Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 6

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 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 →

Contents

Mention of B.J. Palmer in History section

The short mention is important to the history of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious views of DD Palmer

I believe they should stay in the history section, especially since they deal with origins. .. Fyslee 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Copyright problem?

Some of the History section seems to be copied verbatim from Bradley Chiropractic Clinic: Brief History of Chiropractic.—203.173.11.75 07:52, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

The problem is the lack of peer reviewed evidence supporting chiropractic

As soon as the the supporters of chiropractic want to cite peer-reviewed studies supporting their claims--studies in reputable journals that meet the same criteria for validity that the sciences require in their studies--the sooner this mess can be resolved. Until then, the claims made by the supporters of chiropractic are no better than those made by supporters of magnetic healing or Scientology. [Unsigned]

Indeed, I note that the vast dump of references put in the usage paragraph are all case studies. None of them are double-blind studies nor population based and further the vast majority of them are published in chiropractic journals - not generally accepted medical journals such as the BMj. Homeopaths are really good at promoting their research in homeopathic journals, but for some reason can't get into any mainstream peer reviewed journals. I wonder why not? A big scientific conspiracy to stop good science being published? Or is the science simply poor or lacking. Maustrauser 04:26, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Is PubMed not a generally accepted journal? Is JVSR not a peer-reviewed scientific journal? And Elsevier, is it not gloabally the most respected collection of science, technology and medicine full text and bibliographic information? I made sure to vary the sources to show that these studies are not coming from just any one organization with a specific agenda. These are legitimate scientific studies from various disciplines of independent researchers from around the globe. Levine2112 06:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
You are obviously not aware that anybody can go to Elsevier and set up a journal. All Elsevier asks to publish a journal is your money. A colleague of mine who is a CEO of a medical profession has just made a deal with Elsevier to publish its journal. It costs $18,000 a year. Elsevier made no inquiries regarding the science in the journal, simply that the association was willing to pay. When I have time I shall look at the publishing policies of the other journals you mention. You claim they are legitimate studies reported. They may or may not be legitimate case studies, but that's all they are - case studies. Case studies are generally no more useful than anecdotal evidence. Show me the double blind population based studies and then I may consider that chiropractic is more than a fringe exercise in removing money from people's pockets — oh and showing me the physical evidence for a subluxion might help too . Maustrauser 07:02, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I look forward to you letting us know about the publishing policies of the other journals. The case studies certainly support the claim, but certainly more research is always needed. That's the wonderful thing about science. Knowledge is always expanding and growing. What was once considered quackery is now science. What was once considered heresy is now the gospel. I can point to dozens and dozens of other case studies and scientific research on the Internet supporting more chiropractic claims if you'd like. I thought the 13 I put up there was a generous supply, but there is so much scientific evidence out there. For me, I was convinced by actually experiencing it and I'm more and more convinced with evey adjustment and my continuing health. Then there's the basic logic of how the nervous system functions and how neural message interferance to and from the brain can cause health problems. To me, it just makes logical sense. Step on a garden hose and the flower at the other end will dry up. If you haven't already, I whole-heartedly encourage you to get adjusted by a straight chiropractor (one who is interested in health and not just pain relief...the pain relief ones tend to be the ambulance chasers). Experience it for yourself. To your health and to your peace. Levine2112 07:56, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence does not science make. And case studies are anecdotal evidence. Population-based double-blind studies prove that modalities work - not one off miraculous cures (even if the cures are your own). My father attended a so-called holistic chiropractor and the chiropractor fractured my father's back. And at age 61 a fractured spine is not the best position to be in. But rest assured, I am not allowing my personal experiences to prejudice my view of chiropractic, I was skeptical of it before my father's 'accident'. Indeed, I urged him not to attend. But it's not somethng one goes and says "I told you so," later. I shall research the other publications when Ihave some time. Cheers, Henry. Maustrauser 09:29, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
I think there is a problem in what you are asking for: a double-blind study of chiropractic. Double-blind would mean neither the subject nor the practitioner would know whether a real chiropracitc adjustment has taken place or just a placebo adjustment. I don't think this is possible, espeicially from the practitioners stand-point. I think a chiropractic practitioner would know whether or not they are applying an actual or a placebo adjustment. There have been single-blind studies where the practitioner knew if they were giving a real or fake adjustment, but the subject did not know nor did the third-party researcher. Many of these studies have been in favor of chiropractic's claims to promote general health. As far as I know, a double-blind study would be impossible. Just like a double-blind study of a surgery. The surgeon is going to know whether or not they removed an organ, repaired an artery, implemented an artificial device, et cetera. A double-blind study would be impossible in these scenarios too. So for now, all we have are single-blind studies, case studies, and anecdotal evidence to rely on... I'm sorry about your father. But please understand - with the utmost respect to your father's suffering - that there is malpractice in virtually every form of medicine. Statistically, chiropractic's malpractice rate is miniscule compared to conventional medicine. Levine2112 22:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF

Can we be honest about what this organization is? The way it is presented, it makes it seem like they have no conviction either way on Chiropractic on the onset and that they are a nationally recognized legitimate organization. Clearly, they are tied into so many anti-chiropractic organizations such as chirobase and quackwatch. I feel like all of this chiropractic dissent is essentially coming from one antichiropractic organization hiding behind many names (NCAHF, chirobase, quackwatch, et cetera) in hopes that the more organizations that they have, the more legitimacy their arguements will have. I, for one, see through this ploy and I hope others do too.Levine2112 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chirobase and Quackwatch are websites run by Stephen Barrett. From the NCAHF website, we find that "NCAHF is a private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems." The NCAHF website is also run by Stephen Barrett. I don't see how this is a ploy, given that Barrett makes it obvious that he runs the websites. You may also want to check out James Randi's website, run by James Randi, who offers a one million dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. --CDN99 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
I am familiar with Randi. But chiropractic is hardly a paranormal phenomenon. Although sometimes the miraculous results do seem magical, yes. But alas it is science.
So whether it is chirobase, quackwatch, or ncahf - it will all be the same anti-chiropractic opinion coming from Stephen Barrett (an MD) or the members of his organizations. Why not just have one site then? Or one orgainzation? Why cite each one as though they are independent voices? As it is, it does seem like a ploy using something official sounding such as "National Council" which makes it seem as though it was federally recognized as an authority rather than just another chiropractic hate group. Levine2112 23:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
Why does it matter how many sites the man has, and why does it matter that he is a medical doctor? He gave it the name "National Council..." likely because it's a council with members throughout the nation. You criticise his group because it "claims" to be federally recognized, but at the same time you criticise the many dubious "alternative medicine" groups with loaded words in their titles (ex. National Health Federation). This is the end of this discussion. --CDN99 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I am very confused by this response. When did I criticize alternative medicine groups with loaded words in their titles? What is the National Health Federation? I certainly haven't cited any reference to it nor have I criticised it. I never heard of it.
My point here is that Barrett and his supporters clearly have an anti-chiropractic agenda. He has many organizations that are all him saying the same things (and using his various organizations to cross refernces each other in order to give his claims legitimacy). For instance, QuackWatch will have a stat that he will cite as coming from NAHCF which will have a report that comes from ChiroBase. That seems dubious to me. I just don't think that it is reliable information when it is coming from one organization disguising itself as many. This seems highly deceptive for the users of this Wiki article.
This is not the end of this discussion. These talk pages exist to foster discussion, not quelch it. I sincerely look forward to reading intelligent responses to this. Levine2112 20:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I'm sorry, I seem to have misplaced my keyboard and/or my fingers. Regretfully, I must leave this intelligent discussion. I bid you adieu, good sir. Sincerely, This Guy --CDN99 21:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
CDN99, please read Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically those related to disruption, vandalism and good faith. Further disruptions and vandalism will not be tolerated. Levine2112 00:01, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic revisionism at its most primitive level

DD Palmer claimed that subluxations were the cause of 100% of all diseases. Period. To my knowledge, no chiropractic historian has ever dared to question that fact.

There have been several attempts here by chiropractic supporters, most notably Levine2112, to get around this historical fact. He keeps editing it back to 95% (which would be bad enough!), but DD Palmer was a well-known megalomaniac who made large claims. He did claim to have reached his goal.

A very superficial reading of the following quote by a chiropractic novice might result in such a mistake, but for Wikipedian chiropractors themselves to do so takes a superhuman effort to (deliberately?) misread it! Do they have blinders on?

Here it's explained, using his actual words:

Chiropractic theory is rooted in the notions of Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and "magnetic healer" who postulated that the basic cause of disease was interference with the body's nerve supply. Approximately a hundred years ago, he concluded that "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column." [1] He claimed that subluxations interfered with the body's expression of "Innate Intelligence"-- the "Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life" that controlled the healing process. He proposed to remedy the gamut of disease by manipulating or "adjusting" the problem areas. [1]
1. Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.


Read it again!

Let's parse the key words of that quote carefully:

  • Subluxated vertebrae (that's the spine.....;-) account for 95% of all diseases.
  • Other displaced joints account for the other 5% of all diseases.

Let's see now, a little second grade math:

  • 95 + 5 = 100.

Wow! It actually works! DD Palmer could do his math. He didn't make a mathematical error when he claimed to have found the cure for ALL diseases. He did make such claims, as ALL serious chiropractic historians have known all along.

I hope this settles the editing wars on this point. A NPOV is based on accurate figures and quotes. The 100% figure stands. Please leave it alone! -- Fyslee 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But if you are really relying on what the founder of chiropractic said over 120 years ago to support your antichiropractic arguments, that's pretty sad. Look what MD's were doing 120 years ago. Can I cite that to discredit their profession? I suppose I could, but that would be pretty weak and I don't think I would sink that low.
"Antichiropractic arguments"??? This is history, and thus conforms to NPOV. You keep interjecting POV and revisionism. Why deny the history of chiropractic?
What do MDs have to do with it? Quit trying to change the subject. That's too old a chiropractic ploy. Come on with your life. -- Fyslee 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Oh, and yes 95 plus 5 does equal 100. But the article read's "subluxations are the cause of 100% of all diseases". Subluxation. Not "displaced joints". There's a difference. So it would seem that the correct number is "95" and not 100. That's a little second grade English for you. Levine2112 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
That's an interesting twist! Palmer was obviously using the generally accepted definition of the word, which is (partially) displaced joints. That the "chiropractic subluxation" has also been (and still is by some chiros) imbued with metaphysical qualities, is another matter. Palmer was using the normal definition of subluxation. English is my mother tongue, so I don't need a lesson on this particular point. As a PT, PA, and long time student of chiropractic, I can easily get Keating to back me up on this one, but I'll let you check with him. If you can get him to state that I'm wrong, then I'll have to dig up some of his own research on the subject.

Here are the key revision attempts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=34541932&oldid=34503778

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34541932

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34545717

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34549361

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34592883

current version, with corrections: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34653974

-- Fyslee 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

and he dares to change it back again!: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=34681334&oldid=34680025

If this keeps up, we have to get administration to block his IP address.

Levine, grow up. -- Fyslee 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


Why all the Anti-Chiropractic Hate?

I am curious. Why do you hate chiropractic? Please be specific. I seriously want to know your grievances. Please list them here. Levine2112 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No hate at all. Only skepticism of the quackery aspects of chiropractic. If you'll just stay honest and civil, we can have some interesting discussions here. If you continue getting nasty, you'll get nowhere, other than revealing the nasty side of your motives. -- Fyslee 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
The same goes for you. I fight fire with fire. Just my nature. You seem highly motivated to hurting the profession. There must be a reason. I just want to know why. Levine2112 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Where is the fire? You repeatedly attempted to improperly revise accurate information. I simply exposed your attempts and corrected them. You can stop anytime. -- Fyslee 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I say your information is not accurate and I show exactly why. Here's some fire: "Levine, grow up". Or "If this keeps up, we have to get administration to block his IP address." And "Come on with your life". And "a little second grade math". Now to be fair, I never got this personal until you did. I understand that Wiki has strict guideline against this and I will refrain from make furthere juvenile comments as it doesn't help what we are trying to do, which is create and honest non-biased article. Now please, answer my question... Why do you hate chiropractic? Levine2112 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
I have answered it. I don't hate chiropractic. I oppose the quackery found in chiropractic. If you don't identify yourself with it, then you need not be defensive. That's all. I'm interested in accurate information, just as many chiropractors are. I get my information from them, and they agree with me. -- Fyslee 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
It has been settled on the "quackery" page that chiropractic is not considered "quackery". If you want to address the certain aspects of chiropractic that you deem to be quackery then please do it on a more specific page and not the general chiropractic article. The agreement is that "quackery" is a pejorative term. Using it incites anger. Using it to blindly label a profession is hateful and typically inaccurate. Levine2112 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

When I get some more time I'll have to take a look at it. I wrote about the quackery "in" chiropractic. That's not the same as labeling the whole profession quackery. There are very divided opinions on that subject.

The use of the word "quackery" certainly can be pejorative, but it also has legitimacy in many situations, and there will naturally be controversy in each case. That's life, and it doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the word, in fact the controversy just shows that it really does have legitimacy. Only the quacks will keep quacking.....;-) -- Fyslee 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the "Chiropractic" article as it is. As long as the core scientific belief of the profession is there and most prominent - Removal of subluxations allows for better communication between the brain and all of the body's systems, thus promoting health. Levine2112 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Can you keep the argument on the talk page, please. Ta, Joe D (t) 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The Three-revert rule (or 3RR) is an official policy which applies to all Wikipedians. The policy states that an editor must not perform more than three reversions, in whole or in part, on a single Wikipedia article within 24 hours of their first reversion. (This does not apply to self-reverts or correction of simple vandalism). This does not imply that reverting three times or fewer is acceptable. In excessive cases, people can be blocked for edit warring or disruption even if they do not revert more than three times per day.

95 or 100

You (Fyslee) are saying that there is no way of telling that Palmer made the distinction between subluxations and joint displacement in the quote. You are referring to this quote that you added to the article, right? - "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column". Clearly, he made a distinction, otherwise he would have said 100%, no? Levine2112 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine, you may be needlessly confusing the information; DD Palmer said that the cause of every disease (100%) is disrupted nerve supply, and this disrupted nerve supply is due 95% to spinal subluxations and 5% to other joints. I don't know how much clearer that could be. --CDN99 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Then please reword this "the original chiropractic hypothesis that subluxations are the cause of 100% of all diseases". Because, as you said DD said that 100% of disease is caused by disrupted nerve supply...not subluxation. Is that clear? Levine2112 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Look up subluxation in a dictionary. From dictionary.com, the first definition is "Incomplete or partial dislocation of a bone in a joint." In other words, DD claimed that disease is due 95% to spinal dislocations (or subluxations), and due 5% to other dislocations (or subluxations), and that subluxations disrupted nerve supply, no matter where the subluxations were; thus DD did claim that disease was due 100% to subluxations (95% spinal, 5% other), and this is what Fyslee is saying in the section "During this time he tried to find a single cause for 100% of all diseases. He reached a point ....." --CDN99 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)
Then why the distinction the quote? "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column".Levine2112 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)


You know what? It doesn't even bother me that much. Leave it. NACM doesn't hold much water with anyone anyhow. Just yet another face of Stephen Barrett. Levine2112 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine, even though you've been here only two months, you must understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically those related to disruption, vandalism and good faith. In 2004/2005 a user highjacked the alternative medicine section of Wikipedia to promote his own website and ideas, and started countless edit wars with numerous users, including me. He was banned from editing for a year in spring 2005 (his third banishment), and we're still cleaning up his mess. I'm not saying that you're like him, just that you may be heading in the direction of arbitration, considering your edit history. --CDN99 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Huh? I'm the one under attack here. Levine2112 06:47, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Comparison

I am reverting the deletion of a comparison which is a response to:

The practice of greatest concern is the rotary neck movement, sometimes called "Master cervical" or "rotary break", which has led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients.

When a slanted unqualified statement such as that is made, it is intended to scare people away from seeking chiropractic as an alternative medicine. Therefore, I feel it is appropriate that if that statement is going to remain, then the following is an adequate comparison for a response:

Although serious, these complications due to spinal manipulation remain very rare having been estimated at 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or less. In comparison, between one in eight and one in fifteen patients admitted to a hospital can be expected to contract a hospital sourced infection or suffer other significant medical complication.

That being said, I would be more in favor of deleting the weasel words here completely. Putting in one biased statement will typically lead to a counter statement from the other side. It will go back and forth until we have an article wrought with opinions rather than the plain facts. Levine2112 23:54, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a simple statement of documented fact, written without emotion or distortion. Therefore it is not a POV issue. Removing it would reduce the section to a non-issue, which it definitely isn't, except for some chiros who won't look at the evidence. It may not be a matter of "concern" for them, but the rest of the medical and scientific community is concerned, and to ignore them would be pretty foolish. It speaks to "their" concern, not the concern of chiropractic.
Leave it alone until we reach a concensus here. -- Fyslee 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I agree. Let's leave it until we reach a concensus. But let's also leave the comparison. It's is only fair. After all, all health professions have malpractice. Chiropractic is remarkably low statistically compared to other health professions. I think stating that fact is a mtter of concern for the entire world.Levine2112 01:24, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Do you have a better history of manipulation before chiropractic?

When you have a better one, then use it. Until then, leave the one I placed there intact. It's a good review of the history.

Make improvements, not deletions of other's work. Show a little respect.

your revision

-- Fyslee 01:13, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't consider a depiction of history that likens chiropractic techniques to cultism very respectful or honest. You added the information, it is up to you to cite it with unbiased documentation. Why don't you find something outsifde of the Stephen Barrett world of quackery. It may hold more water. Levine2112 01:17, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Fyslee, per you request I have replace your link with another link that doesn't liken chiropractic to cultisms. Levine2112 01:32, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
The book was written by a second generation chiropractor, and the chapter involved deals with the history of manipulation. The link is only to that chapter.
Those few paragraphs you replaced it with are a joke! A very short coverage. Dr. Homola's coverage is much more thorough, and has nothing to do with Barrett. It was written long before Barrett got involved with quackbusting. I have a hardbound copy of Homola's book, and it's still a classic. Even the ACA admitted that he was right and offered to restore his membership, after many years of sanction for writing the book. He should have followed his father's (a DC) advice and not become a DC. He has recently retired. -- Fyslee 01:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
BTW, that was your third revert, but I'll give you a chance to restore my original link. If not, you can expect to get sanctioned by Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 01:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
No, because that wasn't a revert. That was an edit that you even asked me to make. But maybe you're right. I'll wait for sanctioning.
Dr. Homola is associated with Barrett as depicted here: buddies. He is extremely anti-chiropractic (in that he speaks out against mainstream chiropractic establishment) and therefore I don't think that he could provide a very fair history of it. Levine2112 01:45, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

64.230.76.119

Sysop, this IP address has been spamming articles (including Chiropractic) with a link as well as vandalism. Please check their activity. Levine2112 05:20, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! I have been following this activity, and whoever it is is sending from Ottawa. It looks like they are being overzealous, and they probably don't understand how things work here at Wikipedia. -- Fyslee 10:39, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
I have posted the following warning on both the User and Talk pages. Let's hope they listen!
Warning!
Ottawan,
Your editing is untimely, heavy handed, very poorly done, inaccurate, and very improper.
I'm a chiroskeptic, but this is making Chirotalk and chiroskeptics look bad. If you are a chiropractor and that is your mission, then you are succeeding and will be exposed. Investigations are in progress. Please stop immediately! -- Fyslee 12:07, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
-- Fyslee 12:16, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Secretly I was hoping that the IP address was from Loma Linda. ;-) Levine2112 20:40, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
Ha ha! That was a good one. Some others might not understand why, but I originally come from Loma Linda, and William Jarvis, PhD (the founder of the NCAHF) was a professor there in the School of Health until his recent retirement. There are a lot of skeptics in LL, but also a lot of true believers. -- Fyslee 23:25, 14 January 2006 (UTC)


External links improvement

After a reversion after vandalism, caught by User:Steinsky, I have tidied up the External Links section with better headings and plenty of good links on both sides of the issues. I have used the alt. med. page as a model, since it's a common way to do it here at Wikipedia. The NPOV is best preserved by including both sides. I can't be accused of not being fair.....;-)

Several of the links under "Critiques" are from chiropractic's foremost historian, chiro professor Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD. He has been employed by the profession for ages, and is so knowledgeable and important for them, that he can get away with telling the truth. Subluxation based chiros hate him, but he has support from many teachers, researchers, and some in the very top (who don't dare to identify themselves publicly, but who participate at Chirotalk under pseudonyms. Very interesting phenomenon! -- Fyslee 10:41, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractors work, - personal experience here!!!

When I was 13 i broke my right leg right at the very very top, too high for a cast, so i spent 4 months in traction. Whilst my left leg healed, my right leg grew, so when i left hospital my right leg was 1/2" longer than the left.

As i got older, i had terrific bachache, that lasted till i was 45. For 30 years, multiple doctors had no idea what was causing it, and just gave me pain killers. Then i went to a chiropracter. After 15 minutes he said 'your left leg is shorter'. I said 'and...........', and he said 'thats why your getting backache. When you stand straight up your entire body leans sidweys, and so your spine has to twist right to keep your balance. Because your spine is a three dimensional curve, its causing huge stress on certain muscle on your left side'. I asked him if we can solve it, he told me to go buy a pair of shoes, take them to the cobbler, and have the left one built up sole and heel by one centimtre. I did, and after two weeks, and with several sessions, my backache disssappeared. I only get it now if i try excessive lifting (because 30 years of abuse have damaged it slightly permanently), but 20 mintes on his couch and its gone. Once or twice, ive been and you can feel and hear the vertebrate click back into place and its instant relief.

Chiropracters are bloody marvellous, and know more about backs and backache than all the bloody useless General Practioners and NHS Consultants put together, after all look the score card - NHS doctors 30 years, no solution: Chiropracter, 15 minutes, job sorted.

So dont knock em until you've tried them.

user:lincspoacher

The only reason they seemed to work in your case is because conventional or allopathic physicians are so poorly paid and trained in the UK. American physicians are subject to stricter training and examination requirements and earn much more. That's why all the rich people keep coming from the UK to America whenever they need the very best surgery, therapy, or drugs. --Coolcaesar 21:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Curious if you have any chronic health problems in the past 30 years? If so, any change since your visits to the chiropractor?
I have had a similar problem growing up. One leg shorter than the other. I too sought traditional medicine (in the US) for help, but all they could provide was pain relief with pills. Five years of these pills nearly destroyed my liver. On the recommendation of a college professor, I went to a chiropractor. The doctor xrayed me and aside from adjustments, he prescibed foot-levellers - a shoe insert to balance me out. However, I did not have to wear them for all that long, because the length difference was actually caused by my pelvis being out of place. A month of visits and my legs were balanced out. Now I need only go once a month for maintainence. My liver soon repaired itself 1) because I stopped taking the pills and 2) because my body was now functioning healthier. But more amazing, was something that I thought was unrelated. I have always had a problem with asthma. Oddly, that vanished too since my visits to the chiropractor. You can call it coincidence, but this is something that I have had ever since I could remember, through college and long after my adolesence had ended. The chiropractor explained how the whole body works better with chiropractic. I am now a believer 72.129.6.122 00:59, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Anecdotal evidence is worth nothing. Only population based studies show whether something works or not. My father had his spine broken (!!!) when he visited a chiropractor. He was paralyzed and died shortly afterwards. Now do I claim that chiropractic is rubbish based on my father's experience or do I claim that no population based studies have shown that chiropractic is better than any other treatment and quite often worse? Maustrauser 12:20, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Testimonials mean absolutely nothing...but I have a couple of my own. My current landlord had her thumb fractured by a chiropractor about a year ago (he was adjusting her wrists and hands to cure her arthritis and "brain fog".......), and since she is a "believer" she decided to wait until tomorrow to go see a real doctor. Although my father didn't die as a result of having his spine adjusted, he has had chronic back pain following an "adjustment" by a chiropractor to fix a pulled muscle. It seems that for every "cure" there is a debilitating injury, so following on the logic that population based studies aren't needed, wouldn't my experiences and Maustrauser's effectively cancel out the above miracle stories? --CDN99 15:29, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Testimonials do mean something or else people wouldn't be compelled to testify. Frankly, I want to hear people's personal experiences before I choose my physicians. And yes, population studies would be amazing - did anyone say otherwise? Double-blind studies, however, would be impossible to execute I think as at least the practitioner would know whether or not the adjustment was a "placebo". The malpractice rate in chiropractic compared to other healthcare professions is miniscule so I feel that saying. for every cure there is a debilitating injury, is unfair and untrue. I know chiropractors that see an average 100 patients a day. Are you suggesting that 50 of those patients leave with debilitating injuries? Levine2112 20:43, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Are you suggesting that 50 of those patients leave with debilitating injuries? Well, I wouldn't be surprised; the patients wouldn't attribute their injuries to their chiropractic treatment if they're "believers." I always considered it common sense that enormous pressure should not be abnormally applied to joints, especially in the spine, but I guess that's just my background in science talking. Population based studies should have been performed long ago, but they haven't (why? it's not for lack of funding or support) BTW, has the malpractice rate for chiropractors ever been measured? --CDN99 21:25, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Tremendous force. Hardly. My experience with over a dozen chiropractors has been that the force has been no more than an average hug. You seem to be a true believer that chiropractic is bad. Have you tried it for yourself? Was the force tremendous? The statistics show the minimun or rare case of malpractice that could happen in chiropractic (like in any other healthcare profession) when you compare how many people die daily as a results of prescription drug reaction and unnecessary surgery for conditions that could be solved if instead of trying to discredit the well respected chiropractic profession, we an work together for the benefit of the people's health. You say you wouldn't be surprised if 50 out of 100 patients walk away with debilitating injuries. Yet, all evidence points to quite the contrary. See, that is your opinion based on your own feelings. Science is based on evidence. Evidence can be found in the statistics that show that chiropractic has an extremely low malpractice rate. I guess that's my science background talking now. Levine2112 21:59, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Tremendous force? I said enormous pressure.... I've seen many chiropractors work (there's four chiropractic offices in my town of just 8,000!), and they aim for a "pop" sound and keep pressing harder until they and the patients hear it (i.e. hardly an average hug; and they seem to ignore any "crunch" sounds or gasps of pain from the patient). I will, however, never try it for myself. Could you cite "the statistics" that support your point please? --CDN99 22:11, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I performed a cursory search and found this link - [2] Under the "Is Chiropractic Dangerous?" portion, the author cites numerous statistics and studies concerning chiropractic and malpractice. I found this paragraph enlightening:
The governments of several countries, including the United States (A.H.C.P.R.) and Canada (Manga), have found manipulation to be the most effective form of treatment for back pain. In fact, the Canadian report suggested that Chiropractors be the “gate keepers” for back pain saying that it would save Canada hundreds of millions of dollars if their citizens saw Chiropractor’s first. After reviewing all published studies, it was determined that there were “no medical procedures that were as safe as Chiropractic treatment.”
I found this from another site:
Yes. Statistics prove that chiropractic care is one of the safest types of healthcare in the world. You only need to compare the malpractice premiums paid by chiropractors to those paid by medical doctors. Doctors of Chiropractic pay only a small fraction (approx. 1/20) of the price medical doctors pay in malpractice premiums. 250,000 people will die this year as a result of bad medicine, making this the third leading cause of death in the United States of America (The Journal of The American Medical Association, JAMA; Vol.284, July 26, 2000). Of the millions of people receiving chiropractic adjustments, each year, only a handful will even make a complaint. Levine2112 22:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
But you left out: 3. Nearly 10,000 studies have been performed on manipulation (making it the most thoroughly studied form of treatment for back pain) and the great majority have found the following when compared to medical treatment.....After reviewing all published studies, it was determined that there were “no medical procedures that were as safe as Chiropractic treatment.”.....
Wow! The author read all 10,000 studies done on chiropractic, plus every study done on the safety of every other treatment? That's quite impressive, but he didn't cite any of them.... How about some statistics from a neutral source, something other than the National Chiropractic Mutual Insurance Company Group Incorporated? --CDN99 22:27, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I would think that a company that insures chiropractors holds the greatest financial risk if chiropractic was dangerous. Are you suggesting that they are lying about their annual malpractice claims? You may want to read this article as well: [3]. It makes a similar point but is supported with 20 references. Also, I have added links to the actual chirorpractic article with research performed by MDs and PhDs and other kinds of non-chiropractic related researches that all tout the benefits and safety of chiropractic. What more do you want from me? Now you made the claim that half of chiropractic patients receive debilitating injuries from adjustments. Can you cite something to back up your statistics? Levine2112 22:36, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
As I didn't make the claim that 50% of patients are injured from adjustments (I merely hinted at the possibility), I don't need to cite it. That was a very informative article that you gave me, and I read the whole thing! Now here's an article supporting my side of the argument: Chiropractic's Dirty Secret: Neck Manipulation and Strokes. This article cites articles from a variety of sources other than chiropractic journals/textbooks (as were cited in your article). --CDN99 23:41, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
I've read it, but as the article I pointed out say about this statistic:
To place this in perspective, if we agree that the risk of dying from a stroke after a neck adjustment is 1/4,000,000, there may be as much as a 100 times greater risk of dying from an ulcer due to taking a prescription NSAID like Motrin. If you drive about 8 miles each way to get to your chiropractic appointment, you have a statistically greater risk of being killed or seriously injured in a car accident getting to the office than of having a serious complication from your treatment.
The Institute of Medicine report and others tell us that medical errors and malpractice rank anywhere from the 3rd to the 8th leading cause of death. More Americans are killed by medical error and malpractice every year than by car accidents, breast cancer, AIDS, cardiovascular disease and even handguns. According to Dr. John Eisenberg, Director of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, "If the fifth leading cause of death was a disease, we'd invest hundreds of millions of dollars trying to understand its cause and research for new drugs. We've got to pay that kind of attention to this cause of death."
Comparitively, you'd have to say chiropractic is safe. Levine2112 23:52, 17 January 2006 (UTC)
Well, it seems chiropractors say chiropractic is safer than other treatments, while medical doctors say it isn't. --CDN99 02:27, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
No, actually I have pointed to a number of reports by a number of MDs that also attest to the safety of chiropractic. Levine2112 06:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

A plan to delete or revise passage for NPOV

I am calling into question the NPOV status of the following statement currently in the article:

To date there is limited scientific evidence of the existence of "subluxations", in terms of quantifiable measures. Nerve conduction studies of human spinal nerves identified as being subluxed by chiropractors were shown to be normal by conventional scientific measures. Studies involving X-ray and CT scanning of the human spine before and after chiropractic manipulation show no changes in joint position as identified by radiologists. This lack of a clear definition of "subluxation", supported by scientific evidence, is one of the major sources of chiropractic's struggle for acceptance within the traditional medical community.

I feel this is extremely slanted. There is a tremendous amount of respected scientific research that does show the existence AND the effect of the vertebral subluxation. Granted, a lot of this research is by chiropractors and chiropractic organizations, I can also point to a number of researchers and doctors from other professions that have documented the existence of the vertebral subluxation and its consequences. Sir Sidney Sunderland, MD in "Nerve and Nerve Injuries" documented:

Narrowing of the lumbar intervertebral distance, whatever the cause, results in the subluxation of the apophyseal joints in which the facet of the vertebra above is displaced inferiorly across the surface of the facet of the vertebra below. As a result of this displacement, the medical branch of the lumbar dorsal ramus, which is fixed in this region, is involved in two ways:

  1. Inflammatory swelling of the joint reduces the lumen of the tunnel containing the neurovascular bundle.
  2. The inferior articular pedicel comes to press directly on the nerve.

Similar finding come to us from Rene Cailliet, M.D in his textbook "Neck and Arm Pain", "Scoliosis Diagnosis and Management" and "Tissue Pain and Disability". Dr. Cailliet also found that evidence that chiropractic care can reverse osteoarthritis—something previously considered impossible. According to Dr. Cailliet - a respected authority on orthopedic disorders - Surgery "should only be considered as a last resort". More evidentiary research showing the existence and effect of verrtebral subluxation comes to us from "The Cervical Syndrome" by Ruth Jackson, M.D. who reported that an analysis of more than five thousand patients who had symptoms referable to the cervical spine revealed that over 90% of these patients had one or more injuries to the cervical spine, either recent or remote. A study by Von Torklas and Gehle of the University Hospital, Hamburg, Germany, has found that even in the “healthy” children, the age group under eight years shows a 40% subluxation tendency. Gutmann, a German M.D., concluded in a paper published in 1987 in “Manuelle Medizun” that blocked nerve impulses at the upper neck cause many clinical features from central motor impairment to lower resistance infections, especially ear, nose and throat infections. He states, “Chiropractic and radiological examinations are of decisive importance for diagnosis of the syndrome.” He further states that chiropractic can often bring about amazingly successful results. Maigne, the eminent French orthopedist, states that “trauma to the cervical spine and head can cause irritation to the sympathetic fibers in the cervical spine, causing such problems as headaches, vestibular troubles, auditory problems, visual disturbances, pharyngolaryngeal disturbances, vasomotor and secretional problems.” Maigne adds that manipulation of the neck achieves excellent results with many of the conditions. And it goes on and on. I keep doing Google searches and I keep finding more well-documented, published independent studies supporting the existence of the vertebral subluxation.

Therefore, I feel it is a POV statement to write:

To date there is limited scientific evidence of the existence of "subluxations".

Depending on your definition of "limited", this statement would seem to be an opinion (and a false one at that).

As for the next sentence:

Nerve conduction studies of human spinal nerves identified as being subluxed by chiropractors were shown to be normal by conventional scientific measures.

Perhaps this is true sometimes. What studies? Who did these studies? I have cited and can cite much more that says just the opposite.

The same goes for the next sentence:

Studies involving X-ray and CT scanning of the human spine before and after chiropractic manipulation show no changes in joint position as identified by radiologists.

What studies? Please cite them.

Finally:

This lack of a clear definition of "subluxation", supported by scientific evidence, is one of the major sources of chiropractic's struggle for acceptance within the traditional medical community.

Vertebral subluxation is clearly defined by chiropractors today basically as a misalignment of the vertebra. You'd be hard-pressed to find legitimate chiropractors who say anything else. The spiritual definition was D.D. Palmer's rudimentary ideas over a 100 years ago before x-rays, CT scans, and a whole lot of other medical advancements and chiropractic research. I don't think it is fair to cite that and say that there is still confusion about the definition of subluxation. As for the rest of that sentence, clearly there is scientific evidence that supports subluxation, and while chiropractic does continue to struggle to gain acceptance in the traditional health community, I don't think it is because of a semantic debate over the word "subluxation".

Given the mixed opinions on this subject, I would like to suggest that we do one of two things.

  1. Strike the paragraph completely, as it stands now it is mostly representive of the opinion that subluxations do not exist OR
  2. Revise the paragraph to be more NPOV

A revised paragraph would note that there have been scientific studies that show the existence of vertebral subluxations and scientific studies that show the non-existence (of course, those studies would also need to be cited - as it stands now, it is just a blanket statement with no reference to anything).

Thoughts? Suggestions? Anyone want to take a shot a reworking this paragraph with me? Levine2112 04:16, 17 January 2006 (UTC)


Safety concerns

Purpose of this section

The purpose of this section needs to be clarified. Of all sections of this article, this one should not be used to sell or defend chiropractic (neither should this article be used for that purpose). Chiropractic only needs to be defended against unfair or inaccurate presentations of the subject. That means that both positive and negative aspects should be covered.

This section should be concerned about patient safety, and any slanting of views that detracts from that end, should be avoided

Attempts to downplay risks involved in chiropractic procedures, primarily cervical manipulation, are counterproductive to this end, and only serve as protectionism for the interests of the chiropractic profession.

The continued downplaying of the risks of cervical manipulation has only fueled the fires of the public discussion, and in fact has been very counterproductive to the reputation of chiropractic. It has already been documented (Chiropractic twist on truth may have sparked inquest) that chiropractic leaders have deliberately and knowingly lied in public about this issue, in the sole interest of protecting chiropractic from bad publicity. That was a fatal error, which resulted in lost lawsuits and a great deal of negative publicity for chiropractic.

Such denials and downplaying should not be continued here. If they continue, they will only lead to increased attention to the problem, and will also lead to a sharpening of the language in the text of the article. There is plenty of research that can be included, if that becomes necessary.

I have collected a little(!) bit on this subject:

The title is based on a video, "Dangers of alternative medicine" (a must see!!!), but my comments on that page make it clear that I consider this to be a matter of concern for all who use cervical manipulation, including my own profession of Physical Therapy. My conclusions are very clear on this point.

If patient safety is to be improved, any error in interpretation should be on their side, not on the side of chiropractic, which has a vested interest in burying this matter.

Editorial changes

User:Levine2112 wrote: I just NPOVified it. I think you'll agree with my edits. Maybe?

User:Fyslee replies here:

Fair enough. Let's fine tune it a bit more.

I understand your viewpoint very well, and also understand why this section needs to be kept as balanced as possible (as with all other Wikipedia articles).

Since this is an area with great disagreement, not only among chiropractors (the majority seeking to downplay the risks), but within the medical and scientific community (basically no attempts at downplaying, but more about just how great the risks really are), we should not consider this an area that is finally "proven" or conclusively "documented" as yet. More and more research is uncovering a serious underreporting problem.

To aid our discussion, I'll place the "before" and "after" versions below, with the keys words highlighted and numbered for ease of reference:

My version, before Levine2112's editing

  • Many chiropractors report that these serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine remain rare, having been estimated (1) at 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. Such estimates are considered (2) to be highly unreliable because (3) of vast (up to 100%) underreporting problems. While still rare, the true incidence must (4) be much higher, and further research should (5) shed more light on this situation.


Levine2112's edited version

  • Many chiropractors report that these serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine remain rare, having been documented (6) at 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer [4]. (7) Such estimates are believed (8) to be highly unreliable based on the possibility (9) of vast (up to 100%) underreporting of problems. While still rare, the true incidence could (10) be much higher, and further research may (11) shed more light on this situation.

To start with, please explain why you felt these changes were necessary. Were they made from a concern for

  • (1) accuracy,
  • (2) patient safety and protection, or
  • (3) to protect chiropractic's reputation (by downplaying the risks and - as earlier done - to compare "apples and oranges" regarding other risks that aren't comparable)?

I fear that you are prioritizing chiropractic's reputation, to the detriment of accuracy and patient safety. -- Fyslee 12:45, 19 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine2112's reply

Yes for accuracy.
Changing words such as "considered" to "believed" more accurately depicts that this statement is not a fact but an opinion. The same goes for changing "because" to "based on the possibility". "Because" refers to definite causality. But as this belief is just a debated theory, the belief is only a possibility. That would go for the word "must" which insists that there is "vast underreporting" - but again that is just a theory with little proof. "Should" again suggests a definite result; whereas "may" defines only the possibility that research will shed more light on vast underreporting.
Yes for patient safety and protection.
Now this is just an opinion, but it is as relevant and valid as your opinion on this matter: I feel that by scaring possible patients away from chiropractic, you are putting their health in jeopardy. I beleive this because I believe that chiropractic promotes health.
Yes to protect chiropractic's reputation.
As a knowledgeable advocate of chiropractic, I felt that the way the paragraph was worded, it was stating as fact that chiropractic is gravely dangerous. Without any documentation, your theory supposes that chiropractors must be vastly underreporting cervical neck trauma. I take offense to this not only as a chiropractic advocate but as a truth seeker. I found the paragraph POV and manipulative against chiropractic. But I am not trying to downplay the truth - that chiropractic has one of the lowest malpractice rates of any legitimate health profession - I was merely downplaying a supposition that was being presented as fact.
Now please read a paragraph that I added a while back:
Philosophy of the Subluxation
Chiropractic philosophy holds that much of the body is controlled by messages sent to and from the brain along the nervous system. The medical community agrees that all messages - whether it is the brain commanding the foot to move or an organ telling the brain it is in need of repair - pass through the spinal cord; which acts as a kind of cerebral router. An outgoing message from the brain passes down the spinal cord and through the appropriate spinal nerve branch held between the vertebrae on either side of the spinal cord. There are 31 pairs of spinal nerves that emerge from the spinal cord; all of which are housed by vertebrae. If the vertebrae are misaligned (subluxated), chiropractors believe that a spinal nerve can be squeezed or pinched and therefore message flow can be compromised. By aligning the vertebrae and removing restrictions on the spinal nerves, chiropractic claims to allow the spinal cord to more effectively relay messages to and from the brain; thus promoting better health.
Even though I truly believe in my heart of hearts that correcting subluxations does promote health, you'll notice that I was sure to point out that this is just a belief, not a fact. I used words such as "claim" and "believe". I even called it a "philosophy" rather than "science". I did this because I wanted to keep this article fair but at the same time educate a possible Wikipedian on what is at the core of chiropractic philosophy. I'm not trying to sway a researcher or possible chiropractic patient into believing anything. I am simply presenting them with information and clearly letting them know what is fact and what is theory. I feel that this paragraph exemplies what Wikipedia means by NPOV.
I took this very same approach when editing the paragraph in question in the Criticism section. Regardless of it being pro or anti chiropractic, I applied the very same standards of NPOV that I applied to my paragraph. I truly feel that I am acting resonably and completely fair considering the equal but opposite passions that we both have for this issue. Levine2112 21:58, 19 January 2006 (UTC)


removal of argumentative vandalism

Good catch! This guy works fast. I have written a warning on his User and Talk pages. -- Fyslee 22:49, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

Scientific support for chiropractic OR for manipulation?

I find the heading "Scientific support for chiropractic" to be confusing. One should distinguish between the different types of support:

  1. Political and insurance "support" for treatment by chiropractors;
  2. Other types of support for chiropractic
  3. Scientific support for manipulation itself, regardless of who performs it.

My suggestion is to make a heading with subheadings:

Support

Support for chiropractic
Support for manipulation

Under those two subheadings, one could post short synopses, each with a link. Each one could then be prefaced with a one or two word categorization, such as scientific, insurance, political, legal, etc. If two or more fall in the same category, they should naturally be grouped together.

Actually the "support" information for the third category (support for manipulation) should be placed on a "manipulation" page, and linked to from this article.

How's that sound? Any suggestions? Right now it's very muddy water.

-- Fyslee 20:25, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

I feel like all of the info currently in the paragraph is citing scientific research that supports chiropractic adjustments. I think the heading is aptly named as is. Levine2112 22:38, 21 January 2006 (UTC)


My analysis

I beg to differ, and the following should show my reasons.....

Here is an expanded view with my suggestions and comments, just for this talk page.

The choice of support here is a real mixed bag. Much better quality research is needed here (and it exists for manipulation). It takes typical chiropractic thinking to accept some of these as valid at all. No one but chiropractors and their supporters would interpret them so positively, or even consider them as good research. For example, single case studies of idiosyncratic situations can't be used as proof of anything.

Scientific support for chiropractic
  • Survey (not scientific) support for chiropractic popularity. In this case it could be interpreted negatively, since CAM therapies are generally without evidence of effectiveness. This says more about people's ignorance and gullibility.
- According to a survey released in 2004 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine, chiropractic was the fourth most commonly used complementary and alternative medicine therapy among adults in the United States (7.5%).3,4
  • Improper confusion of chiropractic with manipulation, plus political POV conclusion in conflict with the judge's decision in the trial. She agreed that the AMA was justified in its skepticism and concern for the well-being of the public, but was forced to judge them for an illegal boycott. [5]
- Chiropractic has gained general acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back and neck problems. This was partly a result of the prolonged litigation between the powerful American Medical Association (AMA) and various chiropractors over the legitimacy of the field (see Wilk v. American Medical Association). The AMA is politically opposed to chiropractic as a healing discipline and disputes the concept of subluxation.
  • Scientific support for manipulation in acute (not chronic LBP or maintenance care), but not for the chiropractic profession (needs a reference).
- According to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a meta-analysis of nine studies found spinal manipulation to be effective in improving uncomplicated, acute back pain. The studies found no benefit to treating chronic pain or sciatic nerve irritation.
  • Presumably scientific support for manipulation, but not necessarily for chiropractic alone, since other professions can also provide manipulation Needs references so we can see what it was compared to. For it to be a valid comparison, it needs to have compared it with comparable treatment methods.
- However, more recent studies have found chiropractic to be cost effective in the treatment of chronic back pain.
  • Study that blends manipulation results with chiropractic satisfaction, when compared to a totally different type of care, (apples and oranges problem) therefore hard to analyze the difference here. We could still try classifying it this way:
  • Scientific support for manipulation and for relative cost-effectiveness of chiropractic care
- A new study in the October 2005 issue of the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT)[6]
- Chiropractic care appeared relatively cost-effective for the treatment of chronic LBP. Chiropractic and medical care performed comparably for acute patients. For chiropractic, clinically important differences in pain and disability improvement were found for chronic patients only. Practice-based clinical outcomes were consistent with systematic reviews of spinal manipulation efficacy: manipulation-based therapy is at least as good as and, in some cases, better than other therapeusis.
  • Poorly designed study, comparing manipulation with basically nothing comparable. It was a stacked deck. No other result could be expected. Doing something will always be better than nothing!
- A 2002 investigation supports that spinal manipulation may benefit patients afflicted with asthma [7].
  • Single case study proves nothing, although interesting. In this one case, it could well be that constant pain caused abnormal behavior, that was incorrectly diagnosed as ADHD. So we have a false diagnosis, meaning that ADHD wasn't treated or cured, but it was a pain syndrome that was treated.
- A 2004 study showed that spinal manipulation may benefit ADHD patients [8].
  • These need to be analyzed individually, since this is a wastebasket including some questionable to absurd studies and single case histories. Erin Elster's study is one of the worst ever printed by the Journal for Vertebrally Subluxed Rxtxrds..... That has got to be one of the worst journals around. (The so-called "peers" are other subluxation-based chiros.) Even in chiropractic circles there are chiros who use it, along with Dynamic Chiropractic, to line their bird cages. Matt McCoy's way of putting "scientific" and "subluxation" in the same sentence is simply an expression of extremely conservative, but normative, chiropractic pseudoscience. It's an oxymoron.
- Other recent case studies and research support chiropractic's claim to be effective with a range of conditions including Autism, Irritable Bowel Syndrome, Bell's Palsy, Glaucoma, Crohn's Disease, Colic, Ulcers and Parkinson's Disease.[9][10][11][12][13][14][15][16]

I suggest that the section be purged and rebuilt more carefully. It should be there, but should be limited to manipulation. (But that should be in a "manipulation article.....) -- Fyslee 01:45, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Vertebral "misalignment"

Let me ask you this: Do you believe that veretebrae can become misaligned? Levine2112 02:01, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


I'd like to know what you believe. -- Fyslee 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
My answer is just above the Apple to Oranges comparison on this page. Levine2112 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
As a PT and a PA, I can give you a long or a short answer. You'll get a quick, short, and simple one now. If you want a long one, then you can do some reading.
Yes, vertebrae can become "misaligned" in certain situations, most of which cannot be "corrected" by thrust type "adjustments."
Some situations
  • Fractures
  • Spondylolisthesis
  • Joint destructive diseases, such as RA and severe osteoarthritis.
  • Muscular cramping, such as torticollis
Of course it depends on what you mean by "misaligned." If you mean some crookedness on an x-ray, then no, that doesn't count as "misaligned" (as in subluxation) to an MD or PT. An orthopedic subluxation (not exactly the same as a chiropractic subluxation) refers to a joint that is partially out of joint, not one that is turned, twisted or "crooked", but still within its normal ROM. The last types can look pretty crooked on an x-ray, but may not be in need of attention, unless symptomatic.
Since it is normal for vertebrae to vary and have a certain amount of asymmetry, either from birth, trauma, disease, or aging processes, these less-than-perfect bones can create less than perfect joints. They are still "normal" and can be totally asymptomatic for that particular person, even though an x-ray or palpation may show them to apparently be out of "alignment." In that case, attempting to correct these "misalignments" would be improper, and - from a chiropractic subluxationist viewpoint - would just as likely create a chiropractic subluxation, as to reduce it.
Asymmetry from birth trauma, trauma, stress, injury, diet and aging usually can and should be corrected. Why should a patient settle for "less-than-perfect" when perfection (or near perfection) is attainable? I'm not claiming that perfect alignment will lead to perfect health, but it sure does help - putting your body in a better place to heal and protect itself from further injury and disease. This is not just a chiropractic belief, but one of osteopaths as well. Maybe DocJohnny will back me up here.
What about an injury from lifting something heavy? "Throwing you back out" if you will. Is there vertebral misalignment there that can be corrected? What about a neck injury after a car accident? Is there verterbral misalignment there that can be corrected? What about scoliosis? Certainly you'd agree that there is vertebral misalignment there that can and must be addressed. Levine2112 00:33, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
For more information using Google, do two searches (not limited to vertebrae). You'll get radically different results:
  • subluxation. This search will turn up lots of chiropractic ones, and also some orthopedic ones.
  • subluxation2. This one excludes the words chiropractic and chiropractor, and will help you find fewer chiropractic subluxations, and more real orthopedic ones.
That's the quick, short, and simple version. If you want to know more, just ask. -- Fyslee 23:42, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiro ed dispute

I'm new here, but I have noticed a very anti-chiropractic agenda being perpetrated on this article. It seems to me that there should just be a basic description of chiropractic here and not get into all of the debate. I think the above editor is way too biased to be allowed to make such swweeping changes to this article. From what I've read about Wikipedia, his or her changes have consistently violated the NPOV rules - using this article as a place to sell your opinions is prohibited. I don't think this person is qualified to judge and discredit scientific reports just because they don't jive with his concepts of the world. 72.129.6.122 20:15, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you are new here and you'll learn with time. Editing when new isn't a good idea. Feel the water first before hopping in. It might be hot...;-)
It's not an "anti-chiropractic" agenda, but a chiroskeptical one. There is a big difference. Here at Wikipedia personal viewpoints must be subordinated to NPOV, so statements both for and against must be factual, but must also be stated and backed up.
For my understanding of NPOV and controversial subjects, read this for clarification.
If you can show that my analysis is incorrect, please do so, and be specific. I'm all ears and will apologize if I have misinterpreted something. We work best with evidence and precise quotes here at Wikipedia (and elsewhere as well).
As far as your deletion of my reference to a chiropractic study here, it is true and not at all NPOV. It just happens to burst many chiropractors' self-image, so it's your POV that's showing, not mine....;-)
You apparently didn't access the link, which is the easiest source for that study. Others are far slower and not accessible for all PC owners.
Again, if you can show that the chiropractic study was wrong, then it shouldn't be used. If accurate, then eliminating it would be your POV.
NPOV means that all viewpoints get presented without taking sides. All viewpoints get presented to ensure balance, otherwises 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.


If you want to press the point about entrance requirements, I can easily and without violating NPOV provide more chiropractic sources that are quite unfavorable. Is that really what you want? Sometimes it's best to be quiet and hope that some things don't get brought into the open. This is one of those times, seen from your viewpoint.
Here's a little of the stuff I could post:
In an American chiropractic study comparing chiropractic preadmission requirements with the other health care professions of medicine, dentistry, osteopathy, podiatry, and optometry,
chiropractic students scored the lowest of all professions evaluated on four outcome measures: minimum number of semester hours, completion of four-year bachelor's degree, minimum GPA required on entrance, and average GPA of previous year's entering class. - Doxey TT, Phillips RB. Comparison of entrance requirements for health care professions. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1997;20:86–91.[17],[18]
Another chiropractic study published in 1998 showed that the
grade point average of students entering chiropractic schools is 2.7 compared with 3.5 for those entering medical schools. (Coulter, 1998) [19]
Another chiropractic study from 2005 states:
While the standards for chiropractic education have advanced over the years, there remains much work to be done. Doxey and Phillips, in their paper on entrance requirements to the various professional health care disciplines demonstrated that chiropractic colleges have the least stringent matriculation requirements. Currently, only one chiropractic college requires a baccalaureate degree as an admission requirement. Seven states currently require a baccalaureate degree before granting a chiropractic license and seven have it under consideration, but few of these require that the degree was acquired before entering chiropractic school. There is currently no required chiropractic college admission test. - Wyatt, Perle, Murphy, Hyde; Chiropr Osteopat. 2005; 13: 10.[20]
I hope that enlightens your understanding of the matter.
-- Fyslee 22:08, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


I still doubt the statistic because it from an unreliable biased source. Regardless, why does it even need to be on the article? What is the point other than trying to smear chiropractors? Clearly it was added by someone trying to push an anti-chiropractic agenda. It seems you have a beef with chiropractic and you are using Wikipedia voice it. I may be new here but I know that is wrong. I've been tracking your contributions and they are all about smearing the profession. It seems you do have a very specific agenda of hate. Reading through your bio and seeing the anti-chiropractic sites that you work for only elucidates my point. 72.129.6.122 23:46, 22 January 2006 (UTC)


Well, if you consider a study published by chiropractors in their own journal - the Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics (JMPT) - to be "an unreliable biased source," then be my guest, but I certainly didn't say or imply that, or I wouldn't have used the quote.
If your objection is to the link to the most easily accessible source - Chirobase - then just find another link. Your objection to Chirobase does not justifiy you in removing the information itself.
Regarding Chirobase.org, I know that chiropractors generally have an idea that it is somehow anti-chiropractic, but it is not. It is against quackery in chiropractic. It presents information that many chiropractors are not informed about in school.
If you can find something specific (URL and quote) that is incorrect, please write it here and I'll contact Homola or Barrett and get them to correct it.
(For some reason no chiropractor has yet replied to this request!?!)
The inclusion of that information puts things in perspective. As it was, the whole section seems to be a push to make chiropractic education look better than it is, which would be a violation of POV policy, by introducing one-sided information. I simply provided information from chiropractic sources to balance the picture, thus ensuring a NPOV (balance).
If you wish to believe I "hate" chiropractic, then that is your bias showing. You are apparently unused to discussing these matters with other than those who parrot the party line in chiropractic. The world is bigger, and the scientific and medical world is skeptical of chiropactic. That skepticism, being the majority viewpoint, must also be presented here, accordng to the rules of NPOV.
Wikipedia's NPOV 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.
One must:
  • present the facts about each side's POV, but
  • not present each side's POV as facts
IOW, just tell the story without taking sides.
When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately.
One should:
  • Not tell the truth (subjective & personal) about the subject, (selling)
  • But tell the facts (objective & documented) about the viewpoint. (presenting)
This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV.
It may be improper to correct other's POV of one's own POV. They have a right to their POV, and it would often be improper to edit their remarks (but there are exceptions to every rule). It is best to first discuss the point with them on the Talk page, and encourage them to do the editing themselves.
If their remarks are inaccurate or misrepresentations, then one could present evidence that it was a straw man argument (or whatever was appropriate for the situation). Without evidence in the form of direct quotes (of theirs), it might be improper to make any "straw man" comment.
-- Fyslee 07:40, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Continued objections

I object to Fyslee's statement about this section -

As it was, the whole section seems to be a push to make chiropractic education look better than it is, which would be a violation of POV policy, by introducing one-sided information.

How was the section one-sided? It was no sided. All it did was present factual admission requirements, licensure and regulation. That is all. No bias. Just the clear and straight facts... that is until the bit about the lowest GPA when compared to other health professionals. That may have been true in 1997, but clearly that was only added to this article by a user with an agenda to slander chiropractic. By putting that biased statement in there (while completely allowed by Wiki), it forces users like me or my mystery friend at 72.129.6.122 or other pro-chiropractic user to take action. My recourse is citing more from that report to lessen the slander. The direct quote from the Doxey and Phillips report - which Stephen Barrett was sure to leave out on ChiroBase - was:

The value of pre‑professional requirements relating to success in practice is yet to be determined. Levine2112


If you had been aware of both sides of the question, you wouldn't say that. I happened to know both sides, and realized that only the positive side was being presented, IOW "one-sided". By introducing that one clarifying sentence (instead of a whole series of paragraphs), I balanced it. Any rebuttals on your part may bring it out of balance again, so I would advise against it. -- Fyslee 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


Let me know specifically how that section presented only one side. You say it did. Please let me know what is written there that is completely positive about chiropractic. In my eyes it was completely neutral. Just the cold, hard fact. Levine2112 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


The fact that I could so easily present another side is itself the proof. (More later, I have to run.) -- Fyslee 05:43, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


No, that just means you presented an opinion where before there was none. Show me specifically how the section was pro-chiropractic before the lowest GPA comment was added. Levine2112


I'll do just that in the "Back to the beginning...." section below -- Fyslee 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


And while you're at it, I also noticed that you and your anti-chiropractic compatriates are attacking the Doctor of Chiropractic article. There was a simple statement that read:
D.C. is the suffix added to the end of a chiropractor's name to indicate that they are a Doctor of Chiropractic. Chiropractors can also be referred to simply as "Doctor".
That is a NPOV statement with no opinion. No bias. No agenda. Just the cold hard encyclodedic facts. It's neither positive nor negative, nor is it pro or con. Yet your anti-chiropractic cabal has just changed it to:
"D.C." is the suffix added to the end of a chiropractor's name to indicate that they are a Doctor of Chiropractic. As with anyone with a doctorate degree, chiropractors can also be referred to simply as "Doctor".[21]
It's twisted, but not all that clever. You're trying to impugn chiropractors; take away or lessen their degree; pull it out of the health profession world and make it just a general doctoral degree. (Nothing against non-medical doctoral degrees. Bravo to anyone who earns one.) I'm sorry that you don't respect the D.C. degree enough to liken it to the ranks of the professional medical community. And that was just what one of your chiro hate group vandalized the article with. Here's your version:
"D.C." is the suffix added to the end of a chiropractor's name to indicate that they are a Doctor of Chiropractic. Chiropractors can also be referred to simply as "Doctor", but this practice is considered by other healthcare professionals to be confusing, and possibly unethical. Therefore most chiropractors use only D.C after their name to signal that they are a chiropractor, and not an M.D..[22]
Unethical? Really? That's quite an accusation. And "Most chiropractors use only D.C. after the name." Really? Is that a fact? Where do you get this information? More from Stephen Barrett?
I don't think that I can change your mind about Chiropractic nor am I going to try. But the encyclopedic fact is that DCs are called doctors. They are recognized as such and licenced so by states, the federal and international governments. Every chiropractor I know goes by Doctor. I only ever see D.C. on their business card or stenciled on their office door. There's even a joke in the profession where the Chiropractors only use Doctor plus their first name. "Doctor Rick". "Doctor Steve". The Simpsons even made fun of this practice on national television. It was hilarious. Why? It's funny because it's true.
So saying that a D.C. is also refered to as doctor is not pro-chiropractic opinion. It is a fact. It is not devisive. It is not propaganda. It is what it is, and it is true - opinionless and without any agenda. I'm sorry if that offends you. But until Stephen Barrett wins his crusade, the two statements in both articles should remain without opinions.
There is a clear anti-chiropractic agenda at work everytime you make an edit to these articles. You can't claim otherwise. You are twisting NPOV trying to make it work for you. Furthermore you are taking advantage of Wikipedia - using it as a soapbox to sell your anti-chiropractic/chiro-skeptic message. You can't claim otherwise. Levine2112 08:17, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Again, I ask you to keep the article neutral or not to be bothered when every negative statement you enter (which is in effect a "sell" of your anti-chiropractic agenda) is countered with a positive statement. As you say, an article is only NPOV when all sides are presented. Levine2112


Read my statement above carefully. The paragraph started out one-sided. I balanced it. Any further additions by you risk bringing it out of balance again. The end result should contain both positive and negative aspects. -- Fyslee


It wasn't positive or negative. It was just a list of what is required to get enrolled at chiropractic schools. How is that taking a side? That's just encyclopedic facts. Levine2112 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


Back to the beginning....

I have just deleted a whole dissertation I was prepared to place here. It dawned on me that I would be guilty of burnening this talk page with a case of overkill, out of proportion to the issue.

In this connection I can see that I owe Levine2112 an apology. (Yes, you heard right!)

My deleted response, and some of what I wrote earlier, reflected that I had inadvertently gotten sidetracked, and was responding to Levine2112's criticism, rather than focusing on the actual written details of the article.

In that process I added a sentence that could have been left out, and failed to address the actual point in the article that raised my ("crap detector" (Keating). Here it is:


Original (with my emphasis)
  • Many chiropractic colleges in the United States require a four-year undergraduate degree, although the minimum prerequisite for enrollment in a chiropractic college set forth by the CCE is 90 semester hours. The minimum cumulative GPA for a student entering a chiropractic college is 2.50.


Facts from Chiropractic research
  • While the standards for chiropractic education have advanced over the years, there remains much work to be done. Doxey and Phillips, in their paper on entrance requirements to the various professional health care disciplines demonstrated that chiropractic colleges have the least stringent matriculation requirements. Currently, only one chiropractic college requires a baccalaureate degree as an admission requirement. Seven states currently require a baccalaureate degree before granting a chiropractic license and seven have it under consideration, but few of these require that the degree was acquired before entering chiropractic school. There is currently no required chiropractic college admission test. - Wyatt, Perle, Murphy, Hyde; Chiropr Osteopat. 2005; 13: 10.[23]


A better approach would have been to bring more accuracy to the original statement. That can be done by simply replacing it with a paraphrase from the chiropractic research:

  • In 2005 "only one chiropractic college required a baccalaureate degree as an admission requirement."[24] The minimum prerequisite for enrollment in a chiropractic college set forth by the CCE is 90 semester hours. The minimum cumulative GPA for a student entering a chiropractic college is 2.50.

How about doing that, and dropping the disputed part?:

This was the lowest among health professionals when compared in 1997 [19]. The authors of this comparison noted that although the data reflect differences among health care professions on a limited number of entrance criteria, they do not explain the causes of the differences nor do they offer any insight as to how these measures correlate with successful practice or patient care [20].


How about it? Will that satisfy you? An inaccurate part gets replaced by the latest and most accurate information from chiropractic sources.

Please place your answer below: -- Fyslee 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

*Answer:

That looks fair. Or at least as good as I'm going to get you to agree to. I just want to make sure that I understand what you're saying though. You are only going to add that one paragraph that starts out "In 2005..."? You agree that adding that comparison brought negative bias to the article that - in order to remain fair - either had to be deleted or balanced with a positive statement? I just want to make sure that we are on the same page; using the same standards to edit this article. Levine2112 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


This results in a shorter paragrah that can be updated with newer and better statistics when they arrive. After all, things are looking better at some schools, but it is deeply regretted in some chiro circles. Although the following is from 1990, these attitudes persist to this day among chiros (and their clients) who believe in subluxations and the use of "adjustments" to correct these so-called "misaligned vertebrae":

... at National College of Chiropractic, the manipulation of the spine is not the primary tool of a chiropractor. It is merely manipulation with the purpose of freeing tissue adhesions and a pinched nerve or so. Or maybe to improve circulation. I know! I was there. The word adjustment was hardly used in context nor was subluxation....
...You are losing the one thing that assured us a future: the adjustment of specific vertebral subluxations for the elimination of the cause of many diseases by the effect on the nervous system and its association with the innate ability of the body to maintain law and order in a multitude of systems.
By trying to become equal we are going to become consumed; lose our identity.
...After all, that is why people are coming to us, for chiropractic. The adjustment shouldn't be just another adjunct to therapy. When it becomes that then we will be nothing more than physical therapists.
Our goal behind our adjustments must be specific. We must adjust subluxations which are the interfering force to that life force we call nerve energy -- the road of our Innate. Chiropractors should not forget the past! -- Fyslee 12:14, 24 January 2006 (UTC)



I believe that vertebrae can become misaligned - just like any mobile bone in the body. Levine2112 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


That's where chiropractors differ with the rest of the medical world. Vertebrae aren't "mobile" in the same way as other bones. They can't "slip and slide" around in the same way. Only the facet (zygapophysial) joints on each side have any sliding movement.
The spine should be viewed as one long piece, with bendable joints in between each bone. The construction of each mobile segment prevents them from getting out of joint, while still allowing a certain amount of limited compression, traction, bending, and twisting, all without becoming "misaligned" with each other.
Even B. J. Palmer came to this recognition. He therefore formulated his HIO (Hole In One) concept, where only the top vertebra is "adjusted," supposedly making it unnecessary to adjust any of the other vertebrae, since -as he came to realize - they couldn't get subluxated.
Here under the skull there is much more movement and some slippage, and also where the greatest risk of injury [25] exists because of the course of the vertebral arteries through the vertebrae. They can be kinked or pinched, resulting in blood clots which can then travel directly up to the brain, causing a stroke or (what might be better) death.
I once read a chiropractic "patient education" brochure that deliberately and very carefully exploited a common and misleading expression - a "slipped disc." Anatomically speaking this is nonsense. A disc can't slip, since it is very firmly fused (grown together with) the vertebrae above and below itself. The brochure went on to explain how a chiropractic adjustment could "push it back in place," an anatomical impossibility.
A disc herniation is not a correctable "slipping" movement of the disc, but is what happens when the central inner gell-like core of the disc gets pressed through "cracks" in the outer ring of the disc. To really understand it, one can imagine squeezing a tube of toothpaste. Once the toothpaste has been squeezed out, it can't be pushed back in. The illustration doesn't fit exactly, but it helps people to get the picture. Here are some good illustrations of the process: [26] A disc "protrusion" is another matter, for which McKenzie therapy can be a good approach. -- Fyslee 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)


I believe that when the vertebrae are misaligned they can impinge on a nerve branch and decrease the efficiency of how your brain communicates with the rest of the body. Therefore, I believe that the primary focus of chiropractic should be aligning vertebrae to promote better health. I guess I pretty much agree with the above article and see it as a rallying call for chiropractors and chiropractic colleges. I think it is inspiring. Levine2112 17:44, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


At least you are consistent in your approach, and that doesn't surprise me. Since you found the article above (which I consider to be a step backwards for chiropractic, but it's simply a defense of the ancient status quo) "inspiring," then you'll love this one:
"It's time we start educating the public that what we do is not spinal manipulation and what we do is 'specific scientific chiropractic adjustments.' It is also time we start educating the public that these adjustments are for correction of vertebral subluxations, and it is time to educate the public as to what subluxations are and what they can do." [27]
There is a commentary on that article here: Are PTs Stealing Chiropractic? -- Fyslee 22:21, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Apples and oranges comparisons

Furthermore, why is the comparison needed? Doesn't it just fall into your definition of an "apples-to-oragnes" comparison. Remember, when you deleted the stat about how many hospitalized patients end up sick or dead due to medical care to put the one-in-4 million stat about cervical-adjustments-leading-to-stroke in perspective? Where is the fairness? Shouldn't you apply the same standards to editing across the board and not just where it aids your anti-chiropractic agenda? If you are in favor of fairness and NPOV as you claim to be, then you would delete this comparison too.


??? You apparently don't understand the concept. "Apples and oranges".... refers to comparing two totally different and incomparable matters. Your original error, where I made the statement and correction, referred to a very typical, invalid, chiropractic argument, where the risks associated with unnecessary and avoidable neck manipulations are improperly compared with the risks associated with brain surgery and other complicated, risky and necessary medical procedures.
That's like comparing apples with oranges. It's an unfair comparison.
The present chiro ed. situation is a direct comparison, made by chiropractic researchers, of four directly comparable parameters. Read it again. -- Fyslee 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)
Right. And the comparison between medical complications versus chiropractic complications was also direct comparson. Just like this is comparing chiropractic to other health professions, so did the the comparison in the risks section which you repeatedly deleted. I may go back and re-insert it based on your explanation above. Levine2112 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)


And please don't threaten other users just because their beliefs differ from yours. That isn't very Wiki of you. Levine2112 22:00, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


??? Explain yourself. That sounds pretty ominous! I may have warned someone, but not because of a difference in belief. I don't usually believe things, unless I can document them. -- Fyslee 23:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)


This is a threat made by you above:
If you want to press the point about entrance requirements, I can easily and without violating NPOV provide more chiropractic sources that are quite unfavorable. Is that really what you want? Sometimes it's best to be quiet and hope that some things don't get brought into the open. This is one of those times, seen from your viewpoint.
Telling another user to stay quiet or else you're going to bring down the hate is a threat. You have also gone to the talk pages of people who have added what you consider pro-chiropractic statements and told them to "take it easy" on editing. Finally, on your talk page you have consistently made personal attacks on me calling me annoying, threatening me with arbitration, and belittling my knowledge on this subject just because I don't agree with you. That is not a very Wiki attitude and I am asking you to stop making me and my opinions feel unwelcomed at Wikipedia. Levine2112 01:55, 24 January 2006 (UTC)

Problems with summary

Hello,

There are some inaccuracies in the article on chiropractic that do not reflect the latest research. I posted some corrections under AJB but they were deleted. These changes should be restored. They discuss how chiropractic doesn't meet the burden of proof that standard medicine requires, cost to benefit problems in chiropractic overutilization of cervical manipulation and its iatrogenic effect-stroke, the continued use of disproven and questionable chiropractic techniques, and the problem of chiropractic asserting that spinal misalignments are primary etiology rather than the effects of other conditions-which is quite established. There is also an irrelevant paragraph on upper cervical chiropractic-which is practiced by only 1% of chiropractors and hasn't made any significant discoveries because the cited techniques follow an orthogonal model that ignores individual anatomical variations (only Blair Technique, which is not mentioned, accounts for this). Another problem is the statement that straight chiropractors want to work with legitimate medical professionals. This is absolutely untrue. Straight chiropractors routinely disparage medical doctors, spread anti-vaccination propaganda, and rail against diagnosing problems calling it inaccurate. The real truth is that they delay necessary diagnosis rather than are responsible in their referrals. All of these problems need to be addressed to make the Wikki article factual.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Abotnick (talk • contribs) .

POV in article

This article seems to be very biased towards chiropractic care. We're over 1000 words into the article before we are informed for the first time that "The use of manipulative therapy — especially as practiced by chiropractors — is regarded with controversy by medical authorities in many nations."

Then when we get to the part about the American Medical Association's position on chiropractic care we are told "Chiropractic has gained general acceptance in the last 40 years as an appropriate treatment for certain back and neck problems. This was partly a result of the prolonged litigation between the powerful American Medical Association (AMA) and various chiropractors over the legitimacy of the field (see Wilk v. American Medical Association). The AMA is politically opposed to chiropractic as a healing discipline and disputes the concept of subluxation."

That whoever wrote this wanted to qualify AMA with the adjective "powerful" does not bely POV as much as saying the "AMA is politically opposed to chiropractic". Politically opposed? That doesn't make much sense to me - they are medically opposed to it, or at least, after the lawsuit, adverse to it.

I have no desire to make a statement that since the mainstream AMA, doctors with medical degrees and so forth, consider chiropractic care to be a quack medicine, that it is so. But I do think this article does need to display more prominently and straightforwardly what the position of the AMA was and is on chiropractic care. The view of chiropractors and their supporters can be represented as well, and the reader can decide. But the AMA case presented here is buried deep in the article, and is not made well at all. Mr. Know-It-All 23:38, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I think adding that to the overview as you have done is all right. But the fact that there is an entire Criticism section, should also help balance out this article. Levine2112 03:21, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


This needs correcting

These sentences, found under the heading "Safety concerns," have been worked over and so far seem reasonably satisfactory:

  • Many chiropractors report that these serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine remain rare, having been documented at 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer [28]. Such estimates are believed to be highly unreliable based on the possibility of vast (up to 100%) underreporting of problems. While still rare, the true incidence could be higher, and further research may shed more light on this situation.

....but there appear to be problems with what follows in the rest of the paragraph:

The following sentences introduced by an anonymous Australian user, are extremely one-sided and actually inaccurate on several points:

  • Still, the safety of manipulation, by all accounts in current literature, appear to be superior to many non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, and spinal surgical procedures. The safety issue is again made controversial by the fact that much reported manipulation that resulted in stroke was not actually performed by chiropractors (see Terrett, AG). Also, stroke appears to be a random event in people of all ages, including babies.

To understand the nature of the problems, we'll need to analyze and deal with each sentence by itself, since each sentence has different types of problems:


Sentence 1

1. "Still, the safety of manipulation, ..."

The very first word ("still") is a biased POV, that sets the stage for the rest, which is designed to undermine the intent of the whole section (safety concerns about possible risks) and downplay the known risks. It is therefore unnecessary and counterproductive to the paragraph and to the sentence itself.


2. "..., by all accounts in current literature, ..."

The next phrase - "by all accounts..." - is an absolute (never say "never"....;-) and broad (it couldn't be broader!) statement, without any documentation (impossible to list it all), and is in fact untrue as regards cervical manipulation, the object of the "safety concerns." If it is to be kept at all, one could substitute "many" for "all." One cannot really claim "all", when cervical manipulation has been shown to have rare, but very serious, risks. The phrase simply ignores all the literature dealing with the risks of cervical manipulation.


3. "..., appear to be superior to many non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, ..."

The rest of the sentence is a misleading apples and oranges comparison on several counts:
  • Many NSAIDs are self-administered for a myriad of conditions, many of which are not for problems comparable to those treated by chiropractors using spinal manipulation. (Okay, there are plenty of chiros who treat literally everything using "adjustments!") Therefore one cannot, in all fairness, compare the risks.
  • Self-administered treatments should not be compared with treatments very carefully and deliberately administered by a practitioner.
  • Since this section is about "safety concerns" involving cervical manipulation, the comparisons should be with methods used to treat the cervical spine, not all kinds of other things. (Ironically, the most (in number) serious chiropractic injuries I have actually seen in our clinic have been fractured lumbar vertebrae....! Of course the dead patients didn't come to me at all, but some strokes have been suspect....)
  • Chiropractors regularly manipulate the cervical spine for problems that have no relation to it. Thus these "adjustments" are a totally unnecessary risk factor, and therefore should not be compared with other procedures with even greater risks, where there can at least be some excuse for their use.


4. "..., and spinal surgical procedures."

  • To compare unnecessary and avoidable cervical "adjustments", often used for totally unrelated problems - or even when used for innocent neck problems - with complicated, risky and necessary "spinal surgical procedures," which are reserved for absolutely necessary and unavoidable situations, is one of the worst examples of typical chiropractic POV propaganda arguments around. One hears it all the time, and those who use it are either incredibly stupid, or are unethically and deliberately attempting to brainwash people. It violates a number of the rules of logic by making unfair comparisons ("apples and oranges"). The risks are extremely different, because the situations are totally different, so claiming that "the safety of manipulation, ......appear to be superior" is a bunch of crap.
I agree that the sentence is POV and could be reworked a bit. However, you can't call people "stupid" or "unethical" or accuse them of deliberatley brainwashing people. Your vitriolic attacks are uncalled for here. It is only your opinion that cervical adjustments are "unnecessary and avoidable". I happen to disagree and so do a lot of doctors, scientists and a large and growing portion of the general population. There is a lot of science out there that shows that chiropractic cervical adjustments are extrememly beneficial for more than just neck aches - but also for systems that you deem "completely unrelated" such as the immune, respitory, digestive and ciculatory. I know that there is also science that you point to that says just the opposite and cites the risks, but that doesn't excuse your use of opinionated, hate-inspired terms like "a bunch of crap". Please try to be more sensitive and rational when stating your case.
Furthermore, given chiropractic's strong anti-drug / anti-surgical stance, making comparisons to drug treatments and sugeory is completely warranted. Bear in mind, that generally chiropractors do believe that drugs and surgery are necessary at times; it's just that drugs and risky surgeory are massively over-prescribed. Chiropractors opt for more natural, less invasive routes to help their patients heal and help prevent futher illness. However, chiropractors are certainly aware of their own limitations and therefore it is of no surprise that chiropractors quite commonly have one of the highest referral rates of any health practitioners. Levine2112 18:41, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Sentence 2

"...The safety issue is again made controversial by the fact that much reported manipulation that resulted in stroke was not actually performed by chiropractors (see Terrett, AG)...."
  • That statement is patently false. The "safety issue is" not at all "controversial," because - although "Terrett did expose a few (not "much") cases of misreporting - it didn't make that much difference in the overall picture, with chiropractors still being greatly overrepresented in the statistics of injuries and deaths, and Physical Therapists not being responsible for any deaths (revealed in another study - (below)).
  • Quote (which mentions Terrett's study):
"The graphs are interesting, especially Figure 2, where the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett. PTs were involved in less than 2% of all cases, with no deaths caused by PTs. DCs were involved in a little more than 60% of all cases, including 32 deaths." [29]
Given your stance on "apples and oranges" above, the comparison here to PTs seems strangely convenient (especially coming from you, a PT). Also, I read this article that you referenced above and could not find what you quoted. I did a text search on the page, read it again, and scanned it several more time and still I could not find this quote. Please explain. Levine2112 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Oops! Wrong quote marks (or link). Let's try that again:
  • The following link is to a study that was guided by the observations from Terrett's study. The graphs are interesting, especially Figure 2, where the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett. PTs were involved in less than 2% of all cases, with no deaths caused by PTs. DCs were involved in a little more than 60% of all cases, including 32 deaths: Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits


Please point out where in this article it is said that DCs were involved with 32 deaths.


Good catch! Nice to get that cleared up. DCs were involved in a little more than 60% of all cases of injuries and deaths, and PTs were involved in less than 2% of all cases, with no deaths caused by PTs. Death occurred in 32 cases. The information on the website doesn't indicate just how many of those deaths were caused by chiropractors. The graphs are still quite interesting Figure 2.
From the summary:
  • "The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases. Physical therapists were involved in less than 2% of the cases, and no deaths have been attributed to MCS provided by physical therapists." [Di Fabio RP. Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits. Phys Ther. 1999;79:50-65.] -- Fyslee 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Also, if we are in the middle of discussing a possible edit to a section, why did you go and delete it?


Because I don't need to ask your permission, and the sentences were so full of obvious inaccuracies and POV statements. -- Fyslee 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
I wasn't asking for you to get my permission. But you put the matter to discussion and asked for ideas to edit it. Then you deleted it. Certainly, be bold with your edits. But don't put the matter to discussion if you are just going to disregard anything anyone says.Levine2112 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Further, perhaps I am being oversensitive, but I don't appreciate you telling me that I don't understand "apples to oranges" in the manner that you did. It was a condescending remark. I feel I understand the concept of "apples to oranges" completely. The now deleted paragraph was stating (though perhaps not clearly articulating) that with regards to some neck trauma, chiropractic care is much safer than drugs and surgical treatment. There is a direct comparison between two schools of thought in treating the same issue. That is "apples to apples". Levine2112 22:24, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes, you are indeed "oversensitive." You still don't seem to understand the application of the "apples and oranges" concept in this case, because they are not "treating the same issue". There is no comparison between the problems chiropractors treat and the problems surgeons treat.
No, actually I pointed out how they are comparable. They are treating the same thing: disease. The comparison is quite applicable. Levine2112 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


A logical fallacy
Comparing "apples to oranges" is a logical fallacy. Here's an explanation for this case:
We have two different professions dealing with the same part of the human anatomy, but for hugely different problems.
Just because chiropractors and surgeons may be dealing with a neck problem, doesn't mean that the relative safety and risk can logically be compared. The problems are so different that a comparison is nonsensical.
If the problems were the same, then a comparison might be legitimate.
  • Some examples of problems commonly treated by chiropractors using neck manipulation:
headache, stiff neck from muscle tension, problems elsewhere in the body, allergies, ADHD, etc.
None of these would be treated by a surgeon using surgery.
  • Some examples of problems commonly treated by surgeons using neck surgery:
neck cancer, fractures, some herniated discs, cervical instability, bone grafts, etc.
None of these should be touched by a chiropractor. These are cases of "last resort" where other more conservative measures have either failed or are not applicable.
Conclusion: The risks for the two approaches should not be compared. -- Fyslee 07:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


Yes, from the extremely limited examples that you provided above, you are right. There is no comparison. However, when you take into account that DCs and MDs are both health practitioners, that they both are doctors, that they both treat illness, that they both treat common diseases and symptoms such as colds, the flu, migraines, muscle pain, neck and back pain, stiffness, soreness, Crohn's, IBS, allergies et cetera, et cetera... now all of a sudden there is a plain and obvious comparison. The differnece is that DCs opt for a more natural less invasive approach while MDs typically opt for drugs and surgery. That is a direct comparison. Once again: Apples to Apples. (My favorite boardgame!) Levine2112 17:38, 28 January 2006 (UTC)


I'd be amused if this weren't so tragic. You still don't get it, or you're just refusing to stick to the subject.
This "extremely limited example" happens to be THE SUBJECT! You have an agenda to whitewash chiropractic by smearing medicine. But that's not going to work here, because that's not the subject.
The subject is the risks of cervical manipulation, no matter who practices it. Now stick to the subject, because you are making a fool of yourself with these cheap and amateurish tactics. Keep in mind that I've dealt with chiropractors and their tricks for years. Discussing anything controversial with them is like trying to pin Jello to the wall with a thumbtack. They are so brainwashed that they don't even realize that they are evading the truth at all costs.
At least you do admit I'm right for a few seconds, but you just can't accept that fact and have to feebly attempt to weasel your way out of it: "Yes, from the extremely limited examples that you provided above, you are right."
In a certain sort of way, I'm rather pleased that you are the one exposing chiropractic's disingenuity, because you parrot the party line so well. Lots of chiropractors don't even do it that well. Unfortunately for yourself you have chosen to defend an outdated version of what many chiropractors still believe. Fortunately more and more of them are abandoning that indefensible position. -- Fyslee 19:19, 29 January 2006 (UTC)
I think it is possible that you have become too emotional about this subject to be objective. Red is a very angry and telling color in this case. The bottom line is that DCs and MDs are both in the health profession. Since they have different approaches and philosophies to healing a comparison is not only justified, it is essential. Apples to apples.


If we were talking about the differences between chiropractic and the medical profession in general, then such comparisons would at least be on topic, but that's not the subject of this article, of this section on safety, or of this paragraph. Just stick to the subject and stop beating around the bush. I've removed the red color. At least it got your attention, even if you continue to evade the point of this discussion. -- Fyslee 05:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


Again, please refrain from your personal attacks. Please stop using pejorative phrases against me such as "cheap", "amateurish", "brainwashed", and "fool". If you can't be civil, then please refrain from saying anything at all. Wikipedia has strict policies against this. Levine2112 23:13, 29 January 2006 (UTC)


Your evasiveness is quite frustrating. If you weren't engaging in behavior that fit the descriptions, I wouldn't use them. Just stick to the subject and leave the whining for others who can't defend themselves. You should be able to do so, but instead you evade the subject and run for help. I doubt you'll get much sympathy for such behavior, since you have brought it on yourself. I'm sticking to the point. You aren't. --- Fyslee 05:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I am going to spell this out really easy (to avoid even more attacks and accusations from you). DCs and MD both, for example, treat neck trauma caused from auto accidents, sports injuries, on-the-job trauma, et cetera. DC's approach is non-invasive adjustments. MD's approach is drugs and surgery. The way DCs and MDs treat these injuries are directly comparable. Once again, apples to apples. Now what we were discussing were the risks involved in upper cervical chiropractic adjustments versus medical neck surgery and drugs. Neck surgery - as we all well know - is a highly risky procedure that often results in paralysis or death. So unless surgery is my only option, I'll take my chances with chiropractic adjustments - that at worst (accoriding to your sources) has less than a one-in-four million chance of causing a stroke. That being said, chiropractic has its limitations and chiropractors are trained to know what they are. If surgery and drugs are the better or only option, chiropractors will refer their patients to an MD. Levine2112 18:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


You write:
"Now what we were discussing were the risks involved in upper cervical chiropractic adjustments versus medical neck surgery and drugs."
No, you used a common chiropractic diversionary tactic to draw attention away from the subject of the section on "Safety concerns":
  • Chiropractic
  • Criticism of chiropractic
  • Safety concerns
It is at this point (ONLY chiropractic) the discussion should be centered, nowhere else. I'm tired of your continual evasions and diversionary tricks and don't see that we're getting anywhere, so I'll just continue editing occasionally. A simple conversation using normal logic shouldn't really be that difficult, but it's not working here. Nothing new in chiroland. I've seen it many times before. -- Fyslee 20:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
Was this discussion not about the saftey concerns of upper cervical chiropractic adjustments? I read back and see that it was. I see no reason that an apples-to-apples comparison between the risks of adjustments versus surgery cannot be presented. No tricks. No logical fallacies. It's plain and simple. Levine2112 21:05, 30 January 2006 (UTC)


If it concerned the same condition being treated by different methods, then yes. But that's not the case here. The treated conditions are totally dissimilar, and therefore should not be compared.

  • To illustrate (apples to oranges comparison):

1. Two men standing beside each other in Times Square looking at a billboard with stock exchange numbers moving across it. One is a stockbroker, the other a sign painter. They both look at the sign and plan on doing something about it.

2. Now comes the big question: Which one do you consider the best one for the job?

3. The answer is obvious -- One cannot answer the question without knowing what they intend to do about the sign, and - most important of all - what you yourself wish to do about it.

4. If you are interested in changing the color of the sign, you will talk to the sign painter. If you want to invest your money, you'll talk with the stockbroker about his interpretation of those numbers. Two different men, two different jobs. The only thing they have in common is they are both standing on Times Square and looking at the same sign, but will be "treating" unrelated and incomparable situations. -- Fyslee 22:26, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

As I stated above: DCs and MD both, for example, treat neck trauma caused from auto accidents, sports injuries, on-the-job trauma, et cetera. DC's approach is non-invasive adjustments. MD's approach is drugs and surgery. The way DCs and MDs treat these injuries are directly comparable. To use your example, now we are dealing with two painters who have very different approaches to sign painting. One who wants to dismantle the sign, paint it and then reassemble it; and the other who wants to simply paint the sign where it stands. Levine2112 22:48, 30 January 2006 (UTC)
You are so "oversensitive" that you are complaining about me. That's called being "thin-skinned. You conveniently forget all your easily documentable vandalism, POV edits, personal attacks, and all the "hate" remarks you have made about me while following me around Wikipedia. You're an expert at attempting to whitewash chiropractic. You've really made me feel very welcome here!
True, I did start out in Wikipedia making personal attacks for about 4 or 5 days, but that ceased immediately after I was told about Wikipedia ettiquette. [30] Since then, I have made no personal attacks and no "hate" remarks. Not to you, not to anyone. If anything, I've been fostering fair, rational discussion to create better Wikipedia articles.
Now this is not the place to post these kinds of discussions, so I will stop here. If you have a personal matter to discuss rationally with me, please reserve it to my or your talk pages.Levine2112 00:54, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Complaints by Levine2112:
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&diff=36305362&oldid=36300978
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Wikiquette_alerts&curid=1573552&diff=37003907&oldid=36925942
Don't try to play innocent with us.... "Let him who is without sin cast the first stone." -- Fyslee 00:27, 28 January 2006 (UTC)



  • This is the largest and best quality study on this subject I can think of right now. What's interesting is that it didn't intend to focus on chiropractors at all, but they unavoidably came into the picture. Its purpose was "to identify cases of injury involving treatment by physical therapists," but also "to review previously reported cases in which injuries were attributed to MCS,....and to describe the risks and benefits of MCS." That of course meant a thorough review of the literature.
The summary:
Manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS) is used in the treatment of people with neck pain and muscle-tension headache. The purposes of this article are to review previously reported cases in which injuries were attributed to MCS, to identify cases of injury involving treatment by physical therapists, and to describe the risks and benefits of MCS. One hundred seventy-seven published cases of injury reported in 116 articles were reviewed. The cases were published between 1925 and 1997. The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases. Physical therapists were involved in less than 2% of the cases, and no deaths have been attributed to MCS provided by physical therapists. Although the risk of injury associated with MCS appears to be small, this type of therapy has the potential to expose patients to vertebral artery damage that can be avoided with the use of mobilization (nonthrust passive movements). The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks. Several recommendations for future studies and for the practice of MCS are discussed. [Di Fabio RP. Manipulation of the cervical spine: risks and benefits. Phys Ther. 1999;79:50-65.]
Key Words: Effectiveness, Physical therapy, Risk, Spinal manipulation, Vertebrobasilar accident. -- Fyslee 19:37, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


(Levine2112's remarks copied here for ease of continuing the discussion.)

Given your stance on "apples and oranges" above, the comparison here to PTs seems strangely convenient (especially coming from you, a PT). Also, I read this article that you referenced above and could not find what you quoted. I did a text search on the page, read it again, and scanned it several more time and still I could not find this quote. Please explain. Levine2112 18:58, 27 January 2006 (UTC)
An understanding of the concept of "apples and oranges" comparisons must have escaped you.
This is a perfectly proper situation for comparison, since the identical treatment method is being applied by different professions, and the results are compared. You can't get it any better than that. Apples are being compared to apples.
The "quote" was a paraphrase from the summary, and shouldn't have been in quotation marks. Now you have the whole thing and can read it. I'd suggest you read the published study. It's very interesting and informative.
To make sure you don't misunderstand my opinion on this matter, don't think PTs or MDs get off the hook! I'm an equal opportunity skeptic....;-).
My opinion on cervical manipulation:
  • Before adjusting the numbers according to the findings by Terrett, it looked like DCs were involved in more cases than was actually the case. The revised figures made DCs look a very little bit better, but were still far too high. A casual glance at these numbers could lead to the partially incorrect conclusion, that manipulation, when performed by a chiropractor, is much more dangerous than when performed by other practitioners. No, that would not be entirely correct. They should be seen more as a reflexion of the fact that manipulation is most often performed by DCs.
  • Regardless of who performs the manipulation - the more it gets done, the greater the risk. Sooner or later someone is going to get hurt. It needs to be used much more judiciously, by whoever it is that uses it, than most DCs use it today. If a PT or MD were to use spinal manipulation in precisely the same way, extent and frequency that DCs do, they would be exposing their patients to the same risks that chiropractic patients are exposed to every day. The statistics would then reveal more injuries from PTs and MDs.
  • While the technique itself is potentially problematic, the attitude of most chiropractors towards it makes it doubly so when applied by them.
  • Here is a conclusion from the summary of the article above:
  • "The literature does not demonstrate that the benefits of MCS outweigh the risks."

Sentence 3

"...Also, stroke appears to be a random event in people of all ages, including babies."
  • Not so. It is far from simply random, with many documented risk factors. One of those - the subject of this section - is often deliberately and carefully applied in often inexcusable situations. That places it in a very different class than the other risk factors. It is directly linked as an independent risk factor. Here is just one study right to the point: Spinal manipulative therapy is an independent risk factor for vertebral artery dissection.


Suggested improvements

Simply drop those two sentences. They are inaccurate and don't apply, plus their only purpose is a strongly biased POV attempt to downplay the risks by making invalid comparisons. This is a typical chiropractic attempt to distract attention from the issue at hand. The fact that the risks are "rare" is mentioned twice should be enough to place things in their proper perspective. -- Fyslee 07:33, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

Strip malls

Perhaps the sentence regarding "strip malls" should be removed... I'm not a regular Wikipedia contributor, but it just strikes me as being somewhat irrelevant. I've been to opthamologists and know of many M.D.'s and other doctors who run practices out of a "strip mall" location. It just seems like an unnecessary addition, unless the same statement is made in the opening paragraphs regarding physicians and opthamologists. Just a thought... but what do i know? Maybe eye doctors and general practitioners are all quacks... not to mention car mechanics... goddamn shifty car mechanics.

Criticisms

Frankly, I give up on wikipedia all together. If this is the kind of caliber we can expect to see, I don't see how it can serve as an information hub for the world. Out of thousands of positive articles, they choose to use one of the few old negative study as the reference. If someone brand new to the chiropractic came and read this article, they'd think NACM is actually a legitimate chiropractic association. There are just so many problems in the article, it should be purged and rewritten from scratch. It's pointless arguing about what should be included and what wording we are going to use. Definition of chiropractic has already been written. Practice scope can be imported from state board. History of chiropractic can be supplied by legitimate associations. There are proper channels of information which can be used to write the article. Yet it's written by a group of chiropractors not even making up a percentage point. From this point on, I'm boycotting wikipedia and will make sure many more does the same thing. Jesus..this is about the most degenerate site I've ever wasted my time on. Rest of you good intentioned guys should do the same. Don't waste time trying to improve the garbage. All you are going to come up with is another garbage. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 69.168.108.191 (talk • contribs) .

I agree, this article is of shocking quality. From the very first paragraph the article is already trying to defend practitioner's claim to be "Doctors". The whole article reads like an argument for why Chiropractic is a scientifically valid health service. Such arguments are irrelevant to the the subject of Chiropractic at large. I'd propose that the whole article be rewritten such that the main article discusses what chiropractic is and describes the ideas behind it and the mechanisms through which it is supposed to work while the debate about whether chiropractic is valid be restricted to its own small section or separated into a completely separate article.

People who just want to find out a bit about chiropractic and how it works should not have to wade through mounds of subjective irrelevancies about how it's supposedly a "Good Thing". That such subjective arguments exist at all in the general article itself highlights that it is far from neutral.

Finally, in reply to the person above, boycotting is a silly idea. This is wikipedia, not some capitalist profit-driven enterprise. It's like an anarchist idea of the people providing the services they want for themselves. Nobody's going to care if you boycott it; you're not a paying customer anyway. The nature of this kind of freedom is if you want to make the service better, you need to participate. Walking away whinging isn't going to make any difference to anyone and just makes you look like a spoilt brat. Bobstopper 04:41, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Bobstopper, I agree with you 100% and have proposed the very same thing that you are asking for several times (on this very talk page and on multiple users' pages) - in that I would like this to be just a cut-and-dry article about what chiropractic is and what chiropractors do. Criticism and advocacy should be contained to a minimum. I know that I am responsible for a lot of the advocacy bias in this article, but it was only to counter all of the skeptical bias. At first, I would try to remove the negative POV, but my edits would always be reverted, sometimes with accusations of vandalism. I decided that the only way to balance the article was to add to it. Where I saw a critical opinion, I countered with a positive opinion; critical scientific research with positive scienrific research. Skepticism was added that countered a new advocacy statement that trumped a skeptical point that spun a positive quotation that qualified a negative remark that diluted this and defended that and so on and so on... Now, as a result - while this article is certainly replete with very detailed chiropractic information - it is certainly hard to wade through all of this point/counterpoint POV.
The anonymous user above (69.168.108.191) has a valid point - not the boycotting hooey ;-) - but about the NACM. It is rather trivial in the grand scheme of chiropractic. A marginal percentage of chiropractors are part of this organization - even less that other kinds of chiropractic philosophical schools and techniques that aren't represented... Kale, Specific, Blair, CBP, DCM, Gonstead, HIO, Logan, Meric, Super-Straight; heck the Activator isn't even mentioned here! However, detailing each one of these in this article would just be complete overkill and we'd end up with a page well beyond the recommended Wikipedia file size. All of these philosophies and techniques would be better served having their own pages with a reference link from the main Chiropractic article. But as it is now, including NACM is like listing the three schools of Chrisitanity as Protestant, Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.
I mention the NACM point only because I think it is symptomatic of the overall problem with the article. There's a lot of different point-of-views each trying to have their voice heard on the main chiropractic page, when really the main article should just serve as a broad overview of chiropractic. It should flattly describe what chiropractic is, what chiropractors do, some history, some science, some philosophy, and then references to internal and external links. (Check out the U.S. Dept. of Labor's rendition of a chiropractic page for a concise cut-and-dry description of the nature of chiropractic here. I think it is very encyclopaedic.) The philosophies should be saved for pages specific to each of those points-of-view.
Easier said then done, no doubt. That being said, I would like to participate and help acheive this new plan or any other design that better suits the interest of Wikipedia researchers than what we have now. Yours in health. Levine2112 07:58, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I would suggest firstly that *every* opinion on the article be stripped. It's not enough to counter opinions with more opinions - that just adds to the clutter. Careful attention needs to be paid to ensuring that only factual accounts of what chiropractic is and its intentions should remain. This will probably result in an article about 1/10 of the size. Any edit which adds subjectivity to the article needs to be treated as vandalism and removed unless it is added under a separate, clear heading such as "controversies surrounding chiropractic" or some such similar heading. If that section grows too large it should be moved to a separate article. If people insist on cluttering the main article with their opinions, the opinions should be removed and possibly the whole article locked until the offenders leave. Violent and merciless pruning is the only way to repair this article.
Someone who knows something about chiropractic should do this. I'd offer but I came here to learn about it. Let me say, as someone who came to the page looking for information, the page is absolutely useless in its current form. Bobstopper 08:34, 22 February 2006 (UTC)

External links

This section is becoming needlessly large. I really don't think we need a list of every single chiropractic college/organisation in this article.... "Descriptions of chiropractic procedures " is a good section, so are some of the "other resources" and some of the "critiques". --CDN99 15:44, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Then let's refine it. Which ones do you feel should be 86ed? Levine2112 17:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
A possible start:
Chiropractic organisations: the main national ones should be here: American CA, British CA, Canadian CA, and International CA.
Chiropractic colleges: keep Palmer Chiropractic college, remove the rest? It could be considered self-promotion having all these listed here. --CDN99 19:20, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Obviously the first to go would be the ones that are privately-owned and operated and solicit donations. Also, ones that contain links to the editor who placed them there should be deleted. These create self-serving link farms that generate traffic and/or revenue for the parties involved. It is made crystal-clear by Wikipedia that these types of activities (soapboxes, etc.) are prohibited.Steth 19:24, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We'll get to that. --CDN99 19:29, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Good idea. Websites that are owned and controlled by individuals should be deleted. Also multiple links to the same website should go to.Steth 21:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

We will get to that. Please address the points I made above, then we'll go on to other areas of possible improvement. --CDN99 21:53, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

For the organizations, aside from the one's that CDN99 listed which I completely agree with, I would also like to see the WCA and WFC remain (though perhaps moved to the "Other Resources" category with ChiroWeb.com) as they are each widely recognized within the chiropractic community and provide a strong resource of chiropractic information. Perhaps we should also include a link to the Japanese Association of Chiropractic in the organtizations section.

I am not sure why we would want to limit the number of colleges or why that would be self-promotion. I am also unsure why we would want to limit the colleges to just Palmer. Cleveland, Life and Sherman are certainly just as reputable and recogized.

The Other Resources section is packed with articles that defend or promote chiropractic. These were added to counter the articles in Critique section. If these promotion articles are removed from the Other Resources (leaving behind only WCA, WFC, ChiroWeb, PlanetChiropractic and the cool 3-d simulator link) I think the critiques section should then be limited to links to the homepages of Chirobase, Chirowatch, Chiromed and NCAHF. Levine2112 22:22, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Levine on the above. Colleges are always a good thing, institutions of academia, accredited, must meet standards, etc.
These should also go:
  • Chiropractic Awareness Council (CAC)
  • Christian Chiropractors Association (CCA)
  • Congress of Chiropractic State Associations (COCSA)
  • Christian Chiropractors Association (CCA)
  • Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards
  • Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO)
  • Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (FACE)
Reading Chirowatch, it is owned and operated by an emotional acne doctor whose purpose is to demonize chiropratic, make it extinct ASAP and collect donations in the process. Not exactly encyclopedic material and a good example of everything that Wikipedia avoids. (Soapbox, propaganda, link-farm, etc.)
Similar reasons for Chirobase and NCAHF. There is a difference between claiming to be skeptical about something and actually initiating and organizing anti-chiropractic activities whose intent it is to damage, embarrass or harm a profession. I can provide many examples.
Also I am skeptical about an organization that gives itself misleading, official-sounding name like "National Council" that is an individually owned and operated private enterprise, that also solicits donations. Should an encyclopedia become a revenue generator for these sites? Clearly no. They are all link-farms that increase their Google ranking. More Wikipedia red-flags.
Chiromed should also be removed IMO, because it represents almost no one, and won't reveal any information about it'a membership or organizational structure (meetings, accreditations, voting, etc.) Steth 00:11, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
There are dozens of chiropractic schools, and it has been pointed out above that wikipedia is not a link farm. I'll give the ex links a trimming, see what you think. --CDN99 01:24, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
BTW, which "side" is http://www.chiroweb.com on? --CDN99 01:29, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Chiroweb.com is Donald Petersen, Jr's baby. He's the editor of Dynamic Chiropractic. He's not a chiro himself, but comes from a chiro family. It's the most widely read (he sends it to all chiros) publication in the business, and some chiros use it to line their birdcages. It has been criticized by top insiders for its advertising for outright quackery and get-rich-quick practice building schemes and scams. I read it from cover to cover. It has a couple good contributors worth reading. Otherwise it covers chiro politics, professional matters, research, letters to the editor (the most interesting part!), and lots and lots of advertising. There is hardly a single page without some type of quack device or scheme being sold and promoted by chiropractors to chiropractors. Occasional critical pieces can get published. They are then roundly criticized by the editors (often by Petersen himself), and a stream of letters to the editor then lambasts the idiot that dares to point out the elephant in chiropractic's living room. They all attempt to deny its existence. -- Fyslee 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Side? They report on chiropractic stuff-- both good and bad, happy and sad. Steth 01:51, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Well if some chiros use it to line a birdcage (how many of the 60,000 Fsylee?) then your conclusion is that it is a bad thing? All newspapers might end up in a birdcage. It's the most widely read, so that's bad, too? You seem to enjoy it. Which top insiders criticize it? How many of the 60,000 + one PT? Covering (chiro) politics, professional matters, research, letters to the editor (the most interesting part!), and lots and lots of advertising: That's a BAD thing? My God! You just described JAMA! If everyone agrees to delete it, then go ahead. It's for chiros anyway (and those obsessed with chiropractic), not really for people browsing an encyclopedia. Steth 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


CDN says Neck911 is not a hate-site. How would you describe it? Who runs it? Are you connected with it?Steth 18:44, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Neck911 is a volunteer effort, like most anti-quackery sites, including Chirobase and Quackwatch. (All of Barrett's sites cost him only about $7,000 a year. ) The main person behind Neck911 is Dr. Bill Kinsinger.
Steth, you really need to check out these sites before criticizing them. Criticizing such a site makes it appear that you are unconcerned about patient safety. When you call it a "hate" site you are exposing your own prejudices and hate. Keep in mind that those who are against quackbusters are quacks and their supporters. It's a simple double-negative situation: anti-anti-quackery = quackbooster...... -- Fyslee 20:17, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes I checked out the site. It is the US franchise of pediatrician Murray Katz' website of the same ilk. Katz has been sanctioned, cautioned, barred from an inquest. So if he has been unprofessional then, why should we trust this site now? Think he has a grudge? Duh?

MD Kinsinger has also been placing billboards up 'have you been killed yet by a chiropractor? Call me if you have!' He was also yours and Barrett's point man on the ground in Florida whose job it was to stir up the natives and stop a Chiropractic school from opening. Did you have anything to do with that?

http://quackfiles.blogspot.com/2005/01/action-alert-stop-fsu-school-of.html
http://physiotalk.ca/index.php?s=e0330fe35955b7186d2d1ba952f88975&showtopic=139&pid=401&st=0&#entry401

Now, since you also happen to have links on Neck911, don't you stand to benefit in traffic, donations, sales? Can you really claim to be objective? Duh? Milking the link-farm a little, aren't we Fyssylee?

As CDN99 says:

  1. It does not matter what the point of view of the external link is. Link spamming with dozens of articles from the SAME DOMAIN NAME is, obviously, link spamming.

You see, being skeptical or scetpical or septical is one thing, but actively engaging and participating in profession bigotry projects is just weird and doesn't rate free advertising in an encyclopedic project.

Get rid of all the links. Steth 05:20, 16 February 2006 (UTC)


A hate site promotes hatred. Neck911 presents information on the dangers of neck manipulation.
The list of chiropractic schools should not be here. See Wikipedia:External links. If everyone who visits this article adds another school, the list will dwarf the article.
Also:
  1. The pro-chiropractic sites have the same number, give or take a few, of ads as the anti-chiropractic sites, so this is not an argument for the removal of sites. However, sites that sell a product (most alternative medicine sites do) will not be linked to.
  2. Drawing from WP:AGF, all editors who do not declare an affiliation with a website ARE NOT AFFILIATED WITH THE WEBSITE IN QUESTION. Period.
  3. It does not matter what the point of view of the external link is. Link spamming with dozens of articles from the SAME DOMAIN NAME is, obviously, link spamming.
Read Wikipedia's policies and guidelines for any other problems, and nobody should skew the rules to meet their expectations or beliefs. --CDN99 19:43, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

I think the external links section is now much improved. Nice work. Which schools should remain and which should be deleted. Palmer, Cleveland, Life and Sherman certainly should stay. Which others? Levine2112 01:01, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Well, I don't think any of them should be here, because that just invites every reader to contribute a few more. What if we remove the "chiropractic colleges" subheading and list the most significant (i.e. Palmer, Cleveland, Life and Sherman, I'm guessing) under "other resources"? --CDN99 23:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

You know, I agree with CDN99 and get rid of almost all of them. I think all the colleges should go and leave the Association of Chiropratic Colleges so readers can pick the ones they want to investigate instead of listing them all.

The ACA at least has information for the public.

The others seem to be private, individually owned and operated with self-serving agendas/interests etc. selling things, asking for donations, peddling books, or are extremely biased passing off their views as everyone's views and their opinions as facts.

So let's get rid of the lot and clean this place up! I will be happy to do it. Steth 00:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

You've got my confidence. Clean away, I say. Levine2112 02:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Usage section

What is this section about anyhow? The usage of chiropractic in what respect? The text that is there doesn't really provide a clear answer. Should that section just be deleted? Levine2112 03:54, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I say merge the first paragraph into history, and the last two paragraphs into scientific support (it explains how joint manipulation works). --CDN99 13:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I don't see any history in the first paragraph that isn't already mentioned and the rest is about the popping sound bones make occasionally during an adjustment. Doesn't seem all that important here. I'm just going to remove the section... maybe preserve a line or two. Levine2112 00:12, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

More proposed trimming

Why is the NACM listed as a philosphical school of chiropractic? It is rather trivial in the grand scheme of chiropractic. A marginal fraction of a percentage of chiropractors are part of this organization - even less that other kinds of chiropractic philosophical schools and techniques that aren't represented in this article... Kale, Specific, Blair, CBP, DCM, Gonstead, HIO, Logan, Meric, Super-Straight; heck the Activator isn't even mentioned! However, detailing each one of these in this article would just be complete overkill and we'd end up with a page well beyond the recommended Wikipedia file size. All of these philosophies and techniques would be better served having their own pages with a reference link from the main Chiropractic article. But as it is now, including NACM is like listing the three schools of Chrisitanity as Protestant, Catholic, and Ethiopian Orthodox Tewahedo Church.

I mention the NACM point only because I think it is symptomatic of the overall problem with the article. There's a lot of different point-of-views each trying to have their voice heard on the main chiropractic page, when really the main article should just serve as a broad overview of chiropractic. It should flattly describe what chiropractic is, what chiropractors do, some history, some science, some philosophy, and then references to internal and a small portion of external links. (Check out the U.S. Dept. of Labor's rendition of a chiropractic page for a concise cut-and-dry description of the nature of chiropractic here. I think it is very encyclopaedic.) The minor schools of philosophies should be saved for pages specific to each of those points-of-view. Straight and Mixer are really the only philosophical schools broad enough to be mentioned on the general chiropractic article. Levine2112 04:03, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Yes, how did the NACM ever get listed as a philosophical school anyway?? This whole straight/mixer thing are terms that are relics of the past. DCs don't even use them anymore. These are terms used more by those outside the profession. Why don't we eliminate the whole section and summarize it by saying that some use primarily manual therapies and others might use other types of treatment, too? Does the public really care? Steth 04:55, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The public will likely care, because some will come to this article wondering the difference between a "straight" and "reform" chiropractors. Why don't we change the name of the subsection to "forms of chiropractic" or "methodologies of chiropractic"; then we can list the other forms, and give a brief description of each. Many, many pages (especially featured articles) are larger than the recommended file size. Plus, it only takes three sentences to describe reform, so why remove it? --CDN99 13:13, 17 February 2006 (UTC)
I’m not so sure about that. The terms ‘straight’ and ‘mixer’ are antiquated and not even used by chiropractors anymore. It seems that they are kept alive by those few outside the profession who hope the public is gullible enough to believe that “reform” is a type of philosophy or something. Like “reformed” is good and the others are bad!? Or reformed is ‘safe’ and the others are ‘unsafe’!? It is really bogus. In fact it is an invented term by those who spend their time on the internet planning anti-chiropractic activities.
Reformers are still chiropractors, still using their hands, still helping people without drugs. Are they “reformed” straights or “reformed” mixers??? The public doesn’t care as long as they get help. They don’t call for an appointment and ask, ‘are you reformed, straight or mixer?’
This is neat – short and sweet:
All chiropractic approaches are based on non-invasive, non-medication approaches, with many based on the use of manipulation as a treatment for mechanical musculoskeletal dysfunction of the spine and extremities.
Eliminate the rest.
P.S. Sorry about the links-elimination, CDN. Thought it was OK with you. Where do you want to start? -- Steth 00:15, 18 February 2006

John Norris' apology for making false statements while under oath.==Steth's editing== I'm watching this elimination of facts from the article, as well as external links, because they don't fit Steth's POV. I wonder when he's going to eliminate the sections on "criticism" and "safety concerns." After all, his argumentation (if he follows this trend) would be something like this: This article is about chiropractic, not criticisms (no, we don't want to admit they exist....) or patient safety (100% underreporting is a non-issue....), etc.. Hmmmm....

Steth, I'd like to read your understanding of NPOV. I've already openly detailed my understanding. What about your's? Let's hear it.... -- Fyslee 21:17, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Sure, glad you asked. Well, my understanding of NPOV, neutral point of view, is that it is supposed to represent views fairly and without bias. It is a point of view that is neutral - that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition.
As for this article, it is an article about chiropractic. It is not about why a physiotherapist and an ex-psychiatrist hate, er...ah...excuse me, are skeptical (sceptical) about chiropractic. It is not about opinions and soapboxes one way or the other. You apparently have written numerous opinion pieces about why chiropractic is an illegitmate profession and doesn't deserve to exist and the sooner it dies the better and good riddance and R.I.P., etc. So I guess you must be extremely biased, yes? Well, if I feel that yours or anyone's edits and additions are biased and not presented fairly, I will edit them.
Why would you put in "Misuse of a Study" ?(or whatever it was) Have ALL chiropractors misused this study?
Why do you insist on keeping the Canoe "article" as a link? To show that 'reporters' hate chiropractic? The neurologist they use as a source of information admitted under oath that he made the whole thing up and left Canada. Why is this reliable and non-biased? Certainly not neutral. I think it should be out and stay out. MD Kinsinger's Neck911, too.
Further, this is not about seeing how many links can be put into the article to direct traffic to multiple websites owned or connected to the same few individuals. And Wikipedia is not a free host or blog.
I have no problem with criticism. It's (un)professional bigotry and hatred that I just won't sit by and tolerate.
So, I'll keep watching and editing just like you.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Steth 05:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Well said, Steth. Levine2112 09:04, 19 February 2006 (UTC)


Regarding NPOV:
Thanks for the explanation. It helps a bit.
I suspect much of the problem is that you are confusing my opinions (which I write on talk pages, in articles, and on the internet), and my actual editing (in articles here).
Viewpoints are inevitable. We all have them. If one has no viewpoint on a subject, one should stay away from it (except to correct spelling, grammar and format).
We both have viewpoints, and that's just fine. That's how it should be. We just need to make sure that we don't write them in the articles. We can still make sure they get represented in the articles, if they are labelled correctly and are factual and verifiable. That's NPOV.
NPOV does not mean neutral content, but neutral editing as far as viewpoint. We should not write our own POV (Wikipedia:No original research) in the articles, but instead let other's (verifiability) present those POVs (with documentation) in the articles. That way all viewpoints get represented and the article provides more, not less, than ordinary encyclopedias. If it contains less (only chiropractic's POV), it becomes a sales pitch and soapbox. That would be a one-sided article, and thus not NPOV.
"The prohibition against original research limits the possibility of an editor presenting his or her own point of view in an article. Moreover, by reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view in an article. Consequently, this policy reinforces our neutral point of view policy." [32] (Emphasis added)
Articles are expected to be neutral. That is done by having it merely present all viewpoints, as opposed to actually taking sides with a particular POV. The finished article should present readers with a deeper understanding of all sides of the subject, each side presenting its best (documentable and verifiable) arguments, without censorship from the other side. Our editing should be neutral, which is accomplished by not writing our own opinions in the article itself. Editors are expected to include (or allow) all viewpoints from other editors, including those unfavorable to their own personal viewpoint. The content must be factual and verifiable.
If you add a viewpoint which I find to be distasteful (unbalanced), but it is verifiable and documented, then I allow it (and add it to my knowledge base and allow it to change my POV). I've done that a number of times. I expect my edits to be treated the same way.


Regarding the criticisms above:
You wrote above:
"Why would you put in "Misuse of a Study" ?(or whatever it was) Have ALL chiropractors misused this study?"
You also labelled your attempted deletion of that section (Rand report not about chiropractic. This article not about science report misuse)
First of all, I didn't put that section in.
I suspect it was included because of the actions of chiropractic organizations, journals, and individual chiropractors themselves. It wasn't just a few. If pretty much the whole chiropractic industry hadn't misused the report as if it were about chiropractic, there would be no issue, but chiropractic made it such a big issue (grotesquely misusing it in their favor) that the authors did something highly unusual - Shekelle wrote a very strong rebuke - in which he quoted numerous chiropractic misuses of the RAND report - and placed it in the ACA Journal of Chiropractic.
If chiropractic hadn't done it, it wouldn't be worthy of mention here, but history is history. Chiropractic has brought this on themselves. Denying it would be like claiming that most people in Norway don't understand Norwegian. It would be a blatant admission that one didn't understand recent chiropractic history.
You'd think that would have been enough, but the misuse continued, and I occasionally find it to this very day. Shekelle's rebuke must have had some effect, because I don't find it being misused as often, at least not in official chiropractic journals. At the time it was many that did it, now it is some.
You also wrote above:
"Why do you insist on keeping the Canoe "article" as a link? To show that 'reporters' hate chiropractic? The neurologist they use as a source of information admitted under oath that he made the whole thing up and left Canada. Why is this reliable and non-biased? Certainly not neutral. I think it should be out and stay out. MD Kinsinger's Neck911, too."
This has already been answered before, and you seem to refuse to accept it. External links are expected to be biased. That's why they are labelled as "advocacy" and "critiques." It is here that POV is expressly allowed and expected.
You also happen to write some serious libel in that statement. Be careful. That neurologist may well read this, and even if you edit it the record of your editing cannot (will not) be erased.
If we were to accept your logic, no links would be allowed, since the chiro schools and publications are definitely not neutral. They are actively selling chiropractic, and especially chiroweb is selling products and advertising as well. Notice that I haven't objected to its inclusion in the external links section. Maybe I should, if we use your logic, but I don't consider it to be a valid argument, so I won't.
Enough for now. I hope that explains things. I'd like to know what you think about the NPOV discussion above - agree, disagree, modify, etc.. -- Fyslee 16:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Judging by your determination to be the 800lb gorilla in the chiropractic room, it's not likely that you are at all interested in my point-of-view on NPOV, or anything else. I am skeptical of your claim not to hate chiropractic. You have said yourself, elsewhere, that you despise chiropractic, and you have clearly demonstrated in this forum, that you despise chiropractic more than anyone (with one or two exceptions.)
Now you seem to have enlisted like-minded DCs and PTs, whose anti-chiropractic forums you probably moderate on the net (surprise), to help you in your cause and 'pile it on.' As Levine pointed out, your self-annointed internet responsibilities all seem to involve something to do with damaging and despising chiropractic. An odd pasttime for a physical therapist and so-called healer. Your time consumed with this may also be a symptom of something missing in your own backyard, work or personal relationships.
So, until chiropractic is changed into your vision or totally destroyed, nothing will change when dealing with you. When it comes to hating chiropractic, you are the expert. Period. Steth 19:01, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

No answer, just ad hominem attacks

Come on now, I expected a real reponse, and you sink to this? You should be able to do better than that. I really do want to hear your understanding. Is there anything inaccurate with what I have written above about NPOV? -- Fyslee 20:35, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The neurologist they use as a source of information admitted under oath that he made the whole thing up and left Canada. -->Is this true? If so, the link should certainly be removed. It's one thing to have links to chiropractic hate sites, but if the source of this link was blatantly lying, then the link contains invalid information and should be removed. Any research drawn from that article would be fruits of a poisonous tree, and thus we should nip this tree in the bud. So, did the neurologist admit under oath that it is all a lie? Levine2112 18:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)
Good point, Levine. It appears to be true. I found this website which makes for some interesting reading. Starting on about page 15 is some unfortunate information about MDs behaving badly. But the Norris bombshell is on page 19, and should put this to rest. This site is also available as a PDF file. I think it contains some useful references that may be applicable to enhance the Wikipedic enclyclopedic experience.
John Norris's apology for knowingly making false statements under oath.
The whole thing makes fascinating reading. The Canoe article should be omitted, unless of course, there is some evidence about Norris to the contrary. Steth 19:43, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Section entitled "Philosophy of the subluxation"

The section entitled "Philosophy of the subluxation" states: "Both chiropractic and medical care hold that much of the body is controlled by messages sent to and from the brain along the nervous system. It is generally agreed that most messages - whether it is the brain commanding the foot to move or an organ telling the brain it is in need of repair - pass through the spinal cord, which acts as a kind of cerebral router." Given that the brain IS part of the nervous system and that "messages" is a bit ambiguous when talking about biology or physiology, the first sentence should read: "Both chiropractic and medical care hold that much of the body is controlled by nerve impulses sent to and from the brain along the spinal cord." AED 00:22, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Pro-chiro bias in article

I'm very dissappointed in this article. First the chiro proponents falsely wrote that chiropractic was growing. I made a correction with referencces and then now find that the correction showing that chiro is in decline is deleted with no mention whatsoever. So it is ok to post false pro chiro information but negative information is deleted? This is biased in favor of chiropractic and wrong.

Is there interest in amalgamating 'criticism' and 'scientific evidence'

It seems to me that due to the fact that Chiro, like any medicine has it's strong points and weak points. Which you can breakup based on criteria like disease, frequency and duration. Could the various folk, Chiro and non-Chiro be able to work with just a single 'evidence' section? Break it up into groups based on the studies available (i.e. Headache: chronic - episodic tension, Back Pain - lower chronic)

Seems to me that it's easier to weigh the evidence this way. Besides if someone is looking to see if they should go to a chriopractor it's going to be for something specific. :-)

24.141.146.87Jonathan Graham

  • We can try, but I'm not sure it will work. First of all, it is likely that both sides will disagree in the assessment of whether any particular piece of evidence truly supports or refutes chiropractic. Secondly, not all criticism is directly about scientific evidence. I don't have strong feelings either way. AED 05:22, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
I hear you, this is a complex issue. To the first point I would say that we ignore the issue of 'truly' supporting Chiropractic. Chiro/non-Chiro would present cites to various studies broken up by disease. By convention people should have to put specific adjectives when citing a study - stating if it is case, retrospective, prospective, double-blinded - or perhaps simply a "class" such as used in EBM - Evidence Based Medicine then we let the readers make up their own minds.
The two things in my mind this seems to address. a) By breaking this up by disease we avoid attempting to prove/disprove Chriopractic medicine as a whole. Which seems to me something that too many books/sites try to do and b) by classifying studies we avoid are the silly uses of 'adjectives over evidence' that appear in all manner of pro/con litterature. For example take the phrase "The X study, using the BEST evidence says Kumquats are healthy". There's probably little wrong with study X but the qualification that it is the 'BEST' evidence is salesmanship not science. Since (i) what constitutes the best evidence at one point in time can easily be the worst at another and (ii) best isn't always good enough to mean 'likely'. So instead we cite studies - with a short description and some kind of classifier.
Can you clarify a bit on what you mean by criticism that isn't directly about scientific evidence?
205.211.168.10Jonathan Graham
Welcome on board, Jonathan. (You need to become a registered user here! Right now we can see where you live....) I can't speak for AED, but I can give you my view on what he might mean.
Chiropractic is many things, and just criticizing "chiropractic" is too imprecise. For example, chiropractic isn't always referring to manipulation. Criticisms of chiropractic are on many levels: ethics, scientific evidence (and its misuse by chiros), educational matters, legal, metaphysics, quackery, fraud, pseudoscience, etc. Criticisms need to be specific. -- Fyslee 22:26, 23 February 2006 (UTC)


Hi Fyslee, that's partially my point. The article, as it stands "scientific evidence" seems entirely constructed of "evidence for chriopractic medical procedures" and except for the one legal excerpt "criticism" is mostly contains "scientific evidence against said procedures". It would be more specific to categorise them by disease. It would also be better for someone who is reading this and trying to decide if they should go to a chriopractor. Perhaps we rename "scientific evidence" to 'scientific evidence for chriopractic procedure' and move the criticisms of said procedures into the same group broken up by disease?

Removed Citation for Harrisons Internal Medicine

Previously the "scientific evidence" section contained the following with a "citation needed" marker.

"According to Harrison's Principles of Internal Medicine, a meta-analysis of nine studies found spinal manipulation to be effective in improving uncomplicated, acute back pain. The studies found no benefit to treating chronic pain or sciatic nerve irritation. However, more recent studies have found chiropractic to be cost effective in the treatment of chronic back pain"

I dragged out our copy of the 14th Edition and the index doesn't mention Chiropractic at all. So trucking out to the online 16th Edition. There is only one mention of the term 'Chiropractic' in Chapter 10 - essentially a miro-history, no mention of this analysis. Searching on "spinal manipulation" brings back an article on Osteopathic Spinal Manipulation vs. Standard Care for Low Back Pain in Chapter 15 but the conclusion was "There were not statistically significant differences between the two groups for any of the outcome measures.". So certianly not a meta-analysis and hardly supportive.

Searching on 'chiropractor' gets four hits one is the Osteopathic study, one in the history in Chapter 10, one is a study entitled "Lack of Efficacy of Spinal Manipulation for Tension-Type Headache" probably not supportive but I will read it later and add it to the criticism part if necessary and another hit in Ch 15 marked 'Further reading' which cites a number of studies, some of which may be useful.

So I have removed this citation. Until someone provides a cite from the proper source - and I will be checking ;-) it should remain that way.

24.141.146.87Jonathan Graham


NPOV

"However, chiropractic care is not always synonymous with manipulation. Not all chiropractors even manipulate, and a manipulation still remains safer than the best surgical intervention."

The first part that chriopractic isn't always synonymous with manipulation is needless in a paragraph discussing the safety of manipulation. It belongs closer to "The primary therapeutic technique used by chiropractors is joint manipulation"

The last part is biased. It doesn't limit it's scope (if you're going to say that something is safer in every and all cases then you better present evidence for every and all cases). It doesn't provide a cite supporting the position and it uses 'sales talk' instead of science. Instead of saying (and providing a study) that says where and when the manipulation is better it uses non-specific words like 'best'. Jonathan Graham 20:18, 24 February 2006

I noticed that, but hadn't gotten around to doing anything about it. It's a very careless comment from someone who doesn't seem to know much about the subject matter, and who wrote off-topic. In the context (safety concerns about cervical manipulation) the comment was irrelevant, inaccurate, and an apples and oranges comparison with a twist of straw man on the side. -- Fyslee 21:31, 24 February 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I have added a Disputed tag to the article, as the previous tag did not reflect the actual facts of the matter. The long history of these discussions should make it clear why such a tag is necessary. -- Fyslee 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Article splitting

I have long considered this to possibly be the only option to resolve many of these disputes.

Let's discuss the possibilities of splitting the article. -- Fyslee 11:41, 25 February 2006 (UTC) Link:

Steth's very POV-motivated editing

Steth, your edit summary reveals very POV-motivated editing. Motivation - in and of itself - is irrelevant, but when it affects the content of the article, it has led to improper editing:

"NACM won't reveal any information about membership. "Claim" to receive mainstream approval?? Link at bottom of article is more than generous for non-entity-NACM" [33]

Please, do tell me what you know about NACM and reform chiropractic? Your comments seem to reveal a great lack of knowledge of this matter, hence you speak and edit from ignorance, and since you disagree with it, you simply delete it. Very improper for a Wiki editor. As long as the information is factual, it is allowable, regardless of viewpoint.

You have not refuted my edit summary:

"NPOV; factual; "Some" reform DC's are members of NACM, and "none" of the ICA." [34],

hence you have no right to simply delete the information.

You should first refute it here before making such major changes. (See the tag at the top of this Talk page.)

Your earlier attempt to delete this information likewise revealed very POV editing, and a gross lack of knowledge - (or was it deliberately misleading editing?) - of this matter. No reform chiropractor would dream of being a member of the ICA or WCA, which also represent a minority position, and are being marginalized more and more by the ACA and other chiropractors.

You deleted the reform content and left the following:

Reform chiropractors limit their practice to the treatment of musculoskeletal injuries and may be members of either the ACA or ICA.

with this edit summary which revealed a (deliberate? - What's worse than a straw man attack?) misunderstanding:

"Most reform DC's are NOT members of NACM." [35]

The deleted content had specifically stated that only "some" were members of the NACM.

Please refrain from editing subjects that are outside of your common knowledge. Discuss those matters here first. You might learn something. It just so happens that others know more about this particular area, and that knowledge is perfectly permissible in the article, as long as it is properly qualified and worded in a NPOV way.

Keep in mind that there are far more reform chiropractors outside of the NACM than in it, and its membership is about the same as the WCA, which represents the majority of straight, subluxation-based chiros, which are a minority of chiropractors (but represent the viewpoint of Levine2112, and possibly yourself(?)).

Here is the deleted portion. If there is anything inaccurate or not sufficiently qualified to be NPOV, please point it out here and we can correct it, and only then replace it in the article:

Reform chiropractors are oriented at mainstream science, with some of them being members of the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM). It represents a minority group of chiropractors, and advocates a highly limited use of chiropractic medicine. By openly rejecting some of the more controversial aspects of chiropractic, including the original chiropractic hypothesis that subluxations are the cause of 100% of all diseases,[36] NACM members claim to receive mainstream approval5 more so than practitioners of straight or mixing chiropractic. The NACM is a private organization that does not release membership data, however one guess estimated membership to be in the "low hundreds," just like the WCA. [37].

The statement has apparently been NPOVed previously, as it uses proper qualifiers: "some," "minority," "claim," "guess,", etc. With these qualifiers in place, it should be appropriate to use the statement, as it is factual. It presents the viewpoint without advocating it. -- Fyslee 11:53, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


Steth's reply

Well, I really don’t know much about “organization” NACM, particularly since they aren’t very forthcoming with just WHO is in their membership rolls and HOW MANY DCs are actually members. Who are its officers? Have they ever changed? When do they nominate new ones? Do they have elections like a proper organization should? Do they sponsor seminars like the ACA and ICA? It seems the ACA and ICA all have this information readily available. Do you have ‘special’ knowledge about this ‘group’? Yes? Then please answer the above questions so we can find out if this is a legitimate organization?
You said:
“Keep in mind that there are far more reform chiropractors outside of the NACM than in it…”.
So it looks like we agree on this point, so what’s the problem? Why recognize an organization that’s not any sort of an organization? A link at the bottom of the article is more than generous in an encyclopedia. They shouldn’t even be acknowledged here at all, and may not be in the future.
You said:
“NACM members claim to receive mainstream approval more so than practitioners of straight or mixing chiropractic.” And pharaohs claimed to receive their power from the gods. Who cares what nameless members “claim” to receive. Do you have anything better than sales jargon?
Qualifiers: "some," "minority," "claim," "guess,", etc. are sales talk more than anything else and attempt to proclaim headlines out of weasle words. Very non-specific as Jonathan stated in a previous post.
I also feel that there are enough links to sites that you participate in or are connected with and you shouldn’t keep placing them in there at your whim. This particularly holds true of sites owned and privately operated by former psychiatrist Stephen Barrett with whom you quote with regularity.
In my opinion, you are claiming expertise in an area OUTSIDE of your area of expertise, adding a PTPOV (physical therpist’s point-of-view) to this, not an NPOV, hindering all of our efforts at creating a NPOV article for readers. Steth 12:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC)


My reply to Steth

Please refrain from ad hominem attacks. It would become you better to offer serious replies in a congenial spirit.

The NACM has very good reasons for keeping its membership list secret, and those reasons are very telling about the attitude of the profession towards any attempts to reform the profession in a direction towards science and away from quackery. While some members are open about their membership and sympathies, many have very real reason to fear for their careers and their physical safety, since ridicule and threats towards members are not uncommon. If sympathetic chiros knew that their membership were to be known, they would not dare to join. This applies not only to members, but to professors and others in leading positions who have reform sympathies.

Whether you like it or not, reform chiros exist, a reform organization exists, and those are the facts. Facts are allowed in the article. Period. As to my "special knowledge", I am a Moderator for their discussion list. We get mails from chiros all the time seeking membership and information. They usually identify with the organization's purpose and find their philosophy and way of practice to be in harmony with the NACM. The fact that there are more reform chiros outside than inside doesn't make the NACM less important, only that it's role is more diversified than most other chiro organizations.

It is thanks to the NACM that chiros even got access to the Veterans Administration. The VA considered them important enough to ensure their representation during the negotiations. The VA even sent me a thick stack of papers to keep me oriented. You may not like them, but they are recognized widely outside the profession. They are considered the sensible face of chiropractic.

If the ordinary chiros in the negotiations had been alone in representing chiropractic, they would have been considered too far out to even be taken seriously, but the NACM representation presented a scientific approach, which got the VA to consider chiropractic to be more scientific that it actually is. In that sense the NACM ended up functioning as a Trojan horse for all chiros, including those pushing quackery, practice building, and scams. It's quite an ironic situation that government organizations and other groups enlist NACM representation when dealing with chiropractic, and then the NACM ends up helping the whole profession, yet chiropractic continues to resist reform.

At least the ACA, after some 35 years, finally offered Samuel Homola, DC [38] - the "Luther" of chiropractic - his membership back, after they could clearly see that his predictions were all coming true, and that the profession wasn't progressing, and that quackery was still alive and well. Even the leadership knows that reform is necessary. The profession ignored and persecuted him, and it is now paying the price:

Chiropractic's popularity is decreasing:
  • There has been a 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.
  • Utilization of chiropractic by patients dropped 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.)

NPOV and the role of qualifiers

You object to qualifiers like "claim." That happens to be the appropriate and normal way to NPOV controversial subjects into articles. It's standard practice here. That's what neutralizes POV statements and makes them NPOV statements. If such statements were allowed in the article without the qualifiers, then the article would be taking sides with the statements, and thus it would be a POV article, which isn't allowed. By using qualifiers, the statement is not only allowed, but must not be deleted without consensus. Without the qualifiers, it would be sales talk. You seem to understand what sales talk is, but not why qualifiers neutralize what some might construe to be sales talk. At least Wikipedia understands it, even if you don't, and they use this method here for dealing with anything that is remotely POV.

The NPOV policy is clear on this. You can't use a statement or term without qualifiers unless it's (nearly) universally agreed upon. Qualifiers must often be used when editors write their own words and paraphrases of quotes, or when the quotes they are citing cannot be left standing alone. A finished NPOV statement should be factual and unassailable.

So far a few typically nonsensical and unscientific chiropractic statements are being allowed to remain in the article only because of the qualifiers attached to them. If you persist in refusing to allow this standard Wikipedia method for NPOVing statements, then those statements will need to be removed entirely. You can't have it both ways. The same standard - the Wiki standard - applies to both sides of the question.

You mention Jonathan's quote about "non-specific words like 'best'". He was referring to something entirely different. In that context "best" was used as a very strong and absolute claim, without any documentation or specificity. It was simply a careless nonsense statement someone tossed into the article without really thinking. It was totally misplaced and didn't even stick to the topic.

As to the rest of your ad hominem attacks, they are irrelevant and inaccurate. What is relevant is the content of the article itself. Let's stick to editing it. -- Fyslee 01:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

And the good points you thought I made? What happened to those? You didn't seem to mention those.
You seem to know quite a lot about this organization. Could you tell me who are the doctors of the Executive Board\Directors and Officers of the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine that are referenced to on the website? Thanks. Steth 04:55, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


You write
"And the good points you thought I made? What happened to those? You didn't seem to mention those."

My edit summary was: "(shorter & still covering both aspects, plus some good suggestions from Steth)." [39]

In the process of reverting, some of your "good suggestions" ended up getting left out. I noticed that and went back and reincluded the accurate and factual ones for your sake. (Your appreciation for that fact is simply overwhelming.....;-)

The "good suggestions" are mentioned below

In the 'header I included your suggestion about "practice styles," even giving it first place in the new header - "Practice styles and schools of thought."

The previous and long-standing header was "Philosophical schools of chiropractic." I don't know the entire history of that header, but before that it was "Political schools of chiropractic."

The section deals with (1) schools of thought that govern (2) practice styles, and the heading should reflect both aspects. My earlier suggestion - "Schools of thought governing practice styles" - was edited to only "Practice styles," which not only did not reflect the content, but would also allow you to edit out anything having to do with the reformist school of thought, which you have repeatedly attempted to do.

That tactic is called "revisionism." For anyone with a bit of knowledge about chiropractic, that is a not-so-subtle form of deception. Levine2112 has attempted this before, but on a much grander scale, where s/he attempted to deny that DD Palmer - the very founder of chiropractic - didn't actually claim that subluxations were the cause of "all" diseases, which was an incredible denial and show of ignorance. His attempts at revisionism ended up making it necessary to strengthen the statement from "all diseases" to "100% of all diseases." Revisionism is extremely counterproductive! It creates a chain of evidence that can later be used to justify the preservation of inclusions in their strengthened form. The original "all diseases" was accurate, but now we've got "100% of all diseases" - which is uncontrovertibly "more" accurate (if that is possible!) - and it's staying that way thanks to Levine2112.

In the section on Straight chiros, you had modified "only concern themselves with" to "are concerned with," which is an improvement, but doesn't include the degree of emphasis involved in the straight philosophy. "Only" was too absolute a term, which you had recognized. Since a modification was in order, I chose the word "primarily," which is accurate. There are chiropractors who describe themselves as straight, but who mix a bit anyway. That's simply the way reality is. Few chiros are "pure" anything, which applies to much in life.

You also added a phrase to the Mixing section - "as well as nutrition" - which is accurate.

If there are any other key words or phrases that got lost in the process, let's discuss them here. Maybe they should be reincluded. Some were not reincluded because they were inaccurate. I can think of the one about Reformers being members of the ICA,[40] which would be ludicrous. That would amount to someone calling themselves a vegetarian, but eating all their meals at McDonalds, and eating only Big Macs, or a pacifist that had and used weapons habitually and violently, and even was a card carrying member of the NRA. Reformers and the ICA and WCA are at opposite ends of the spectrum. BTW, the ICA is the oldest chiropractic organization, and carries the torch of original and "real" chiropractic. Anything else isn't "real" chiropractic, but a watered down version.

The NACM information you requested is irrelevant to the content of this article. Knowing the very unpleasant history of the actions of some detractors of the NACM - and you are obviously a detractor - I'm not sure that giving you that information would be wise or safe for members and other reformist sympathizers. If you disclosed that information (or it be found here, as it surely would be...), some chiropractic professors could lose their positions, researchers could lose their jobs, individual practicing chiros could lose their livelihoods, and any or all of them could start receiving insults, physical assaults at seminars, and even threats or real attempts. It's all happened. Innocent and hard working people shouldn't be persecuted for their beliefs and sympathies, especially the growing number of reformers who are the only hope for the profession. The parallels between the persecution of Luther and other Protestant reformers, and the constant persecution of reformers in chiropractic is quite striking.

Your attempts to gather unnecessary information seem to only end up feeding your ad hominem attack tendencies, which you use in your persecution of individuals, groups, and organizations, as well as side-tracking these discussions.

Please drop this unbecoming behavior and start serious and cooperative attempts to edit the chiropractic articles.

We need to concentrate on the content of the article. -- Fyslee 11:57, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Steth's "poisoning the well"

Your statement here reveals a lack of understanding of the NPOV policy.

"In my opinion, you are claiming expertise in an area OUTSIDE of your area of expertise, adding a PTPOV (physical therpist’s point-of-view) to this, not an NPOV, hindering all of our efforts at creating a NPOV article for readers." Steth 12:50, 25 February 2006 (UTC) [41]

You edit summary likewise makes it clear what you mean:

"PT POV not NPOV" [42]

Who and what editors are or their POVs is irrelevant, as long as their edits conform to Wikipedia policies. It is the content of the article that counts. When personal POVs cause the edits to be incorrect, nonfactual, unscientific, revisionist, whitewashing, or other offences, then there's a problem.

You are not in a position to point fingers.

User:Levine2112 is apparently not a chiro (most likely a CA), and has an outdated, true believer, subluxationist POV. You may be a chiropractor, and you likewise seem to share Levine2112's views, or you at least defend them. You both do a great disservice to chiropractic with your behavior and editing. You make chiropractic look much worse than it actually is. You both should leave the job to others more knowledgeable about the subject. You have already admitted to editing subjects of which you had little knowledge. Just stick to what you really know and things will go better. Otherwise you are only revealing your ignorance. Since no one knows everything, ignorance isn't always a problem, but making edits in precisely those areas is very unwise.

Neither of you are NPOV, and your editing reflects that fact, including some of the offences mentioned above.

Thankfully people aren't usually NPOV, for if they have no POV, they have no understanding of the subject matter.

It's the content of the article that counts, so your mere mention (in this way) of the fact that I am a PT (which I do not hide, unlike you do with your identity and occupation) is a grim example of an attempt to poison the well, which of course is a vicious tactic used to unwarrantedly and improperly divert attention (an ad hominem trick) and to detract from the reputation or authority of a person or source.

If you will focus on content, then we will all get along much better and make progress. -- Fyslee 13:39, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


Funny, I thought it was you who poisoned the well…
You have ‘outed’ yourself by revealing your occupation and spinkling your links around Wikipedia. You were the one who stated in a Talk fourm that you “despise” chiropractic which is easily discerned from your edits which are not NPOV, edits which you admit to being your POV. And to convince us of your POV you toss in multiple links to a website owned by Stephen Barrett.
As for the VA, I regard your contention that it was the NACM member who saved the day for the profession with skepticism. How do you know this? Was it the sole NACM member who told you his version of the events? Wouldn’t that be a bit one-sided? Or did the VA tell you this when they sent you the documents? The other members are all well-respected, dedicated professionals who have put in many hours serving the profession. I don’t think they would appreciate your version of events. I would be careful about allegations and ‘versions’ you post here without willing to provide proof. You can get into trouble even if you go back and remove it.
I also view your ‘cloak-and-dagger’ scenario about the NACM with skepticism….
“some chiropractic professors could lose their positions, researchers could lose their jobs, individual practicing chiros could lose their livelihoods, and any or all of them could start receiving insults, physical assaults at seminars, and even threats or real attempts. It's all happened.”
And:
“If sympathetic chiros knew that their membership were to be known, they would not dare to join.”
Oh, really? You say you know this but are not very forthcoming except to imply that only you know – that ‘special knowledge’ again? – yet you are not at liberty to reveal this information. And this is what you base the inclusion of the NACM into Wikipedia on? A secret, rogue organization that can’t reveal anything about itself without ‘danger’ lurking at every turn for its members? With an ‘if I tell you, I’ll have to kill you’ secret agent mentality?
You state “Whether you like it or not, reform chiros exist, a reform organization exists, and those are the facts. Facts are allowed in the article. Period.”
I know that chiropractors exist who only treat musculoskeletal conditions. Fine. But can you back up the NACM with some numbers/facts and why you claim it is the mouthpiece for these chiros when most are not members. You telling us it exists so get used to it, in my opinion, doesn’t really satisfy the ‘burden of proof.” And gleefully telling us that chiropractic is declining because no one listened to a Sam Homola …is that also a fact?
Again, I feel the ‘reform’ portion should be pared down. In my opinion, you haven’t presented much in the way of evidence as to why the NACM is a legitmate organization. I do see you attempting to legitimatize an unofficial organization by citing it as an authority. (without proof) and by adding articles to Wikipedia. The old ploy of repeating something enough times will make it true.
You have, though, offered some fine material for the making of a good spy novel.
So I, too, think it would be helpful if we all just stick to FACTS and we will all get along just fine. Would you like to trim it or shall I? Steth 15:50, 28 February 2006 (UTC)