Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
← Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 →

Contents

Recent Alterations

There is no place in an encyclopedic reference for opinions, whether they are from the authors on this page or from, "some doctors", and "mainsteam medicine" or "Dr Barrett" or "quackery webpages". If you want to air those views, it should be under their heading, not under what they are for or against. This site should list the history or chiropractic, a description and educational standards, no opinions. thats why this page is disputed. Take out all the opinions, list the facts, and leave it alone. Drop the bias you are trying to hide by referencing it.


And who decides what the facts are? The abovr proposal violates NPOV policy.Geni 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who decides what the facts are? Only opinions can be disputed. Is anyone trying to get this page acceptable to everyone and drop the pov dispute tag? The last 100 edits to this page have been opinions that chiropractic is ineffective or quackery or dangerous. Before those edits there were no assertions that chiropractic does anything, good or bad. The article simply stated the facts about chiropractic. This encyclopedia is worthless if the people who police it cannot figure out what an opinion is. Should I go to the MD page and state that iatrogenic deaths are in the top five killers of middle aged americans? I will go put that and im sure it will be edited out. So why do you persist on leaving in this article statementrs like, "most physicians agree chiropractic is useless" or whatever. Use common sense, look inside yourself at your motives in allowing these opinions to remain. Bias.

Go read the pade entitled medicine for an example of how a page such as this should look. It gives facts about the history of the profession, not opinions on its efficacy. Please do not just revert my erasures without doing this first.

The following sentences in the Usage section are about CAM in general, so I am removing them: Consistent with previous studies, this study found that a majority of individuals (i.e., 54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine (page 6). "The fact that only 14.8% of adults sought care from a licensed or certified CAM practitioner suggests that most individuals who use CAM self-prescribe and/or self-medicate" (page 6). Please merge with CAM if you feel mention of those details is warranted. - Edwardian 15:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractors in Australia are legally able to use the title Dr. The three chiropractic courses offered in australia are all government funded and accredited. (RMIT, Maquarie and Murdoch Universities.)

Americocentrism

Last time I checked, the rest of the world was not part of the United States. Please stop assuming otherwise.



Thankyou for bringing some perspective to the page(Go to 'medicine' page)! But you are not entirely accurate about iatrogeic death being in the top five leading causes of death. "Death by medicine" is a report completed in October 2003 by By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, and Dorothy Smith PhD, which shows medicine as it really is - the number 1 leading cause of death in the US. And why wouldn't this be true, the US spends more head on healthcare than anyone else! Here in Australia, medicine is lagging as the 3rd leading cause of death. Medicine really has the market sewn up doesn't it!! DJR. 7 mar 2005

NPOV flag?

The 'Chiropractic medicine' article seems to mostly ignore the many criticisms about chiropactic medicine as science.

For example, the state of Florida in the United States had a debate about allowing a school of chiropractic medicine on its campus: "Hundreds -- including about 70 medical professors -- have reportedly signed petitions against the school, and eight part-time medical professors have threatened to quit if it opens." - The Chronical of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i21/21a01001.htm (sorry for the sloppy data, this was one of the first links I grabbed off of google)).

The skeptic's dictionary has a quite detailed and biased article (http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html) on why chiropractic medicine may not meet the standards normally required for medicine: specifically, the lack of empirical studies.

A longer, more detailed explanation of complaints can be found at: http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html

The Florida incident seems to indicate that some mainstream medical professionals and doctors are skeptical of modern chiropractic medicine. The skepdic's article and chirobase site lays out the details of the criticisms. Yet the tone of this article seems to mostly ignore criticisms of chiropractic medicine.

To use other examples from wikipedia: The cell phone page mentions the health controversy, the evolution page mentions the conflict with creationism and links to the appropriate article, and the medicine article mentions criticisms.

Why should the chiropractic article be immune?

Unless someone can tell me why criticisms of chiropractic medicine should be ignored, I don't see why I shouldn't add the NPOV tag to this article. (unsigned contribution by 209.173.47.1)

Go ahead. This article is clearly not NPOV. But that's not the main problem with it. The main problem is that it is NOINFO (if such a tag existed). By comparison, the cell phone page explains what a cell phone is, and the evolution page explains what evolution is. Likewise, this article needs to explain what chiropractic treatment is. Currently, it doesn't. It just gives a confused and highly biased overview of Controversy about chiropractic medicine. While that may be a nice article to have, I (as an interested reader) would much rather find here some information about Chiropractic medicine (For example, 1. what it is, and how it is supposed to work, 2. its history and organisation). Then we can have an edit war about how Wikipedia should present the cases pro & contra its effectiveness, its relationship to alternative medicine, how health insurance agencies view it, etc. Arbor 07:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I completely agree. The History section is the only useful/well-written/NPOV piece in the article. Other than that, defensive overtones buried in minutia permeate the rest. Edwardian 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I don't completely agree on that, but the article does need an explanation of how chiropractice is actually practiced, how it supposedly works, how much of that is attributable to placebo effect, etc. (see for example Acupuncture). The long litigation section should be abbreviated and/or moved elsewhere, and maybe the whole thing should be put in a more internatinal perspective, though it seems that the whole issue is on the US. --Pablo D. Flores 15:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Moved the litigation thing to Wilk v. American Medical Association, and just reverted a change in the first paragraph. Stating that "some" in the medical community "feel" that subluxations are not the cause of all diseases turns the whole NPOV issue into a joke. Note that the paragraph as it reads now does not say that the medical community rejects chiropractice as a whole, only that the claim about subluxations is not backed by scientific evidence. --Pablo D. Flores 14:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Call for votes (informal)

Quotes section

  • Delete. Is there any reason a listing of quotes should appear in this article? Edwardian 06:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. Arbor 07:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Delete. The section is completely uncalled for. Pablo D. Flores 15:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

As part of the Cleanup Taskforce, I've been asked to take a look at this article. While I can definitely help with copyediting and reorganization, my knowledge of chiropractic is quite limited. I am a medical student, and so come from a science- and evidence-based background. In reading through the article and the talk page, I see a few issues.

  • The NPOV tag. If I understand correctly, this is because the article does not address the lack of evidence of efficacy for chiropractic practices. Is this correct?
  • The lack of information. What do chiropractors do; what conditions do they treat? How many believe that subluxations cause diabetes or aneurysms and that their treatments can cure them? How many accept standard medical explanations for illnesses such as these, but believe that joint problems contribute to pain and headaches more than the medical community recognizes? If there are any chiropractors reading this, I would appreciate any perspective on your practices. We had a couple chiropractors speak to us in medical school. According to them, they believe in standard medical models of disease, but see themselves as useful adjuncts in health care. They believe they are better at treating things like back pain, but if they find someone with a large aortic aneurysm, they'll call an ambulance, quick. I don't know if this is typical of chiropractors in general, due to the self-selecting bias of chiropractors who'd speak at a medical school.
  • Some reorganization. Not really sure how to tackle this one yet.
  • The list of quotes. This clearly doesn't belong; given the consensus above I am going to move them to Wikiquotes.

Anything else I'm missing? Any comments? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the "Requirements for chiropractors" section fact-checked and referenced. I find many websites referencing the numbers comparing the education of chiropractors to that of MDs, but I cannot find where it originated. Prior to moving information around, I would like to see a revised outline (see below) to guide us. -- Edwardian 04:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I would suggest the requirements secton be scrapped altogether, or at least summarised and generalised. That looks to me like only American "requirements" (and I sceptical as to whether every institution is mandated by law to have those requirements). Unless we are willing to put in 200+ countries' requirements, which is a bad idea anyway, I don't see how that technicality helps anyhow. Just say something like "There are general general requirements in the areas of foo because of bar" or something like that. --Dmcdevit 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I'm glad someone else suggested it first. I don't think listing the specific requirements for any particular nation is necessary for this particular article. I wouldn't be against keeping something like: "In the United States, The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) has set minimum guidelines for chiropractic colleges." That particular link could be developed if someone want to address particular US requirements. I would be interested in knowing which countries chiropractic is most practiced or popular. Edwardian 05:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And, just wondering, is chiropractic a noun too? Seems weird... --Dmcdevit 04:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Yes, it is... and does. There is no chiropracty. Edwardian 05:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Let's find somewhere to put in "Note: chiropractic may be used as an adjective or as a noun synonymous with chiropractic medicine." End of lead? Also, if it is a noun, why isn't this article just titled "Chiropractic"? It's les common or just unwieldy or what? This is kind of an interesting convention... --Dmcdevit 05:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • My dictionary (Concise Oxford) lists chiropractic as a noun and only that. I believe that that would be a better title, also because it avoids a potential (and ongoing) edit war about chiropratic medicine versus chiropractic treatment versus chiropractic care etc. I also agree to scrap the requirements section. Arbor 08:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Chiropractic is the more accurate term. I would vote to merge and redirect chiropractic medicine to chiropractic. Edwardian 15:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Agree to merge into chiropractic. (That's a disambiguation page that doesn't actually disambiguate between existing articles anyway.) Arbor 18:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the move as well. The page at Chiropractic has a significant history, although as Arbor said, it's not really disambiguating. What little is there could go here. I placed a comment there advising of the proposal. If there are no objections, I suggest deleting that page (or merging anything useful here?) and then moving this (Chiropractic medicine) to Chiropractic. According to my dictionary, chiropractic is a noun, not an adective; however, as I don't know what the adjective form would be I use it as an adjective as well. Anyway, anyone have any information on current chiropractic philosophies or beliefs about physiology and disorders? or on current practices? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • Hmm, adjective form, that's a good one. How about chiropraticic, or chiropractickey, or chiropractically? --Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
  • I concur as well. And I hope that "edit war" didn't include me, as I only chnged what I thought was an inconsistency between the name of the article and it's words. No controversy intended. --Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything to merge from Chiropractic? How should we go about doing this move? I can't just delete Chiropractic outright (well, I can, but it would be improper). Normally I'd suggest moving it to Chiropractic (disambiguation) but it seems to be rather unhelpful as a disambiguation page—it'd be silly to add an {{otheruses}} tag to Chiropractic medicine when the disambig tells you to come back here for more info. Maybe I should list it on VfD? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Although it's rough around the edges, I tried to take every point from chiropractic and rephrase it in the introduction of chiropractic medicine. I think you should be able to make the move now. Edwardian 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What's next (as of May 2 2005)?

(Continuing above conversation after the page move to chiropractic:)

  • Thank you, Edwardian, I have done so. What are our priorities now? I'd like to see the NPOV tag removed—what do we need to do to make the article neutral? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As to priorities, I believe we need to start the difficult task of finding out what chiropractic is. That was my original reason to come here. I have tried to use other sources on the internet, but to very little effect. (I remain immensely curious about the subject.) I do understand that there is controversy about what chiropractic should mean in the first place, which seems to be a continuum of ideas about what the effect of spinal manipulations are. I am confident that we can give a good description of those viewpoints. But I hope that this can be separated from describing the treatment itself. Maybe that is naïve, but I imagine that this article could treat the origin and chiropractic treatment of subluxation separately from the holistic body of theories about whether or not these subluxations are causes of disease. If I understand the controversy, then the latter part is very much debated, also among chiropractors. But if there is consensus about the former part (and I honestly don't know) than the article would benefit from focussing on that. It's what I want to read about. But I also fear that it will be much harder for us to find information about this. What is the consensus (among scientists) about the effect of chiropractic to treat subluxation? (I want to know. On the other hand I guess I have made up my mind about the issue whether these subluxations causes diseases...)

The gist of this is that I think there are two major issues/sections/things to do about this article. One about chiropractic as treatment of subluxation (which needs us to collect a lot of information). And one about the controversies about subluxation as the cause of disease (which may just be an exercise in rewriting what is already on this page). I guess the NPOV tag is concerned with the latter. Arbor 08:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

  • And as to the grammaticality (I love making up new words!), the article has, I think, been pretty thoroughly copyedited, so perhaps we can take that tag off this page now... --Dmcdevit 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I'm afraid I've put all I can find into the article. I'm a physician, so not only is this out of my field but also I approach health (and the universe) from a scientific, evidence-based view. I regret that I haven't been able to find a good understanding of current chiropractic thinking. I'm probably going to take this off my desk. I don't know anyone else who can help out this article but I'll see if I can find someone. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • I agree, I basically finished with this article days ago. I'm removing the copyedit tag now. --Dmcdevit 05:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
        • Per Wikipedia "Tasks" page I have edited this page for spelling and grammar and found quite a few mistakes. I did not edit anything content-wise as this is definitely not my area of expertise! — Jacob Buerk 04:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)


Suggested outline

(Feel free to edit)

Introduction
I. History
II. Theory of disease/illness
III. Methods of treating disease/illness
I suggest a section on "research" or "studies done" somewhere in here. --Dmcdevit 04:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
IV. Different schools of thought on chiropractic
IV. Usage/popularity
A. Number of chiropractors worldwide, US, UK, etc.
B. Number of people using chiropractors worldwide, US, UK, etc.
V. Licensing/Education
A. Education
B. Licensing
C. Legal battles to obtain or discredit legitimacy
VI. Criticism
A. Theory of disease
B. Methods of treating disease/illness
1. Safety
2. Efficacy
C. "Questionable practicing building techniques" (Title lifted from Chirobase).
VII. References
A. Pro
B. Con
C. Other
VIII. External links
A. Pro
B. Con
C. Other

Dmcdevit, the current References section currently lists various studies that are pro- and con-. What would a separate Research section discuss? Edwardian 20:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

  • Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I don't see why we would leave that to references. We could make every article just point to links that have the info, but that would defeat the purpose of WP, to make a single accessible repository of this info; references are supposed to *refer* to the text. Plus that seems to be one of the major points of contention (the scientific evidence or lack thereof), so it needs expanding on, especially for the NPOV dispute. Make sense? --Dmcdevit 03:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although chiropractors themselves have heated discussions about what makes up a subluxation complex, most agree that there are physiological actions that take place when motion is applied to the spine and extremities where there is abnormal movement (biokinetic diskinesis). Just as 100 years ago, science did not understand a lot of germ therory and sanitation necessity, it may take some time for science to describe exactly ALL that happens when a chiropractic adjustment (treatment, manipulation) is performed. Simply because it cannot all be measured or described with today's scientific method does not mean that it has no benefit. The proof is in the relief given to hundreds of thousands of chiropractic patients. This is not sham care, just difficult to prove with today's measuring devices.

  • "Simply because it cannot all be measured or described with today's scientific method does not mean that it has no benefit." Yes, but it does mean it's not science, and since it can't be explained, chiropractors can't know for sure whether what they're doing is correct every time, or what parts of the body may actually be able to be relieved in this way. Anything they do now is not science and has no foundation. -- BRIAN0918  21:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Page move

As per the discussion above, I moved this page from Chiropractic medicine to Chiropractic (after moving Chiropractic to Chiropractic (disambiguation). Our discussion can continue above; I only made this a separate section to aid later readers in finding mention of the page move. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Stephen Barrett is not anti-chiropractic

From simply skimming articles written by him it's very easy to misunderstand his conclusion. Keep in mind that his focus is on quackery and medical fields that are disproportionately prone to quackery. He has explicitly acknowledged that chiropractic and several other fields of alternative medicine he writes about have legitimate uses. His issue is that the practitioners tend to make very grandiose fradulent claims, often don't know what they're doing and that this is common place for fields such as chiropractic.

He even reprinted an article (written by a chiropractic) that he agreed with. This is the conclusion at the end of article: A good chiropractor can do a lot to help you when you have mechanical-type back pain and other musculoskeletal problems. But until the chiropractic profession cleans up its act, and its colleges uniformly graduate properly limited chiropractors who specialize in neuromusculoskeletal problems, you'll have to exercise caution and informed judgment when seeking chiropractic care. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiroeval.html

He has specific guidelines for identifying good chirpractors from the bad: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirochoose.html

He has a directory of what he considers legitimate chiropractors: http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/directory.html

Here are guidelines to get into the above directory: http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/chiroguidelines.html

I think it's pretty clear he recognizes it as having legitimate uses, he just thinks it's crawling with quackery and bad practices that go unchecked due to poor regulation and low standards for certification.

Also see these websites with more articles he's written or reprinted: http://www.chirobase.org/ http://www.quackwatch.org/#products (scroll down to chiropractic) -Nathan J. Yoder 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

  • Well no one seems better suited to fix this than you! And if you actually know anything about this topic, please help out, because we at the Cleanup Taskforce were confused by its complexities. --Dmcdevit 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that the individual currently has an arbitration request against him: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder --brian0918™ 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
      • Please note that that's entirely irrelevent. Why you would mention that out of the blue, for no apparent reason, is a bit surprising and an act of assuming bad faith (which is against wikipedia policy). I really have no interest in editing this article, as the subject doesn't interest me. I just thought I'd point out that, Dr. Barrett, who often speaks out against bad Chiropractors, is not anti-chiropractic. Thusly, I think his views should be taken very seriously, especially considering the amount of fraud in the profession. Nathan J. Yoder 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Small percentage of chiropractors

The sentence:

A small percent of chiropractors have rejected the metaphysical beliefs of mainstream chiropractors.

Seems to me in accurate. I would suspect more than a small percent are not superstitious. I'm no expert but my impression of chiropractors is that they are trained in technique and science (though it may be bad science) and are not mystics. I would consider reevaluating this claim.JesseHogan 00:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On what are you basing your desire for a change in this statement? Please find an actual source, rather than speculating. --brian0918™ 01:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)
I'm not basing what I said on a source but the article should. I submited this for the consideration of the experts editing this page. It doesn't seem accurate from my experience but since I am not an expert I have not altered the article. JesseHogan 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)
brian, when a portion of an article is challenged, it's up to the person who originally put it in there to provides sources for their claim (the burden of proof is on the "information inserter"). I'm not terribly fond of chiropractic myself, but this claim seems a bit dubious, not to mention POV (see NPOV). For the most part, the bad parts of chiropractic would qualify as pseudo-science, not mysticism, so I think it's necessary for whoever inserted that POV claim to substantiate it. Nathan J. Yoder 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your comments, Steven Barrett IS a poor source of information. It is a known fact that much of the AMA's Committee on Quackery information is currently in his possession. This occurred following the AMA loss of the Anti-trust suit. Since the AMA has been halted from performing their "contain and elimination of chiropractic" they have just transferred the trail of misinformation and exaggerated negative literature to Mr. Barrett. He continues to spew his version of what chiropractic is to the public in a "scare tactic" approach, without any balance to the good that chiropractic can do. His list of "approved" chiropractors is a group that he formed (orthopractors), and they are but an extremely small percentage of practicing chiropractors, not representative of the profession. Ken Martin DC, California

NPOV

I was the one to put the NPOV warning on it. I imagine, like most controversial subjects, the NPOV warning will get edited right back out, but as a newcomer to this article, I was substantially unimpressed by the latter three or four sections, which to me demonstrated a concerted bias against chiropractic medicine. — WCityMike (T | C) 03:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "concerted bias" - I don't think there is a conspiracy to make chiropractic look bad! - but I agree that parts of this article stand out as though there was no attempt by the author to even try to present a balanced view. I think 1) there should be a single section entitled "Criticism" or "Skepticism" that summarizes that particular view and 2) the length quote in the section entitled "Reformers who reject classical chiropractic theory" needs to go. Thoughts? Edwardian 07:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
First, yes, I didn't mean 'concerted.' Sorry.
Second, after briefly skimming things, this is what seemed to me to be biased:
* History:
** The history and first paragraph of the subluxation section seemed to cast Palmer as a quack. I don't know as he is. Was he indeed as nutty as this history makes him sound?
      • The article is specific enough that you should be able to easily check to see if it is valid. Simply claiming that the sections aren't accurate isn't enough; you have to cite sources. --brian0918™ Ni! 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
* Medical Risks of Spinal Manipulation:
** What is the value and gravitas of the Harrison's text cited? Is it a valid source for all the various medical risks of spinal manipulation? The common reader (in this case, I feel I'm representative) probably doesn't know what that source is.
** Has rotary neck movement led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients? I looked on the Internet prior to going to a my first chiropractic session in May 2005. I saw no such evidence of trauma or paralysis. I did find one instance of stroke, in Canada, but that woman seemed to have a lot of other complicating risk factors.
      • I read or saw a story about an individual who had neck manipulations which later created blood clots that broke free, traveled to the brain, and paralyzed the individual (permanently). --brian0918™ Ni! 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
** The responsive paragraphs directly following that really seems to be a sort of mini-argument, making it a "people die from chiropractic"; "oh, yeah? one in five million! and how many get sick in the hospital?"; "well, you guys fry your patients with X-rays" sort of argument.
      • Doubtless the result of anons. --brian0918™ Ni! 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
* Criticisms of Chiropractic Claims:
** What is the legitimacy of the organizations initially listed, especially the National Council Against Health Fraud? I ask because organizations often have very convincing names which don't tell you much about who they are, or their overall policy bias. I could have a nonprofit named the Very Swell Guys Corporation which carries out hits on people, y'know?
      • You can look them up, rather than make accusations. --brian0918™ Ni! 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
*** I'd like to know more about this report.
** The psuedoscience line seems very NPOV.
*** For what reasons do docs and scientists think chiropractic is fraud or psuedoscience?
      • Do some research. Note: research isn't just asking your chiropractic teacher. --brian0918™ Ni! 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
*** The "AMA anti-chiropractic prejudice" response seems, again, argumentative ("A? Well, B!!") and I think needs to be expanded into actual history. What supposed prejudice did they exhibit?/s>
That's just from a somewhat sleepy early-morning examination of things. — WCityMike (T | C) 11:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Comment restored from earlier deletion by Brian0918: Brian0918 seems to have taken strong offense to my comments. These weren't "accusations," and you need not take it so damn friggin' personally. — WCityMike (T | C) 11:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)
Oh, and by the way, thanks for banning the IP I was using and calling me an imposter because I forgot to login. Drunk with power much? — WCityMike (T | C) 03:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't realize it was you. The IP was different from the one listed on your user page as being your edits, and the signature was simply copied from a previous post of yours. That IP has been unblocked. Also, please don't delete discussions. If you would like to retract your own comments, you can cross them out with <s> ... </s>. --brian0918™ Ni! 03:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Criticism of chiropractic claims"

Regarding "However, at least some of this criticism may stem from anti-chiropractic prejudice encouraged by the American Medical Association during the 1970's and early 1980's.": I think the phrase "anti-chiropractic prejudice" is a prejudicial statement and should be changed, but a link to Wilk v. American Medical Association is probably warranted. Thoughts? Edwardian 05:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

-

Regarding "The National Council Against Health Fraud, non-profit healthcare organization, issued a report in 1985 critical of chiropractic medicine.": I looked up NCAHF and found that one of their founders, and current webmaster, is Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch, so it should come as no surprise that they are critical of chiropractic. Although I agree with nearly everything I've read in Quackwatch, I would hate to see this become a mirror site of it. In my opinion, the article should focus on the specific criticism of chiropractic rather than who issued critical reports of chiropractic. Can someone support why they think this statement should stay? Edwardian 06:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Medical risks of spinal manipulation"

This article is primarily about chiropractic, and not the medical risks of spinal manipulation, therefore, the majority of this section would be better suited in the latter. I believe the main reason it is cited here is to indicate criticism of chiropractic, but it doesn't state that explicitly. I may have a go at it. Edwardian 06:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Since chiropractic neck manipulation is known to cause stroke, and has no documented benefit, the risk (however small) vastly exceeds the benefit. This should be made clear. JM

Excuse me... there is ONE documented stroke triggered, but not neccesarily caused by chiropractic. To claim there is no documented benefit implies to me that no matter how many patients relate the fact that chiropractic has worked for them, you toss this evidence out due to some unknown personal bias. So don't say there is no evidence; there is overwhelming, if anecdotal, evidence that chiropractic works, not the least of which is the widespread success and recognition of the profession.

Its unfortunate that this page seems to be incredible hard to update and provide accurate information to. The National Association for Chiropractic Medicine has no authority on Chiropractic. Chiropractic is regulated by its own boards (similar to medical) and we have to answer to governments and other agencies. Chiropractic is not a pseudo-science, it is a science. Chiropractors are recognized as Doctors in North America and other countries. Chiropractors sued the AMA and won.

Comparing the entrance requirements and curriculum of a chiropractic college with that of a medical school is like comparing Harvard to a community college, or the Navy Seals to a naval basic training unit. I won't belabor the debate over whether chiropractic is quackery or not, but I was amused to read the description in the current article of a chiropractor's education as "similar" to that of a medical student, as well as the observation that chiropractic students take more class hours than medical students. If, as the joke goes, you call the medical student who graduated last in his class "Doctor," then the imagination runs wild as to what to call the new-ager, former jock or dental school reject that finishes last in his chiropractic class. Brian H., Kankakee, IL

  • Agreed. I've removed the incorrect nonsense and replaced with correct info... with a source! *gasp* --brian0918™ 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Brian..so much emotion there. Did you happen to fail out of a chiropractic school? There had been many in my class as well and ended up remaining bitter towards the profession. If you try to put aside your bitterness and see things objectively, compare the pre-chiro and pre-med prerequisites side by side and tell me what the difference is. Put the Med school curriculum and chiropractic school curriculum side by side and try to repeat what you've posted. All that would make you a liar. Facts are facts. As a clinician who deal with many misdiagnosed patients by our counterparts you are comparing us to, I would like to honestly recommend you to get a life. Get married. Have some kids. Life is worth living. Why do you waste your time hating?


You know, so much crazy stuff flies back and forth about Chiropractic. I am a chiropractor and let me make it really simple for some of you (especially those who are writing below). Chiropractic is very effective, often more effective than drugs and physical therapy. Patients who use it know this. Medical doctors refer patients for chiropractic all the time, in fact many are chiropractic patients themselves. I know this because it is true in my practice where I have treated MD's, nurses, surgeons, dentists, etc...

Chiropractic did survive an all out war with the AMA last century however, and unfortunately the fallout of that battle is the mounds and mounds of misinformation that was promulgated for years. The good news is that was the past and things are so much brighter now. The military now uses chiropractic on the bases. Every VA hospitals will have chiropractic services within the next few years (many already do); chiropractic is covered by almost all major medical insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom line is: Don't believe all you read! Just try it, be your own proof!

Good luck, David Richards, D.C.


David mentions an "all out war". The structure and function of a US court proven conspiracy to contain chiropractic still impacts upon our profession. Read the "Iowa Plan" and you see influences that continue to keep, or to 'contain' chiropractic in the small private health marketplace and out of the massive public health marketplace.

The containment of chiropractic defends medical income. Containment denies, those public patients who have subluxation related disorders, access to chiropractic. Containment exposes those public patients to the risk of iatrogenic harm.

A foundation of the Iowa Plan was disinformation. That is misinformation presented with the intent to deceive. Turning fact upon its head has been a common method of creating that disinformation. The safe-medicine-dangerous-chiropractic myth exemplifies turning fact upon its head. When compared to the rate of medical harm arising from the full spectrum of iatrogenesis, chiropractic is remarkably safe.

All practising chiropractors in Australia are subject to at least some aspects of containment, chiropractic in Australia is a contained profession. Arrangements that exile a nation’s profession to the periphery of mainstream health care are hugely significant. By not incorporating an explanation about the structure and function of containment Wikipedia fails to clarify this phase of the continuing “all out war” on chiropractic.

My thanks for an interesting page,

Michael McKibbin DC

David, Michael, could you perhaps try to get this page into better shape? Currently, there really is next to nothing about what the treatment actually is. Instead, it's all about dispute about whether it works, and information about how it is learned (well, very parochial information that probably only applies to a single country, but information nontheless), and a brief bit about history (which has potential), and soundbites about its effectiveness). We don't need those things. We don't need a page that would be better called Dispute about effectiveness of chiropractic treatment. (Well, maybe there is room for such an article at a later date, when the article about what chiropractic treatment it is done.) I would simply like to read information about what chiropractic treatment is. I guess I want to now about the mechanics of manipulation, or about spinal anatomy ... I simply don't know enough to even formulate the question. Maybe I also want how it is supposed to work. (That is not to say that the debate about if this treatment delivers what it promises is interesting. I am not saying that should be ignored.). I encourage you to have a go at it. Arbor 11:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Risk of stroke

By putting information regarding risk of stroke during adjustments in a paragraph concerned with the rotary neck movement (sometimes called Vaster cervical or rotary break) the impression is created that that procedure presents low risk for stroke rather than adjustments in general. Fred Bauder 16:05, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

"The practice of greatest concern is the rotary neck movement (sometimes called Vaster cervical or "rotary break"). This type of manipulation has led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients. Even chiropractic's legal advisors have warned against its use. Although study results have varied, the actual risk of stroke is typically calculated to be one in 2 to 5 million adjustments. A recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal puts the risk at 'one in 5.85 million adjustments'."