disease is the result of too much or not enough functionating. I created the art of adjusting vertebrae, using the spinous and transverse processes as levers, and named the mental act of accumulating knowledge, the cumulative function, corresponding to the physical vegetative function -- growth of intellectual and physical -- together, with the science, art and philosophy -- Chiropractic. It is now being followed, more or less, by 2,000 Chiropractors, and its use is being attempted by several other methods. It was I who combined the science and art and developed the principles thereof. I have answered the time-worn question -- what is life?"
-- Fyslee 19:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Fyslee, you seem to have a compulsion for D.D. Palmer as you frequently reference what he said. He said a lot of interesting (strange) things back in his day. Are you trying to assert that we modern chiropractors are "cult" followers of D.D.?--Hughgr 21:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Yes, DD Palmer said many interesting things, and so did B.J.. I doubt that there are that many modern chiros that could be accused of being "cultish" followers of D.D., but more (likely a minority) are labeled as being members of "the cult of BJ Palmer," (Keating, chiropractic's foremost historian):
"After 12 years of teaching and research at several chiropractic colleges, I can say with confidence that chiropractic is both science and anti-science. Yes, there is a meaningful science of chiropractic, but just as surely there is an anti-scientific mind-set and even a cult within chiropractic (for example, the cult of B.J. Palmer, son of the founder of chiropractic). Moreover, if University of Connecticut sociologist Walter Wardwell, Ph.D. is correct (Wardwell, 1992), the belief systems of a majority of DCs lie somewhere between these two poles: chiropractic as science vs. chiropractic as unscientific, uncritical dogma and circus. Perhaps a consideration of the nature of science will aid in understanding how the chiropractic profession does and does not approximate the rigors of science." Faulty Logic & Non-skeptical Arguments in Chiropractic, also Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side
After Levine2112 had both paraphrased the context and quoted precisely that question, it was sort of difficult to not think of it. It was just provided for information purposes. I often receive mails from chiropractors, and some of them would definitely be considered - even by yourself - as cultish fanatics. But people who are unbalanced and indulge in threats and foul language can be found in any group, not just chiropractic, so they have no influence on my opinion of chiropractors in general. -- Fyslee 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


The terms are in the article. Would it be true to say that the main distinction between chiros is belief or not in subluxation? Mccready 00:45, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

No.--Hughgr 01:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Hugh, in that case, what do you feel is the main distinction? Mccready 02:14, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure one can draw exact parallels between "mechanistic" (non-subluxation based) and "Vitalistic" (subluxation-based) chiropractors, although it would generally be true. While some mechanistic chiros may choose to limit their practice, they can still be Vitalists. OTOH, Vitalism is an integral part of the belief in vertebral subluxations (VS). It all depends on how you choose to define Vitalism. In a general sense, all healthcare practitioners know that the body has inherent abilities to heal itself. This has never been unique to chiropractic and predates it. Vitalism in its religious/metaphysical sense also predates chiropractic and Palmer, but is the basis for Palmer's development of the concepts of Universal Intelligence (UI) and Innate Intelligence (II). I can conceive of some subluxation-based chiropractors not being conscious and informed believers in UI, IOW they are actually mechanistic subluxation-based chiros. (Even some professed atheists can believe in some sort of supernatural entity......;-)) They will tend to confuse VS for orthopedic subluxations, considering them to be the same. Truly informed and practicing Vitalistic subluxation-based chiros (the Planet chiro and F.A.C.E. type) are normally members of the ICA or WCA, and understand the difference, and that is that VS has a metaphysical element that is the unique property of chiropractic. Without this principle difference, chiropractic loses its uniqueness. When it comes down to it, belief in VS is the most fundamental difference between chiropractors, and influences many other things about the way they think and practice.
Here is something about chiropractic and Vitalism:
The debate over whether life is controlled by spiritual or material forces peaked in the nineteenth century. By this time, scientists endorsing "spiritual" control began to refer to themselves as "vitalists." Vitalism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is the doctrine that the processes of life are not explainable by the laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part self-determining. Vitalists contended that some vital factor, as distinct from physiochemical factors, was involved with "controlling" the body's structure and function. Since the definition of vitalism emphasizes that its character is beyond the laws of physics (measurement), vitalistic mechanisms were outside of the defined parameters of modern science. In spite of its metaphysical nature, vitalism was still endorsed by many traditional nineteenth century scientists.
The support for vitalism was soundly shaken in 1859 when Charles Darwin published his Origin of Species. In his treatise on evolution theory, Darwin emphasized that internalized "hereditary factors" (the existence of genes had not yet been recognized) were responsible for controlling the character of evolving species. Within a decade of its presentation, Darwinian theory was endorsed by the majority of conventional scientists. Darwin's theory of evolution denied the role of spirit or life force in the unfoldment of life on this planet. Consequently, scientists myopically focused on the search for the internalized material elements that "controlled" biological organisms.
D. D. Palmer was very sensitive to scientists' displeasure concerning concepts related to spirit and vital forces. In formulating the original science of Chiropractic, he coined the terms Universal Intelligence and Innate Intelligence to refer to the inherent organizing intelligence of the Universe and of life.
"In the early years of Chiropractic I used the terms Innate (Spirit), Innate Intelligence (Spiritual Intellect), Universal Intelligence (God) because they were comprehensive, and the world was not prepared to receive the latter terms just mentioned in parentheses. It may be even now premature to use them." (page 542, The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic).
Since vitalism is at the heart of chiropractic philosophy, and vitalism is perceived as metaphysics, the philosophy of chiropractic is not recognized by conventional medical science. Though modern medicine consider chiropractic as "unscientific," it has not been able to ignore the large number of their patients that have been increasingly satisfied with chiropractic care. The success of Chiropractic in recent years has fueled the antagonism between conventional medical physicians and chiropractors. Biomedical research scientists are at a loss to explain the efficacy of chiropractic adjustment for it is in direct opposition to contemporary knowledge concerning biological "control" mechanisms. -- Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D., Today's Chiropractic, Sept-Oct 1998: 16-19 [24]
Another interesting quote:
What is the philosophy of Chiropractic?
From the time chiropractic exists, when Harvey Lillard got the first chiropractic adjustment on September 18, 1895, following which he recuperated the sense of hearing after he had lost it seventeen years before, millions of people all over the world have been the living proof that the body can recover from so many different conditions if only the interference between brain and tissue cell is removed. The beauty of it is that never chiropractors have been fighting diseases but rather have facilitated health by removing the major obstacle to a normal functioning i.e. the vertebral subluxation; therefore the effect is global: different conditions can be fixed at the same time, even those that we don't know about yet, as it is too early for the body to show symptoms. That is why the philosophy of chiropractic is vitalistic in nature; chiropractors call "innate intelligence" what pathologist emeritus William Boyd, author of a classic pathology textbook, call "mysterious wisdom"; that innate intelligence is a fundamental characteristic present in all living things, including plants, from the unicellular organism to the most complex ones and allowing them to be what they are, giving them all there properties and actions. It allows the organism to prosper, reproduce, adapt, defend and repair itself in normal circumstances. This means that the qualities of the environment, internal as well as external, should remain within normal limits for that particular organism; once exceeded the physiological resistance to stress, the organism perishes. Excessive heat or cold, lack of oxygen, malnutrition, heavy traumatism, poisons, for instance, are not compatible with sustained life in spite of innate intelligence. But given that a living organism, a human body for the matter, is benefiting from favorable environmental conditions, one thing that will prevent the innate intelligence to express itself correctly through matter, is an interference - to the life force transmitted by the nerve pathways as they pass through the spinal chord and nerves - due to a vertebral subluxation. Therefore, the logical thing to do: eliminate the interference so that innate intelligence can manifest itself at full power. If not too late, healing will take place and people will keep saying that "Chiropractic adds life to Years and years to Life". [25]
-- Fyslee 18:33, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Fyslee, I'd add from [26] "Conventional medical research has emphasized that genes are the responsible elements “controlling” health and disease. It is implied in the Primacy of DNA dogma that genes function as self-regulatory elements. Fundamental to this assumed truth is the requirement that genes must be capable of “controlling” their own expression. By definition, genes must be able to switch themselves on and off, as suggested in the concept of a cancer gene “turning itself on.”

However, the notion of the Primacy of DNA has been soundly challenged by current research which reveals that the existence of a self-regulatory property for genes is a patently incorrect assumption. An important article by H. F. Nijhout (Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development, BioEssays 12:441, 1990) describes how concepts concerning genetic “controls” and “programs” were originally conceived as a metaphor to help define and direct avenues of research. Widespread repetition of this compelling hypothesis over time has resulted in the “metaphor of the model” becoming the “truth of the mechanism,” despite the absence of substantiative supporting evidence.

Nijhout elegantly and succinctly redefined the truth as follows, “When a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not a self-emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of that gene (emphasis mine).” Simply stated, a gene can not turn itself on or off, it is dependent upon a signal from its environment to control its expression. Genes are indeed involved with the structure and behavior of an organism, however they are not the source of “control.”

Gene expression is under the influence of specialized proteins referred to as regulatory proteins. Regulatory proteins bind to DNA and mask the activity of genes. In order to activate a specific gene, its regulatory proteins must be removed from the DNA strand. The binding and release of DNA regulatory proteins is controlled by “environmental” signals. Rather than recognizing the Primacy of DNA, it is more correct to acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment as causal in shaping biological expression.

The fact that the cell’s nucleus and its enclosed genes do not represent the controlling element or “brain” of the cell is easily verified in studies wherein the cell is structurally or functionally enucleated. Cells in such experiments continue to express complex behavioral repertoires and purposeful interactions with their environment and may survive for months despite the absence of functional genes. Consequently, genes can not be invoked to be the source of “control” in regulating cell behavior.

In addition to Lipton, another interesting take is Strang's book(1984) "We know that homeostasis involves negative feedback. We even know some of the mechanisms entailed. But this knowledge does not really touch the deeper mystery of how the body "thinks" physiologically: sensory information must be endlessly integrated and efferently activity determined. The stringing together of mechanisms cannot be expected to capture the overall reality of organic, dynamic activity. Classic mechanistic thinking is rooted in the notion that the parts explain the whole. This is true of mechanistic processes such as gearing or even electronic computing. But as Aristotle observed, nature is a world of purpose. In such a world, mechanisms are merely the instruments through which superimposing purposes work their wills. It is this marvelous, innate(inborn), purposeful nature which is the predominant, practical reality behind the mechanisms of homeostasis."

Interesting discussion.--Hughgr 23:36, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks again, Fyslee, and I would add from the conclusion of the same article [27] "There is clearly an upheaval of conventional thought brewing in the allopathic ranks. The interesting nature of these new considerations is that it is bringing conventional biomedicine into closer alliance with D. D. Palmer’s original Chiropractic Philosophy. The uniqueness of chiropractic is that it has a vitalistic foundation. Leading edge cellular and molecular research is now proving that Chiropractic should embrace and promote its vitalistic roots."
I definitely agree with this article[28]? I would like to see our science section move along in these lines. I think that this guy has pretty much said it all from a NPOV. I hope everybody read it all.

[edit] The word "pseudoscience" is not in the article

Just in case it's not clear, I do not like the word "pseudoscience to be associated with this article, because its use is inescapably linked with derogatory implications whether intended or not - it is just inherently POV. My plea was merely to allow us all some license to be relaxed in Talk pages to engage in robust debate amongst friends.Gleng 16:04, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


It is not being used in the article (Steth's charge is untrue).
The only place the word appears is in the "Critiques" links section, from a chiropractic source:
It is indeed a POV that should be presented (not advocated), and it must be done in a NPOV way, IOW in the criticism's section stating that many scientists and medical physicians believe it is based on a pseudoscientific idea -- the chiropractic vertebral subluxation (VS). It is VS, not chiropractic, that is considered to be pseudoscientific. The difference is important. I certainly have no intentions of approaching that matter in the near future, but Wikipedia policies allow the possibility. If labeled properly it will not violate NPOV. -- Fyslee 18:13, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Making a mockery of NPOV

I was very surprised to see this by one of our 'contributors', Fyslee. I was wondering if anyone else might feel that NPOV may be difficult (impossible?) for him to attain here at Wikipedia regarding the Chiropractic article.Billboards in Connecticut Steth 17:51, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


Connecticut Chiropractic Council- "We must persevere to break down this group and their information tactics."
Did they mean to say misinformation tactics perhaps? Ironic Fruedian slip...
Seriously though there is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in a NPOV fashion just because they have a POV in real life. This reeks of ad hominem. Jefffire 18:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
That was received from one of my many chiropractor friends. The last sentence was written by the Connecticut Chiropractic Council.
Steth is using this as yet another opportunity to use ad hominem attacks on me. He consistently fails to Assume Good Faith. Of course I have a POV both on Talk pages and outside of Wikipedia. The article is where NPOV must prevail. Steth seems to fail to understand that his POV is just as much a POV as my POV. I recognize that, but he seems to think his POV is NPOV. -- Fyslee 18:25, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree that one should be able to express POV on this discussion. And that Fyslee spends his time drumming up anit-chiro support off this site is his own business. He even once accused me of representing the "unscientific POV" in an attempt to get more of his crew to the Wikipedia Chiropractic article. I wonder if it worked. Anyhow, that he considers my POV unscientific is his POV. That I considered my POV to be wholly scientific is my POV. That I consider Fyslee's POV to be hate-mongering is also just my POV. We are all certainly entitled to our own POV... in the U.S., in Denmark, and certainly on the Internet (except maybe in China). Also, if you are Chiropractic Assistant and you want to rat out the chiropractor you work for, you might want to check out this important message from Fyslee. Levine2112 19:53, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
Levine, that would be funny if it weren't so sad.--Hughgr 20:26, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

OK guys, I just wish we could go for a drink together sometime. Whatever your views, this article is turning into something good, and better for all of you. Just my humble opinion. If you don't want to work with people who hold totally different opinions, Wikipedia is not a goood place, but sometimes the opposite opinions are the ones most interesting. There are regularly calls for animal house assistants to whistle-blow on abuse of animals, and for what it's worth I'd pass them a whistle myself because if there are rotten apples, they don't belong in my barrel, and I'm sure they don't belong in yours either. Yes, I worry that such calls just invite malcontents to exaggerate and cause trouble, and I'm sure they do to some extent, but if the pressure keeps the house clean it's not all bad either.Gleng 21:37, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Here, here, I'll tip one back with ya! LOL This article is improving, and as B.J. Palmer said, conflicts clarify! I'm working on a vertebral subluxation break down to be discussed here. Maybe some of it can be used in the article when it's done being hashed out. If nothing else, used in the VS article. Take er easy (or any way you can get her :)--Hughgr 22:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll buy the first round! All's well that ends well. I think we all pretty much know where each of us stand already. If you ask me, Fyslee, you have shown great restraint in not allowing your personal POV to take over this article. I think we should all follow his example. Something tells me we'll all be okay with the final product.--Dematt 06:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Dematt, we share the same goal - to present the best article about chiropractic ever written. Most articles suffer from being one-sided. Skeptical articles write only from the skeptical viewpoint, and articles written by most chiropractors and associations naturally write from a promotional viewpoint. There is nothing wrong with that, but Wikipedia deserves and requires much more. There is much to write about this fascinating subject, and readers should feel that they have been well-informed by the finished product. -- Fyslee 09:15, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, I agree with you Jefffire, there is no reason why an editor cannot contribute in a NPOV fashion just because they have a POV in real life. And everyone has a POV, now don’t they? But an article is supposed to have NPOV, isn’t it?

Flysee’s claim that his POV is as valid as my POV is missing the point. This article isn’t about POV. It is about NPOV, namely, here is what chiropractic is. It’s NOT about ‘here is how I interpret studies so I think chiropractic is a pseudoscience, or doesn’t work or will kill you, etc. so I want this included in the article.’ So when Fyslee or Macreedy adds their ‘coloration’, then those with an NPOV have to balance things by adding still more to the article, etc. creating an interminable morass.

Unlike practically all other articles that state cleanly what something is about, this article gets bogged down into two sides: On one side are chiropractors and non-chiropractors trying to develop an informative article versus non-chiropractors who are pre-occupied with chiropractic, and some who might also happen to actively participate in professional bigotry openly with blogs and websites, who don’t believe chiropractic deserves to exist and aims to do something about it and who just adds disparaging, anti-chiropractic spin edits.

My POV is to remove anti-chiropractic POV from the chiropractic article, making it more NPOV. It seems to me that this should be a concise, informative article, not unlike most articles on WP. Instead, it has become a way too long, battleground, filled with headings and sub-headings. That’s the issue. Steth 23:12, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Steth, take a chill pill and help us with the next part:)--Dematt 06:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Misunderstanding NPOV

Steth wrote: "That's the issue."[29]

Okay, that is your issue, and your statements above bring up a very fundamental problem with your understanding of the NPOV policy, and thus explains why your editing often tends to be deletist ("My POV is to remove anti-chiropractic POV from the chiropractic article, making it more NPOV.") or where you consider your POV to be the same as NPOV ("...then those with an NPOV have to balance things by adding still more to the article...").

First of all, you misquote me:

"Flysee's claim that his POV is as valid as my POV is missing the point."

Here is what I actually wrote:

"Steth seems to fail to understand that his POV is just as much a POV as my POV. I recognize that, but he seems to think his POV is NPOV." [30] (Nothing about "validity" there.)

Your statements above just proved my point, and that is that you misunderstand and therefore misuse NPOV.

NPOV is not about deleting POV (especially opposing POV) or preventing POV in articles, it is about presenting all POV, without advocating a POV, IOW all viewpoints should be presented without taking sides. Editors should seek to present the facts about each side's POV. Scientific evidence should be presented as it is - the best knowledge we have at present.

All viewpoints should be presented to ensure balance, otherwise the article ends up being a sales talk for chiropractic, rather than an article describing chiropractic in all its facets, which includes much controversy. The controversy should also be presented.

The scientific and medical world is skeptical of chiropactic. That skepticism, being the majority viewpoint, must also be presented here, according to the rules of NPOV.

Wikipedia's POV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

This article is not like many other articles, simply because it is one of many controversial subjects dealt with here at Wikipedia. Such articles cannot be presented in some short concise way. That's the way it is and we need to accept that fact.

The article is about chiropractic, and therefore the many different chiropractic viewpoints should be presented thoroughly, without selling them. This is not a soapbox for chiropractic, and the article must not be written from the chiropractic POV, but should describe those POV, as well as other POV.

Readers should come away from the article with a feeling of "Wow! I've never read such a thorough coverage of all the aspects about chiropractic. Now I've heard all sides of the issue and can make up my own mind. I have also been presented with enough information and references to start doing my own research." -- Fyslee 08:22, 10 May 2006 (UTC)


Thank you for your ‘clarification’, Fyslee. Have you considered that you see things from the inside of a fishbowl? From your perspective, chiropractic is controversial and must be destroyed. You demonstrate this through your participation in various activities, including working with Kinsinger, MD, who is behind the billboards, and who, with you, worked feverishly to stop the chiropractic school in Florida in conjunction with Florida State University. What were you thinking there? War on chiropractic?
“The scientific and medical world is skeptical of chiropactic. That skepticism, being the majority viewpoint, must also be presented here, according to the rules of NPOV.”
Oh? How do you know this? Have you spoken to most in the medical field? The AMA, with around 300,000 members, doesn’t seem to have a statement or policy that puts chiropractic in a negative light. So that accounts for a large group of MD’s right there. In fact, they say (with the help of a courtroom) that it is OK to associate with chiropractors. So immediately I recognize that you again are passing off your opinion as fact (original research, perhaps?).
Do local MD’s dislike chiropractic? It seems that MD’s and DC’s work together well, referring back and forth, partnering in practices at an increasing rate. They participate in organizations and groups together to benefit the community. There are a number of hospitals across the US have DC’s on staff. It seems to be OK with many in the medical field. They even get….ADJUSTED!!! How do you explain that?
You see, the several MD’s you hang with seem to spend most of their retired time coming up with attacks on chiropractic, which you actively endorse and enthusiastically participate in. Is that very professional? But that’s why you think MD’s don’t like chiropractic.
The point being, that since you look at chiropractic through thick, myopic eyeglass lenses with your nose pressed against your 15” monitor on your kitchen table in Denmark between massages, you feel that this is how human beings interact in the rest of the world. Just not so, but trying to create this world through the internet, while you have had some successes, is a bit self-serving, not to mention weird.
I bring this all up to refute your contention that chiropractic is the most controversial thing you can think of according to most in the medical profession. What I find very odd is that a physical therapist living in Denmark would take such an active, militant interest in deliberately hindering and preventing chiropractic from progressing and improving, progress you claim that chiropractic needs so desperately. What’s that all about?
“The article is about chiropractic, and therefore the many different chiropractic viewpoints should be presented thoroughly, without selling them. This is not a soapbox for chiropractic, and the article must not be written from the chiropractic POV, but should describe those POV, as well as other POV.”
You know something, Fyslee? I agree with some things you say. (!) This article is about chiropractic, so chiropractic viewpoints should be presented. But it’s not about what some people think about chiropractic. What should not be presented is why a PT or some MD’s have emotional reactions about the word ‘chiropractic’. This is not a soapbox as you keep attempting to make it, nor is it to promote your viewpoint. It is about chiropractic. Yours, Steth 18:02, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Do you really believe what you have just written about me? Your hatred seems to know no bounds. First you don't even quote me correctly (and don't apologize for doing so), then you use straw man attacks (I don't work with Kinsinger in any way, among other false allegations above), then you smear me all over the place in a very cheap and mean way. Do you feel good now? Have you somehow boosted your self image by putting someone else down? If that's what it takes, I pity you. If I had done even half of what you have just done, you'd be screaming "ban the guy," "let's start an RFC against him" (oh, that's right, you've already tried that tactic....). -- Fyslee 18:28, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Oh, c'mon Fyslee. Don't be so sensitive. What did I write that was inaccurate? I got this stuff from links to your websites that you openly provided. You seem to have no qualms about smear campaigns and people, chiropractic, chiropractors, politicians, etc. Here is one example: Stop FSU I was just wondering why a PT in Denmark would reach over to Florida and become so personally involved. Wasn't there any coordination of efforts with Kinsinger on your part? So chill out. Have a cup of tea or a busy little Zin. Steth 20:52, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Back after a weekend trip. You may have read something from my website, but you haven't asked me for any clarification. You have only written your colored opinion, which says more about you than about me. The FSU situation interested lots of people. I had no contact with or coordination with Kinsinger. Never met the guy. What I wrote likely had little or no impact on the situation. I came into the situation quite late and mostly only reported on what was already happening. The scientific faculty were very alarmed. They simply didn't want anything remotely pseudoscientific associated with FSU. They knew that having a chiro school there would ruin the credibility and reputation of the school. Besides, there is already a surplus of chiros in Florida. The cartoon parody of the campus of FSU School of Pseudoscience was probably the most effective way to illustrate the problem. It got a lot of attention. -- Fyslee 13:39, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Well thanks for clearing that up for me. I thought for sure that you were part of the hate-centric spin team given the amount of bandwidth on your sites you devoted to this, and of course, since you are tight with Stephen Barrett who is tight with Kinsinger who is tight with Bellamy, etc. Well, you got your wish anyway. BTW, since you brought up the cartoon, who came up with that? My money would be on you. Very creative. Steth 17:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I really doubt that Barrett has much contact with Kinsinger or Bellamy. I have no idea whether Bellamy had any contact with Kinsinger. Dr. Bellamy was apparently a key person, with the newspapers constantly running their own stories. What may be incomprehensible for some who don't understand the deeper "mysteries" of chiropractic, some chiropractors also opposed the move, especially World Chiropractic Alliance president, Terry Rondberg: http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/fsu2.htm
I recently read the name of the producer of the cartoon, but can't remember it. I believe it was one of the FSU professors. I only found out about it much later from a news report. It was being circulated all over the internet. You give me far too much credit! I'm sure if you asked at Chirotalk, someone there could tell you. There are a lot of chiros there who might know. -- Fyslee 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Not that it is anybody's fault, but the irony is that becoming part of the university system could have helped perform the quality research that would either make or break the tenents of chiropractic. Something both sides should have wanted, but both sides have people who did not want that to happen. IMO it will happen one day anyway, it will just have to be somewhere else. -- Dematt 22:26, 14 May 2006


You are absolutely right. It is very ironic that "both sides have people who did not want that to happen." What may be incomprehensible for some who don't understand the deeper "mysteries" of chiropractic, some chiropractors also opposed the move, especially World Chiropractic Alliance president, Terry Rondberg: http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/news/fsu2.htm
For very different reasons, the anti-quackery side opposed it for other reasons. We basically want chiropractic to prove that it can police itself, eliminate quackery (not necessarily the same as questions of ethical conduct) from practice and the schools, and first then, try to get chiropractic taught in universities. Then the question could be evaluated in a very different way. Would what was left after the uniqueness and quackery were removed (which Rondberg protests) leave anything worth keeping? Could it justify the existence of a whole profession just to provide manipulation for the very few situations where it is really appropriate? There are lots of interesting angles to this, which I've delved into for a number of years. -- Fyslee 19:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Reminder

Per Wikipedia:Etiquette and Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines, try to avoid personal attacks and be concise with your comments. The increased activity here is good, however, I think a bit more adherence to those guidelines will help all of us to follow some of the discussions better. Cheers! -AED 18:53, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The lead (again)

The lead currently includes: "There is little scientific evidence as to the validity of the theory or effectiveness of the treatments." It appears as though there has been no discussion regarding this particular inclusion, so it might be wise if we had some. My initial question is this: What is "the theory" (emphasis mine) that supposedly has little evidence supporting its validity? My understanding is that there is no such thing as "the chiropractic theory". Whatever it is, it should be mentioned explicitly prior to stating that there is no evidence of its validity. -AED 20:43, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I have been having a revert war with user Arthur Rubin, who I haven't seen trying to discuss this change here. Until it gets discussed here, I will continue to revert within WP:3RR--Hughgr 21:26, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Perhaps you could help things by explaining specifically why you think it is not appropriate.-AED 21:32, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
Some of the reasons have been pointed out above, mainly it's generalizing, "little scientific evidence", what evidence, shouldn't there be more studies instead of saying that since there is litte, that means it's a done deal. What theories are valid and which are invalid. Are all treatments ineffective or just some?--Hughgr 21:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm willing to drop the "theories", as they're not mentioned in the lead (as long as the lack of scientific evidence for the theories is listed with reasonable prominence where the the theories are listed.) However, the fact that there is little scientific (or even anecdotal) evidence as to the clinical efficacy of chiropractic needs to be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Whether there should be more studies is clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. And it's as accurate as the first two sentences — the claims that chiropratic includes diagnosis, and that mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system has effects on the function of the nervous system are disputed. I don't think the previous version ("Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.") belongs in the lead, but some statement that chiropractic has limited scientific recognition should be in the lead. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding latest update: "There is little scientific evidence as to the effectiveness of the treatments." If I'm reading this for the first time, I'm wondering: "There is little scientific evidence as to the effectiveness of spinal manipulations for what purpose?" According to Quackwatch: "There is substantial evidence that spinal manipulative therapy (SMT) has value in relieving back pain and improving the range of impaired spinal motion at least temporarily. Although SMT is probably no more effective than other modalities in the long term, it appears to offer faster relief in about one third of patients."[31] Is Quackwatch wrong? -AED 01:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC) edited 01:27, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Art and welcome. Please read through the Talk pages and familiarize yourself with some of the history. It might save you (and us!) a lot of wasted time and energy.
Regarding your POV reverts, here is what I posted to Geni that might clarify things for you indicating that, in addition to AED's reference that there is substantial evidence cited above, moderate and adequate evidence exists according to the experts cited below. So maybe we should change the word 'little' to 'adequate' or 'substantial'? Would that work for everyone?:
Bigos S, Bowyer O, Braen G, et al. Acute Low Back Problems in Adults. Clinical Practice Guidelines No. 14. AHCPR Publication No. 95-0642. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research, Public Health Service, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, December 1994.
Here is what they said: AHCPR Guideline recommended Spinal manipulation of low back during first month of symptoms with a ‘B’ rating. B = moderate research-based evidence (one relevant, high-quality scientific study or multiple adequate scientific studies).
Manipulation for patients with radiculopathy (C). Manipulation for patients with symptoms > 1 month (C). C = limited research-based evidence (at least one adequate scientific study in patients with low back pain).
I am just saying that since evidence exists, the statement that no evidence exists is false and should be removed. There was agreement with this. So why would you want to keep it in?
Here is more, indicating that evidence does exist. So read through this and lets be open to adding much of this information to the article and remove anti-chiropractic biased statements:
Spinal manipulation Steth 04:23, 2 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Steth 02:08, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I had read the entire talk page. There is still little scientific evidence of the effectivness of chiropractic, or of spinal manipulations (which are not exactly the same). (I was particularly amused — when I saw it — by a study showing that spinal manipulation was effective on lower back pain, independent of which manipulations were performed. That supports spinal manipulations as being effective, but chiropractic, as a whole, as not being effective.)
We need some comment in the lead about the value of chiropractic being questioned by sincere researchers. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 03:33, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
What the article needs is accuracy. It is because chiropractic and spinal manipulations are not exactly the same that your addition to the lead was inaccurate. Still, I'm glad you grasped the point with a bit of amusement. -AED 05:14, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
It's your move. Any action I take in the next 12 hours could rationally be considered WP:3RR but I expect something about the controversy in the lead shortly.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Arthur_Rubin (talk • contribs).

Regarding the latest update: "According to the experts, there is substantial and adequate scientific evidence as to the effectiveness of the treatments." Again, if I'm reading this for the first time, I'm wondering: "There is little scientific evidence as to the effectiveness of spinal manipulations for what purpose?" Chiropractors assert that spinal adjustments are useful for more than "relieving back pain and improving the range of impaired spinal motion" and that update does not make that clear. -AED 03:11, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Art, why do you "demand" that something about controversy be in the lead? I mean, why is this so important to you? There is infinite detail already in the article. Why would you want to put a big "red flag" in the lead? There has already been much discussion. Besides, chiropractic being controversial is only a viewpoint by some, many others don't feel it is controversial. So have a cup of tea. Thanks, Steth 11:47, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Only someone who has absolutely no knowledge of the subject would describe it as uncontroversial. I think you've confused controversial with pseudoscience. Jefffire 12:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
(Edit conflict) Ahhh, there you're wrong, on two points.
There hasn't been much discussion on the lead, except the pro-chiropractic principle editors removing various anti-chiropractic comments. (I haven't read the full talk archive — if there is further discussion on the lead, could someone point me to it.) Mine seems neutral — the previously discussed comment, although acurate, probably doesn't belong in the lead.
Chiropractic being controversial is a fact. It should be in the lead. The article, as a whole, seems balanced (at the moment). ‐ although the study that showed little effect as to which adjustment was made on the efficacy against lower back pain probably should be noted here or in a related article. (I'll see if I can find my reference to that study, and add it to the appropriate section.) There may be a slight lean toward the pro-chiropractic point of view. (On the other hand, the note here about the potential 100% unreporting of serious injuries caused by chiropractic should probably also be copied to the adjustment article.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 12:51, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I just checked the previous two archives. There's no agreement on the lead. What there is is a revert war on the lead lasting at least 3 months, if not the entire life of the article. (I'm the current "anti"-chiropractic participant, with the usual suspects on the pro-chiropractic, and AED seems to be attempting to act as a peacemaker, although leaning "pro".) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 13:36, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm leaning "accurate", not "pro". Had you read my post from "03:11, 11 May 2006" (a few paragraphs up), it's quite evident that I treat Steth's edits the same way I treat yours. -AED 14:34, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Well, Art, shouldn't "anti-chiropractic" comments be removed from the lead and the whole article? What in the world has this article got to do with being pro- or "anti-chiropractic'? I resent Art Rubin characterizing anyone who is not "anti-chiropractic" to be a "suspect". This article should not be about anti- or pro-, but about Chiropractic. It is not about why a lay-person has negative thoughts about chiropractic, therefore WP should be used has his soapbox. By revealing that he is "anti-chiropractic" then clearly, the purpose of his edits is only to add his extremely biased colorations to this article. The result, as we can see, is revert wars. See what I mean? Steth 20:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Anti-chiropractic comments should not be removed from the article, as they represent a significant point of view. (They don't need to be in the lead unless pro- comments appear. The "present" first paragraph of the lead seems to be a self-description, without claims of efficacy. The second seems fair at the moment. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:00, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Alternatives to controversial lead

Hey guys, saw that there is still controversy on the lead with the last sentence. While reading the "thousands" of pages that Fyslee and Levine have provided, I ran across this. It looks NPOV and it is cited if you want to look into it;

Chiropractors’ ingenuity in devising assessment and adjusting strategies has been phenomenal, and today dozens of brand-name and “generic” techniques (see Table 7) are taught at chiropractic schools (e.g., Gleberzon 2002) and practiced within the profession (Bergman et al. 1993). Clear favorites are apparent (National 2000), but none has yet received the scientific investigation that can justify claims for effectiveness or superiority. However, a specific procedure, side-posture lumbar manipulation, has enjoyed considerable success in clinical trials for patients with low back pain and is highly regarded by expert reviewers (Cooperstein et al., 2001;Gatterman et al., 2001).[32]see page 29.--Dematt 14:07, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Not bad. I think we'd need to paraphrase it (copyright considerations; we'd have to include their references as ours, and "yet" is a violation of Wikipedia is not a crystal ball (and slightly misleading — some modalities have been shown ineffective)), but an excellent choice of a starting point. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:24, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Excellent reference! It could be summed up in this way:
While there is no satisfactory evidence for claims for effectiveness made for many chiropractic procedures, there is evidence that one of the most used procedures -- side-posture lumbar manipulation -- is effective for lower back pain.
That may be a bit clumsy, but I have to run now. -- Fyslee 15:00, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
With a slight reword it could fit in splendidly. Jefffire 18:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

My lord, what part of discuss in the talk page first, don’t you guys understand…. In regards to the overwhelming majority of research with manual therapy, manipulation, and/or chiropractic adjustment, the most recurring and thus most accurate statement is “Currently, there is insufficient evidence to support or refute the use of manual therapy for patients with (insert condition here)”. Notice the support OR refute part. So you can’t use “little scientific evidence as to the effectiveness….”, as this is inaccurate. Not that I think “any” evidence would change your minds. see last sentence [33]

The most accurate would then be, “There is little scientific evidence to support or refute the effectiveness of the treatments for anything other than back pain and impaired spinal motion.”--Hughgr 18:50, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

If we're going to do that, we need to distinguish the levels of "little". "There is very little scientific evidence to support, but little scientific evidence to refute, the effectiveness of treatments for anything other than lower back pain and impaired spinal motion." Or perhaps no evidence to support, but little evidence to refute.... — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:57, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

What about this;

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. It emphasizes the bodies own natural ability to heal itself and works to remove obstructions to this process, principally the chiropractic subluxation. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments. While there is no satisfactory evidence for claims for effectiveness made for many chiropractic procedures, there is evidence that one of the most used procedures -- side-posture lumbar manipulation -- is effective for lower back pain.

It does seem to flow better. You guys can keep fighting over the last sentence, but how about the other part. We still need to add info related to what ends up being in the article, but first we need to finish the article.--Dematt 19:17, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I think that is neutral, but then I only came along to say stop the edit war. At this point the options are: protect the article (at the wrong version, naturally); block everyone for WP:3RR and disruption; or you all sit down and play nicely. Which looks like what's happening. Well done :-) Just zis Guy you know? 20:43, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I think I have it. How about this:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. It emphasizes the bodies own natural ability to heal itself and works to remove obstructions to this process, principally the chiropractic subluxation. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments. Preliminary evidence suggests benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain. Better research is needed to make a strong conclusion.

Steth 20:55, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Editorialising and POV. Reword. Jefffire 21:02, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Shall we try changing the last two sentences to
Preliminary evidence suggests benefits only in patients with tension headache and low back pain.
— Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:09, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Are you guys sure you don't want;

While there is no satisfactory evidence for claims for effectiveness made for many chiropractic procedures, there is evidence that one of the most used procedures -- side-posture lumbar manipulation -- is effective for lower back pain.

--Dematt 21:29, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I prefer that phrasing. As an "anti" (or, at least, a skeptic), I don't think it's my part to (re)introduce "no evidence" claims. (At least, if I didn't think it would be reverted within a few minutes....) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:49, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
"Preliminary evidence suggests benefits only in patients with tension headache and low back pain", I feel "only" should be substituted with primarily or mostly.--Hughgr 22:32, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that starting to talk about preliminary evidence in something that's been around for this long sounds rather silly. I didn't see much of a problem with Dermatt's version. Just zis Guy you know? 22:45, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if you guys missed this part of the change to the lead;

"It emphasizes the bodies own natural ability to heal itself and works to remove obstructions to this process, principally the chiropractic subluxation. "

Nobody seemed to mind it and it does tie in with what we are hopefully working toward in the body of the article. You may have been more concerned with the last sentence and missed it. I went ahead and put it in, but we can still pull it.--Dematt 01:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

While we're on the subject, and without touching that last sentence, how about we simplify that "complementary and alternative medicine health profession". I've heard alternative healthcare profession, complementary and alternative heathcare profession, etc. but never the way we have it. For now I'll change it to complementary and alternative medicine healthcare profession which still sounds a little long but I suppose is necessary.--Dematt 01:53, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I like the "It emphasizes the bodies....." Looks good

As far as "complementary and alternative medicine healthcare profession", I like the way it was before. IMHO--Hughgr 02:34, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it is body's..:] and no problem on the healthcare, I wasn't real happy with that one anyway. Quite a day, huh.--Dematt 03:08, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

RE: "It emphasizes the body's own natural ability to heal itself and works to remove obstructions to this process, principally the chiropractic subluxation." It really doesn't make much sense to me. Concerns that come to mind:

  1. What precisely does it mean to "emphasize the body's own natural ability to heal itself"? Perhaps the author of this comment meant "enhances the body's own natural ability to heal itself" or something else.
  2. That chiropractic "works to remove obstructions to [the body's own natural ability to heal itself]" is a claim , not a fact. Perhaps it attempts to remove those obstructions.
  3. What adjective or verb is "principally" supposed to be modifying here?

-AED 04:12, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

AED, thanks. Maybe you can help me say it more clearly.
  1. I wasn't trying to say that chiropractic "enhances" (as I felt that would be opinion at this point), rather that chiropractic's roots are vitalistic and they feel that "the body heals itself", thus chiropractic emphasizes this point - though I have no problem with using a different word, especially since it is used again in the next sentence.
  2. attempts is better.
  3. No, I see what your saying, the obstruction is "principally" the chiropractic subluxation. There can be other obstructions.--Dematt 12:41, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


Here's another proposal for the first part of the current lead. I have tried to take into account the various objections (including debates about "some" or "most"), and by clearly labeling what are major chiropractic beliefs, the key chiropractic concepts of "subluxations" and "adjustments" can be included in a NPOV way. The chiropractic position needs to be presented clearly and factually, without it being stated as fact, which would violate the NPOV policy:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can enhance this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments.

Here's the current version for comparison:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. It emphasizes the body's own natural ability to regulate itself and attempts to remove obstructions to the healing process by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments.

-- Fyslee 15:08, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I like your changes. I vote to keep them.--Dematt 22:09, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
I like this too. However, the word "enhance" might not be exactly right. Chiropractors don't believe that they are enhancing the body anymore than its natural ability. It's close what you have here and I can't quite put it into words... so let me ramble on a few thoughts and maybe you'll get my point. Basically, the body has a natural ability to regulate itself. By removing obstructions, Chiropractors help the body function to the best of its ability. I don't know, I think "enhance" the way it is used above, give chiropractors too much credit (yes, I'm saying this) and I also believe that it is credit which chiropractors don't want. Just as chiropractors believe in the body's ability to regulate it self (fight off much disease, heal much injuries), chiropractors insist that nothing can cure the body except for the body. Not drugs, not chiropractic adjustments, not bandages. I guess just want to make sure that "enhance" doesn't suggest that chiropractors are making your body better than its natural ability. Rather, they help the body function optimally to its own ability. Does this make sense? Am I reading too much into one word? Sorry for the rambling. It's how I think. Ooh, maybe the word "optimize" might be better than "enhance". So that sentence would read: While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can optimize this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Thoughts? Levine2112 00:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I see what you mean. Or promote, advance, boost, further, encourage, support. BTW, I have my best ideas when I'm rambling!--Dematt 03:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I understand what you're saying and did have trouble with what word to use. "Support" sounds like a good possibility. Here's what that would look like:
Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments.
Is that good enough to go with for now? -- Fyslee 04:23, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't hate me, but I think we need a slight revision still. This part: Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term... I think it is more than just the healing process. "Healing" suggests the presences of an injury or perhaps a disease. I think we need to mention that Chiropractic is also a preventitive medicine. Maybe we should just blunlty say: Most chiropractors believe that neural communication between the brain and the rest of the body can be obstructed by what they term... Is that overstating it? Is it truthful? Levine2112 16:32, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Lead as of May 15, 2006: suggested changes

Regarding the first sentence: "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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." This reads as though general health is a function. I suggest the following change which is very similar but more in line with the American Chiropractic Association's definition:

"Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disorders of the musculoskeletal system and the nervous system, and the effects of these disorders on general health."

Are there any thoughts or objects to this? -AED 04:50, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

No objection here. Let's implement this. Levine2112 04:52, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Works for me, too. I believe Fyslee gets the honors of putting it in.--Dematt 12:37, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't have the time right now, so I will defer to Dematt to do the honors. The correct formatting is up above somewhere.-- Fyslee 21:57, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


Rereading the WFC definition (the one that we've been using), I can see that "the effects of these disorders" refers to both "functions of the nervous system" and "general health" (i.e. not "functions of general health"). I've cited the WFC definition since all of us seem to agree with at least that much of it.-AED 21:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Just as long as we don't lose the important fact that there is no credible objective evidence to support many of the claims made, no problem. Just zis Guy you know? 21:16, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Your concern is a valid one. We'll get to it. It's just a matter of finding acceptable wording. -- Fyslee 21:59, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now do we still want to make the changes to the second and third sentences as worked out earlier? Current;

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[6]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[6]. Chiropractic emphasizes the body's own natural ability to regulate itself and attempts to remove obstructions to the healing process by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[7]. Evidence for more substantial claims is lacking.

With both changes;

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[6]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[6]. While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[7]. Evidence for more substantial claims is lacking.

I think we can work on the last sentence after we actually write the article so that it is a true reflection of what the article actually ends up saying. I think we all agree that there is not enough evidence to support the concept of subluxation to allow it to pass scientific scutiny. IMO as a chiropractor it needs to be in the lead because it is an important feature of chiropractic whether you believe in it or not. So Just zis Guy you know?, I agree it needs to say something along the lines that you are suggesting. Lets just wait until we finish arguing our way through the rest of the article. Then it may be obvious to everyone.

I'll wait 24 hours before making any changes to the lead per Arthur Rubin's request. --Dematt 03:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool with this too. However, the word "lacking" int he last sentence still bothers me. It is too strong. Evidence does exist. "Lacking" makes it seem as though there is no evidence. There is evidence, but it is disputed. Therefore, I think it should read: Evidence for more substantial claims is disputed. Levine2112 20:44, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Dematt, go for it. It's looking good. This is the closest we've come to getting all the important chiropractic concepts in the lead in a reasonably NPOV way. It describes quite accurately basic chiropractic beliefs and chiropractor's intentions when treating people. As regards the various disputed aspects, I don't think the lead needs more than is there now. Those matters can be dealt with in the article. Disagreements are alluded to, and that's okay since it's true. The rest is an accurate description of chiropractic. Since the lead needs to be kept reasonably short, this sums it up pretty well. If the article gets long (which it probably will), then the lead can be lengthened to incorporate short summaries of the added material if it isn't there already. -- Fyslee 22:07, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, that's fine with me. (I think "substantial" is a little confusing — perhaps "extensive" would be better, but that's not a substantial change.  ;-) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:06, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

It's not that I am not listening. I've have been watching AED to see what he comes with up while by looking for consensus. Let's give him a chance to work through it and then we can all say yeah or nay to either version. AED, what ya got?

[edit] {{totallydisputed}}

The article was flagged for disputed factual accuracy and neutrality. I read it, it does not seem too bad - a bit "he-said-she-said" in places, and could do with being about a third shorter, but it did not seem to me to be a horrible article and (wonder of wonders!) it actually cites sources. There are islands of POV in there, but I would not say it is pushing a barrow. Perhaps those who dispute the accuracy could identify the individual claims they find problematic? Or maybe tag them with {{fact}} so that they can be cited? I'll start:

  • the citation for the increasing popularity of chiropractic, which contains insinuations of health benfits, is form the Department of Labor, which is not a recognised medical authority, and is in fact merely saying that if you go into chiropractic the income prospects are good. The same could be said for bank robbery...
  • Stylistically, the history should be contiguous. At present it is split in two. I would say the history should go first, then the discussion of purported benefits and current state of evidence.

What other things need fixing? Just zis Guy you know? 22:59, 11 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] 'Evidence' for tension headaches should be in the lead

Since there is definitive evidence regarding tension headaches, then that should also be in the lead.

As for 'side-posture', it is too much detail for the lead. It can be placed somewhere in the article, just for the sake of brevity. Steth 03:27, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is the reference: http://www.umm.edu/altmed/ConsConditions/HeadacheTensioncc.html Steth 03:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

First of all, that reference states: "Evidence supporting the use of tension headaches that originate in the neck is quite clear; however, studies examining the effectiveness of spinal manipulation for other types of tension headaches have been less conclusive." I don't think the article should mention the first part without mentioning the second part. Perhaps this information would be better suited elsewhere in the article rather than the lead. Secondly, it would be preferable to have the primary sources (i.e. the actual studies) of this information if possible. -AED 04:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

You are right, of course, AED. Here is the study: Duke Report Thanks Steth 11:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

That could also be in the science or intro sections as well.--Dematt 12:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
Good idea, Dematt! Please go ahead and add it and be sure to note that it is from Duke University for reference purposes. Thanks Steth 14:18, 12 May 2006 (UTC)


1.Isn't the most recent (2006) and comprehensive study best in the lead[34]? It concluded "these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment."

2. I'd also agree with the other editors who suggest: "While there is no satisfactory evidence for claims for effectiveness made for many chiropractic procedures, there is evidence that one of the most used procedures -- side-posture lumbar manipulation -- is effective for lower back pain." But could I have a cite please for the claim?

3. I disagree that this should be included: "It emphasizes the bodies own natural ability to heal itself and works to remove obstructions to this process, principally the chiropractic subluxation." This does not represent the views of the whole profession.

4. I'd prefer to say in the lead that the profession includes those who believe in subluxation (90% ) and a significant minority, together with mainsteam medicine, who don't believe in it. Mccready 14:59, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

5. The 2001 article noted in the lead as "suggesting" benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain, is not a strong reference or source for the lead. I suggest we go back to something like Arthur's version. Or I fail to see what's wrong with "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic interventions does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine (cf. Cochrane Collaboration)." or "There is no scientific consensus over whether or not evidence supports chiropractic." Mccready 15:17, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, of course you like that reference as “proof” that you’re right because it confirms what you already “think” to be right. This is called Confirmation bias - the tendency to search for or interpret information in a way that confirms one's preconceptions.

This link is a systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation, and it only includes systematic reviews going back to the year 2000. While they are not doing any new studies, it was pointed out earlier, the majority of studies done thus far are less than stellar in design. These researchers even say, “All systematic reviews are prone to publication bias within the primary research data which they include and because our study is a systematic review of systematic reviews, any such bias may have been inherited in our study.” My bias detector also went off when they state, “Data were extracted independently by two researchers (PC & EE) using pre-defined criteria (Table 1). Disagreements were resolved by discussion between the authors”. So they’re reaching conclusions based on bad science, which isn’t very scientific. I agree that SMT need’s better research, but (again, it’s been discussed earlier) it’s inherently difficult to use double blind methodology with SMT.

Regarding #3 As I am someone in the profession, I feel it does represent the majority of the profession. 90% is a pretty big majority. The 10% minority can be cited in the article.

Regarding your #4, mainstream medicine needs to be sourced, otherwise it’s POV. [35]

While there is a plethora of anecdotal evidence, this, of course, is insufficient for the rigors of science. I also note that you, and most other “anti’s” claim the benefit is merely placebo, but in my own clinical experience, somewhere around 50% bluntly tell me, “I don’t think this is going to work”, which is the nocebo effect. Thus it should have less of an effect in that patient population, but in my own experience, they get results the same as any other. Yes, this is just my personal observation, but it is a least better than your “no observation”. And please don’t interpret this to mean that I think SMT always works. Of course it doesn’t always work, there is not, nor will there ever be a “treatment” that is 100% effective 100% of the time in 100% of cases. Just won’t happen.--Hughgr 19:25, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I'll have to agree with Hughgr on this one. It is hard to swallow that a study of 16 papers on different subjects can justify the statement, "It should not be used for anything." I'll also second the nocebo effect in my office. But most important, I also like Hughgr's sentence; "While there is a plethora of anecdotal evidence, this, of course, is insufficient for the rigors of science." It, too is NPOV and says a lot. This could be a replacement for that controversial sentence as well. Good work. [posted 23:51, 12 May 2006 by Dematt

Thanks Guys. 1. Hugh, I understand your criticisms of the 2006 study. But you don't show that the 2001 study is a better source. Doesn't the 2001 study have an even smaller data set? The methodology of most meta analyses I am familiar with is similar to the 2006 study. Their inclusion criterion was that the studies include an explicit and repeatable inclusion and exclusion criteria. I'm not sure what you find unscientific about that. Also the studies would have inlcuded data pre 2000, so your argument fails on that ground. On the inherited bias (studies of studies) you neglected to mention "In our view, such effects would have tended to favour SM." And you neglected to mention “It is perhaps relevant to note that all three of the overtly positive recommendations for SM in the indications back pain, neck pain and headache originate from the same chiropractor.” What was the methodology for the 2001 study? I think we need to answer these questions in deciding which study to put in the lead. In summary the 2006 study seems much better than a single study which "suggests". 2. On self healing/subluxation, 10% is a significant minority and should be in the lead. See WP:LEAD 3. the mainstream medicine views are in the science section I’ll await a response before amending the lead. Mccready 04:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Mc, what is this 2001 study you're talking about? I never mentioned another study, what I said was the studies done thus far have been set up, organized, etc. so they were not very accurate. That is the general concensus of the reviewers. If you're doing a meta-analysis of poor studies, you will not come to an accurate conclusion. So what I'm saying is, if nearly every study is flawed in some way or another, what is the point of meta-ing them? Design a new, GOOD study and have something concrete to work with. Follow that up with more GOOD studies, and so on.....The main thing I find suspect with your favorite study is two people decided what to include, even though there was conflicting evidence (good and bad) they choose to ignore the good and say with a sweeping authority that it's not good for anything and on top of that, even though the "risk" was minimal, they came to the conclusion that since there's no benefit, and a little risk, you'd better not do it. I find it very suspect. 2. What do you think about this study. [36]--Hughgr 06:02, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Hugh, the 2001 study is the one in the lead. If you could answer my specific questions in relation to that we would be further along. No study will ever answer all the questions - that's the nature of sience. So we work with what we've got and chose the best out of the bunch. I'll check the ref you have given and let you know. Mccready 06:51, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Hugh, I've checked the link. It's not falsifiable. It's not a study. It's an ad for "watch this space". No results are given to the research questions posed. Twist a finger and you generate an action potential. Twist it harder and you generate some more. I'm doubtful if this sort of research would pass an ethics committee in Australia. The page didn't display well. Terms like "exciting" belong in ads, not science unless we are talking major breakthoughs. It's not footnoted properly. If it's not listed on the US Clinical Trials Register or a similar site, it won't be published by a reputable journal associated with the Committee of Medical Journal Editors. In short, it displays many of the properties of pseudoscience. Sorry to sound negative but that's how science works. Please don't attack me on this one, but by all means examine my ideas. Am I missing something? Mccready 07:11, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi guys. Perhaps you should read this about Ernst's piece:
Anthony Rosner's analysis
Ernst does state in his piece, 'None of the reviews conclusively demonstrates that SM is ineffective.' So where does he get conclusions from, devine inspiration?
Ernst, who has a public history of anti-chiropractic bias (i.e. hatred), slams chiropractic in the newspapers, even though in the UK, there are more osteopaths doing spinal manipulation.
Also, I think something about infantile colic should be in the lead.
I won't be around much this weekend, so please work it all out.  :Thanks Steth 11:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Welcome to the Scientific Method, where the burden of proof is solidly on thoise proposing an intervention to prove its efficacy. The review appears to be quite correct in concluding that this case is not proven. So the lead should say that it is a controversial set of techniques which lack any proper scientific proof. The other comments can be included later. Otherwise we are giving undue weight to articles which go against the apparent scientific consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 12:10, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Steth, I read both links carefully. Unfortunately they don't push the debate very far. Both are more in the nature of brief media releases, not scientific analyses. On the first link, its statement "hypotheses and methods of analysis in the reviews that it cites are bound to deliver differing conclusions” is horrifying. It prejudges the outcomes of scientific enquiry. How can a well designed study be "bound" to deliver something? What would be the point of the study in that case? If Ernst and Canter struck out studies of this nature it would appear a correct thing to do. Perhaps the link is correct in arguing Ernst and Canter are incorrect, but it fails to demonstrate this. Its comments about data within the data are simply wrong. On the second link, it reports a 1999 study. No info is given on the number in the trial or the blinding technique. Do you have a copy of the study itself? As it stands the link you've provided is not sufficient to demonstrate the point claimed. As opposed to this the other links that infant colic is not susceptible to SM are much more detailed. It is also quite possible, and needs to be controlled for, that gentle massage and touching the baby might be a major variable. Mccready 23:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Infant colic

Infant colic is a pretenious manner of saying excessive crying. I'm not disputing than doing things to a baby's spine would stop them crying but it doesn't seem notable enough a claim to include in the intro. Jefffire 14:37, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Well I am going by what is in Medline. Seems pretty notable to me. Parents with screaming infants might find this information useful and would it seem pretty notable to them, too. Steth 14:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
It doesn't seem notable to me, especially since the paper says "short term". Shaking a baby usually quiets them, also, even though no tests can ethically be made because of the danger of permanent spinal injury. I'm not saying dangers are similar, but the results are. Besides, the previous sentence doesn't say "Evidence suggests benefits only in patients with tension headache and low back pain.". I wouldn't object if were to be added to a section on specific evidence (positive and negative), but if the lead gets any longer, the fact that many of the claims of chiropractic have not been supported by evidence needs to be there, also. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 15:33, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
I also did not like how it was worded infant colic instead of excessive crying since most people don't know what infact colic means. Jefffire 15:56, 13 May 2006 (UTC)
Per Arthur Rubin's statement above, I am removing "only" from intro and moving study to science section. I think since we have conflicting studies it would be nice to use the two studies to show that there is conflict in chiropractic research. Levine2112 17:28, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics

How reliable is this journal? Do they have any respect in the scientific community? Jefffire 15:35, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Not at work so can't access it at the moment, but I've searched around the Web. As far as I can see, it seems to be an international peer-reviewed journal with an editor-in-chief who looks on my quick search to be someone who's sharp and who takes very seriously indeed the importance of rigorous review and evidence base. The Board appears to include non-chiropractors. It's adopted as the official journal of a major chiropractic organisation. JMPT is the only chiropractic journal included in Index Medicus. It is also indexed/abstracted in Current Contents/Clinical Medicine and Index to Chiropractic Literature. I can't see any reasonable grounds to discount this as a good source.Gleng 15:57, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good, just asking since it was getting refrenced a lot. Jefffire 16:01, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

A good test is whether its editor has signed up to the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors' Statement on Clinical Trial Registration. Could you check this Gareth? Mccready 22:58, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we've estabilished it's a WP:RS. Journal of Irreproducible Results is indexed in the appropriate physics indices. (I guess physicists have more of a sense of humor than health care professionals — of course, for the most part, believing a hoax physics paper will not lead to physical injuries.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:51, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More reliable sources? Chirotalk Deletion

Jefffire cut my edit to add a link to the chiropractic discussion forum saying that it is not a reliable source. This is ridiculous. First of all the link is clearly labelled as a discussion forum. Further, it has the highest decorum of any chiropractic discussion forum on the net. Logical fallacies are pointed out, evidence is required for statements. Finally, many of the allowed sources on the chiropractic page do not meet this standard. For example, the link to Today's chiropractic is just a marketing publication put out by Sid Williams' Dynamic Essentials management group. Tell you what, how would you like me to delete all of the listed unreliable sources that are trade group affiliates?

Chirotalk has a lot of information with links to verifiable sources and does not deserve to be called unreliable. Abotnick

Until we can decide whether it should stay or go, I moved it to a more appropriate place in the external links... the Critiques section as it is a critical discussion board ("anti-chiro" for our purposes here). I also removed the "#1" part as that is marketing languange. It's like calling a link "The best" or "The premiere resource", et cetera. Levine2112 17:30, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] critical vs skeptical

Levine,

Skeptical is not necessarily critical. By replacing skeptical with critical you are giving the Chirotalk link a negative connotation. Good job placing it in the critique section though.

Abotnick

The link ended up getting removed by another user. According to them, forums don't meet some level of proper external links according to Wikipedia guidelines. I wasn't aware of this. I do realize that the forum to which you were linking was your own - in that it is a anti-chiro forum that you own and operate. That may be a no-no as well...something about self-promoting links. But I think the main issue is that it is a forum and I guess that's not acceptable according to WP guidelines. Anyhow, not to beat a now dead horse, but is "critical" negative? Or any less negative than "skeptical"? Just curious. And I appreciate the remark you left above as opposed to the remark you almost left for me. Thanks for keeping this friendly. Levine2112 21:59, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Intro stuff

I just removed "there are currently no studies demonstrating other medical claims". Certainly there are lots of studies out there that "demonstrate" other medical claims. Perhaps this phrase can be included in the intro but it needs to be worded better. I think what is trying to be said is that while there is acceptable scientific evidence of chiropractic's effectiveness with back pain and headaches, there has yet to be enough satisfactory scientific evidence supporting other chiropractic claims. Not that there isn't any evidence or studies that support other chiropractic claims, but that these studies haven't yet met with some level satisfaction of some communities for some reason or another. It is important to recognize that studies do exist that support a lot of chiropractic claims (as we have pointed out ad nauseum throughout this discussion page), but for some reason this research isn't enough yet. So... though research does exist supporting chiropractic's claims, more research will be needed in order to satisfy some people of chiropractic effectiveness. Isn't this the truth? I really don't know how to identifiy or quantify who "some people" are. We can't say the medical community, because chiropractic is accepted by plenty of medical doctors and researchers. We can't say the "scientific community" as there is plenty of scientists who accept chiropractic's claims. I don't know. I'm rambling. I'm sure we can come up with a truthful NPOV statement. Any thoughts? In the meantime, I made an attempt to correct the phrase. Levine2112 21:53, 13 May 2006 (UTC)

Arthur Rubin reverted my edit with good cause. His note in his edit was: Partial revert -- "yet" is a violation of Crystal Ball, and "some" would have to be replaced by "most" to be close to NPOV

The way the intro had read was: ...Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain, however the existing research that supports other chiropractic claims have yet to satisfy some medical and scientific researchers.

Arthur deleted this portion: however the existing research that supports other chiropractic claims have yet to satisfy some medical and scientific researchers.

I think I understand the Crystal Ball violation with the word "yet". I suppose it could imply that sometime in the future chiro research will satisfy chiro claims. My intention with the word "yet" was to say that to date, the studies are not satisfactory to some medical and scientific researchers. Is there a better way to say this without using the predictive "yet".

As fas as the suggestion to use "most" over "some"... I don't have data for that. Is it absoulutely true that most scientists and medical researchers are not satisfied by existing chiro research? "Some" is certainly true as it is an indefinite amount. "Most" is somewhat indefinite, but implies a majority. Hmm. I guess we need a study on that too then.

This is really dicey here. On one hand we want a short, tight intro. On the other hand, we want it to be a nice summary of a huge article. I'll keep trying. Please post suggestions here. Levine2112 02:44, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy with the current configuration:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. It emphasizes the body's own natural ability to regulate itself and attempts to remove obstructions to the healing process by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments. Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[7] Further research is needed for other benefits.

Under the circumstances, is it too much to ask that changes in the lead be posted to the talk page, and let sit a day or so, before implementing? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:43, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't think it inaccurate to state that most scientists question the efficacy of chiropractic for other than clearly musculoskeletal system problems. However, I don't think it needs to be in the lead, unless claims to the contrary also appear. I'll be watching. (In regard a related comment, the one researcher who found 100% non-reporting of serious effects must be included for balance, as none of the other articles are quoted as touching that issue.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:53, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 2006 meta-analysis in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine

The following section under Meta-analysis should be removed.

A 2006 meta-analysis in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine found "these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment." The study confirmed other studies in also concluding "The evidence from the other systematic reviews of SM for non-spinal pain, dysmenorrhoea, infantile colic, asthma, cervicogenic dizziness and any condition is uniformly negative."23

The study was flawed for a number of reasons: In the main, the co-author (Ernst) only selected 16 research studies, out of a possible 60-70. A quarter (25%) of these selected studies were by the report’s own author, adding even more bias to the results.

Elements of ‘spin’ exist within the context of the research - making reference to ‘no evidence that SM is superior to other standard treatments’ can actually be translated, as SM is just as effective as other standard treatments.

The study cited that 16,000 chiropractors were practising in the UK, in fact there are just 2,200 chiropractors in the UK, all of whom are regulated by the General Chiropractic Council.

The original reviews were not reported in full, leaving a great deal to the authors’ own interpretation. A report prepared for the NHS National electronic Library for Health (NeLH) by the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, based at the University of York, has already stated, “The reliability of the authors' conclusions cannot be fully assessed” because “insufficient details of the methodological robustness of the reviews included in the systematic review were provided. In addition, few details relating to the quality or the results of the primary studies included in the original reviews were reported”.

Studies exist which clearly demonstrate that chiropractic treatment, including manipulative and spinal adjustment, is both safe and effective.

In recent years, there have been three Medical Research Council funded research projects with results published in the BMJ. All clearly demonstrate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the chiropractic management of back pain. Please read Anthony Rosner's analysis Steth 03:50, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


Hi Steth, I don't agree with your proposal or your analysis. Sorry. The 16 were chosen for quite valid reasons. That's how you do a meta-analysis, and you don't report original studies in full - that's not how a scientific paper is written - you give refs which has been done. On numbers in UK, could you give your source? Even if this in error, that is not sufficient reason to remove the study. Do you have a source for the NeLH stuff? It looks to me like it may suffer the same flaws I've just outlined in your expectations. Did you read my comments above on your sources? The link you gave for Rosner doesn't contain his name. It is a media release. Was this media release the analysis you refer to? Mccready 06:07, 14 May 2006 (UTC)


I don't know why any of us should deign to give a response to something that was lazily copied elsewhere off of the Internet and passed off as Steth's own words, but here goes:
  1. The Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine is peer-reviewed and quite reputable as a primary source. I'm hesitant to state that we are expertly qualified to review expert reviewers.
  2. The authors disclosed their methods for determining how the systematic reports were compiled and included or excluded. What systematic reports were excluded that should have been included?
  3. As indicated in the citation, the figures in the review were from statistics reported in The Chiropractic Report!
  4. Regarding "spin", "no evidence that SM is superior to other standard treatments" does not appear in the review or this Wiki article.
  5. The NHS also stated that "this systematic review appears to have been well conducted".
  6. Regarding "Studies exist which clearly demonstrate that chiropractic treatment, including manipulative and spinal adjustment, is both safe and effective." What has been cited is not merely a study or a systematic review, but a systematic review of systematic reviews.
-AED 06:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, I don't think we should blast Steth. I have cut and pasted before. If you look at my reply to the weaknesses of EBM, it is a cut and paste from the wiki EBM article. It made my point better than I could have. If you asked where I got it, I would have gladly told you. All else aside, my main problem with the review in question is their conclusion. How can they say "it shouldn't be used by anybody for anything". That's a big pill to swallow. I've only been a chiropractor for 7 years, and I've seen many, many people get relief from a myriad of symptoms. You know what the majority tell me, I wish I would have tried chiropractic first, instead of the merry-go-round of drugs. So if chiropractic has been around for 100+ years, inumerable people must have been helped. Finally, the evidence for great risk is so small it shouldn't even be mentioned, according to [37]. One chiropractor out of 25 in a 40 year career will see a VBA. That's a damn small risk. What treatment in medicine compares to that? --Hughgr 07:12, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
First of all, if someone is unable to make a point in his or her own words, then they should make it clear that they are using someone elses words. Secondly, it takes very little effort to provide a link if cut-and-paste must be done. Thirdly, there's something hypocritical about expecting people to take the time into formulating a reply to a cut-and-paste. I think this is a very dishonest way to approach this collaboration.
Regarding "How can they say 'it shouldn't be used by anybody for anything'?", because they determined that "[c]ollectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition." I'm happy to briefly discuss how mainstream medicine compares to chiropractic in regards to safety and efficacy for various conditions. What particular condition did you have in mind? -AED 09:01, 14 May 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. Meta-analyses are undoubtedly open to confirmation bias, but actually there are remarkably few papers which show provable benefit and the default position in science is sceptical - it is up to those proposing something to prove it. There is nothing wrong with saying that chirporactic is generally viewed sceptically by the medical profession, there are plenty of precedents on WP for such statements. We haven't tagged it as pseudoscience, we've just made the point that the more florid claims require proof which is absent despite chiropractic having been around for quite a while now. Just zis Guy you know? 10:40, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Well if Ernst states, "None of the reviews conclusively demonstrates that SM is ineffective." then how does he then conclude that that SM is not recommended for anything for anybody, anywhere?? And since evidence does exist and spinal manipulation is recognized as thousands of times safer than just about everything else, his conlusions/opinions can generally be regarded as unreliable BS. And since more osteopaths use SM in the UK, and MDs and PTs use SM, then why does he slam chiropractic in newspapers. Since he has a strong history of anti-chiro bias, shouldn't that be noted as well. While the journal it is in is highly regarded, Ernst, in my opinion, seems to be more of an anti-chiropractic spin doctor mouthpiece. This study, I feel, is given more weight here than it deserves and it should be so noted. Steth 12:11, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

Hi Steth, it would help if you quote the whole thing "We do, however, note that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence of an effect. None of the reviews conclusively demonstrates that SM is ineffective." As noted above, the onus is on those making the claims to prove it. The evidence you wish is in the article, but it is not strong evidence for the claims. I think we need to avoid shooting the messenger. If we can show fault in this work, fine. If not .... You have yet to provide a link to the UK numbers issue. Mccready 13:18, 14 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definitions

[edit] Chiropractic

  1. American Chiropractic Association: "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on disorders of the musculoskeletal system and the nervous system, and the effects of these disorders on general health. Chiropractic care is used most often to treat neuromusculoskeletal complaints, including but not limited to back pain, neck pain, pain in the joints of the arms or legs, and headaches."
  2. Association of Chiropractic Colleges: "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."
  3. British Chiropractic Association: "Chiropractic is a primary health-care profession that specialises in the diagnosis, treatment and overall management of conditions that are due to problems with the joints, ligaments, tendons and nerves of the body, particularly those of the spine. Treatment consists of a wide range of manipulative techniques designed to improve the function of the joints, relieving pain and muscle spasm. Chiropractic does not involve the use of any drugs or surgery."
  4. Canadian Chiropractic Association: "Chiropractors practice a drug-free, manual approach to health care that includes patient assessment, diagnosis and treatment. In particular, chiropractors assess patients for disorders related to the spine, pelvis, extremity joints, and their effect on the nervous system. As a result of taking a physical assessment and patient history, chiropractors are able to provide a differential diagnosis for the patient’s presenting condition(s) and develop a comprehensive treatment/management plan. Chiropractors are also trained to recommend therapeutic exercise, to utilize other non-invasive therapies, as well as to provide nutritional, dietary and lifestyle counselling 3-6. Chiropractic adjustment is the most common form of treatment utilized by chiropractors in clinical practice. Also known as spinal manipulative therapy, adjustment is a non-invasive, manual procedure that utilizes the highly refined skills developed through four years of intensive chiropractic education. Adjustment is a carefully controlled procedure delivered by a skilled practitioner to dysfunctional spinal or extremity joints. The primary goal is to decrease pain 7, 9, improve areas of reduced movement in the joints and supporting tissues, particularly of the spine 7, 9, 10, 11, and decrease muscle tightness or spasm 7, 11, 12 through the restoration of normal mechanics and improved functioning of the spine, extremities and supporting soft tissue structures 10, 11, 13."
  5. Japanese Chiropractic Association: "Chiropractic (from Greek meaning treatment by hand) is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustment (chiropractic manipulation). (World Federation of Chiropractic 1999)"
  6. Macquarie University (Sydney, Australia): "Chiropractic is an important part of complementary medicine, which recognises the importance of body structures and how they affect health. Chiropractic is now the third largest healing profession today. Largely, practitioners engage in spinal adjustment and manipulation as well as other measures to treat abnormalities of structure and function, and to assist the natural recuperative powers of the body."
  7. World Federation of Chiropractic: "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 functions of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation."
  8. World Health Organization: "A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustment and/or manipulation with a particular focus on subluxations."
  9. International Chiropractic Association:
"I. The SCIENCE of chiropractic deals with the relationship between the articulations of the skeleton and nervous system and the role of this relationship in the restoration and maintenance of health. Of primary concern to chiropractic are abnormalities of structure or function of the vertebral column known clinically as the vertebral subluxation complex. The subluxation complex includes any alteration of the biomechanical and physiological dynamics of contiguous spinal structures which can cause neuronal disturbances.
II. The PHILOSOPHY of chiropractic holds that the body is a self healing organism and that a major determining factor in the development of states of disease or dysfunction is the body's inability to comprehend its environment either internally and /or externally. Directly or indirectly, all bodily function is controlled by the nervous system, consequently a central theme of chiropractic theories on health is the premise that abnormal bodily function may be cause by interference with nerve transmission and expression due to pressure, strain or tension upon the spinal cord, spinal nerves, or peripheral nerves as a result of a displacement of spinal segments or other skeletal structures (subluxation).
III. The ART of chiropractic pertains to the skill and judgment required for the detection, location, analysis, control, reduction and correction of primarily the vertebral subluxation complex. It also involves the determination of any contraindications to the provision of chiropractic care to any particular method of adjusting."

[edit] Subluxation

  1. RW Stephenson's Chiropractic Text Book (1948): "A subluxation is the condition of a vertebra that has lost its proper juxtaposition with the one above or the one below, or both; to an extent less than a luxation; which impinges nerves and interferes with the transmission of mental impulses."
  2. Association of Chiropractic Colleges: "A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health."

[edit] Comments regarding the definitions

I have posted the above definitions for our reference. -AED 06:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Very good to have these definitions available here. Let's keep one thing in mind - the lead and a definition are not the same thing. The lead can contain the elements in a defintion, but should include much more. It should be a short summary of the article. -- Fyslee 09:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think most of us are aware that the lead incorporates the definition, but is not only the definition. What interests me is that some of the definitions are nearly indentical, yet have minor differences in wording. For example, is chiropractic concerned with:
  1. disorders of the musculoskeletal system
  2. disorders of the musculoskeletal system and the nervous system
  3. disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system?
-AED 16:40, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Good question - the short answer is "yes" to all three. The definitions that you have listed would all be considered to be from a "mixer" point of view. That's why they sound similar. I added the ICA's definition. It is from the "straight" POV. If you will notice, it is the only one that mentions the word subluxation. The rest may infer it, but do not state it. In fact, nowhere on the ACA's web site do you see the word subluxation(other than a category in the master plan that doesn't even describe it).--Dematt 17:56, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Regarding the "s" word..... A search of the ACA website for the word "subluxation" turns up many references. A Google search of the site for the same word also turns up many hits. It's true that many public statements are notably absent of the "s" word, but that's pure politics. The ACA is well aware that the "s" word is largely responsible for many of the profession's woes, so it is more careful when to use or not use the word.
The order of importance for the "musculoskeletal system" or the "nervous system" would, from a chiropractic viewpoint, be the nervous system. The musculoskeletal system is not the true focus of attention, but is only the tool used to attempt to influence the nervous system, and thus to unblock the flow of Innate Intelligence. That's why the wording of such definitions involves much more than is understood by MDs, PTs, etc. They aren't merely statements. but are (undocumented) claims, and cannot be used as they are without first making them NPOV. They actually are claiming that using adjustments to correct vertebral subluxations can influence the nervous system in such a way as to influence disease processes and general health, which is a major point of contention between chiropractic and the rest of the healthcare system (including reform chiros). Those claims have not been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of the rest of the healthcare system. That's why my proposed wording of the lead was worded as it was. It stated this in a NPOV way. Using the definitions above as is would be improper. -- Fyslee 21:47, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
No one has suggested that that would be proper. Again, I think most of us are aware that the lead incorporates the definition, but not only the definition. If you've inferred that I think we should use only a chiropractic organization's definition for the lead, that's simply not the case. I originally compiled the list of definitions for my own use in an attempt to discover what consistency there may have been in what chiropractors considered to be their primary goal, or their primary means to reaching a particular goal.-AED 22:04, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I am not suggesting that you would do that, just trying to make sure that someone doesn't get the idea that the lead is the same as a definition. I think it's a great resource you've compiled here. -- Fyslee 04:48, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
AED, for more info from a straight POV see World Chiropractic Alliance. I couldn't find a definition, but they are an organization that all chiropractors recognize as being in support of straight issues. Hope it helps.--Dematt 02:26, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Subluxations

[edit] Questions

Questions:

  1. What percentage of chiropractors believe that subluxations exist?
  2. What percentage of chiropractors believe that subluxations cause disease?

I really think we should attempt to answer those questions before adding information that gives the impression that all chiropractors believe those things. This survery, this poll, and this article are all I've found in my very brief search. Thanks. -AED 08:03, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Another way ahead might be to see what is being taught and what the associations believe. In Australia as far as I can determine, two places teach the theory of chiropractic. Macquarie University in Sydney and RMIT in Melbourne. People at Macquarie certainly believes subluxation exists. Ray Hayek supervised genetic research on rats [38] to examine it. The study was called "Regulation of cardiac gene expression by the vertebral subluxation complex: DNA microarray analysis of a rat model" Gee I'd love to see that! He teaches a course called "Neurophysiology of the vertebral Subluxation" Another course listed at Mac is "Topic 18: The anatomical nature of the subluxation with special reference to the upper cervical segments. Clinical methods of managing neurological dysfunction associated with subluxation and proprioceptive considerations."
RMIT says A chiropractor is a 'conservative spinal care expert with a specialised approach to examination and diagnosis' 1 Chiropractors collaborate with other members of the health care team. Chiropractic focuses on disorders and injuries of the Joint, muscular and nervous systems, and their effect on general health and quality of life (wellness). Chiropractors emphasise the significant relationship between the spine and the nervous system and also treat injuries to the shoulder, elbow, wrist and hand, and the hip, knee, ankle and foot. Chiropractic patients are managed principally by spinal adjustment, other manual treatments, exercise and patient education on lifestyle, nutrition and prevention of injury. This IS done without the use of drugs or surgery, enabling the patient to avoid these wherever possible.[39]
Phillip Ebrall's confusion at RMIT is worth quoting: I am convinced that we have entered the ‘century of the subluxation’ as so many scientists from diverse disciplines and fields of endeavor are reporting new findings which fit into my concepts of the subluxation. These discoveries are driven by emerging technologies and my interest extends to determining which technologies may be useful in clinical practice to assist practitioners better identify any spinal lesion in order to correct it.This of course opens the next set of research questions, namely how do we ‘correct’ something we don’t really know exists, and what evidence do we have that any supposed correction has been made?And, what is the nature of the chiropractic profession which has allowed it to become established as the third largest group of health care providers after medical practitioners and dentists in North America? Thus, finally, my research interest arrives at the destination of the Theory of Abstract Objects.[40] He is on the editorial board of Chiropractic Journal of Australia, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, Topics in Clinical Chiropractic, Journal of Chiropractic Medicine. He is closely aligned with the Chiropractors' Association of Australia.
The Chiropractors' Association of Australia says Chiropractic is based on the scientific fact that your body is a self-regulating, self-healing organism. These important functions are controlled by the brain, spinal cord, and all the nerves of the body. The skull protects the delicate tissues of the brain. The moving bones of the spine protect the vulnerable communication pathways of the spinal cord and nerve roots. If the nervous system is impaired, it can cause malfunction of the tissue and organs throughout the body. Chiropractic doctors call this the Vertebral Subluxation Complex. Vertebral, meaning the bones of the spine. Subluxation, meaning the less than a total dislocation, and Complex, meaning consisting of more than one part. Chiropractic is the science of locating offending spinal structures, the art of reducing their impact to the nervous system, and a philosophy of natural health care based on your inborn potential to be healthy. [41] But their disclaimer says " The Chiropractors' Association of Australia makes no statements, representations, or warranties about the accuracy or completeness of, and you should not rely on, any information contained in this website." Such disclaimers mean close to zero in Australian law.
So from a quick scan, it looks like subluxation is alive and well in Australia. Mccready 09:31, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you for the reply. Unfortunately, none of this helps answer how many chiropractors believe that subluxations exist or how many believe that subluxations cause disease. -AED 16:24, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fact check

The article currently states: "Nevertheless, in 2003 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases, and practiced accordingly.[1]" I believe that statement is asserting something that wasn't asserted in the citation. I believe that citation indicated that 88.1% of chiropractors "want to retain the term 'vertebral subluxation complex'". Thoughts on how this should be changed? -AED 08:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

If it isn't accurate, then we either delete it or correct it. The decision would be based on whether or not the revised, accurate version would still be suited for the article. Levine2112 18:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Informal poll regarding the lead

The lead currently reads:

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[6]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[6]. Chiropractic emphasizes the body's own natural ability to regulate itself and attempts to remove obstructions to the healing process by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[7]. Evidence for more substantial claims is lacking.

I was hoping others would briefly comment below regarding on how much of this they are in agreement. -AED 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I agree with the first two sentences, however, I would like to see some wording changes in the last three sentences. -AED 21:54, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I have no real opinion on the first 3 sentences, but the last two provide an acceptable balance. I think the last sentence could be dropped, but must not be converted (as Steth has been doing) to a statement that acceptable evidence for other claims exist. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 22:06, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I can't believe you guys are still arguing over these things..it's been years now..hey..there are colleges and appropriate associations. There are definitions of chiropractic already being used. There's really nothing to argue about once those fringe extreme groups on this artile gets themselves gotten rid of...this article is testimonial to wikipedia's weakness...these fringe people have just as much say so or even more than mainstream and overrule them and change the definition..what gives? --Scolidoc 23:21, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Scolidoc, I agree that the article should portray chiropractic as accurately as possible. Hopefully you'll be able to help us out. The first two sentences in the lead are referenced assertions from a pro-chiropractic organization's definition. Are you OK with them? -AED 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, well, there are lay-persons who have a hate-centric pre-occupation with chiropractic. Why? Who can say? You would think they would have better things to do with their time, wouldn't you? Steth 23:34, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
Steth, the first two sentences in the lead are referenced assertions from a pro-chiropractic organization. Are you OK with them? -AED 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I don't like the last sentence. There is evidence of more substantial claims. Lot's of evidence. "Lacking" is perhaps a poor choice of word. Perhaps we could use the word "disputed" instead. Fyslee has a nice intro above that he has been working on as recently as May 15. Here's what he has so far:
Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine 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. While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments.
Levine2112 02:03, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Levine2112, I think the various sides weigh the data differently, so "disputed" is a good word to characterize that difference of opinion in a neutral manner. -AED 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks AED, I've adjusted the lead. But we still need to say Cooperstein et al is disputed. As it now reads this is not conveyed. And we haven't yet captured the chiros who treat diseases for which there is no satisfactory evidence their intervention is effective, though Fyslee's version hints at this. We need also to capture the disagreement about subluxation and the fact that most scientists disupte chiro validity. To Scolidoc and Steth, the fact that people believe something and even teach it in universities DOES NOT make it true. In any case that is irrelevant because we are writing an artilce here based on good sources, not proving anything one way or the other. This is about the third time I've asked, but has anyone seen or got a copy of the Cooperststein article. I'm still mystified as to why among thousands of links, it gets to be in the lead and we haven't even seen it. The latest meta-analyis, if anything, should be in the lead. Mccready 02:30, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

McCready, you say that it is a fact "that most scientists disupte chiro validity". You want this to be stated in the intro. You are also asking for an article based on good sources. I am curious, where is the source for your statement about "most scientists" disputing chiropractic's validity?
Secondly (and please don't ignore my first question), don't adjust the lead. Don't adjust anything. We are in the middle of taking a poll and your actions and comments are disruptive. Levine2112 03:50, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Mccready, although I haven't yet figured out how to best word it in the article, I agree that there should be some mention of subluxations and that the practice of chiropractic is viewed skeptically by some and/or the efficacy of various treatments is disputed. Although the first two sentences are referenced from a pro-chiropractic organization, in and of themselves they appear to be accurate. Are you OK with them? -AED 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • I could do without the quotes around subluxation and adjustment, frivilous IMO. They're not in the current lead so may not even need mentioning. I think scolidoc makes a good point. I mentioned it earlier too, why do non chiros insist that their two cents be added to the lead? I think that instead of saying "Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain. Evidence for more substantial claims is lacking", it could be, "While the studies done thus far suggest benefit for low back pain and tension headache, sometimes other disease conditions not related to the musculoskeletal system are improved after recieving adjustments, but that claim is currently unsubstantiated by science." I don't know if that will satisfy the skeptics but it seems NPOV.--Hughgr 06:16, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, I agree with you regarding the quotation marks and that the statements regarding "evidence" needs some work. The first two sentences, however, are referenced assertions from a pro-chiropractic organization. Are you OK with them? -AED 07:09, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm o.k. with the first three sentences, but I think instead of just subluxation, it needs to be vertebral subluxation.--Hughgr 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The word "subluxation" is Wikilinked to Vertebral subluxation (VS). As it reads now, it reads as it is often written in chiropractic literature, where the word "subluxation" (nearly) always refers to the phrase (VS). The word and phrase are interchangeable in chiropractic literature and websites. If we have "vertebral" inserted there, the rest of the sentence would have to be reworded, possibly awkwardly. It flows fine right now. Maybe another wording would be appropriate and flow alright. What would you suggest? -- Fyslee 09:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
The quotation marks in the Introduction are there because that is standard practice when introducing esoteric words and concepts, especially when they are used in a different way than normally used in other situations. The chiropractic concepts and use of "subluxation" and "adjustment" are very unique to chiropractic. (Without this uniqueness......) There is absolutely nothing negative, disparaging or frivolous about the quotation marks. They are quite necessary and are standard practice. -- Fyslee 08:59, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
AED-I think the first three sentences are fine. I think the word subluxation would be more accurate if it were vertebral subluxation. I feel the quotes around subluxation and adjustment are fyslee's way of adding irony to the words For example, he said he couldn't help because he was "busy". He may disagree but that's the way I see it and, I don't think it's unreasonable to make that assumption considering that's what is done on the chirobase circle of websites.--Hughgr 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Please assume good faith. I have nothing to do with the chirobase website, so whatever you're referring to shouldn't be applied to me without good proof. Even then it would be an ad hominem attack, since my comments above should explain the reasoning well enough. (BTW, it's not even certain that I am responsible for the quotation marks in both instances.) Do you dispute that the terms are used in a unique way in chiropractic?-- Fyslee 09:16, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Mystery solved:
The first use of quotation marks around the following words, to the best of my knowledge (at least the quotation marks that are still in place....):
The use is justified because it is standard practice when using words with different meanings than are normally implied by such words. I don't understand why a chiropractor would be ashamed of these words. -- Fyslee 11:14, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
YES! It was ME! I'm sorry, This converstation was apparently building while I was asleep. Yes, I put quotes around subluxation and adjustment to make them stand out, not indicate that there was anything strange about them. My thinking was that these words mean something special to chiropractic and I wanted the average person to recognize that immediately. I have no trouble with taking the quotes off, but I do think if you were to read the sentence again(without thinking Fyslee wrote it:), you would agree there needs to be some emphasis on those two words.--Dematt 12:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


Levine, for starters the following are skeptical of chiro claims: Ernst, AMA, Cochrane Collaboration, Bandolier, Olafsdottir, sixty-two clinical neurologists in Canada who signed a statement (Steth hasn’t yet provided proof that 61 or 62 withdrew their statement), Barrett. As opposed to this I think there are three refs which support chiro: Cooperstein, Burton, Wiberg. Therefore I think it accurate to say: Most scientists dispute the efficacy of chiropractic. and that it should be in the lead. Dispute over subluxation should also be in the lead. You would have seen the quote above from one of the leading believers in Australia, Ebrall. Not even he can convince himself to believe in subluxation. AED, I’m still not sure the lead captures the fact that some believers say they can cure infant colic, asthma, carpal tunnel syndrome, painful menstrual periods, migraine, chronic low back pain – all of which there is no good evidence for in relation to chiro. Plus there’s the fact that the essential anti-science beliefs as evidenced in the Biggs study aren’t reflected in the lead. I guess the problem in articles about belief structures it that it’s not adequate only to quote the believers – to put up an analogy which I don’t mean to be taken offensively – it’s like getting paranoids to define what paranoia is . Mccready 12:25, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

So is that most scientists? Does that represent every scientist in the world and can say that at least 51% of them are skeptical of chiropractic? This is what you are saying is a fact. I still haven't seen your proof. You have made the claim. Levine2112 16:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Well I guess if the title of the article was 'why an ex-psychiatrist hates chiropractic so much and has organized others', then Mccready's suggestions would be good ones.
AED, I am fine with the whole lead EXCEPT the last sentence. It could be more NPOV by saying "further research" or "ongoing research" or "better research" is necessary. You know, phrases one might see in your typical professional journal. "Evidence for more substantial claims is lacking" sounds to un-journal like and smacks too much of personal coloration bias. Like from a lay-person with an agenda. IMO Steth 12:40, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Steth, this is an encyclopedia, not a professional journal. We don't advocate further research. Mccready 13:01, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Why don't we advocate further research?--Hughgr 06:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Now I understand the source of your confusion, Mccready. The reference was not about you, but about ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett who has long been the head cheerleader to free the world from the clutches of chiropractic. This is not about you. Steth 14:19, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

For the last sentence, how about "Scientific evidence for more extensive claims is lacking." or perhaps "Evidence for more extensive claims is disputed". "substantial" is confusing. (I think disputed is too weak a term, although lacking may be too strong.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:37, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
... or, perhaps, "Claims that other disease conditions not related to the musculoskeletal system are improved after adjustments are not currently scientifically substantiated." (In other words, I could accept Hughgr's attempt above, but the grammar needs some work.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:42, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

I like Hughgr's suggestion, very NPOV, plus this new ending:

While the studies done thus far suggest benefit for low back pain and tension headache, sometimes other disease conditions not related to the musculoskeletal system are improved after recieving adjustments, but these claims require further research. Steth 18:54, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
Unacceptable POV, CB, etc. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:04, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How about this for lead

Chiropractic, a complementary and alternative medicine was founded in 1895 when Daniel David Palmer said he restored hearing to a man by adjusting his spine. Palmer concluded that misaligned bones ("subluxations") interfered with the body's expression of "Innate Intelligence" -- the "Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life" that controlled the healing process. Although among today’s chiropractors philosophy and treatment vary greatly, most chiropractors can be classified as "straights" or "mixers." Straights believe that most diseases are caused by subluxations correctable by spinal adjustment. Mixers acknowledge that germs and hormones play a role in disease, but regard mechanical disturbances of the nervous system as the cause of lowered disease resistance. Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale. Mccready 03:13, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't think it would work, although I would find it marginally acceptable. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:23, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Ridiculously POV. Unacceptable. Let's keep working with Dematt's and Fyslee's version. That one is close. Levine2112 05:57, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
Not bad as a first draft along that line. It does show a cursory understanding of the issues, but it assumes a lot and would probably trouble both mixers and straights. But with a little work, you might have something. I would have to disagree with lacking a plausible rationale.--Dematt 13:02, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
What's wrong with the current lead? Just zis Guy you know? 11:27, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Levine pls state in objective terms why you think my proposed lead is POV. JzG I think the current lead is inadequate for reasons stated above, but briefly, my preferred lead captures more of the history, captures the subluxation debate and introduces the different styles while also showing the scientific position. The current lead doesn't do this. The current lead implies that alleged mechanical disorders can be diagnosed treated and prevented by chiro. Since the consensus is that this is not so, it doesn't belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article. The singling out of one study to try to give credence in the lead is POV so I'll replace it for the meantime with a phrase I hope we can all agree on There is no scientific consensus for the claims of chiropractic. Mccready 11:56, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Come on, McCready. Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale. How is that not POV? How is that not anti-chiro rhetoric at it's hightest degree? Even your proposed change: There is no scientific consensus for the claims of chiropractic... though better is still false in terms of neutral evidence. There is scientific consensus at least on some of the claims of chiropractic. At least enough "scientific concensus" for it to be 100% factual to say that there is some scientific consensus on some of chiropractic's claims. Now we can sit here and quibble over how much "some" is and what the definition of "consensus" means, but at the end of the day it comes down to this: if there is some, you can't that there is none. It's just not true. Levine2112 07:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Interesting lead Mccready. Unacceptable, of course.
Shouldn't Jefffire have discussed things before making his unacceptable changes?
I go along with all the others to keep what we have so far. But I think I have an ending that would make everyone happy:
Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[1]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[1]. Chiropractic theory emphasizes the body's self-regulation mechanisms. Chiropractors attempt to remove obstructions to healing by adjusting subluxations of the spine and/or extremities. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[2]. Evidence for more substantial claims is inconclusive. Better research is needed to make a strong conclusion.

Steth 18:18, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

AED asked if this would be acceptable. "(Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function to interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability."
My alteration would be "Due to the intimate relationship of the spine and nervous system, many chiropractors hold to the original hypothesis that misalignments of spinal structures impair the normal functioning of the nervous system, the body's master control system, which leads to the theory that impairment or alteration of the nervous system leads to a decrease in the body's performance. Some studies on chiropractic suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain[2]. Evidence for more substantial claims is inconclusive. Better research is needed to make a strong conclusion."
I've added steths latest ending.--Hughgr 18:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead image

The lead image (the angel & scroll) needs a description. Is the image the offical logo of an organisation the defacto logo of chiropractic or something else? Ashmoo 02:47, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I'll look into it and update it.--Dematt 14:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Lead no consensus (spelled correctly)

Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale. Levine asked How is that not POV? Levine then claimed There is scientific consensus at least on some of the claims of chiropractic. At least enough "scientific concensus" for it to be 100% So Levine, please give me an example of one systemic disease, one case where immunity has been boosted, one case where general health has been improved, one case where life has been prolonged. And you need to show there is 100% consensus on any claim of chiro. Otherwise it is not POV, it is fact. Can we please have some evidence? Again I am taking the Cooperstein study out of the lead. There is no encyclopedic reason for it being preferred over the Ernst study. Mccready 13:23, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

No one has shown a link allowing us to check the full Cooperstein study. Pls provide it if you have it. The PMID link is not very instructive. Mccready 13:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is a chiropractor's take on that unproven and common chiropractic claim:
"Conversely, how many thousands of people have been turned off by those who practice with a "philosophy" geared toward overutilization driven by greed? Where is the literature to support the "catastrophic effects" the vast majority of the people on this planet supposedly suffer because they are not receiving regular manipulations? Where are the insurance studies to prove that people who go to the chiropractor 15 or 20 times a year, whether they have pain or not, have fewer injuries, less illness, longer lives, or lower health care costs?" - G. Douglas Andersen, DC, DACBSP, CCN, Dynamic Chiropractic, Volume 18, number 3, 1/25/00, page 36
-- Fyslee 13:33, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
First off, I have pointed to this page many time, but here it is again.
Second, don't quote me. When you do you have a funny way off twisting my word and changing what it is I said. It's very dishonest of you. Here's what I said (and anyone can check it): ''There is scientific consensus at least on some of the claims of chiropractic. At least enough "scientific concensus" for it to be 100% factual to say that there is some scientific consensus on some of chiropractic's claims. When you quoted me, you conveniently dropped everything after "100%". That's pretty weak. I guess you don't know what you are talking about here, so the only way for you to argue is to lie.
Now then, are you really asking me to provide a 100% consensus? Is that even possible? I mean, is there anything - ANYTHING - that has a 100% consensus? Nope. (And the definition of consensus doesn't imply 100%... just a general agreement.) So for you say that chiropractic claims have no scientific consensus supported them is completely POV. For I could just as easily there is no scienific consensus against chiropractic claims, but that would also be POV. It's a glass-is-half-empty/glass-is-half-full scenario. Thus it's a clear-cut case of POV. Now then, there are a several other people who have provided alternate leads that as a community we are working on. Let's just stick to those and keep our POV to a minimum. Levine2112 17:21, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, another lead is coming soon from all of our collaborative efforts (especially Fyslee, AED and Dematt). I am hopeful that it will be one upon which we all can agree). Levine2112 19:45, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a very neutral definition of chiropractic that might please everyone (note the source): A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. There is a an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustment and/or manipulation with a particular focus on subluxations. - The WHO definition, World Health Organization, Guidelines on Chiropractic, 2005 Levine2112 22:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes Levine calm down and assume good faith. Calling people liars is against WP policy. Now that I have reread your prose, which I hope you agree wasn't the smoothest example of the art, I see you claim it is 100% factual that some consensus exists. Please show me an example of this. The WHO definition is not acceptable for reasons already articulated by me and others: The musculoskeletal system [including its neuromusculoskeletal elements]is not the true focus of attention, but is only the tool used to attempt to influence the nervous system, and thus to unblock the flow of Innate Intelligence....They aren't merely statements. but are (undocumented) claims, and cannot be used as they are without first making them NPOV. They actually are claiming that using adjustments to correct vertebral subluxations can influence the nervous system in such a way as to influence disease processes and general health, which is a major point of contention between chiropractic and the rest of the healthcare system (including reform chiros). Those claims have not been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of the rest of the healthcare system. If you could calmly address this argument we might be able to move forward. You have yet to give a single example for why my proposed inclusion in the lead is POV Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale. Mccready 02:19, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Who isn't calm? Right now I am sipping tea and listening to Mozart. And don't bash my prose then accuse me of attacking you in the next breath. It's really underhanded. Do you at least you admit that you purposely twisted my words to make your point? Why you focus your attacks on me, I have no idea. All I know is that controversary seems to follow everywhere you edit. You have been blocked from editing articles entirely. You have been brought up for an RFC. You have been accused of Wikistalking by other users and even WP admins. Your own talk page (which I see you have archived) reads like a rap sheet; just a litany of complaints about you and your editing tactics. Even now, in the short time that you have had a new talk page, I see it is already littered with complaints about you. I think we can safely say that there is a consensus on Wikipedia that McCready is a nuisance. I do fear that writing this is just inciting you more; that you take some pleasure at being the thorn in Wikipedia's side. I'm frankly tired of it.
Now then, you keep asking me for scientific evidence for chiropractic claims and I have already referenced over 100 scientific studies supporting chiropractic to you nearly 100 times. Are you ignoring these purposefully because they shatter your world? Truthfully, I don't care. Levine2112 04:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number of DCs

Hughgr left this edit summary "70,000 in the world is incorrect, there are 70k in the us." I'd like to see some documentation. Please provide references for the actual numbers of chiropractors in the US and the world. -- Fyslee 20:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Ian D. Coulter, PhD; Paul G. Shekelle, MD, PhD's report cited this: In 1970, there were an estimated 13,000 chiropractors licensed in the United States (Cooper, 1996). This number had increased to 40,000 in 1990 and to approximately 50,000 in 1994. Thus, there is roughly one chiropractor for every 5,000 U.S. residents.
This one from 1999 says There are currently about 52,000 chiropractors in practice.
This article is a bit more current and says: In December 2000, there were over 81,000 active licensed chiropractors in the United States. The practice of chiropractic is licensed in all 50 states and in over 30 countries worldwide.
This page doesn't give a date but says: Approximately 65,000 practitioners exist in the United States. Doctors of chiropractic are licensed in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. (This page does a good job of also summarizing Evidence for the Effectiveness of Chiropractic. Give it a read.)
Finally, the American Cancer Society makes the following estimates: Around 60,000 licensed chiropractors are currently practicing in the United States; the number is projected to reach about 100,000 by the year 2010.
Given that there are an average of about 10,000 to 15,000 students enrolled in American chiropractic school at any given time in recent years, I think it is accurate to say that there are approximately 70,000 chiropractors currently licensed in the U.S. I am not sure how many are licensed throughout the world. I can do some research on that. Levine2112 21:54, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and just found this one which states: Chiropractic is recognized and licensed in every province in Canada as well as 76 other countries around the world. Currently, there are more than 65,000 licensed chiropractors practicing in the United States. This is as of November 2005.
So perhaps the 65,000 approximation would be more accurate and the most verifiable figure. However, given the graduating classes this year and those taking their national and state boards, the 70,000 figure is most likely closest to the truth today. Levine2112 21:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Here's a good one from The American Academy of Pediatrics that is current as of 2000 and gives some insight into the world chiropractic stats: Chiropractic is the third largest regulated health care profession in North America (after allopathic medicine and dentistry), with ~70 000 practicing chiropractors in the United States, 5000 in Canada, 2500 in Australia, 1300 in the United Kingdom, and smaller numbers in ~50 other countries. The profession is growing rapidly, with over 4000 graduates yearly from 30 educational institutions and is expected to reach 100 000 in the United States alone by 2010. Levine2112 22:15, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you Levine, you saved me a lot of work. So can we add "70 000 practicing chiropractors in the United States, 5000 in Canada, 2500 in Australia, 1300 in the United Kingdom, and smaller numbers in ~50 other countries" without fear of revert?--Hughgr 00:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I would hope so. Though you might want to tag those values as approximations. Levine2112 00:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for providing this information. Well done! -- Fyslee 04:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

On page 25 of this document, there is a section entitled "SUPPLY OF CHIROPRACTIC SERVICES," that examines the current numbers of licenses, redundant licenses, future outlook, etc. Very interesting reading. -- Fyslee 04:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

That is an interesting forecast. It was written in what? 2000? It seems to be pretty accurate thus far. Levine2112 05:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Blue cheese and how science works

The moon is made of blue cheese. No it isn't. Yes it is. Levine stated above So for you say that chiropractic claims have no scientific consensus supported them is completely POV. For I could just as easily there is no scienific consensus against chiropractic claims, but that would also be POV. It's a glass-is-half-empty/glass-is-half-full scenario. Thus it's a clear-cut case of POV The glass half/full scenario is not the way science proceeds. In science the onus is on those making the claim to show proof. Those saying the moon is made of blue cheese have to prove it. It's a logical flaw to say that if you can't DISPROOVE the moon is made of blue cheese, it is therefore made of blue cheese. Put another way you can't prove a negative. For example, "you can't prove god DOESN'T exist, therefore she does", is a logical flaw. Put another way, the statement Chiropractic claims are true is syllogistically equivalent to the moon is made of blue cheese. The burden of proof, in science and in writing encyclopedia articles, is on those making the claim. So can we PLEASE have some evidence for the statement that there is some consensus for the claims of chiropractic. Mccready 02:38, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Over 100 scientific studies supporting chiropractic claims. Levine2112 05:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Okay, there are the claims. Now find the best quality research for a specific claim. Build your best case possible and see how it fares. Be specific, and if it's a non-chiropractic source it may be considered more reliable. The JVSR doesn't count. It's a joke, even in the profession, since it's Matt McCoy's and Terry Rondberg's private publication and often publishes junk science one-patient case studies as "proof." -- Fyslee 05:34, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry I can't make a case if you are going to discount everything I give you as "junk science". JVSR is not a joke. That is your POV. JVSR is a legitimate peer reviewed scientific journal. But I'm not wholly relying on JVSR. There's a lot more sources for the research behind that link than just the quality scientific research that JVSR provides. To go one step further,Here are at least another 100 more legitimate scientific research articles and finding all in support of chiropractic claims. Levine2112 06:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I have not discounted everything. I can't use websites with links to a lot of research. It may be a mixed bag. Just make your case by choosing the best research report you can find. This will let us examine it and see if it's good. It may well be! If so, great! Here is your chance to shine. Make use of it. I'm being quite serious. I'm sure there are some good research papers linked to on those URLs. -- Fyslee 11:01, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually you have discounted everything that I have presented here. But if you are willing to now take a look at each piece of research, then perhaps it is your turn to shine. You see, this all goes back to McCready wanting to say in our article that there is no scientific support for any of chiropractic's claims. He said that since chiropractors and chiropractic supporters here are claiming otherwise, that the burden of proof lies with us. Well, I have done my task. I have given him hundreds of well-documented pieces scientific research that each serves as evidence to support chiropractic, and collectively pretty much shatter McCready's case. Now if you want to say that all of the research I have pointed to is bunk, then you have made a claim and you have given yourself a task; and a monumental one at that. Please don't rely on your tired argument that "I don't like Dr. Matt McCoy or Dr. Terry Rondberg so therefore any research that their websites publishes is bad". As you well know, your personal feelings are irrelevant in the eye of science.
Now then, I think I have actually discovered the root of your chiropractic abhorrence. I truly feel that the answer lies within you. You see, as we have discussed, there are two kinds of people in the world: Mechanists and Vitalists. Mechanists see the body as just a machine, while Vitalists recognize the life force that separates living machines from inanimate ones. The Vitalist belief is tough because "life" can't be quantified, captured or examined. Vitalists know however that if you take this elusive life force away, then you have got yourself a cadaver. Life force, quickening, vitality - it goes by many names - it is a theoretical concept but not necessarily a religious one. I, for instance, am an atheist but yet I still believe in the power of life. I would imagine that most MDs recognize this power too; for they are masters at taking the body to the brink of death and then restoring life functions. Medical doctors are truly incredible. The layman recognizes the MD’s ability to manipulate vitality and is in complete and utter awe of them (mostly because the concept of "life" is so mind-blowingly enigmatic and precious and fragile that the fact that a profession can work with life just as some professions might work with concrete or computer code is worthy of sheer amazement and total respect). Like MDs, the vast majority of chiropractors work with the body's vitality too. This is what chiropractors may refer to as “innate intelligence” - which isn't a cultish, religious belief but rather recognition of the awesome power of life and its wondrous self-healing, self-perpetuating and self-regulating abilities. And though it is grotesque and incomprehensible to you, chiropractors are revered by a vast and growing number of people in the world for their ability to work within the milieu of life. I know this bothers you down to your very core; for you are a Mechanist. Because life can’t be proven scientifically, your skeptic-centric mind won’t allow you to recognize the actuality of life (or life force or vitality or innate intelligence or whatever you choose to call it). Therefore, you have self-relegated yourself to a mechanical profession. I’m not knocking Physical Therapists in any way, shape or form. I think your profession is legitimate, extremely important and can be entirely noble. Anyone who dedicates their time and energy to providing comfort to others is quite all right in my book. But given the way that you (not all PTs, just you – Paul Lee) view the body – not as vessel powered by life but rather just a machine fueled only by air, food and water – then you yourself as a physical therapist can be nothing more than a mechanic. And I think herein lies the incredible contempt that you have for chiropractic. After all, on the surface, it looks like chiropractors are just performing manipulations as you might do in your daily practice. Then why do chiropractors get to be called “doctor”? Why should their work be more revered by the layman than yours? Why should they be able to say that they prolonged the life of an aging father or in some way helped out a son with Asperger Syndrome? The answer is this: there is difference. Like MDs and DOs, chiropractors recognize the power of life. I feel that Physical Therapists can recognize it too and aid in it. But you are yourself – a Mechanist – and (not to get me wrong) you are entitled to your own beliefs. As I said, “I truly feel that the answer lies within you.” Are you ready to accept on faith that life (though immeasurable, incalculable, and scientifically unproven) is a real force? Until you do, you will be stuck carrying that incredible chip that you harbor on your shoulder… which of course is really bad for your posture. You should see a chiropractor and have him take a look at that before the misalignment leads to an inefficient communication between your brain and the rest of your body and diminishes your health. ;-) Levine2112 19:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Waxing very eloquent! Attacking a straw man (you really don't understand me at all.....), but at least doing it very eloquently. Here's what I wrote:
"Just make your case by choosing the best research report you can find. This will let us examine it and see if it's good. It may well be! If so, great!"
Just one single research paper, the best one you can find. Don't cop out on us. Please, no evasions. Specific evidence for specific claims is what we'd like to see. And yes, Assume good faith. -- Fyslee 21:14, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I haven't made any specific claims. Just a general one. There is scientific evidence supporting chiropractic. I have shown just that. My work is done. Now if you want to try and debunk a specific claim, then by all means go ahead, but don't expect me to get roped into your little games just because you double-dog-dared me. Levine2112 21:25, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Levine, just one for each claim will do. You make your case by providing specific evidence, not by pointing to a website. Mccready 07:41, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay McCready, I will take each of the hundreds of pieces of scientific research supporting chiropractic that I have pointed to. I will cut-and-paste them all onto this talk page so it will be easier for you to read since your computer is having trouble linking to outside sites at the moment. Better yet, why don't I gather every report, print them out, translate them into Chinese and overnight it to you via air mail? :-) Brother, you asked me for evidence that supports chiropractic claims and I did everything short of reading approxiamtely 200 scientific studies outloud to you. There you go. So you can't say there is a scientific consensus against chiropractic; just as I can't say there is scientific proof supporting chiropractic. But given every bit of research that I have pointed you to, I can certainly say that this: There is in fact scientific evidence supporting chiropractic's one claim; that all things being equal, a body free from vertebral subluxation functions better than one with a vertebral subluxation. And this sideshow is over. Levine2112 10:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Are they from reliable sources? Some of the journals involved in the past are not respected in the scientific community. Jefffire 10:10, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. Is the New England Journal of Medice reliable? I think so. How about the Austrailian and New Zealand Journal of Medicine? And the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics? The National Institute of Health? The Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research? How do we determine reliability? Are they peer reviewed? Is the reseach that they publised republished in other journals and magazines? What is the impact factor of the journal? What are the credentials and expertise of the people taking responsibility for these journals? Do the journals have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their reports? Is the journal published by scientific societies or by commercial publishers? Show me that these don't hold up to this line of questioning. Until then, I accept them as reliable. Levine2112 21:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Levine2112 has previously introduced these same studies, which have been discussed, and a number of them debunked.-- Fyslee 22:21, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I see your criticisms, but I don't see any debunking. Sorry. Try again. Levine2112 23:42, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Levine, shine, SHINE Levine! Now is your big chance to show your stuff and shine! Prove to Fyslee that you are a big boy and are able to understand what you read in journals. He is after all a physcial therapist who despises (his word) chiropractic and is so totally and fully devoted to eliminating you and your chosen profession, as is evidenced by his numerous self-appointed internet responsibilities and association with like-minded chiro-haters. (my word) If nothing else, he is up-front about his life's mission.

So, prove to him and his lieutenants here that you are not vermin, but are a human with thoughts and feelings. Perform for them, make them smile, make them laugh, make them proud - - before they, of course, discount everything you say as complete rubbish and knock you down again.

But above all - - Assume Good Faith! Steth 16:27, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Don't feed the troll. Jefffire 16:37, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't worry Jefffire, I won't give him the satisfaction of replying to yet another of his violations of Wikipedia's no personal attacks policy. I just note it here. (Levine2112 seems to have misunderstood your message.....;-) -- Fyslee 21:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
I won't feed the trolls either :) --Hughgr 21:17, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Nice, Steth. I really appreciate your sense of humor. I hope though that I am not giving the impression that I want to use Wikipedia to prove that Chiropractic is effective. That isn't our task here. We are here to accurately portray the profession in this article. Unfortunately, there are those ("Troll" as Jefffire has called them) who want to use this article to "disprove" chiropractic. To them I can only repeat that our task here is to accurately portray the profession and not to act a soapbox for the anti-chiropractic lobby. Levine2112 19:58, 19 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Research" does not equal "evidence"

Levine2112 made this interesting edit "While there is evidence, there is no scientific consensus for more substantial claims.", which repeats a type of reasoning we've seen earlier in his edits and here on the talk page.

The existence of "research" is not being disputed by anyone. It is the quality of the "evidence" produced by that research that is contested. Is it good enough to be considered reliable and worthy of the label "evidence"? Just saying "there is evidence" is pretty useless, since the research could just as easily produce evidence for or against a claim, or simply be junk science. Calling any research "evidence" isn't specific enough, and it's easy to fall into that semantic trap.

Scientific consensus is usually established by scientists agreeing that the quality of the evidence in the research is good and reliable,. They think it's good, therefore they agree with it. If it's poor research, the "evidence" is viewed with suspicion, and they won't agree with it. The burden of proof is still on the claimant, who will then have to do better research in order to convince them.

URLs [42] [43] have been posted by Levine2112 with lots of claims for many different conditions. Of course chiropractors will consider them satisfactory, or else Frank Painter wouldn't have placed them there. By posting the URLs, Levine2112 is advocating the claims that are on those URLs. The research for each claim (asthma, MS, allergies, etc.) needs to be examined to see if it is worth being considered as providing quality evidence for the claim.

Now we'd like to see just one (the best one) for starters, to see if the research also provides good evidence for the claim, or if it's just a one patient case study, an uncontrolled study, a good quality controlled study, or something else. (The best should certainly be something we can agree is good.) The posting of the URLs is far too broad (shotgun approach) to be acceptable as good evidence for any claim. The posting of individual studies (rifle bullet) for individual claims is another matter that can be examined. That's all we're asking for.

The following will hopefully express the concepts above:

"While there is chiropractic research for more substantial claims, the quality of the evidence is not good enough to garner scientific consensus outside of chiropractic."

If anyone can capture it in better prose, that would be great. -- Fyslee 13:31, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

While I like the direction that you are going, I think "the quality of evidence is not good enough to garner scientific consensus outside of chiropractic" would be fine as long as it wasn't stated by one of us. It immediately smacks of POV, but, if we have anything that backs that up, it could be represented as their opinion, not ours.
I'm sure you'll agree that "quality of evidence" should be "quality of research".
How about "the current research lacks the sufficient quality to garner the respect of it's skeptics inside and outside of the profession."
Your turn.

--Dematt 15:10, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Quite right on all points. Go for it:
"While there is chiropractic research for more substantial claims, the current research lacks the sufficient quality to garner the respect of it's skeptics inside and outside of the profession."
-- Fyslee 19:46, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Dematt, you are completely right. Fyslee's edit is completely POV. Who is he to say that the "qualtiy of evidence is not good enough"? Certainly that is his POV. And while I think your take at it is better, it is still a slanted statement. First, by saying that the research lacks sufficient quality is immediately unfair. This implies that all of the chiropractic research lacks in quality. Is that true? Can that be cited? Now let's look at the second part... about garnering its skeptics inside and outside of the profession. How did you arrive at that conclusion? Can that be cited as well? Given the actual conspiracy that exists against chiropractic (before Wilk and beyond), how can chiropractic expect to garner respect from a community that is not willing to accept any evidence it presents? As recently as 1995, Terrett noted, "The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors." If we can make the assumption that every bit of chiropractic research hasn't earned the respect of the majority skeptics (which is a false assumption, since it doesn't account for all of the past skeptics who now are advocates), then shouldn't we also mention in the opening that there has existed and still may exist a provable conspiracy working against chiropractors? To Fyslee, again, I will not play your game and choose a piece of research from the hundreds that I have pointed to, just so you can dump all over it with your opinions in the hopes that showing a hint of impropriety in one apple will spoil the bunch. The mere fact that you say "the quality of evidence is not good enough" means that you have already discounted all that I have presented and beyond (or you can cite a credible source that has arrived at the "it's not good enough" conclusion for every bit of research with supportive conclusions). I think herein lies the problem. Our job on Wikipedia is not to draw conclusions but to post truthful information. Once we - the editors - start drawing conclusions, then there can be no denying of POV. Levine2112 19:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


Levine, you are copping out and misrepresenting me. You have also engaged in "drawing conclusions," by expecting us to just blindly accept your declaration that all those hundreds of reports are truly supportive and good research. No way! That's not the way it works. We are not obligated to accept your POV of those reports. They need to be examined individually.
You are again violating Wikipedia's policy to assume good faith, since I have explicitly stated to you:
  • "Just make your case by choosing the best research report you can find. This will let us examine it and see if it's good. It may well be! If so, great!"
  • "(The best should certainly be something we can agree is good.)"
You have failed to provide evidence for your claims. A simple request has been made in good faith, with the expectation that you can find some good research we can examine. I'm sure it's there!!! You seem to be unwilling to meet the normal requirements for any discussion of scientific matters. If you are not willing to participate in the normal way, please step aside when we discuss the scientific research and let those who will do so properly do the job. I know there are chiropractors here who understand good research and who also understand the rules of scientific and skeptical discussion. Let them do it for you. Claims are expected to be proven. If you won't provide the evidence, then don't make the claims. It's as simple as that. It isn't our job to look through the heap to find the pearl. -- Fyslee 20:23, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
I really can't take you seriously any more. You are being very evasive. You are trying to rope me into a debate. Sorry, I thinky that violates Wikipedia guidelines. If you are so sure that there is good research, then you go ahead and show that. It is not my intention to do so. It was asked if there is any scientific research supporting chiropractic and I have simply responded to that. Anything further is your doing. Once again, I refuse to be roped into your infatile games. I've been down that road before with you and it only leads to headache... which convenietly I can get relief from by visiting a chiropractor. Levine2112 21:18, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
You have said that I have "failed to provide evidence for" my claims. Remind me: what are my claims? Let's say I entertain you and play your silly game. Let's say I choose one piece of research and have everyone take a look at it. Let's say we all can't find any serious flaws in this study that is supportive of a chiropractic claim. What does that benefit the article in your eyes? What then would you - in all of your authority - be so gracious enough to allow us to write on this article? See, Good Faith is to say that these studies were published in respected journals therefore we are assuming that the research is respectable too. Bad Faith is to assume that they are junk science because we don't like their conclusions. You have made a claim, not me. You claim that all of the scientific research supporting chiropractic are bad. Prove it. Until then, don't tell anyone which discussions they may or may not participate in. If anything, you have proven yourself unworthy of participating in any scientific conversations. Your lack of understanding of the human body is laughable. I think my favorite is when you said "Organs without nerves function fine". I think the only skills you have shown yourself adept at are using Google and the copy-and-paste feature of your computer. To recap, the next step is yours. Otherwise, quit being so rude and mistrustful. Levine2112 21:57, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
None of us is obligated to exercise good faith towards external sources since the policy refers to how we deal with each other right here as editors. Your POV on those external sources is that they are all reliable. I say they are a mixed bag and therefore need to be evaluated. Claims need to be supported individually, not en masse. By posting those URLs as support for your beliefs, you are expecting us to just accept every single report there as proof of good evidence for each and every claim. That's not acceptable by any standard outside of chiropractic. You again misrepresent and misquote me. I have definitely not claimed or ever meant that " all of the scientific research supporting chiropractic are bad." At least start to quote me correctly. When you misquote me, you are revealing your bad faith about me. Should I expect an apology? Of course. Do I expect it from you? No. (So what else is new?) -- Fyslee 14:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I apoligize for misquoting you (even though there was no quoting involved - just a summary of your thoughts, which according to you I misrepresented). Now you have done the exact same and misrepresented my thoughts by saying that my POV is that those external sources are all reliable and that I am expecting us to just accept every single report there as proof of good evidence for each and every claim. I never said that. If you pay real attention to my posts, I've been saying time and time again that I posted those links to show that there is scientific evidence supporting chiropractic. Did I ever say that every bit of research there is proof of good evidence for each and every claim. Hmmm. Let me reread my posts. No. I never said that anywhere. Gosh. Then where did you come up with that and why did you attribute it to me? There can only be one answer. It seems you have - by your definition of the word - "misquoted" me and revealed your bad faith about me. IOW, don't accuse me of something if you're not prepared to admit that you are just as guilty of. And I love that you use your tirade above to bash chiropractic more. Look, if you're saying the links to the research is a mixed bag then you are at least admitting that there is some scientific evidence supporting chiropractic. I could care less which research you like and which ones you think are bunk. Even if you think that only one of hundreds of pieces of research is quality, then you have agreed with the point I was trying to make: There is sceintific evidence supporting chiropractic. That's all. I've done my work. Can we stop this childish bickering now? Levine2112 16:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To re-state where we are right now -

  • "While there is chiropractic research for more substantial claims, the current research lacks the sufficient quality to garner the respect of it's skeptics inside and outside of the profession."

If we change it to-

  • "While there is chiropractic research for more substantial claims, it currently lacks the sufficient quality to garner consensus among it's skeptics both inside and outside of the profession."

This sentence does not say anything about whether the findings in the research are pro or anti chiropractic. It could mean that "skeptics that hate chiros" think the research is flawed in favor of chiropractic. If you read it again, it could also mean that skeptics of "medical researchers who hate chiros" think the research is flawed against chiropractic.

Just as a editorial note. It took more than 100 years before the body of evidence in support of the germ theory was finally accepted after one more study by Pasteur that proved that fermented products only spoiled if exposed to air. That one study didn't convince all skeptic's (inside and outside his profession) overnight. It was the body of evidence that preceded it and the evidence that followed that slowly created the shift until now - the consensus is that the germ theory is valid. That does not mean that it is true, only that it is the consensus that it is correct. That is the way it will stay until a very large body of evidence can prove otherwise. The body of evidence for chiropractic is still building. While there is arguably enough evidence to satisfy some, it has not satisfied everybody - inside or outside the profession. The same can be said about the germ theory, but it currently has more who agree than disagree. All we can write here is the current state of the science of chiropractic. Whether we say it in the intro or elsewhere is up to us. And it should be noted that science is still coming to grips with how to study and classify consensus for treatment protocols not only in chiropractic, but every sector of healthcare. When the dust settles, it should be an accurate assessment of the current science, art and philosophy of chiropractic. --Dematt 13:44, 21 May 2006

BTW, we can have consensus among DC's that does not include other groups of people.--Dematt 14:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence disputed

Curious. Is there a "scientific consensus" that chiropractic can relieve headaches and back pain? If so, the why does the opening say "disputed"? If the research is disputed, then doesn't that just lump headaches and back pain relief into the group of "chiropractic claims with no scientific consensus". If the anti-chiro's are magnanimous enough to grant that a consensus for headaches and back pain has been reached, then certainly they can see to it to remove "Disputed" from the opening paragraph. Levine2112 20:08, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

It is actually very disputed, so the current wording is very mild and could be strengthened:
"Conclusions: Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment." A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation.
I favor just keeping the word "disputed." -- Fyslee 20:30, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Then why single it out in the intro? Levine2112 21:19, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Ummm....it was yourself who singled it out for deletion. I vote to keep it, even though it is weak. Be happy for that! -- Fyslee 22:02, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Wow. You are threatening when you want to be. Down boy! Good boy! Anyhow, I just want to know what sets these disputed chiropractic claims (headaches and back pain relief) apart from the rest of the disputed chiropractic claims. Why does headaches and back pain relief have their own sentence in an opening which we are trying to keep short? Is there something different about theses chiropractic claims (headaches and back pain relief) from the rest of the "more substantial" claims that would warrant us calling them out in the opening? Because right now it reads like they are disputed and the rest of the claims haven't a scientific consensus, so they're disputed too. So essentially every claim is chiropractic disputed. That is what our wordy sentence is now saying. (Although disputed research suggests short term pain relief for tension headache and low back pain, there is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's more substantial claims.) Are we making some kind of distrinction about the headaches and back pain relief claim? If so, that isn't coming across at all. Basically, I just want to know what the disctinction is (if any), so we can make the point more clearly or not at all. Levine2112 07:12, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Dematt (and Levine2112) want evidence. Fair enough, since it definitely isn't just my POV. Dematt wrote:

"(my version)....would be fine as long as it wasn't stated by one of us. It immediately smacks of POV, but, if we have anything that backs that up, it could be represented as their opinion, not ours.
I'm sure you'll agree that "quality of evidence" should be "quality of research".
How about "the current research lacks the sufficient quality to garner the respect of it's skeptics inside and outside of the profession."

Here it is "backed up" from as inside the profession as one can get, and can be presented as his opinion:

Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD, chiropractic historian and professor, uses the following words to describe aspects of the profession when he analyzes chiropractic, its research, thinking, practices, and journals:

  • a continuing enigma
  • science
  • antiscience
  • pseudoscience
  • quackery
  • anti-intellectual traditions
  • unscientific
  • irrational
  • confusion
  • antiscientific mindset
  • cult
  • chiropractic's foibles
  • religious overtones
  • humbug
  • uncritical dogma
  • circus
  • showmanship
  • marketing
  • unsubstantiated claims
  • pseudoscience journals
  • uncritical rationalism
  • uncritical empiricism
  • fuzzy thinkers
  • health fraud
  • student loan defaults
  • paranoia
  • xenophobia
  • nonskeptical attitudes
  • "anti-intellectual" traditions

He writes:

"After thirteen years of teaching and research at several chiropractic colleges, I can say with confidence that chiropractic is both science and antiscience. Yes, there is a meaningful science of chiropractic, but just as surely there is an antiscientific mindset and even a cult within chiropractic (for example, the cult of B. J. Palmer, son of the founder of chiropractic). Moreover, if University of Connecticut sociologist Walter Wardwell is correct (Wardwell 1992), the belief systems of a majority of DCs lie somewhere between these two poles: chiropractic as science versus chiropractic as unscientific, uncritical dogma and circus. Perhaps a consideration of the nature of science will aid in understanding how the chiropractic profession does and does not approximate the rigors of science."
"In recent years this combination of uncritical rationalism and uncritical empiricism has been bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinterpretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques. These periodicals expand on the uncritical attitudes and unproven claims for chiropractic that have long been made in the magazines published by the national membership societies of chiropractors in the United States. It is practically impossible to read any of the trade publications within chiropractic without encountering unsubstantiated claims."
"Coexisting with the obvious and ubiquitous antiscientific and pseudoscientific reasoning and rhetoric in chiropractic (Skrabanek 1988) are the genuinely critical, skeptical attitudes of the still quite embryonic research community in this profession."
"The conflict between medical doctors and DCs has also produced a penchant for marketing slogans in lieu of scientifically testable propositions. The classic example of this is the mindless reiteration that "chiropractic works," a vacuous claim which lacks specificity and is not amenable to experimental testing. However, confronted by charges that chiropractic is quackery, chiropractors have responded by insisting that "Chiropractic Works!" and have rallied satisfied patients to convince legislators and policy makers of the validity of their methods and the justness of their cause. Slogans like this are endlessly repeated not only to the public, but among DCs themselves (and to chiropractic students). To challenge the notion that "chiropractic works" is considered heresy in most corners of the profession. Rather than skepticism and critical thinking, traditional chiropractic education has sought to instill strong belief in chiropractic (Quigley 1981) among successive generations of students. In so doing the schools have strengthened the "anti-intellectual" (Coulter 1990) traditions in the profession."
-- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side

-- Fyslee 20:47, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Great. Now we have his opinion and your opinion. That's two people. That must mean we have a scientific consensus. Levine2112 21:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I've done a little editing

I expanded on the "pinched hose" in the intro to better clarify, it didn't seem to make sense the way it was written. I also corrected the numers of chiro's in the intro too. Please review and post any concerns here. Thank you and good night.--Hughgr 05:55, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Other than the spelling of approximately I didn't see anything wrong. Good work. Jefffire 08:48, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Thank you sir, good catch, I'll fix it right up. Yea! Finally made an edit that didn't get reverted! --Hughgr 17:18, 19 May 2006 (UTC)
Some days I feel I should just print up a t-shirt with "Jefffire - Revert it All!" on the front. Keep up the good work and I won't need to ;). Jefffire 17:28, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro comment

In the intro, Arthur Rubin wrote: Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain. Evidence for more substantial claims is inconclusive. At this point in time, I think that is perfectly stated. Good work. Levine2112 20:59, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

My mistake, Steth wrote that. Arthur made it even better. Nice work all around. Levine2112 21:35, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More history

Next sentence for history section, continuing with Dematt's excellent work thus far. "Following the case of Harvey Lillard, Palmer encountered a case of heart trouble. He examined the spine and found a misalignment in the area where the nerves supply the heart. After improvement in that case as well, he states, "Then I began to reason if two diseases, so dissimilar as deafness and heart trouble, came from impingement, a pressure on nerves, were not other disease due to a similar cause. Thus the science (knowledge) and art (adjusting) of Chiropractic were formed at that time.""


The following is a quote for D.D.'s 1910 book the chiropractors adjustor" in case you don't have it:)

Shortly after this relief from deafness, I had a case of heart trouble which was not improving. I examined the spine and found a displaced vertebra pressing against the nerves which innervate the heart. I adjusted the vertebra and gave immediate relief—nothing “accidental” or “crude” about this. Then I began to reason if two diseases, so dissimilar as deafness heart trouble, came from impingement, a pressure on nerves, were not other disease due to a similar cause, Thus the science (knowledge) and art (adjusting) of Chiropractic were formed at that time. I then began a systematic investigation for the cause of all diseases and have been amply rewarded. pg 18-19

What do you guys think? Do I need to editorialize more, not sure, any input greatly appreciated.--Hughgr 22:46, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Anyone, anyone at all? Throw me a friggin bone, please.--Hughgr 22:56, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
What are you planning on doing with it? Is this for an expansion of the history section, possibly to document Palmer's reasoning? If so, it's a good example. You need to show us where you want it to fit in. Editorialize a bit to make it flow right. -- Fyslee 23:07, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the reply. I am intending to add it to the opening paragraph of the History section. It would flow from the current edit to where D.D. formulated his hypothesis of chiropractic, i.e. that dissimilar disease conditions being helped by spinal adjustments. From there, perhaps a new paragraph could be started with the opening of the school, the first students, the split of D.D. and B.J., the Palmer Research Clinic, and so on. Not an enormous amount of detail, but showing the progression.--Hughgr 23:40, 20 May 2006 (UTC) OK, I've added it and it looks ok to me, but I need to add the link to reference #13.--Hughgr 23:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
Hughgr, sorry it took so long to reply, been in and out this weekend. I saw your history update and I have no trouble with it. It certainly does add light to DD's thought processes and helps to explain how it all happened. I am working on an update to the history section as well and will try to work it in (unless it gets debunked:). Do remember that this article is on chiropractic and there is a whole other article on Daniel David Palmer that we can link with more info about him and maybe you would be interested in starting an article on Bartlett Joshua Palmer as well. All in an effort to keep this history as succinct as possible and covering all the necessary history.--Dematt 01:56, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There is already an article about B. J. Palmer. -- Fyslee 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I should have known you had that covered:) We need to get it into the search under Palmer, they didn't have him.--Dematt 20:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I whole heartly agree, just want to keep things in context. Was just trying to figure out how to link to reference #13, when I checked out the reference to DD's religious idea. If it's going to be mentioned here, or on the DD page, it needs to be noted that this "new" profession was trying to decide how to "fit" in with the world, and DD obviously wanted it thought of as a religion. Funny looking back how not too many other DC's wanted to be thought of that way. In his letter [44]he says, "It is STRANGE TO ME WHY EVERY CHIROPRACTOR DOES NOT WANT A COPY OF MY BOOK." Maybe because they didn't like the direction you wanted to take chiropractic, D.D. If you haven't, you should read that letter. He obviously wanted his idea back in his control. :)--Hughgr 02:12, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
There is so much more. Keep reading. It is all there in black and white and the miracles of the internet have opened it all up. It's amazing. Let's take our time and get it right this time.-- Dematt 02:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


While DD Palmer clearly had many well-formulated and strong religious beliefs about chiropractic, his letter also indicates another motivation at that particular time in history -- he wanted to use Constitutional rights as a means of preventing interference with the practice of chiropractic:

"By correcting these displacements of osseous tissue, the tension frame of the nervous system, I claim that I am rendering obedience, adoration and honor to the All-Wise Spiritual Intelligence, as well as a service to the segmented, individual portions thereof -- a duty I owe to both God and mankind. In accordance with this aim and end, the Constitution of the United States and the statutes personal of California confer upon me and all persons of chiropractic faith the inalienable right to practice our religion without restraint or hindrance." [45]

Woven throughout these religious freedom arguments are his claims to be the "fountain head" of chiropractic in all its phases, including its religious phase, which he does in the private letter to another chiropractor. Here he openly shared his opinions regarding his true role:

"I occupy in chiropractic a similar position as did Mrs. Eddy in Christian Science. Mrs. Eddy claimed to receive her ideas from the other world and so do I. She founded theron a religioin, so may I. I am THE ONLY ONE IN CHIROPRACTIC WHO CAN DO SO. . . ."
"You ask, what I think will be the final outcome of our law getting. It will be that we will have to build a boat similar to Christian Science and hoist a religious flag. I have received chiropractic from the other world, similar as did Mrs. Eddy. No other one has lad claim to that, NOT EVEN B.J."
"Exemption clauses instead of chiro laws by all means, and LET THAT EXEMPTION BE THE RIGHT TO PRACTICE OUR RELIGION. But we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Mohamed, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions. I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase. Now, if chiorpractors desire to claim me as their head, their leader, the way is clear. My writings have been gradually steering in that direction until now it is time to assume that we have the same right to as has Christian Scientists."
"Oregon is free to Chiropractors. California gives Chiropractors only one chance, that of practicing our religion." [46]

In his book The Chiropractor, published in 1914 (Kessinger Publishing Company, Montana), on page 5, D.D. Palmer states:

"Chiropractic science, its art and philosophy, deal with human and spiritual phenomena. The conscientious reverent acknowledgement of the phenomena, in sentiment and act, connects the spiritual with the physical, and constitutes in its fullest and highest sense a religion.
"The knowledge and philosophy given me by Dr. Jim Atkinson, an intelligent spiritual being, together with explanations of phenomena, principles resolved from causes, effects, powers, laws and utility, appealed to my reason.
"The method by which I obtained an explanation of certain physical phenomena, from an intelligence in the spiritual world, is known in bibilical language as inspiration. In a great measure The Chiropractor's Adjuster was written under such spiritual promptings."

In his book The Chiropractor's Adjuster: A Textbook of the Science, Art, and Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners (1910, Portland Printing House; Portland, Oregon), he bragged:

"I am the Fountainhead of Chiropractic; it originated with me; it was my ingenious brain which discovered its first principle; I was its source; I gave it birth; to me all Chiropractors trace their Chiropractic lineage."

It seems likely, however, that Palmer got his big idea from reading osteopathic literature and working with Andrew Taylor Still. The Journal of Osteopathy noted in a 1897 issue that "There is one fake magnetic healer in Iowa who issued a paper devoted to his alleged new system, and who until recently made up his entire publication from the contents of the Journal of Osteopathy, changing it only to insert the name of his own practice." Bonesetting, Chiropractic and Cultism, 1963


He also wished to regain control of the profession. First he lost it in a humiliating way to his own son, and then was pushed out in the sidelines (even not practicing chiropractic for awhile) and wasn't getting the attention he had been used to receiving, and which he felt he deserved:

"Daniel David Palmer (1845-1913), founder of chiropractic, was a Freemason & an occultist. His original practice was to heal people with what he called "magnetic healing" which was a combination of laying on of hands, hypnotism and white magic. Of course it was not called white magic, it was called "magnetic healing" by Palmer. Part of the magnetism was his own magnetic (hypnotic) personality. Palmer also knew phrenology and had a keen sense of touch concerning a person’s head. D.D. Palmer taught phrenology. D.D. Palmer was a mixture of good and bad traits. He was an excellent scholar and had good organizational skills for what he learned. One of his difficult traits was his megalomania. In 1905, at a coroner’s inquiry, Palmer refused to take an oath to swear the truth "so help me God", because he said that "I don’t want any help from God." It must have been hard on his pride, when his own son B.J. Palmer, who had been cruelly raised by cruel step-mothers, turned Judas and stole from his father both the honor & money that was due his father. His son Bartlett Joshua Palmer (1882-1961) worked in a circus as an assistant to professional circus hypnotists known as Professor Hunt, and later Professor Herbert L. Flint. Later, with mysterious connections to the right people, B.J. Palmer, got the money and the political clout to get started in building a school for chiropractic." [47]

His later life was rather tragic, while BJ's life as a world traveller and millionaire was quite another. His last few months were bitter, with pain suffered after BJ ran him down with a car. Later lawsuits against BJ for attempted murder were unsuccessful. [48] A sad ending for a man accustomed to greatness. -- Fyslee 13:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, here is what the grant jury of the case found.
We further report that in the matter of the State of Iowa against B. J. Palmer, we have made a full and complete investigation of this case and find no bill. It is our judgment that there has been an attempt in this case to use the grand jury and the criminal courts to further a civil strife. We do not favor the use of Scott County’s money or the agency of the grand jury to assist in the collection of alleged damages or to aid parties in bringing matters before this body for the purpose of helping them in civil cases. A former grand jury has made a complete and impartial investigation of this case, and in our opinion that grand jury came to a right conclusion in finding a no bill. From the evidence presented to us we find that D. D. Palmer was not struck by an automobile, or injured by B. J. Palmer, or anyone else in the Chiropractic Parade of August 27, 1913. Under Section 4903 of the Code, it is a criminal offense against justice for any attorneys or other. persons to excite or stir up quarrels or controversies between persons with intent to injure such persons. If this matter is again stirred up we recommend that the next grand jury investigate the facts of this case under this section for the purpose of indictment. We further suggest that in fairness to the County Attorney, and also for the purpose of saving expense to Scott County, or any other county, that hereafter the Attorney General of this State, when receiving complaints, first inquire of the County Attorney as to his opinion of the merits of the case. R. R. BROWNLIE, Foreman, W. A. SCHMIDT, JOHN BRODIRUS, SAM AULIFF, WM. HENRY, GEO. POPE, JULIUS J. WIESE.
Umm, so possibly this was D.D.'s last vengful act. The above was copied from volume 23, Palmer pg.797-798.--Hughgr 18:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Thanks so much for providing this interesting piece of history. I've never seen it before. I have collected a number of quotes regarding this matter.[49] Precisely what happened has been disputed during the years. DD himself accused his son of striking him with his car. You may be right, that this was his last vengeful act:
"Daniel David claimed that B.J. struck him with his automobile, and D.D's friends and allies later produced affidavits of witnesses to prove it. B.J. flatly denied it, and produced many more affidavits to this effect than D.D.'s cohorts were able to muster.
That night Daniel David Palmer left Davenport for the last time. Three months later he died in Los Angeles. He stipulated that his son was not to come to his funeral.
The executors of the father's estate filed a civil damages suit against B.J., alleging that B.J. had struck Daniel David with his car and that this had contributed to the father's death. After pending in court for several months, the action was dropped without prejudice, and was never reinstated. The Scott County District Attorney also sought a murder indictment against B.J., but two grand juries refused to return a true bill." [50] -- Fyslee 19:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have read and read and read this last month and I still cannot determine if BJ hit him with the car. It looks as if only BJ and DD knew for sure and it was taken to the grave. The point here, though, is- does anyone believe that he died of typhoid due to the car accident?
I am also convinced that DD made those remarks about religion because it was the option that would get legal protection and to regain control of chiropractic for eternity. Though the argument could be made that he believed it. He was a spirualist. More later--Dematt 20:35, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Even if he was hit by the car, typhoid was the likely cause of death, and of course had nothing to do with the accident. As to the religious issues, he both believed and attempted to use the law to protect those beliefs, and thus to protect his profession. Quite understandable and a legitimate legal maneuver.
There actually does exist a chiropractic church, the "Congregation of Univesal Wisdom" (how ironic), that a chiropractor started solely for the purpose of using religious exemption to avoid compulsory vaccination that is mandated by state law.
I have a blog entry about it: [51]
Their website: [52]
-- Fyslee 20:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I'm Sorry Mccready

I didn't mean to upset you. I'm just a stickler on references and feel that to change the wording you change the meaning and then you have misquoted the author and that could be a problem. I thought we had consensus on those first two sentences.--Dematt 07:28, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm cool. Sorry if I was abrupt. Yes I did think of that but neglected to do it in the final edit, thinking it could be read as based on. I should have make it clear it was no longer a quote. Hope the version now is acceptable to everyone. The challenge was to write a NPOV defn which didn't accept the POV of the proponents (no offence meant to anyone but to do otherwise would be like allowing a child to define childhood). Mccready 07:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No offense taken, thank you for your kind response. In an effort to keep the first sentence clean and professional, I was wondering if you might consider rephrasing it in such a way that omits the phrase "aiming to". If it is meant to describe the act of perfoming a particular task, it has a colloquial ring that just doesn't give WP the reputation it needs to become a respected source. If it is meant to diminish the competency of the chiropractor in the act of diagnosing, it would likely be considered POV and needs to be referenced. Unless, of course, everyone else is okay with it, in which case I won't object.--Dematt 14:26, 20 May 2006 (UTC)
No surprise but I am not okay with the use of "aiming". It is far too colloquial and completely disingenuous. How am I supposed to assume good faith when everything a particular editor contributes is POV slander - no matter how subtle orr clever that editor believes himself to be? Dematt, your version of that entire section read more professionally, fair and was entirely more accurate. Levine2112 20:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] "Removal of POV"

"Removal of POV" isn't a valid argument in and of itself for an edit, since Wikipedia is all about describing POV, not preventing the expression of POV! Our job as editors is not the "removal of POV" we disagree with or POV we consider to be wrong, but to include and describe those POV without taking sides (in the article.....;-). If they are commonly known POV, they don't even need to be verified with specific citations. For example, it would be nonsense to demand evidence for the POV that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. For POV that are obscure (unknown to most people familiar with the subject), references should be provided.

For chiropractic editors, an ignorance of the commonly held POV on the various sides of the chiropractic disputes leads to edits that reveal that ignorance. In such cases, it would be best to not make edits in the areas of which one has little knowledge. We all have limitations and it is helpful to know one's own limits. Without this understanding, such editing can only be done from one's own uninformed POV and wastes much time.

I have been watching Dematt as he works. His edits don't waste our time. This guy is going to be a real expert who should be able to write articles and books after this experience! He delves into the subjects, works with them, seeks advice, learns to understand the various POV, presents them fairly, and all the while can maintain his own POV. Great!

  • "It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it." – Aristotle
  • It is the mark of a good Wikipedia editor, to be able to understand and present various POV, including those he finds distasteful.

Dematt is good at writing for the enemy, which is a mark of a good editor. His edits are fair and well considered, and demand respect from everyone. He is learning and gathering an enormous knowledge. He deserves our collaboration and respect. We share a common goal -- to create the best article about chiropractic ever written. Nearly all other articles are written from just one POV, either the chiro-promotion or chiro-skeptical POV. That's alright, but not here at Wikipedia. This one should encompass every significant POV. -- Fyslee 22:05, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Wow, thanks Fyslee, I do appreciate your vote of confidence. I hope I can live up to that! Obviously all of us are playing a very important role and even though we may be a little dysfunctional, I'd still have you all over for a pool party:) But no talking shop! --Dematt 05:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

"Aims" is good English. I've checked a few dictionaries and none list the word as colloquial. The intention is clear. The reader can judge for themselves. Mccready 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes it is good English and you used it properly. I suppose it's because I live in an area where they use it in a colloquial way; "I'm aiming to go to the store tomorrow." :) I'll get over it, don't worry about it. --Dematt 05:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
I have to agree. It's like "fixing" in the colloquial sense. "I'm fixing to go to the chiropractor."
To Fyslee: In some cases, a statement can be neutral and is better off without a POV. The way you had the sentence worded was subtly slanted towards disparaging chiropractic and belittling the research. First, you called the research "chiropractic research" which is true enough, as we are talking about research about chiropractic. But "chiropractic research" could also be seen as research only done performed the chiropractic community. This isn't the case. There is supportive research about chiropractic performed by people outside the field. Second, you sayy that the quality of research isn't good enough. It isn't? Who says? The way I worded it says everything we intended but yet is more neutral. While there is supportive research, there is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's more substantial claims. Neutral is better than POV in this case. So when I said I am removing POV, I mean that I am taking the bias out of a place where it need not be (in the much debated intro paragraph). So I would have to say that in this case "Removal of POV" is a valid reason for an edit. As you would say, "Assume good faith." Levine2112 06:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] History POV

Thanks for the efforts with the history section. We have to be careful not to be captured by Palmer's POV. eg "He examined the spine and found a misalignment". Again imagine, for the purpose of POV checking, replacing with "He examined the spine and found blue cheese". Or if writing on the flat earth theory, "He examined the earth and found it flat." I don't think that in an encylopedia we can accept this. Perhpas the solution is to quote his exact words. Mccready 03:31, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Definitely agree with you on the "heart trouble" part. Hughgr, you put that one in, you want to take the first crack at fixing it?--Dematt 05:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
OK, I'll just make it all a quote. I was trying to not make a long quote to get the point across but I'll meet you halfway :)--Hughgr 06:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Next step in History

Here's the next step in the history. I got it out a little earlier than I wanted, but Hughgr really seemed to be wanting it:) I know it was a lot to put in there at one time, but there was a lot of information to try to digest into several short sentences. Thanks to both Fyslee and Levine2112 for the links.

There is some controversy in the next part between not only the straights and mixers but the AMA that I brought into this because it all defines the how and whys of chiropractic and american healthcare. If anyone has some input from other countries that they want me to look at, let me know. I am going to work on the 1920's to 1960's next. Again, there is a lot of information to get through so don't hold your breath:) If it looks like it is going in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll find something else to do:) Otherwise, do your thing and make it all better, but please try to discuss your changes beforehand to avoid totally losing what we started with.

I'm looking forward to everyones input.--Dematt 04:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

One word, sweet! If I had known you were putting in so much effort, I would have been more patient. Thanks for 'moving' and not 'deleting' my addition :) The stuff at the bottom looks random and out of place now. Perhaps instead of deleting them, they can be moved to a more appropriate place. For example, DD's comments about wanting to make chiro a religion can be put on his page as they certainly are a reflection of his thoughts.--Hughgr 04:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
So far, I have not deleted anything anyone else has written and tried to keep the wording the same way they had it originally just out of respect for their work. If something sounds POV, there are other ways to address it than changing their words. I just filled in the blanks. I have also tried to keep the wording as close to the reference as possible. I haven't used anything that wasn't found in at least two different works. I'm trying to keep it in a timeline order and then maybe everything will make more sense when it is finished. It is not what I thought it was going to say when I started, but I think it is as accurate as anything else written. Now it is up to WP to refine it into something that is even more:0 --Dematt 04:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
This new history section is AWESOME! Wow. Nice work, Dematt. Levine2112 06:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mccready, NPOV

I feel that Mcready has a difficulty with NPOV. He changed the lead again to "There is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's more substantial claims or for the effectiveness of chiropractic medicine." I don't want to get into a revert war. Anyone have a suggestion?--Hughgr 06:33, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on edits, not editors, unless absolutely neccasery please. Jefffire 14:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
What I would like to have expressed in the intro is that while there is not a scienitific consensus on chiropractic's more substanitial claims, there is in fact supportive scientific evidence. I have added this repeatedly, but users keep removing it. Most recently McCready and Jefffire. Why? If we are going to say a blanket statement like "there is no scientific consensus" then I feel we need need to qualify it by saying there is scientific evidence. Otherwise, what we are presenting can create the impression that there is no scientific basis for chiropractic. Now I have pointed to so much research that even anti-chiro editor extraordinaire Fyslee admits that it is at least a "mixed bag" - meaning it may contain some bad studies along with the good ones. The existence of scientific evidence supporting chiropractic is indisputable. The evidence itself might be disputed, but the existence of the evidence cannot be. There is my comment on the edits. Now then, we need to add this back into the intro. The question is: will it just be reverted again by those wishing to keep this artricle a POV piece biased against chiropractic rather than presenting the neutral facts? Levine2112 17:30, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
Please show me one piece of "indisputable" evidence which you say exists. If you read the lead carefully you will see it DOES say there is supportive research. Support isn't proof and it is certainly not undisupted. The lead is therefore accurate, though still needs to indicate that not all chiros believe in subluxation. Your personal attacks do you no credit. Mccready 02:30, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Don't feed the troll.--Hughgr 03:11, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
That's uncalled for. Jefffire 12:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and while I completely agree with Hughgr's assessment of user McCready, I am going to show a little restraint. I think if you look at McCready's checkered talk page and archived talk page, his reputation thoughout Wikipedia speaks for itself. Levine2112 17:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you on the substantives above, excluding the ad hominems. I suspect there is greater consensus than there appears, but some residual hypersensitivity on all sides. I think there is agreement that this article must not appear to offer medical advice (i.e. must not seek to promote the benefits or warn of dangers, but should report objectively facts and opinions and explain the existence of disagrements where these are notable). People read different things into sentences, we see POV where none is intended and sometimes insert it without intending to either. I've always felt that when McCready makes an edit he has a point worth listening to, (although I've sometimes disagreed), even when I think his edit is worse than the original, I think he's tripped over a real stone. In this case I agree with Hughgr and Levine in that I think the cure is worse than the disease, but the original wording's not great. Anyway; I have just dumped some selected extracts from a House of Lords Select Committee report on my Chiropractic Talk page. I've been struggling over how to balance a discussion about scientific evidence - especially how to go about acknowledging where there are weaknesses and possible different interpretations. This report is about all CAMs and only incidentally about chiropractic; it is actually very supportive of chiropractic, which is virtually set up as a model for other CAMs to aspire to. But there is a balanced discussion about evidence base generally that is I think a good example of NPOV discussion. Any comments welcome. It'll be a few days still before I can do much here, but any thoughts that any of you have on this page or mine I'll listen to with gratitude.Gleng 20:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

To be exact, I think McCready means to imply that there is no evidence to support a general claim for the efficacy of chiropractic (ie any claim to cure most or many diseases) but there is clearly evidence to support efficacy in specific conditions. I've offered a rewording which may well be worse than anythingGleng 21:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

For those who need the link to Glengs chiropractic science page I personally will be very interested in hearing what your assessment is concerning the status of the scientific data surrounding chiropractic, considering science is your profession. Your opinion will obviously hold a lot of weight. Not only to help settle this particular edit war in the intro, but it will likely help to determine the direction of this article in the science section. Please hurry back:)--Dematt 01:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Wording in history section

In the "Early growth of schools" section, it is stated that, "At the request of some of Palmer's students and with DD's blessing, John Howard would open National School of Chiropractic in 1906 (now National University of Health Sciences in Chicago) across the street from the Palmer School of Chiropractic." The Ryan building is not "across the street", it is several blocks away and down the Brady hill. Not sure how to re-word. Any suggestions?--Hughgr 18:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Done deal, thanks.--Hughgr 21:15, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bureau of Labor Statistics Source

Levine has some confusion over the Bureau of Labor and Statistics source that I would like to clarify. He says that the BLS source should be taken to support increasing utilization of chiropractic. However I have spoken to the chief economist at BLS and have been told that BLS arrived at that recommendation as a concensus of chiropractic organizations (ACA and ICA) and did not verify the number. It is outdated and has no source and therefore should not be relied on. Other more current sources show that chiropractic utilization has greatly decreased-most likely due to managed care restrictions. Abotnick 03:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

No confusion. I just took BLS for their word. Can you document your claim about the ACA and ICA? That would certainly help us all understand this report. And are we to assume that the information that the ACA and ICA gave the BLS is false? That they lied? Levine2112 04:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gleng's contribution and lead

Gleng, thanks for your contribution. It's POV to say something is "poorly understood" when many dispute its very basis. I think Jefffire made the same point when he reverted. You also quoted a report of a report - not a good idea. Have you had a look at the source you indirectly referenced (Vincent, C. & Furnham, A. (1997) (Op.cit.), 'The quality of medical information and the evaluation of acupuncture, osteopathy and chiropractic')? The problem with many govt reports is they are finalised by politicians who have been subject to lobbying. Although they can be used as a source, they may not be unbiased and should not be preferred over peer reviewed science.

Dematt, Ashay and others - I can research whether the moon is made of blue cheese, but I'm not sure this entitles me then to say in an encyclopedic article that my research "currently lacks the sufficient quality to garner consensus". I find the blue cheese analogy works quite well whenever I'm testing my own scientific ideas.

I've tweaked the lead some more, including taking out the health profession phrase because it's much more than a profession, it's an alleged body of knowledge and technique. Fyslee will be able to tell us if my understanding of the reform chiros is correct. Mccready 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think the reform group might be too small of a minority to have their POV represented here in any great detail. Perhaps, in order to minimize confusion in this article, it would be better to reserve information about the reform movement on its own article. You guys seem more versed in Wikipedia policy, but I believe that it says something about avoiding very small minority views. NACM (the reform organization) is reported to have member in the low hundreds. If there is 70,000 chiropractors in the US alone (~80,000-90,000 worldwide I would guess), the reform movement's POV would seem too small to includde here and would only lead to confusion. Any thoughts on this? Levine2112 04:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
According to Fyslee's web blog, "A small minority of chiropractors - about 1% - have adopted the guidelines set out by the U.S. reformist group, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) which is headed by Charles DuVall." [53] That's a pretty small minority. I'd bet more people believe the moon is made of blue cheese.--Hughgr 05:51, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Hughgr. I can't find that particular one. Can you provide the precise URL so I can check out who wrote it? The NACM has about the same number of members as the WCA, and neither of those organizations publish their membership figures. Of course they don't represent all chiros who share their viewpoints. There are far more reformers and straights than there are members, with straight chiropractors exerting a very significant influence on chiropractic thinking. Unfortunately only a small portion of chiropractors are members of any organization, with the ACA only mustering about 15,000 (or is it 15%?). -- Fyslee 07:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I found that statement on this site. Perhaps Hughgr was mistaken where he saw it or perhaps Fyslee removed it from his site. In either case, the source reads: A small minority of chiropractors - about 1 % - have adopted the guidelines set out by the U.S. reformist group, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) which is headed by Charles DuVall. Members of the NACM renounce the chiropractic hypothesis as a basis for their scope of practice. So we are in fact dealing with a small minority, and - correct me if I am wrong - Wikipedia policy doesn't afford space for small minority opinions. That being sauid, I would like to see this side of chiropractic presented. Just perhaps on it's own article. Levine2112 08:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, that must have been it. I was looking through Fyslee's blog in a seperate window and came across that, coincidentally, and had already closed that page when I made the comment. I think that is a correct URL if he's got a link somewhere on his page to that site, which would explain how I got there. --Hughgr 19:16, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So is "about 1%" too small of a minority to have their POV represented on the main chiropractic article? Levine2112 19:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know. WP admits it's a problem trying to define how small a minority needs to be mentioned. I suppose since this a paperless encyc., then they can be mentioned, but I would say it should stay out of the lead.--Hughgr 19:39, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

To put that percentage into perspective (it is somewhere between 1-2%), one needs to keep the following percentages in mind:

About 80% of chiropractors are not members of any organization. The ACA has about 15%, and the ICA, WCA, and NACM make up the other 5%. So even the ACA is a minority, and the straights in the ICA and WCA are each just as little a minority as the NACM.

What makes this minority viewpoint (a POV held by more than the membership of the NACM) notable, is its significance. It isn't a minor amendment or slight difference of opinion, but a total break with the very foundational belief of the whole profession. Thus the reform viewpoint meets the notability criteria for inclusion in the article. It amounts to the Protestant break with the Catholic church.

The viewpoint can be presented (not advocated) using verifiable information from reliable sources. -- Fyslee 21:50, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think we must consider the official Wikpedia stance on tiny-minority views (NACM representing about 1% of chiropractors qualifies it as a tiny minority... Acutally, I've seen stats that their numbers are in the low 100s which makes it a fraction of 1%. NACM doesn't release their member list.). Here's what Wikipedia has to say: Articles that compare views need not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more popular views, and may not include tiny-minority views at all (by example, the article on the Earth only very briefly refers to the Flat Earth theory, a view of a distinct minority). I think their viewpoint would be better served on their own page. Wikipedia goes on to say: None of this is to say that tiny-minority views cannot receive as much attention as we can give them on pages specifically devoted to them. and In other words, 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. Levine2112 21:20, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Outdated data from chiropractic trade groups

Levine>No confusion. I just took BLS for their word. Can you document your claim about the ACA and ICA? That would certainly help us all understand this report. And are we to assume that the information that the ACA and ICA gave the BLS is false? That they lied?

I am stating this as a first hand witness. I spoke to the Chief BLS Economist on the telephone in 2005 on exactly this issue and was told what I wrote above. The information in BLS is older than the newer data which shows declining utilization. Just compare the original date of the BLS data (2004) to Tindle's article (2005) which shows chiropractic utilization in decline 25% from 1997 to 2002. (Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.) Tindle's is a newer analysis. Assuming the BLS data is current and validated is a mistake that favors chiropractors over the truth.

Maybe it's lying out of misrepresentation and ommission. The problem is using outdated data. The BLS section is quite old and needs revision. BLS's data was scruitinized by Barrett and found to contain many false and misleading statements (Stephen Barrett. Analysis of the Chiropractic Section of the Occupational Outlook Handbook. http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/ooh.html)

Since BLS doesn't source check then they have no protection against false information from chiropractic trade groups that have a vested interest in pumping up their numbers to get more students into their school's (despite surveys that show 50% of chiropractic graduates fail in five years. (http://chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=careerchange&thread=1130029965&page=3 )).

For example, Parker chiropractic college's online site used/uses outdated salary data rather than current data to inflate salaries (2004). Most chiropractic colleges use false advertising because the Federal Trade Commission doesn't regulate the advertising of nonprofit organzations (http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html and [Sikorski DM, Grod JP. The unsubstantiated Web site claims of chiropractic colleges in Canada and the United States. Journal of Chiropractic Education 17:113-119, 2003].] This happens all the time in your field.

In fact, the chiropractic accreditor, The Council on Chiropractic Education, has been called to a hearing partly because of the false advertising of on chiropractic college, Life University in Marietta, Georgia. ("Accreditor Implicated in Chiropractic College Overutilization Scam, Faces Hearing with US Department of Education", PRWeb, 5/19/2006. http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb383327.htm)

I think everyone is tired of misrepresentation by chiropractic trade groups and colleges and this is the true source of the conflict over this wikki page. Chiropractors need a real scope of practice or just give up the ghost and merge with evidence based physical therapy and become Doctors of Physical Therapy. This false advertising and deceptive use of statistics is just embarrassing and the skeptics here are just trying to protect the public. If the clean up team isn't careful the wikki summary can very easily be tained with false information in the very same way that the BLS summary was ruined.

Abotnick 11:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to split hairs here. I want to get it right. The Tindle study covers chiropractic usage from 1997 to 2002 - regardless of when the study was published. The BLS covers chiropractic usage up to 2004. I would think that is more current info. I can assume Good Faith and believe that you spoke to the Chief BLS Economist and that you - an embittered ex-chiropractor who prides himself on running the "#1" anti-chiro discussion board on the web (and who has on many times tried to add a link with just such text to your site from our article) - are telling the truth about your discussion. But are we also to assume Bad Faith for the ACA and ICA? I understand that they have lots to gain by inflating thier numbers... but they have so much more to lose if they were caught in a lie. These are very large organizations with so much on the line. Stepphen Barrett's negative commentary on the BLS is certainly expected. He, like you, is extremely anti-chiropractic (and I don't think "extremely" is an extreme enough of a word to aptly describe your hatred). Therefore, anything out there that has a positive outlook for chiropractic, Barrett is expected to bash and bash and bash. He's mad ethat his life mission. Again, I'm not saying whether Barrett's assessment of BLS is right or wrong, I am just skeptical of his motives. As far as the press release goes that you directed us to, I see that it was you who filed this complaint and judging by the anti-chiro web address link at the bottom of this article, we can assume that you (or your anti-chiro associates) authored this press release. So I am at a loss here. Who are we to beleive? The BLS who has nothing to gain or lose by what they publish in their study? The ACA and ICA who have much to gain by boosting their numbers, but also so much to lose if they are caught? Or anti-chiro ringmasters Barrett and yourself who have delcared a Jihad on chiropractic? Levine2112 18:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
At the risk of getting involves in this dispute, I was hoping someone might clarify for me; is that what Reform chiropractors want - for chiropractors to become Doctors of Physical Therapy?--Dematt 18:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
Some believe that the profession can be reformed from the inside, and that a purer and more scientific chiropractic will be the result. They see their future within the profession, and can recommend applying students to just steer clear of the practice builders and scam gurus. Others have tried for years to reform the profession, have become disillusioned at the lack of progress, and now discourage anyone from becoming a chiroractor, and some of them encourage them to become DPTs, DOs, or MDs.
Some may not know this, but Samuel Homola is a second generation chiro, whose own father advised him to never become a chiro, but he did it anyway. Even though he has experienced very strong persecution since his book in 1963, he has always remained a practicing chiropractor, with a very good working relationship with MDs and PTs, and a successful practice in Florida. He has recently retired, but has managed to author a number of books and many articles during his career.
So even reform chiros aren't totally agreed on the profession's future. Some still have hope, others are disillusioned. -- Fyslee 21:32, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I would think that the last thing that PT's want is a flood of chiroconverts into their profession and certainly osteopaths have their "identity" crisis as well. As far as I can see, the professions are heading in the same direction. --Dematt 21:46, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know much about those viewpoints, but Stanley Paris at the University of St. Augustine has started a DPT program that accepts DCs. -- Fyslee 22:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I am curious, is Fyslee a spokesperson for all chiropractors or groups within the profession? Is he the "Voice of Chiropractic"? Are DC's recommending that applying students "become DPTs, DOs, or MDs." How does he know this? Can he point to some numbers that back this up? It seems to me that he is passing off his viewpoints as fact. None of these options sound very enticing to me, IMO.

And speaking of Dr. Homola, many don't know about him probably because I believe his books are generally not highly regarded (except to his friends and those antagonistic to chiropractic)and are, to put it bluntly, flops. Like the one linked at the bottom of this article. It seems to be more of a "sour grapes" memoir of one disgruntled person's view. I don't think it even belongs here. Isn't this using Wikipedia to promote a one-sided flop? Does anyone know the rules about this? I think, despite Fyslee promoting his friend's book as an important work (see previous Talk entries), which it is not. It is not a journal of any kind. It is not recognized as an authority on anything, anywhere. It doesn't belong in an encylopedia and should be removed. Steth 23:17, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Read what I wrote -- "....some of them...." I receive mails, am on lists, and have chiropractic contacts where these viewpoints are expressed. You don't like to hear that? So what! This is the Talk page, not the article, so opinions and viewpoints, even if they were from a few individuals, can certainly be mentioned. The sum totality of life is not encompassed in official chiropractic publications. There are viewpoints expressed by chiropractors which are not usually published there.
As to Dr. Homola's out-of-print book, which cannot be bought anymore and which is freely provided at that link, this is just another attempt at the suppression of viewpoints that Steth doesn't like. By the specious reasoning expressed by Steth above, the objections of any Catholic to the viewpoints in Martin Luther's 95 Theses should be enough to justify the removal of that article here at Wikipedia. Fortunately the existence of such objections is itself a good reason for including it! The same applies in this case. The more the critics of the critics squeal, the more they make that case.
The link to the book is placed as a link in the Critiques section. I know the existence of that section and of critiques at all irks you immensely, but that's also a part of life. I would suggest you read the book before criticizing the critics, since you are speaking from ignorance. You certainly don't have to agree with them, but at least stop denying the significance of the viewpoints.
The ACA considered Homola's book to be significant enough to immediately refuse to allow him to renew his membership, only to allow him to rejoin after many years. It was and is significant enough to have caused and still cause debate in the profession. One cannot really understand chiropractic without reading that book. It's well-written and worth taking the time to read.
Here at Wikipedia it is not allowed to suppress POV in articles, or to use Wikipedia to suppress them in general, especially those we don't like. We should learn to write for the enemy. Our job as editors is to include and present them in articles. As long as they can be presented (not advocated) using verifiable information from reliable sources, it is expressly allowed and is in fact desirable, since this article should be the best one ever written about chiropractic. It should be inclusive, rather than be characterized by deletion. To allow censorship would be a travesty and leave the subject with an "information hole," and the article would be lopsided. -- Fyslee 04:51, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I disagree. The title of the book alone is demeaning and judgemental and it immediately leads a reader to draw a conclusion. This is one person's opinion, based on his own bitter history of being an 'outcast'. His acceptance back into the ACA does not mean that his book is now on a par with the New Testament. The ACA is an inclusive organization. Based on all this I feel it is severely biased. It causes no debate in the profession, that I am aware of, since it is out-dated, out-moded and out of print. This seems to more of a display of nepotism, promoting a friend's book. I feel strongly that it doesn't belong in an encyclopic endeavour. Not to mention that another link to fyslee's friend S. Barrett is also concerning. Any one else? Steth 16:01, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] First sentence intro

Currently the first sentence says:

  • "Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine which aims to diagnose, treat, and prevent mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system and their effects on the nervous system and general health."

My first thought is:

  • Chiropractic is a complimentary and alternative medicine ? (what) ...

Is that just me? Shouldn't there be another word there?--Dematt 19:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I think Mccready is once again confused with WP:NPOV. "I've tweaked the lead some more, including taking out the health profession phrase because it's much more than a profession, it's an alleged body of knowledge and technique. Fyslee will be able to tell us if my understanding of the reform chiros is correct. Mccready 03:59, 22 May 2006 (UTC)" Enough said.--Hughgr 20:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
So does that mean Chiropractic is an alternative lifestyle? ;) just kidding:)--Dematt 21:01, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
For some chiros (especially F.A.C.E. and planetchiro), it is indeed a lifestyle and life philosophy, so much so that some involve their families and friends, even requiring (at the risk of getting fired if they don't comply) their CAs to get regular adjustments from them. It is an all encompassing passion and they hold missionary trips that fit an evangelical lifestyle and modus operandi. These types of chiros are a minority in the profession. Most chiros are more ordinary people.....;-) -- Fyslee 21:23, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The point stands,regardless of the language used to make the point. ie the notion of a comp and alt med covers the profession and covers the idea of health care. It is therefore redundant to mention these two.

Steth's deletion of the chirotalk link was not justifiable, so I've reverted. Sorry about that, but I'd be pleased to listen to further points on this issue if you feel strongly about it. Mccready 02:58, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with your deletion here. It is grammatically incorrect to just write CAM and leave it hanging there. CAM refers to practices, systems and/or professions. Some CAM practices are not professions, so the term doesn't automatically cover them and thus the sentence is incomplete without the missing words. -- Fyslee 04:09, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

No problem. Why would you elevate chat boards to any importance? It is not salient to anything. It is certainly not encyclopedic. It is privately owned and operated by an opinionated guy named Botnick who seems to have a chip on his shoulder. He also seems to ask his own questions and answers them as well. He posts more than anyone, like he is having a conversation with himself. Fyslee is connected with it, what a surprise, so it is also self-serving to be here. Steth 04:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

With regards to forums in general, they are not acceptable as external links. However, the above point could have been made without making personal attacks against other editers. Jefffire 04:23, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I'll second all that'--Dematt 13:11, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Yes, no links to forums. And why does the lead sound different now? Is the wording in the first sentence not the same as it was before?--Hughgr 05:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
It sounds different because it has been revised a few times. It was this (which I felt was just fine....):
"Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession which aims to diagnose, ....."
-- Fyslee 05:39, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
"Chiropractic is a complimentary and alternative health care profession", flows better than above. IMO, of course. Anyone else?--Hughgr 07:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I fully agree: How's this?:
"Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative health care profession....."
-- Fyslee 11:42, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Does anybody mind if we re-add "care" to the second sentence;
Chiropractic emphasizes manual treatments including spinal adjustment and joint and soft-tissue manipulation.
reverts to;
Chiropractic care emphasizes manual treatments including spinal adjustment and joint and soft-tissue manipulation.
That way we have one sentence that describes Chiropractic, one for Chiropractic care and one for Chiropractic theory. We can build on that format easier in the article as we describe each sentence more deeply in the article.
--Dematt 12:41, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
I think that is perfect. It makes more sense even. Chiropractic care (the termed used in the profession to describe the main treatment a chiropractor administers) is more specific than chiropractic (the whole ball of wax; philosophy, science, treatment, profession, et cetera) in general. Certainly "chiropractic care" emphasizes manual treatments including spinal adjustment and joint and soft-tissue manipulation. Levine2112 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)
Very nice sounding, and a good format to work with. Good going! -- Fyslee 19:47, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Last Sentence of Intro Paragraph

Currently reads: Although disputed research suggests short term pain relief for tension headache and low back pain, there is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's effectiveness.

I think this sentence is unfairly tipping the scales more towards an anti-chiro POV. The problem is the combined use of the words/phrases "disputed", "suggests", and "no scientific consensus". If research is just suggesting something, then it is inconclusive and thus inherently disputed. To then say that it also has no scientific consensus is getting redundant. I guess I feel that the way it is worded now we have three different ways in one sentence to get the point across that the scientific research into chiropractic's effectivenes is inconclusive. I think even if we just got rid of "disputed", it would balance the POV of this statement tremendously, make it less redundant and still mean the same thing.

It would then read: Although research suggests short term pain relief for tension headache and low back pain, there is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's effectiveness.

Questions? Comments? Concerns? Levine2112 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:42, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to make the change. Please respond here if there is an issue with this. Levine2112 21:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with the change, it sounds better grammatically.--Hughgr 21:30, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Levine, I swear you were reading my mind. I didn't like the way it was worded either. But about 'short term', why include that? It was shown to be effective, so just state that it was effective. It is more effective than other "accepted" things.

Also, "there is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's effectiveness." This sentence, of course, just negates everything in chiropractic in one felt swoop. Evidence exists, remember? Since Arthur Rubin liked it, I became immediately skeptical. Could we please take another month or two and make this less anti-POV? It is still written in too much of the negative slant, IMO.

BTW, I couldn't find where it was written that DD Palmer was at a seance when it all came to him. Where does it state that? If this is an embellishment, then it should be removed. Thanks Steth 23:18, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I certainly see your point, Steth. I have been wondering (see my comments way up above) why we are calling out "headache and pain relief" in the beginning. Why these conditions, and not the others chiropractic claims to treat? Maybe because the "headache and pain relief" claims are the most accepted scientifically? If that's the case, then perhaps we should state that outright. If not (and since this is the intro), we could be more general with that sentence. Something to the effect of: Though there is research suggesting the benefits chiropractic for a variety of conditions, there is no scientific consensus for its effectiveness. How do we all feel about that? Levine2112 23:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)
Hi Steth, if you look at chiro history, there was a time (~1905-1915)when those early pioneers needed to figure how to fit chiro in with the newly organized medical paradigm. DD clearly wanted to go the religous route [54]but not very many others wanted that. He wrote letters from Oregon and California to PCC expressing his desire, and expressed his confusion that no one else wanted to follow him. I think he said that "Now, if chiorpractors desire to claim me as their head, their leader, the way is clear. My writings have been gradually steering in that direction until now it is time to assume that we have the same right to as has Christian Scientists." While relevant, it may be more appropriate to place detail about that info on the DD page with a short mention here in the historical part.Levine, I like your wording for the last sentence. There is research showing benefit in a varity of conditions, perhaps not alway a "cure" but often times an improvement.--Hughgr 00:19, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
That one is not acceptable to me. With that first clause, we need to go to have "no scientific evidence" in the last clause for balance. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 01:54, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
But then it wouldn't be accurate since there is evidence.--Hughgr 05:01, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Arthur, curious, if the version with "headache and pain relief" was acceptable to you, why then isn't this version? I think it says the same thing, just more generally. But what specifically do you think? Please draw it out for us as you see it. I think it will help us understand where you are coming from.
To Hughgr, yes, you're right. It wouldn't be accurate since there is in fact evidence. Not proof, just evidence. But the way I have worded it above, we are still saying that despite the existence of supportive evidence, there is not a scientific consensus on chiropractic's effectiveness. Why isn't there a consensus? Well the rest of the article will help shed light on that. Perhaps its the conflicting studies, the political bias, the professional bias, the eccentric founder, et cetera. Anyhow, this version seems to me to be balanced and fair and encyclopedically accurate. What does everyone else think? Levine2112 05:14, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry guys, I'm not happy with this, and the lead still needs a lot of work. Check out the Acupuncture lead for example. The "evidence" is disputed - that's the nature of science. As Gorski said:

Congressman Burton expresses outrage that I would question the conclusions of a report "published after peer-review in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine." Yet it is a fact that the findings of the article in question [2] have been systematically misrepresented by its lead author and by other advocates of irrational and aberrant methods including the NCCAM. The facts related to this deception have been documented in another peer-reviewed journal [3]. This is the way of science. The literature is not sacred scripture, but dialogue in which facts are presented, considered, critiqued, and conclusions reached, rejected or modified. But this process should be governed by facts and reason and not by political, ideological or emotional considerations.

So the study cited in the lead has not been seen or quoted despite me asking three times for it. I think it should have "primarysources" template added unless someone can provide the link to the study and not to someone talking about the study. Leaving it as "suggests" weights it obviously. Putting in "disputed" lets the reader check it out - especially if a proper source is provided :-). Seems to me the solution might be to split the sentence. ie

Disputed research suggests short term pain relief for tension headache and low back pain. There is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's effectiveness.

Both are statements of fact that NPOV policy supports. I'll refrain from editing along these lines while time is allowed for discussion. Mccready 06:27, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It is FALSE to state "there is research suggesting the benefits chiropractic for a variety of conditions"; what there is, for the most part, is anecodotal evidence. If you like, I would consider: "There is anecodotal evidence suggesting the benefits (of) chiropractic for a variety of conditions; however, there is no accepted scientific research supporting chiropractic's effectiveness." as acceptable, although not as good as that of Levine2112 19:55, 24 May 2006 (UTC). — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
Mcready's is entirely to POV. I could accept Arthur's, but there is more than anecdotal evidence, so while better than Mc's, still not accurate. Since this seems to be the greatest problem for us to agree upon, may I suggest that we don't include anything about what one scientist vs. a different scientist thinks in the lead, and have it come out in the article, and simply and encyclopedicley define what chiropractic is. Oh, it already is in the article. Thoughts?--Hughgr 06:49, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I don't know, Hughgr. I'd like to think that we could come up with a reasonable depiction of chiropractic's current state scientifically speaking. It seems easy enough, but we are all finding so much difficulty here. Perhaps it's because this is the most contentious area of chiropractic. I mean, I look at the current science section of our article and to me, it is an anti-chiro POV blitzkrieg. I can't beleive that the only mention of positive research is compared to negative research, just to show that there is conflicting research. I've pointed to 200 supportive studies. I'm sure there are hundreds more that I haven't pointed to. But before we even broach revising the Science section, I think it would behoove us to agree upon the wording of chiropractic's current standing in the world of evidence-based medicine.
Then I see the vast disparity of the POVs all clamouring to have their voice heard just on this one sentence and then Hughgr's idea to simply remove it seems like a good idea. I can think of one thing we could certainly replace that sentence with: Given dirty politics, conflicting scientific research, vast array of personal experience, professional bias and the general existence of incredible amounts of judgemental stubbornness (the worst kind of stubbornness), it is impossible for anyone to confidentally state just where Chiropractic ranks in terms of scientific acceptance.
BTW... Did you see the Acupuncture intro? It's a occidentally-centric POV nightmare. Makes our work here look easy. :-)
Levine2112 07:18, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] BLS data, external linking, and defining Straight and Mixer

Levine-

>I don't want to split hairs here. I want to get it right. The Tindle study covers chiropractic usage from 1997 to 2002 - regardless of when the study was published. The BLS covers chiropractic usage up to 2004. I would think that is more current info.

Aren't you reading? You accuse me of bias but then ignore what I write to put up your own conjecture. BLS's data is based on nothing more than concensus while Tindle's study is actual research. So you are using an inferior source of data just because it has a more recent date of publication. Not very scholarly.

There is nothing wrong with having an opinion against mainstream chiropractic practice so your statements saying that sites should be disregarded because they are critical of practices have no merit. My site, http://chirotalk.proboards3.com is actually a skeptical site that promotes the critical investigation of claims without bias. Sections there actually support some chiropractic treatments as does Dr. Barrett's www.chirobase.org site. Just because an author objectively analyzes the evidence and disagrees with your opinion doen't mean that you can dismiss their data so easily.

>But are we also to assume Bad Faith for the ACA and ICA?

Absolutely since the former public relations specialist for the ACA has actually written an article describing the misrepresentation that this agency has used in the past.

Here is an example of their deception:

"ACA's Washington office, on the other hand, was obsessed with internal PR. I don't recall a single Washington press conference during 1981. The few attempts at communicating to the outside world were usually in the form of letters to the editor in response to negative press. These rebuttals were created at the request of an irate board member or state association leader. The letters employed stock answers and reusable clichés -- what one writer termed "factoids"-- statements designed to resemble facts. The repetition of a series of little lies or half-truths is essential to the perpetuation and legitimization of chiropractic.

For example, if someone attacked the quality of chiropractic education, we would point out that chiropractors attend colleges accredited by an agency recognized by the U.S. Department of Education -- implying that the schools must be of high quality. How good are chiropractic curricula? How qualified are the instructors? Are inspections of the colleges thorough? These are the kinds of issues best left unexplored."

(Eric R. Baizer. Inside the American Chiropractic Association (1981): Selling The Chiropractor As a "Family Doctor". http://www.chirobase.org/01General/baizer.html.)


>I understand that they have lots to gain by inflating thier numbers... but they have so much more to lose if they were caught in a lie.

Then according to your logic 80% of chiropractic college wouldn't be involved in false advertising. Yet this is documented as well.

(Stephen Barrett, M.D. Improper Claims on Chiropractic College Web Sites. http://www.chirobase.org/03Edu/webclaims.html)

I hope you can admit your mistake (if it really was a mistake). Abotnick 17:36, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have no idea what you are trying say here. It is very muttled. But as far as the link to your forum site goes, it is not allowed for a number of reasosn. Forums in general aren't allow as external links. Secondly, since you posted the link yourself, it would also fall under the "no self-promotion" clause of Wikipedia's definition of what makes a good external link. Third, I have taken the time to review your site and found it mostly to be slanted attacks and ganged up innuendo against the occasional pro-chiro who is unfortunate enough to post there. There's nothing wrong with expressing your resentment of chiropractic on your own forum, but realistically, linking to it is of very little encyclopedic value. I know you pride yourself on being the Number 1 chiropractic discussion board (even though you're behind the ChiroWeb.com chiropractic discussion forum). But even still, I would be prohibited to placing a link to ChiroWeb's forum just the same as to your forum.
Further, (and this probably needs its own heading here on this page) but I noticed that you just revised the descriptions of Straight and Mixer chiropractic. I think it is more apropos than what was there before (Vitalistic and Mechanistic), however whether you're aware of it or not, you have written it with a very loaded and slanted POV. POV is welcomed when it is called for (but even then it needs to be pointed out as being POV). For an example, your statement that straight chiropractors "commonly refuse to diagnose patient complaints" is very misleading and false. The misleading part is the use of the word "refuse". It suggests that the patient is asking to be diagnosed but the doctor stands there shaking his head saying, "No, no no. I will not do it." This of course is not true. Straight chiropractors typically don't like to use the word "diagnose" (or any of its derivatives) in their practice. Straight chiropractic is non-therapeutic and thus the term "diagnosis" is not germane to the practice. Also, your statement: These chiropractors disclaim responsibility for curing disease is also misleading. Straights don't disclaim responsibility but rather hold that only the body can cure disease (not drugs, not surgery, not even chiropractic adjustments). Straight chiropractic does not offer to treat any disease or morbid process, but rather correct vertebral subluxations putting the body in a better position to cure itself. All this being said, I think you have provided a very solid base from which we can all work together to tailor this section into something more neutral. I commend you for that. But I think if we go here and look into their "What is Straight chiropractic?" section, we'll be able to formulate a better, less POV understanding of what Straight chiropractic is by definition and by practice. Also, I'm not sure that we need to go into so much detail about the ins-and-outs of Straight vs. Mixer in the intro. We already have a section entitled: Practice styles and schools of thought. I think your edits would be better served by adding it there and keeping our intro more succinct. Levine2112 18:24, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mixer - straight paragraph in intro

Abotnick, I liked your edits. Cleaned it up nicely. I did add a couple extras to reflect that there were mixer schools started by other types of doctors as well, including some that were only DC's.

  • Mixer chiropractors are an early offshoot of the straight movement.

As a interesting POV. Did mixer start as an offshoot of straights or did straights offshoot from mixers. DD started as a magnetic healer and continued after his discovery. Are we sure that BJ was not the one to make chiropractic straight. By the time BJ took over, there were already colleges starting that would end up being called mixer. DD went on to many other colleges that turned out to be mixer (including National). Certainly, he turned straight later, but did he start out that way?--Dematt 19:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Dematt,

Thanks.

>Did mixer start as an offshoot of straights or did straights offshoot from mixers. DD started as a magnetic healer and continued after his discovery. Are we sure that BJ was not the one to make chiropractic straight. By the time BJ took over, there were already colleges starting that would end up being called mixer. DD went on to many other colleges that turned out to be mixer (including National). Certainly, he turned straight later, but did he start out that way?

My understanding comes from Joseph Keating's articles on the history. Essentially D.D. had a hypothesis regarding pathological alterations in nerve tone that formed the core of straight chiropractic. B.J. Palmer added his own set of fallacies and organized chiropractors into the International Chiropractors Association. The naturopathic "mixer" schools were developed by early Palmer students who recognized that there was more than one cause of disease and endeavored to give reasonably complete primary care to patients.

Levine,

I understand your position on the POV regarding straights not diagnosing and perhaps I need to clarify my concern. The central issue concerns whether or not it is safe to practice simply by ruling out red flags and using unvalidated chiropractic diagnostic assessments to diagnose biomechanical conditions of the spine. Athletic trainers function in exactly this way and can do it because their assessments are validated for established conditions-so we can trust that they won't prematurely diagnose. However, since chiropractic assessments are not validated and the conditions are still speculative it is not safe to allow straight chiropractors to use this model until they can validate both the assessments and conditions. The result of premature diagnosis is unnecessary strokes and other adverse events. So in the article it is important to emphasize that straight chiropractors are operating based on a belief system that is unsafe given the current knowledge base.

Abotnick 16:11, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

"Unsafe" is a POV. Suggesting unneccessary strokes is moot, since the lease conservative estimates have given the chances of such an incident to be 1/400,000 and the most conservative estimates to be 0/5,000,000. In either case, you have more of a chance of getting a stroke when putting your neck back to get your hair washed at a salon. The stroke warnings, as you well know, is just a scare tactic that misleads people into thinking chiropractic is unsafe and I speculate that the "1" in the 1/400,000 may not have been chiropractic-related, as that study covers spinal manipulation in general and not the highly specific adjustment given by a chiropractor. According to "a research report in the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, "manipulations" administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors." The report goes on to say, "The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a non-chiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors."
As far as the assertion that straight chiropractors making a premature diagnosis, it should be noted that the educational programs in straight chiropractic colleges include course work in medical diagnosis to comply with certain jurisdictional regulations which require the straight chiropractic educational program to include medical diagnosis. Furthermore, though the vast majority of state laws prohibit the chiropractor from engaging in the treatment of disease (which is the logical culmination of medical diagnosis), most licensing boards require examinations in medical procedures. So, while the straights have their belief system, they are also (unlike the average athletic trainer) extremely well-versed and well-trained in making medical diagnoses. There is no POV here. These are the facts. Why introduce opinion here? Levine2112 17:12, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Levine,

Chiropractors are charged with determining the cost to benefit ratio for treatments. The Rand group determined that 80% of chiropractic adjustments delivered were inappropriate to the conditions treated. So the problem is that straight chiropractors are blindly adjusting necks and subjecting patients to risk of stroke with no foreseable benefit. This is not right, even if the risk would be a 50% chance of stroking out one patient in 20 years. It adds up. So you are wrong to state the risk is inconsequential when the consequences are so great.

>As far as the assertion that straight chiropractors making a premature diagnosis, it should be noted that the educational programs in straight chiropractic colleges include course work in medical diagnosis to comply with certain jurisdictional regulations which require the straight chiropractic educational program to include medical diagnosis.

But the problem is that straight affiliated chiropractic programs do not follow accreditation requirements for integration. I.e. students will start clinic, learn to treat patients without any knowledge in subjects like pediatrics, geriatrics, diangnosis etc and then a few terms later have a smattering of content thrown in for appearances. But what is really being taught is non-diagnosis. See the document "Diagnosis courses are often de-emphasized in most CCE programs" linked to from http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb383327.htm. The problem is very prevalent. Abotnick 18:06, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

At the risk of getting involved with this debate, it is my understanding that the "super-straights", (I think they call themselves Objective Straights now) which you claim to be a dangerous way to practice, are saying that making a medical/differential diagnosis is best performed by an MD, which is their entire forte' as well as they have access to various tests, etc. and that when a patient comes into their clinic, that is what they tell them to do. Go to a medical doctor to get a medical dx. Thus, at their "straight" clinic, they explain to the patient that all they will do is examine you for sublux. So if the patient can understand that they're not getting a MD dx, it seems to make sense to me. For an analogy, I see it like going to the dentist. Would you expect your dentist to examine your heart? No, nobody would expect their dentist to do anything but look at their teeth for cavities. Finally, as an inappropriate tx., wouldn't the presence of a sublux. be reason enough for a chiro tx? So long as it could be safetly delivered. Since you appear to feel that chiro is worthless anyway, what can you give imagine would ever be the reason to get an adjustment. One last question for you Allen, what do you hope to gain with your lawsuit?--Hughgr 19:37, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Really well put, Hughgr. Thank you for that. I'm not sure from where Allen Botnick is pulling his Rand stats. Here is some text about the study including what the research leader had to say:
...a RAND research team, led by Paul Shekelle and Ian Coulter, set out to determine the appropriateness of decisions by chiropractors to use spinal manipulation to treat low back pain. Based on a review of chiropractic office records from six sites across the United States and Canada, combined with ratings from a panel of back experts and reinforced with a literature review, the research produced somewhat encouraging results.
Chiropractic decisions to use spinal manipulation were deemed appropriate 46 percent of the time, a proportion similar to conventional medical procedures studied previously. Spinal manipulation was judged inappropriate for 29 percent of those who received the treatment, a proportion the researchers say should be reduced. For the remaining 25 percent of the cases, the appropriateness of the treatment was uncertain.
"The message of our new study is a mixed one," said Shekelle. "First, everybody needs to stop treating chiropractors as if they are quacks. An appropriateness rate of roughly half is in the same ballpark as the findings [reached] for certain medical procedures when appropriateness measures were introduced a dozen years ago. Chiropractors are appropriately treating some patients, and those patients are likely to benefit as a result of their care.
Levine2112 21:14, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Excellent discussion everybody. Thanks to all for avoiding the personal attacks. I think that covers a lot of ground. Can we condense all that into one paragraph and still get both POV's across?--Dematt 21:46, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dematt. I think the Straight/Mixer paragraphs in the intro are in really good shape. However, I still think they go into too much detail considering that this is just the intro. I propose to repurpose the bulk of these paragraphs as part of the "Practice styles and schools of thought" section of the article. For the intro, what should remain is just a mention of the two main categories of chiropractors and maybe a sentence or two describing the basic differences in their practice styles.
That works for me. The straight/mixer concept is going to come out in the next part of the history. It probably would work better after the history.--Dematt 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as the saftey/stroke issue goes, please understand that this is only topical because anti-chiros have made it so. Chiropractic remains one of the safest forms of healthcare, and boasts one of the lowest malpractice rates of all healthcare providers. Certainly, the effectiveness of chiropractic treatment is a legitimate debate (with both supportive and inconclusive evidence in existence). However the safety concerns are really just a scare tactic used by the anti-chiro side of this debate. There is hardly any supportable evidence that a chiropractic adjustment administered by a chiropractor might result in a stroke. The majority of studies have estimated a 1-out-2-million incident rate. The most comprehensive study found a 0-out-5-million incident rate. With such a low rate (and more likely no rate) of true incidents, I hardly think that we should waste our time entertaining this debate (other than to show the kinds of base tactics anti-chiros have resorted to using to scaring people away from the benefits of chiropractic).


Dematt, you mentioned condensing both POVs into a paragraph. Would that be for the article or for this talk page? What are you talking about specifically? Levine2112 23:59, 26 May 2006 (UTC)
Levine, the safety issue is a POV that needs to be handled. People have heard about it and are interested in the chiropractic response to it. This is the opportunity to state the chiropractors position. The discussion above was very thorough in descibing both POV's. The fact that the problem is relatively small suggests that the article space given to it should be small as well, but thorough. We should be able to get Abotnick's (and other's) POV in two or three sentences and then (since this is the chiropractic article) there should be a rebuttal in defense of chiropractic. The end result should be NPOV within the relative weight of the evidence. Once this subject is handled, it should not be mentioned in the article again. IMO to continue to mention it would give it more weight than it deserves. --Dematt 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If I may interject, I think you are correct Levine, the intro should have a cursury intoduction to the various ways chiro is practiced (straight, mixed with modalities, sports, etc.. Then in the schools of thought part, elaborate more from the intro, perhaps a cut and paste and edit.--Hughgr 00:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
The more I think about it, Levine, your right. How about if we take it out of the intro and move it to the practice style section for now (if everyone is okay with that). Then we can elaborate more after we see what the history (coming soon) is going to say about straight/mixers.--Dematt 03:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)
If you'd like to do so, I'd bow to your chiro editing expertise. Levine2112 00:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

>At the risk of getting involved with this debate, it is my understanding that the "super-straights", (I think they call themselves Objective Straights now) which you claim to be a dangerous way to practice, are saying that making a medical/differential diagnosis is best performed by an MD, which is their entire forte' as well as they have access to various tests, etc. and that when a patient comes into their clinic, that is what they tell them to do. Go to a medical doctor to get a medical dx. Thus, at their "straight" clinic, they explain to the patient that all they will do is examine you for sublux. So if the patient can understand that they're not getting a MD dx, it seems to make sense to me.

It isn't safe at all. Rather than address and solve the problems with unvalidated diagnostic systems these practitioners are dodging the issue. Further, it is well known that straight chiropractors use Us versus Them reasoning and anti-medical propaganda to scare patients away from medical doctors and into their offices as an alternative.

Look at this online poll that shows 56% of 693 DCs approving of the idea that they are fine gatekeepers for alternative medical treatments.

http://www.chiroweb.com/chiropoll/04archive/11_8_04.html

Both of the two chiropractic organizations, the International Chiropractors Association and the American Chiropractic Association are lobbying for this.

"The American Chiropractic Association wants chiropractors to be able to serve as primary care providers, diagnosing illness. In addition, the association wants chiropractic treatment to focus beyond the spine to muscles, bones and nerves." -Chiropractic lobbies hope to use VA victory to push for change in states, Congress. Tuesday, September 24, 2002. http://www.news-star.com/stories/092402/hea_6.shtml.

A good summary about why chiropractors are inadequately trained for primary care is here: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiro.html

Just visit a site like www.f-a-c-e.com and see how they put medical diagnosis and public health measures like vaccination and fluoridation down. So generally patients listening to straight chiropractors delay medical diagnosis and can suffer terrible consequences because of it. (See 'more deaths at Life University' link at http://www.prweb.com/releases/2006/5/prweb383327.htm.

Strokes are the tip of the iceberg. Much more damage is done by delaying and interefering with the proper diagnosis and treatment of complaints, such as in the case of Joanne Gallagher DC. http://www.chirobase.org/16Victims/gallagher.html

The Rand Group study finding is from this source:

(Coulter, et al. The Appropriateness of Manipulation and Mobilization of the Cervical Spine. Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corp, 1996. http://www.ncahf.org/nl/1996/11-12.html) Abotnick 14:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Abotnick, thanks for your valuable input. At the risk of showing my ignorance, can you do me a favor and expound a little about the "unvalidated diagnostic systems" here in the talk section. In order for me to make any further distinctions concerning your POV on straights, I need to understand more thoroughly what you contend they do that is different than mixers. Thanks--Dematt 16:06, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Dematt:

You're welcome, I'm happy to help and this is an important area because there is so much confusion with the strong POVs. Anywa, the previous text sounded too straight POV/marketing and not neutral enough so I redid it in a more neutral and explanatory manner to include all points of view.

Now regarding the "unvalidated diagnostic systems" to avoid repetition, please see the wiki article on spinal adjustment (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spinal_adjustment) for references and discussion on the problems with the chiropractic vertebral subluxation analysis systems. That should get you up to speed fairly quickly.

I've also added a few more supporting references and clarified the distribution of straight v. mixer chiropractors using an official source. I think it reads very well now and gives readers an excellent understanding of the different chiropractic treatment systems.

Abotnick 18:04, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Your changes look good and they do sound less judgemental for an encyclopedia. I am still concerned about the statement that is in the straight description:
The link points to spinal adjustment which does not seem to describe an unvalidated chiropractic assessment, but rather an "unvalidated" chiropractic treatment that both straights and mixers use. I'm not sure how to restate it and still get your point across. Perhaps you can come up with something.

--Dematt 05:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC) Dematt,

You are totally right. While the link was related, it is better done with a direct reference to Harrison's research article. The rest of the treatment summary is unnecessary. I cleaned it up and added a reference to fix. Abotnick 10:42, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Can you please provide us the quote here from Harrison's which states that straight chiropractic analysis has been criticized as unsafe because it substitutes unvalidated chiropractic assessments for accepted differential diagnosis procedures? Thanks. Levine2112 18:18, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Levine but I don't have access to that article. The summary states that chiropractic analysis procedures are biomechanically inaccurate. CCE standards require differential diagnosis be taught in every chiropractic program to guard against premature diagnosis and provide quality care. I recommend you read them. The safety issue is self evident. Further, the following states mandate differential diagnosis in their state practice acts:

AL- “Any chiropractor who has been certified and licensed by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners may examine, analyze and diagnose the human body and its diseases by the use of any physical, clinical, thermal or radonic method, and the use of X-ray diagnosing, and may use any other general method of examination for diagnosis and analysis taught in any school of chiropractic recognized by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners.” (Sec. 34-24-120 "Chiropractic" Defined; authority of licensed chiropractor)

AZ- “In diagnosticating, prognosticating and treating any human ills he shall be subjected to all the same duties and obligations and authorized to exercise all the same rights and privileges possessed by physicians and surgeons of other complete schools of medicine in the practice of their profession.” (CH32-1852 Rights and Duties of osteopathic physicians and surgeons; scope of practice)

CT-“Examine, analyze and diagnose the human living body and its diseases, and use for diagnostic purposes the x-ray or any other general method of examination for diagnosis and analysis taught in any school or college of chiropractic which has been recognized and approved by the State Board of Chiropractic Examiners;” (20-28 Scope of Practice )

FA-“Any chiropractic physician who has complied with the provisions of this chapter is authorized to analyze and diagnose abnormal bodily functions and to adjust the physical representative of the primary cause of disease as is herein defined and provided.” (460.403 Definitions )

IOWA-“Persons utilizing differential diagnosis and procedures related thereto, withdrawing or ordering withdrawal of the patient's blood for diagnostic purposes, performing or utilizing routine laboratory tests, performing physical examinations, rendering nutritional advice, utilizing chiropractic physiotherapy procedures, all of which are subject to and authorized by section 151.8.” (151.1 "Chiropractic" defined )

Kansas-“Persons who examine, analyze and diagnose the human living body, and its diseases by the use of any physical, thermal or manual method and use the X-ray diagnosis and analysis taught in any accredited chiropractic school or college and” (65-2871 Persons deemed engaged in practice of chiropractic)

Ohio- “The chiropractor is authorized to examine, diagnose, and assume responsibility for the care

They didn't say "chiropractic analysis for subluxations", they said diagnose disease. Abotnick 21:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

So if you don't have access to the Harrison article, then how were you able to attribute this to the article: (Straight chiropractic analysis) has been criticized as unsafe because it substitutes unvalidated chiropractic assessments for accepted differential diagnosis procedures. Please give us a source that says that. Additionally, I think we should add something that states what you said: CCE standards require differential diagnosis be taught in every chiropractic program to guard against premature diagnosis and provide quality care. Levine2112 00:46, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Gratutitous Link?

An anon user added this link [55]twice. Can someone else double check and see if this is appropriate. Thanks--Hughgr 19:10, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

It was pretty obvious, I took it out for us.--Dematt 19:22, 25 May 2006 (UTC)
I think the evidence section of this website is pretty decent. It lists out some supportive scientific research. The press section ain't too bad either. But the link provided was to the home page which has a big "SHOP" button on it. That's a no-no. Sorry, anon user. Levine2112 22:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Since Everyone else was gone:)

I added more history and made several (too many to count) small changes that I hope make it flow better and reduce the redundancies from one section to the next. Check it out and feel free to make your additions. Be careful with deletions as most of the article is referenced, mark it with [citation needed] instead. But if you feel it is going in the wrong direction, scream now - or forever hold your piece (or is it peace;) --Dematt 06:41, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Intro paragraph on straights

I was wondering about this sentence.

"Furthermore, most chiropractic licensing boards require examinations in medical procedures"

I think we need to look at all the states definitions before we can say "most".

I won't remove until there's a discussion. Thanks.--Hughgr 02:23, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

I would like to point everyone to of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations. I can't say that they are the end-all-be-all of straight chiropractic, but they are certainly a national organization representing straight chiropractors and straight chiropractic affiliate organizations. Please go to the site and click on the "What is Straight Chiropractic?" link at the top of the page. Then on the left-hand navigation, choose "The Language of Straight Chiropractic". There you will find a definition list of some Straight Chiropractic terms. Under Straight Chiropractic Analysis, the last part reads: ...most licensing boards require examinations in medical procedures. Again, I can't say that the FSCO is the absolute authority on straight chiropractic, but their site certainly does provide a font of information about straight chiropractic. What I like about the organization (and consequently the site) is their strict orthodox adherence to the philosophies of straight chiropractic. This organization is certainly a polar end of the straight/mixer spectrum, as there are chiropractors who practice a more liberal form straight chiropractic. While I might not neccessarily agree with this philosophy, I do respect their conviction. Note that the FSCO defines Straight Chiropractic as a vitalistic philosophy, science, and art which consists solely of the non-therapeutic objective of locating, analyzing, and assisting in the correction of vertebral subluxations, because they are detrimental to the expression of innate intelligence.
I think these two paragraphs are in great shape. Shall we move them to the "Practice styles and schools of thought" section now? I thinkwe should leave the paragraph in the intro that starts: "There are two main groups of chiropractors...". Levine2112 02:58, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Thanks Levine, but that didn't answer my question. In this sentence, "Furthermore, most chiropractic licensing boards require examinations in medical procedures", what are most chiro licensing boards? I take it to mean state boards, to which there are many varying definitions and requirements. And what are "medical procedures" that "require examinations"? I don't know every states regs and reqs. This needs to be explained better or we need to see every states regs. Thanks,--Hughgr 17:36, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I agree with Hughgr. I am also concerned with;
  • "Despite the non-diagnostic philosophy, CCE standards require differential diagnosis be taught in every chiropractic program to guard against premature diagnosis and provide quality care. Furthermore, most chiropractic licensing boards require examinations in medical procedures."
I'm not sure the reader is going to know what CCE is or what guard against premature diagnosis means. There must be a better way to say all this in an NPOV.--Dematt 17:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Ah, I see now. Sorry for the misunderstanding. That first sentence of concern: Despite the non-diagnostic philosophy, CCE standards require differential diagnosis be taught in every chiropractic program to guard against premature diagnosis and provide quality care. comes basically from these discussion pages. The second sentence is from the FSCO site. All in all, I feel that what we are trying to express with these two sentences here is:
Straight chiropractic in philosophical theory doesn't include pateint diagnosis in the traditional medical sense of the word. Rather, straight chiropractors perform a specific kind of patient assessment. However, some chiropractic governing boards (how many? which ones? state boards? national boards?) and most chiropractic schools (how many? which ones? all?) require that chiropractors learn how to perform a traditional medical diagnosis. (Why do they learn this and why is it required? Safety? Helps make them well-rounded doctors? Legitimacy?) Though it goes against the straight chiropractic philosophy in some respects, straight chiropractors know how to and many (how many?) in fact do diagnose in the traditional medical sense of the word.
I know that what I just wrote is a grammatical nightmare. But I am just trying to make sure that we are clear on the intentions of the two sentences in question. Does what I wrote above cover that? We certainly have some questions to answer now. Levine2112 18:20, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Covers mine:) Now what?--Dematt 18:37, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Now we research and see which questions we can answer. I'm going to look into the governing boards issue. If anyone has some insight, please let me know. Levine2112 19:02, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
In my research I cam across this from the BLS:
Like other health practitioners, chiropractors follow a standard routine to secure the information they need for diagnosis and treatment. They take the patient’s medical history; conduct physical, neurological, and orthopedic examinations; and may order laboratory tests. X rays and other diagnostic images are important tools because of the chiropractor’s emphasis on the spine and its proper function. Chiropractors also employ a postural and spinal analysis common to chiropractic diagnosis. Levine2112 20:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I do like that. I think that may be more for the mixer section, though. Isn't the point that straights don't do that? Also, can they do any of that in Michigan?--Dematt 20:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
On second thought, never mind the Michigan part. They can do that, but they may not be allowed to do it by state law. My bad.--Dematt 20:09, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
I just found this page which lists chiropractic statutes by state. I think this may be the answer to a lot of our questions. Levine2112 20:17, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
The state of Tennessee has some interesting text including:
Nothing in this chapter shall be construed to authorize any of the following:
  • Prescribing drugs;
  • Performing major or minor surgery;
  • Penetrating the skin with a needle or any other instrument;
  • Practicing any branch of medicine or osteopathy;
  • Use of colonic irrigators, plasmatic or radionics;
  • X ray of any organ other than the skeletal system;
  • Treating or attempting to prevent, cure or relieve a human disease, ailment, defect, complaint or other condition in any manner other than as authorized by this chapter; and Invasive diagnostic tests or analysis of body fluids. "Invasive" means any procedure involving penetration of the skin or any bodily orifice whether by hand or by any device. This subdivision (d)(8) does not preclude the use of superficial visual examination.
The field of chiropractic is limited to the treatment of those illnesses and diseases of the human body which doctors of chiropractic reasonably believe can be aided by manual manipulation of the spine. Ison v. McFall, 55 Tenn. App. 326, 400 S.W.2d 243 (1964); Spunt v. Fowinkle, 572 S.W.2d 259 (Tenn. Ct. App. 1978).
There is nothing in this section which would prohibit a chiropractor from treating a patient afflicted with paralysis so long as he in good faith believes that a manipulation of the spine will benefit the patient. Ison v. McFall, 55 Tenn. App. 326, 400 S.W.2d 243 (1964).
Levine2112 20:25, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/h/i/Talk%7EChiropractic_Archive_8_4519.html"