User:Fyslee/Sandbox

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

\star  WARNING! This is MY sandbox! (No cats allowed....;-) PLEASE RESPECT IT  \star
\star  "Skepticism is the first step toward truth." - Denis Diderot  \star
\star  The evil that men do lives after them. Be wary of putting it into Wikipedia before then.  \star
  \star  WP:BLP  \star
\star  Treat others as you want them to treat you.  \star

Contents

[edit] Start here

[edit] Formats

Formats we normally shouldn't use for quotes, at least not on controversial subjects:

“ In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill. ”

[3]

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

[4]

We should just stick to using the simple indent, with or without italics:

In extracting the pure principles which he taught, we should have to strip off the artificial vestments in which they have been muffled by priests, who have travestied them into various forms, as instruments of riches and power to themselves. I have performed this operation for my own use, by cutting verse by verse out of the printed book, and arranging the matter which is evidently his, and which is as easily distinguishable as diamonds in a dunghill.

Why? Because they risk being misused to include POV emphasizing of some quotes. Either all quotes should be done that way, or none of them.

[edit] BLP templates

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry, not merely the subject of the entry.[5] Template:Blp may be added to the talk pages of articles with living persons mentioned in the article. Template:Blp may be added to the talk pages of biographies of living persons so that editors and readers, including subjects, are alerted to this policy. Alternatively, if a {{WPBiography}} template is present, you can add living=yes to the template parameters.


{{blp}} must be placed ONLY on talk pages, and produces the following text:


This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.


For problems with people violating BLP, you can use these templates:

Welcome to Wikipedia. Please do not add unreferenced or inadequately referenced controversial biographical information concerning living persons to Wikipedia articles. Thank you.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you do, you may be blocked for disruption. See the blocking policy.

You have made an edit that could be regarded as defamatory. Please do not restore this material to the article or its talk page. If you restore this material to the article or its talk page once more, you will be blocked for disruption. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people.

  • {{blp3}} for when a block is issued

You have been blocked for disruption of Wikipedia, because you added material that could be regarded as defamatory. See Blocking policy: Biographies of living people. You may return when the block expires. Any further attempt to restore the material will incur another block.

[edit] Fyslee requests comment on personal statement and guiding principles

Below are a few guiding principles I believe should be factored into decision making in disputes of this nature, and should naturally be applied to all parties to the degree they are relevant. Below I start with the obvious and proceed into new issues or possibly new territory that may not have been covered by others. While the members of the Arbitration Committee no doubt already have these principles in mind, I present them here for the benefit of readers as examples of my thinking. I would like to start with a personal statement and disclaimer:

[edit] Fyslee's personal statement and disclaimer

Just because I am proposing these principles does not mean I claim total innocence in this conflict. I too have made newbie mistakes, been untactful, have at times reacted unwisely when under pressure, etc., but I have not deliberately been untruthful (lying), or been gaming the system for my own personal or financial advantage. No matter what personal satisfaction I may get from editing here or having any websites or webrings, none of it helps me earn anything, sell any books (such as Ilena's book on her websites), or otherwise enable me to gain contact with persons (such as breast implant victims) who can be used to finance my activities. I am totally independent of and above all outside influences, including Barrett. I only bow to my own beloved wife....;-) I am my own person and do this as my own hobby. It costs me nothing but grief and the cost of a couple domain names, and gains me nothing but a personal satisfaction that I can help this encyclopedia, and outside of it enlighten others by providing consumer protection information in my own way. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Guiding principles for decision making in disputes

[edit] 1. Personal POV not a factor

Decisions regarding actual policy violations should not be based on the participants' POV, but on how they behaved. Behavior and attitude are the ultimate factors for determining collaborative potential. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 2. Personal POV and NPOV

Editors should not be judged by their POV, but by how they wield them in actual article space: To what degree does it cause them to actually violate NPOV by the inclusion of unsourced POV, or by the deletion of well-sourced opposing POV? It is their own personal POV that should be suppressed during their editing, not the inclusion of well-sourced opposing POV in the article. Such actions are bad faith edits in violation of the NPOV policy and are very detrimental to the whole project. When such edits only occur occasionally, they can be dealt with at the local level by the involved editors, but when they become a disruptive editing pattern, they are a red flag that something is seriously wrong with that editor's understanding of NPOV and the requirement to edit collaboratively. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 3. Failure to assume good faith

An assumption of good faith is the most basic policy enabling any collaborative editing, and such editing should be the only kind that occurs. Any failure to AGF immediately poisons the atmosphere and threatens the project. A persistent failure to assume good faith should result not merely in blocking, but in banning.

One of the most flagrant policy violations leading to this ArbCom and permeating it is a persistent and stubborn assumption of bad faith, with conspiracy theory allegations as the foundation of much of the controversy. All of this could have been avoided if the basic AGF policy had been followed.

Wikipedia does not allow assumptions of bad faith, and therefore does not participate in or allow editorial conspiracy theory speculations against other editors. Besides often leading to BLP violations against such editors, they can be potentially libelous, which greatly compounds the seriousness of such assumptions of bad faith. Such speculations are personal attacks and are forbidden here. That they are even tolerated and then made the subject of an ArbCom is very disturbing. Such speculations should be censured immediately as gross violations of AGF, without being allowed to become the subject of very public ArbCom proceedings, which only serve to publicize the BLP nature of such charges, making Wikipedia a party to such charges. There are other more private and official channels for dealing with such suspicions, and even then, use of those channels is only relevant if the suspicions can be tied to actual editing violations made by the person so charged. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 4. Using someone's personal affiliations against them

It is a clear violation of NPA policy to use "someone's affiliations as a means of dismissing or discrediting their views - regardless of whether said affiliations are mainstream or extreme." [6] Just because someone shares another person's POV, even if that person is someone who in someway may be considered in violation of COI here (or has problems elsewhere), that fact must not be used against them. -- Fyslee (collaborate)


Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 5. Personal attacks

Even the most aggravated situations do not justify personal attacks. There has been far too much focus on my person, and not on my editing. I have been attacked as a person, my motives have been challenged, and I have been the focus of an intense campaign centered around gross assumptions of bad faith, all the while ignoring my motives and track record as an editor, which to some degree are to ensure that policy violations, conspiracy theories, and original research are not allowed to go unchecked as improper article content:

Insulting or disparaging an editor is a personal attack regardless of the manner in which it is done. When in doubt, comment on the article's content without referring to its contributor at all.
The prohibition against personal attacks applies equally to all Wikipedians. It is as unacceptable to attack a user with a history of foolish or boorish behavior, or even one who has been subject to disciplinary action by the Arbitration Committee, as it is to attack any other user. Wikipedia encourages a positive online community: people make mistakes, but they are encouraged to learn from them and change their ways. Personal attacks are contrary to this spirit and damaging to the work of building an encyclopedia. [7]

Even bad behavior and proof of bad faith editing do not permit other editors to make personal attacks against that person. Other editors should not sink to the same level as the one so accused, but should use well-reasoned arguments regarding the editing itself, and not sink to personal ad hominem and straw man attacks against other editors. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 6. Learning curve and redeemability

An editor's collaborative potential and redeemability should be judged by their Wikipedian learning curve, not by exceptional and occasional displays of human frailty, that are then blown out of proportion and even distorted by their antagonists. Do they occasionally "cross the line" when under fire, which is quite human, or do they operate on the other side of the line most of the time, finding the personal attack mode to be their natural element? -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 7. Life and POV outside of Wikipedia

Editors should not be penalized for having had a life before becoming Wikipedians, or for having a life and POV outside of Wikipedia. It is their present life as Wikipedians that count. Their life and attitudes outside of Wikipedia should only be considered as it relates to their potential for collaboration with editors of opposing POV here at Wikipedia. If their outside activities are counterproductive to their potential for personal collaboration with editors holding opposing POV, then they should recuse themselves from editing at Wikipedia, as well as from creating a disruptive climate on talk pages. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 8. Whom would you rather have on the "other side of the table"?

Of course no one is a saint here, but whom would you rather have here? It's easy to answer if you favor the POV of one of the parties, and would choose to have them remain here on your own side of the table. But that misses the real point. The real test is to ask whom you would rather have here as your "adversary" in editing on controversial subjects.

Some editors can still be trusted to be more interested in writing an encyclopedia, than in acting as POV edit warriors who don't back down. Such editors should stay. Those who can't do that, no matter if they share or don't share one's own POV, should not be kept here. If they cannot or will not collaborate with editors holding opposing POV, then they do not understand NPOV and will be disruptive to the collaborative atmosphere that should rule here. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 9. Bannable for unblockable "offenses"?

To be banned for unblockable "offenses" is a rather odd situation, with incredible and unpredictable consequences. It renders the possibility of knowing when one is in danger of committing a bannable offense quite unpredictable, and thus threatens the very concepts of fairness, justice, and accountability. An "offense" that is not even blockable is often a mere difference of opinion, which can be dealt with at the editorial level with other involved editors. To elevate such a difference of opinion to a bannable offense is an untenable situation.

This should especially be seen in light of the fact that the process of being involved in an ArbCom such as this, and its resulting judgment, can and does have very real and extremely serious consequences in real life for not only the directly named parties and their families, but also for other editors. BLP policy applies to editors, not just to articles. Should a short-lived difference of opinion on a relatively "hidden" talk page involving precisely which words to use in an on-line encyclopedia (which will often be vandalized or changed the next minute), be subjected to a process that can ruin people's lives? An ArbCom should be part of the dispute resolution process, rather than an escalation of the dispute, even allowing it to spread to extraneous and improper areas not a part of the original on-wiki dispute, thus making it more like a free for all riot. In this case it has allowed the inclusion of off-wiki battles against uninvolved parties (Barrett) to this dispute, and allowed those battles to affect opinions and possible policy decisions (regarding Quackwatch), without the thus involved parties (Stephen Barrett is a Wikipedian) being involved. Such matters are too important to be dealt with in this manner. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 10. Muddy COI guideline (it is not a policy)

The COI guideline needs to be tightend up to make it unambiguously clear that other types of COI than commercial issues, direct personal financial advantage, or misuse of Wikipedia to continue legal battles, are involved. Those areas should then be clearly defined. It seems this guideline is now getting stretched into areas that were unclear at the start of this conflict, and for which the participants should therefore not be held responsible or culpable, especially if they were not warned about them during the course of this conflict. (If they were warned, then it's a different matter.) If having an interest and professional experience (I'm a PT and PA) in a subject area means one has a COI, then Wikipedia should not encourage professionals to edit here. [8] -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] 11. Failure to recognize a problem

Editors who persist in failiing to recognize that they have a problem (even when continually reminded of it by multiple administrators, and confronted with it using evidence that is absolutely and undeniably clear to all others) are in danger of continued misbehavior. This is evidence of a negative learning curve and an absolutely negative prognosis regarding their redeemability. Even more damning, it is evidence that this whole process has taught them little or nothing.

Editors who defend such an editor by also claiming they see no problem with that editor's behavior are in similar danger of continued misbehavior (which is not the subject of this ArbCom, but could just as well have been) and may to some degree deserve the same fate. Their future editing patterns should be subjected to intense scrutiny, and they should be cut far less slack than other editors. Being an accessory to the crime is a serious and culpable matter that should not go unnoticed. -- Fyslee (collaborate)

Comment by Arbitrators:
Comment by parties:
Proposed by -- Fyslee (collaborate) 09:53, 25 February 2007 (UTC)
Comment by others:

[edit] Table

1 Ex 3 pe 5 ri 7 me 9 nt
2 4 6 8 10


[edit] Archives

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5

Archives: Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5

Archives: 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5


Archive
Archives

[edit] Barnometer

Barnometer™
The Sitting Duck Award. Wikipedia is not a sitting duck for quacks. In recognition of your efforts the sitting duck award. JFW 00:29, 26 December 2005 (UTC). The Tireless Contributor Barnstar. Presented to Fyslee on September 25, 2006 for your tireless persistence in editing with precision and style and defending the difficult articles while encouraging others to do the same. A true wikipedian! Dematt 21:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC) The E=MC² Barnstar. To Fyslee, for being a scientist in the very best meaning of the word; been proud to work with you Gleng 16:28, 28 September 2006 (UTC) For your contributions to Wikipedia and humanity in general, you are hereby granted the coveted Random Smiley Award. Originated by Pedia-I. StoptheDatabaseState 20:58, 11 December 2006 The Resilient Barnstar. I award the Resilient Barnstar to Fyslee for his continual good nature and his willingness to persist in improving Wikipedia despite continual personal attacks. It's great to have you here. Maustrauser 13:41, 13 January 2007 (UTC)
n00b involved been around veteran seen it all older than the Cabal itself

[edit] Wikipedia:Describing points of view

[edit] Why I (Fyslee) didn't wish to participate

I am rather surprised to see my so-called "rejection" of mediation being discussed in a manner that makes it appear I did something wrong. Maybe I haven't understood what an RfM is all about. I have clearly expressed why I did not want to be a part of the RfM, but it appears to me that no one has read my explanation, or they do not agree with it and are not explaining why. I wish they would read the following and then discuss their reaction to my reasoning.

  • If I have misunderstood something about the purpose of the RfM, I would like to be corrected.
  • If I have done something wrong by not participating, I'd like to know what it was so it doesn't happen again.

My reasons are clearly explained on the RfM page, its talk page, and a couple of other places, as well as the edit summaries. Here are the links:

Here are my statements in chronological order with the diffs (taken out of context, and without the edit summaries):

  • 1. If I am not to be allowed to provide the requested evidence of my attempts to deal with her attacks, then what's going on? Have I misunderstood your RfM? It was made in the specific context of her personal attacks on myself, so why is it described as an RfM regarding Barrett v. Rosenthal? That is not currently an issue under discussion. If I'm not to be allowed to discuss the current problem, then maybe you shouldn't have added my name and obligated me to a lot more wasted time. Please explain and maybe I'll withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:45, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [9]
  • 2. Okay, I misunderstood. In the context it seemed like it would deal with the current, rather than (relatively) ancient B v. R discussion, but you're probably right. Unfortunately this RfM will divert attention from the basic issue underlying all of her presence here, which is to carry her Usenet personal attacks to wikipedia. They got her sued before, and because she was reposting what someone else wrote, she got away with it. Now she thinks she can continue here. Oh well, I'll just withdraw. -- Fyslee 23:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC) [10]
  • 3. Do not agree. This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 10:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [11]
  • 4. Peter (Wizardry), I believe you have some serious misunderstandings and assumptions about this issue. To the best of my knowledge, Barrett and Rosenthal have never had any serious discussions over the issue of breast implants. Barrett doesn't even comment on them or write about them, or even criticize Rosenthal's position on the issue. (Barrett may have at some long distant point in the past expressed views common among MDs, but he's never made it an issue in his activities. He concentrates on other subjects.) I personally support much of her position on the subject, but find her activities to be very damaging to her cause.
The attacks made by Bolen and Rosenthal against Barrett (that have led to libel lawsuits) have nothing to do with the breast implant issues, but are regarding Barrett's anti-quackery activism. Bolen admits that he is paid by alternative medicine practitioners (who have run afoul of the law) to defend them. He does this primarily by spamming (yes the anti-spam community is very much against him) a newsletter which he himself describes as "opinion pieces". They are filled with conspiracy theory rhetoric, ad hominem attacks, straw man attacks, and other forms of serious personal attacks, including libelous statements for which he is now awaiting trial. (Under deposition he had to admit that very concrete statements presented as absolute fact were nothing more than "euphemism".)
The whole issue is about alternative medicine practitioners, producers, and scammers, who don't like their methods getting exposed to criticism on Quackwatch. Rosenthal is among those who doesn't like those methods being criticized, and without herself being criticized first, has gone on the warpath against Barrett. Anyone who happens to share Barrett's (which are essentially mainstream POV) viewpoints then gets attacked as "Barrett syncophants" or other epithets that are designed to make it appear that we are all working directly with or for Barrett, and are paid by the pharmaceutical industry. Nothing could be further from the truth. -- Fyslee 10:25, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [12] & [13]
  • 5. Misguided RfM that should be canned
If there is to be any RfM regarding Ilena and the breast implant issue, then Barrett v. Rosenthal is not the right subject for an RfM. A different RfM that might be relevant (if there is any dispute there -- I don't know), could be titled:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Breast implant]]
This current RfM is totally off-base. It was announced and presented on the page and in the middle of a discussion of Ilena's personal behavior here at Wikipedia, which had nothing to do with breast implants, so when I followed the link and ended here, I was baffled. There was no "connect" between the current controversy, the situation in which it was announced, the place it was announced, or the reality of the situation. It was like a long dead ghost was suddenly being introduced into another discussion. The proper thing would have been to create an RfC:
  • [[Wikipedia:Requests for comment/Behavior of User:Ilena]]
This RfM is misguided, ill-timed, and off-topic. It should be canned. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Copied relevant comment from above:
  • This is an unnecessary revival (IOW recreating) of a not currently active issue, thus creating more controversy and wasting more time. It has been a problem, and if it becomes active again, then this might be valid. At present this functions as a diversion from the real and very serious current issue, which is an undeclared RfC on Ilena's conduct towards other editors. She is currently blocked for that behavior. -- Fyslee 11:38, 20 January 2007 (UTC) [14]

This RfM was simply the wrong venue and misapplied, so the error was not mine, but the error of the one who started the RfM in the first place. It should have never been raised, but something does need to be done, likely an RfC. That would indeed be appropriate. The issue is her attitude and behavior anywhere at Wikipedia, not the content of the Barrett v. Rosenthal article. Content matters can always be worked out through collaborative editing. Editors who refuse to collaborate need to have their attitude and behavior subjected to an RfC. That's the issue here. Wikipedia should not be used to further her Usenet wars, especially since I have never participated in them.

Again, please explain any errors in my reasoning. I am trying to learn here and am more than willing to correct errors. -- Fyslee 01:43, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Prescientific systems

Prescientific systems are approaches to scientific fields such as medicine or astronomy that evolved before the natural sciences established their modern standards of methodological work and theoretical understanding. Support for the system was largely anecdotal, and objective testing procedures were often lacking.

"Prescientific" is a term that can be used to judge the historical significance of a phenomenon, whether it be a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief or practice. As such its usefulness as a term is limited to discussing the history of a phenomenon, and does not accurately describe the phenomenon's present day status.

[edit] Historical paths

A prescientific phenomena can follow at least one of three paths leading to extremely different conclusions:

  1. It can be scientifically validated and accepted, becoming a part of scientifically accepted fact. In medicine, such phenomena often start as traditional medicine, or "alternative" medicine, and end up becoming evidence based medicine (EBM).
  2. It can be disproven and rejected after much experimentation shows negative results. Such phenomena are relegated to the history books as historic artifacts.
  3. It can, in spite of a lack of scientific validation - and even in spite of clear rejection - be preserved and believed, thus becoming a current pseudoscientific phenomena. In medicine, such phenomena are often labeled quackery by the medical community and skeptics.

[edit] Prescientific systems and ideas include

[edit] References

[edit] See also

[edit] External links

[edit] Boxes

\star  This is a Project page, not an encyclopedia article  \star
This project page is a workplace and source of reference for project members and does not conform to all the standards expected of "articles-in-progress".


\star  Rules governing this talk page  \star
This talk page is my territory, and I assume janitorial responsibility for it. I may, without notice, refactor (rearrange) comments to put like with like, correct indents, or retitle sections to reflect their contents more clearly. I reserve the right to delete comments; however, in practice, I am normally opposed to doing so, and use archives instead. When all else fails, there is always a complete edit history....;-) -- Fyslee


[edit] Category:Quackery

I have added a suggested title change here. The category description is now changed to make the category much more useful. I suspect the usual objections will continue as long as the word quackery exists on this planet. Those who are objecting hate the very idea, since they are believers in practices so labeled. Wikipedia isn't in the job of labeling things, just describing the labels and presenting all sides of the subject. This new category title makes it possible to expand inclusion to other aspects of the subject. -- Fyslee 19:25, 11 December 2006 (UTC)


This category is about the subject of quackery, which is defined as "medical practice and advice based on observation and experience in ignorance of scientific findings." A "quack" is "a fraudulent or ignorant pretender to medical skill. A person who pretends, professionally or publicly, to have skill, knowledge, or qualifications he or she does not possess; a charlatan."

This category includes articles that in one way or another directly pertain to the subject of quackery.

They may be about remedies, practitioners, devices, and medical theories which are alleged by the scientific and medical community to be without scientific merit or to run contrary to the findings of science, in other words put forth in ignorance of scientific findings. Some are based in beliefs strongly and in some senses honestly held by their practitioners, who may dispute the label.

Insofar as they directly pertain to the subject of quackery, the included articles may be related to alternative medicine, consumer protection, debunkers, evidence-based medicine, medical ethics, pseudoscience, and scientific skepticism.

As such, inclusion in the category should not be construed as a statement that the subject actually is quackery, only that it is related to the subject, and is included as an aid to those interested in studying the subject.

[edit] Hair analysis (alternative medicine)

[edit] Falsifiability ref

User:Fyslee/Sandbox/Falsifiability tag

Template:Falsifiability

  • {{falsifiability}}

Example of use:

[edit] Wikipedia talk:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

[edit] Wikipedia guidelines re categorization (discussion)

According to Wikipedia:Categorization "8. Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." Since applying the quackery category to homeopathy is highly controversial and not at all self-evident, I have removed it.--Lee Hunter 19:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This guideline must therefore bear on the pseudoscience category as well. According to the authoritative Oxford Companion to Philosophy (ed. Ted Honderich), pseudoscience is a term of 'epistemic abuse'. Jedermann 00:11, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Jimbo on NPOV

Well, it's against my role as 'the Jimbo' around here to call people crackpots, so I'll avoid that word here. But you'll all know what I mean anyway.  ;-)

It has been my long experience, too, that there are many, uh, creative minds, who are drawn to theorizing about the puzzles and mysteries of physics. Their struggles against the tyranny of the mainstream are romantic and lonely; they are voices of reason, crying out in the wilderness.

I think this presents challenges for our NPOV policy, but not "special" challenges. As with any controversial subject, and many uncontroversial ones, there are mainstream views, minority views, and singular views.

NPOV does not require us to present all these views as if they are equal! This is one of the things that's hardest to remember about NPOV. If a view is the majority view of a broad consensus of scientists, then we say so. If a view is a minority view of some scientists, scientists who are respected by the mainstream that differs with them on this particular matter, then we say so. And if a view is held only by a few people without any traditional training or credentials, and if that view is dismissed by virtually all mainstream scientists, then we can say that, too.

The reason we can do all of that is that, usually, those statements are not controversial to any of the parties in the debate. We could have a problem if someone insists that their peculiar views are shared by all scientists, but that's usually not the case. Usually the creative alternative-physics types will readily agree that virtually no mainstream physicists would agree.

And we can use all of that as a reasonable grounds for dividing up articles. Usually, mainstream and minority views are treated in the main article, with the mainstream view typically getting a bit more ink, but the minority view presented in such a fashion that both sides could agree to it. Singular views can be moved to a separate page and identified (disclaimed) as such, or in some cases omitted altogether.

There's a popular view of bias in journalism, held more in practice out of laziness I think than held as an actual theory of bias, that the way to be unbiased is to present both sides of an argument without prejudicing the discussion for or against either one. "Some say that the earth is round, others say that it is flat."

Our approach is more sophisticated, I think.

--Jimbo

[edit] Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience

[edit] KV blocked

Finally! [16] Now he's talking to himself on his own talk page. So far there's not much worth replying to, since he doesn't seem to really understand why he was blocked. He is beyond the reach of educational efforts. They are just wasted on him.

KrishnaVindaloo holding articles hostage [17]

This is a user with a litany of complaints logded against him. He has been caught lying about contents of reference and is generally just stubborn and uncooperative. In an ongoing effort to insert poorly sources information into Pseudoscience, KrishnaVindaloo has most recently left threatening edit summaries that can be summarized as "don't revert my edits or else..." I personally have just been asking him to supply us (the editors on Pseudoscience) with a means of accessing the source material or to merely give us a direct quote that shows us that the source states what he claim it states. While this isn't required, I was made weary of his source the first time he tried to introduce it and made it state something that the source did not state (I at least learned this from a summary of the source).

Anyhow, before I make your head spin with all of the details, let me get to the matter at hand. KrishnaVindaloo has now opted to take Chiropractic hostage to "teach us all a lesson". His last comment on the talk page there reads like a ransom note:

Things are not going so well on the PS article due to some rather silly and short-sighted arbitration inducing behaviour of some editors. I just added some information to this article that I realize some editor here will not like very much. I will remove it myself if things go more smoothly on the PS article. I trust editors here can cooperate. 09:16, 1 December 2006

His edit summaries there are more of the same threats:

removed criticisms and nonMS chiro research. Restoral will depend on what happens in the PS article. Cooperation is recommended. 09:23, 1 December 2006

KrisnhaVindaloo is editor who does not wish to collaborate. While these topics we edit are heated and KrishnaVindaloo is on the other side of the debate from me, please don't think that this is my reasoning for bringing this up here now. KrishnaVindaloo has even managed to lose even those who are "on his side" of this debate and now want nothing to do with him.

For more information about editors complaints about this editor please see:

I don't claim to know what action is appropriate. Perhaps a block is finally in order? Any help or guidance you can provide will be much appreciated. Thank you. User:Levine2112 18:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I second Levine2112's motion here and share his concerns. Even though I often side with the POV that Krishna represents, I find his uncollaborative attitude to be abhorrent. He continually twists the disputes about his personal mannerisms to make them look like disputes about NPOV, RS, etc.. That is certainly part of the problem at times, but the underlying red thread that runs through all controversies involving his edits (and there are always controversies!!) is his uncollaborative attitude.
In connection with these disputes, I have repeatedly seen the following phrase used as a weapon by Krishna, who will not collaborate with editors who hold opposing POV, simply because he is convinced that he is right (and he may well be, but his attitude stinks....):
"NPOV policy trumps consensus."
Yes, but the nature of editing at Wikipedia means that an assumption of good faith involves collaborative editing. An editor who fails to collaborate, no matter how right and proper their edits are in relation to all policies, will not succeed. In practice,
"Collaboration trumps all other policies."
Without collaboration between editors of opposing POV nothing functions as intended, and Wikipedia policies won't work in an uncollaborative environment. Krishna's editing here is doomed to fail until he learns this. His presence here does nothing but create severe irritation, edit wars, and lots of wasted time. Nothing has helped so far, so I recommend a block of at least a week. Shorter than that won't affect him at all. -- Fyslee 19:49, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
Concur also. I have seen him lie, posting a source and claiming it supports his edits, and upon investigating the source it in no way even mentions the topic! When confronted with this, he keeps adding the content anyway, repeating "NPOV trumps consensus" like it was a magical mantra to make all his edits unassailable - meanwhile ignoring that he has no source. He is incredibly hostile and self rightous, and I have never seen him actually work with other editors. He wasted my time and irritated me beyond expression.—Preceding unsigned comment added by KillerChihuahua (talk • contribs)
KV may very well be one of the most tendentious, disruptive and dishonest editors I have ever had the displeasure of having to deal with. There's no need to magnify what has been said above: all of it is true and painful. KV simply refuses to cooperate, refuses to follow policies and guidelines, refuses to respect his fellow editors and refuses to take responsibility for his mideeds. On top of this, his tendentious edits and pigheaded attitude have caused good editors to leave either the pages he has worked on, or, in one case, Wikipedia itself. This simply must stop. •Jim62sch• 21:12, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
At this stage a block is unquestionably warranted, it's just a question of how long it should be. My immediate reaction is that he should be blocked indefinitely on the understanding that an unblock will happen only when he undertakes to stop the behaviour which is causing the problem. Whether this should be done by way of an emergency injunction on the RFAR or whether we should simply block him. Guy (Help!) 22:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
I agree. The personal attacks and tendentious editing should be enough on its own, but to top it off, absolutely nothing has been accomplished since KV returned from his three week vacation. Please give us another vacation from him so we can once again concentrate our efforts on more positive contributions to WP. --Dematt 22:15, 1 December 2006 (UTC)
  • OK, I have blocked KV. Please feel free to review, or to pile in on his Talk. Guy (Help!) 00:11, 2 December 2006 (UTC)
KV, you have displayed some quite worrying and disruptive behaviour. You are currently blocked per this thread on WP:ANI. It is my view that you should not be unblocked until you undertake to stop this behaviour. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Category:Vitalism

[[Category:History of biology]] [[Category:Obsolete biological theories]] [[Category:Philosophy of science]] [[Category:Obsolete scientific theories]]

[[Category:Vitalism]]

Main article: Vitalism


Animal magnetism - included in the table

Astral body - included

Aura (paranormal) - included

Awen - included

Biofield - included

Chi - included

Chakra - included

Dosha - included

Élan vital or Vital Force

Energy (healing or psychic or spiritual) - included

Etheric body - included

Humours (Ayurveda) - included

Innate Intelligence - included

Ki - included

Life force - included

Mana - included

Morphogenetic field

Neurotheology

Odic force

Orgone energy - included

Pneuma - included

Prana - included

Psychic energy

Qi - included

Shakti

Soul

Spirit

Subtle body

Vitalism

Yin and Yang - included

[edit] Vitalism table

VITALISTIC HEALING SYSTEMS
NAME ALLEGED "LIFE FORCE"
Ancient Egypt Ankh
Ancient Greece Pneuma
Anthroposophical medicine Formative force, ether body, astral body
Ayurvedic medicine (Hindu) Prana
Chiropractic Innate intelligence
Energy medicine Energy body, aura, Kirlian effect, etc.
Homeopathy Vital energy
Magnetic healing (Mesmerism) Animal magnetism
Naturopathy Vis Medicatrix Naturae
Primitive medicine Mana, orenda, tane, gana, sila, oki, etc.
Radiesthesia/Medical Dowsing Radiation
Reichian psychotherapy Orgone energy
Therapeutic touch Prana
Traditional Chinese Medicine/Taoism Chi, Qi, Ki (Qi Gong "Master" healers)
Wicca (ancient fertility religion) Unspecified (use "pranic healing" ritual)























.

[edit] Other stuff

Kept here just for the format, not the content:


Lived in:
Visited:
U.S. States visited or lived in:
Want to visit:

[edit] Template codes

CODES Good faith Use sandbox Could be seen as vandalism Warning Final warning Blocked Block & warning
Dealing with Vandalism
Generic {{test0}} {{test-self}}
{{test}}		 {{test2}} {{test3}} {{test4}}
{{test4b-n}}
{{Final warning}}		 {{test5}}
{{test5i}}		 {{test6}}
{{vblock}}
{{vbc}}
{{vbc-t}}
Clear vandalism {{vw}}
{{vw-n}}		 {{blatantvandal}}
{{test4im}}
Removing content {{test1a}} {{test2del}}
{{test2a}}		 {{test3a}} {{test4a}}
Blanking pages {{blank}} {{blank2}} {{blank3}} {{blank4}} {{blank5}}
Maliciously moving pages {{MP2}} {{MP3}} {{MP4}}
Anonymous vandals {{sharedIP}}
{{sharedwelcome}}		 {{multipleIPs}}
{{Anon vandal}}		 {{MIPblock}}
Spammers {{spam}} {{spam2}}
{{spam2a}}		 {{spam3}} {{spam4}}
Vandalizing user/user talk page {{tpv}} {{tpv2}} {{tpv3}} {{tpv4}} {{tpv5}}
Problems While Editing Articles
Not adhering to neutral point of view {{welcomenpov}}
{{NPOV0}}
{{NPOV0-n}}
{{NPOV0a}}
{{talkinarticle}}		 {{comment2}} {{comment3}}
Adding non-notable material {{nn-test}}
{{nn-warn}}
{{nn-notice}}
Violating three-revert rule {{uw-3rr}} {{uw-3rr}} {{uw-3block}}
Removing/censoring explicit material {{Not censored}} {{Not censored 2}}
Introducing deliberate factual errors {{verror2}}
{{verror2-n}}		 {{verror3}} {{verror4}}
Posting off-topic messages {{talkinarticle}} {{mess2}}
Using improper humor {{behave}}
{{behave-n}}
{{joke}}
{{joke-n}}		 {{funnybut}} {{seriously}}
Introducing stylistic problems {{Mos0}}
{{italicize}}
{{SpellCheck}}
{{SpellCheck-n}}		 {{Mos2}}
{{dates2}}
{{lang2}}		 {{Mos3}}
{{dates3}}
{{lang3}}		 {{lang4}} {{lang5}}
Royalty stylistic problems {{rn2}}
{{styles2}}		 {{rn3}}
{{styles3}}		 {{rn4}}
{{styles4}}
Creating vanity/user pages in main space {{vanity}} {{userfy warning}}
Problems related to edit summaries {{edit summary}}
{{minor}}
{{preview}}
{{summary}}		 {{Edit summary personal}}
Other 'editing article' warnings {{nothanks}}
{{nothanks-sd}}
{{talk sign}}
{{tilde}}
{{User-OR}}		 {{mcn2}}
Image-Related Problems
Image vandalism {{image3}}
{{imageow3}}		 {{image4}}
Fair use and tagging problems {{badfairuse}}
{{image copyright}}
{{Image no source last warning}}
{{image source}}
{{name your images}}
{{nothanks}}
{{nothanks-sd}}
Problems with Editors' Behavior
Attacking other users {{RPA}} {{Edit summary personal}} {{No personal attacks}}
{{Npa}}		 {{attack}}
{{Npa2}}		 {{Npa3}} {{Npa4}} {{threatban}}
Defaming fellow users {{defwarn}} {{defban}}
Assuming bad faith {{agf0}} {{agf3}}
Posting other users' personal information {{Pinfo4}} {{Pinfo5}}
Threatening legal action against other users {{threat2}} {{threatban}}
Tampering with Wikipedia Processes
Removing {{afd}} {{drmafd}} {{drmafd2}} {{drmafd3}} {{drmafd4}} {{drmafd5}}
Removing speedy delete template {{drmspeedy}} {{drmspeedy2}} {{drmspeedy3}} {{drmspeedy4}} {{drmspeedy5}}
Removing other templates {{drmmt}}
Restoring deleted article {{recreated}}
Blocking Clerical
Other 'block clerical' tags Informative:
{{vandalism watch}}
{{blocknumbers}}
{{Request accepted}}
{{request denied}}		 {{repeat vandal}} {{arbcom}}
{{block}}
{{blocked user}}
{{sockblock}}
Miscellaneous
Please do not add a template here unless it does not match any other category above.
Miscellaneous {{badcat}}
{{canvass}}
{{newvoter}}
{{noprotection-n}}
{{subst}}
{{Welc}}
{{Welcome}}

[edit] Category:Wikipedia administrators

Category:Wikipedia administrators

[edit] Caution tag

Start making a new vandal tag based on this one: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Template:Anon_vandal

Place in "caution" section of grid.


You have recently vandalized a Wikipedia article, and you are now being asked to stop this type of behavior. You're welcome to continue editing Wikipedia, so long as these edits are constructive. Please see Wikipedia's Blocking policy and what constitutes vandalism; such actions are not tolerated on Wikipedia, and are not taken lightly.

Users with "anonymous IP numbers do not have the same civil rights as logged in members of the community. If you want to be a good editor, get an account, make good edits." -- Jimbo Wales[18]

We hope that you will become a legitimate editor. Again, you are welcome here at Wikipedia, but remember not to vandalize or you will soon be blocked from editing.

If you feel you have received this message in error, it may be because you are using a shared IP address. Nevertheless, repeated vandalism from this address may cause you to be included in any future sanctions such as temporary blocks or bans. To avoid confusion in the future, we invite you to create a user account of your own.

[edit] My travels


Lived for years:

Denmark:

Greenland:

Japan:

South Korea:

Philippines:

United States:


United States:

Lived in: California, Pennsylvania, Tennessee, Alabama, Maryland
Visited: All states but Alaska and Florida


Visited:

Belgium:

Canada:

England:

Finland:

France:

Germany:

Greece:

Holland:

Hong Kong:

Iceland:

Italy:

Lebanon:

Lithuania:

Mexico:

Norway:

Poland:

Sweden:

Switzerland:

Tenerife:

Vatican City:

Wales:

Åland:

[edit] Efficacious and Placebo

Source: [19]

This seems a little contradictory, efficacious means achieiving the desired result, so even if something was a placebo and did what it was intended to, couldn't it be categorized as efficacious? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by The snare (talk • contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2006.

Apparently "Efficacious" is a term of art and used correctly here.... --Jim Butler(talk) 06:11, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
For a method to be considered efficacious and meaningful in any medical sense, it would have to make an objectively measurable biological difference above and beyond subjective effects (the placebo effect is primarily a subjective effect caused by expectation). Subjective effects can produce shortlived bodily reactions (example: embarrassment can cause blushing, goose bumps, enlarged pupils, racing pulse, etc.), but have no lasting real effect on any serious illness.
A treatment method that exploits the placebo effect may itself be harmless (like homeopathy), but in real life can have dangerous consequences, because it produces a false sense of security, leading the sufferer to place their trust in a method that has no real chance of changing the course of their disease. This can be a fatal delusion, hence the placebo effect can just as well be called the placebo illusion, which is why it is used in clinical research, where measuring the consequences of beliefs in illusions is vital. One must therefore be very careful how one defines "efficacious," because it can cause the death of patients, while it increases the profits of the unethical practitioner who is exploiting the placebo effect. Definitions have consequences. -- Fyslee 20:26, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image:CalifCentralCoast

Central California coastline, 2006with the McWay Rocks in the foreground.(click for large image, then click again for HUGE image!)
Central California coastline, 2006
with the McWay Rocks in the foreground.
(click for large image, then click again for HUGE image!)

Picture of central California's coastline looking south from the shoulder of the Pacific Coast Highway (Rt. 1).

It shows the McWay Rocks island group (with an arch) in the foreground and the McWay landslide to the left. Here are two pictures I found showing a kayak's-eye view of the McWay Rocks and sailing through the arch, and one looking down on them. This area is in the middle of the Monterey County coastline, about 16½ miles south of Big Sur.

Taken on June 16, 2006 by Fyslee 11:37, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] News


[edit] Different grades of mobilization

In the hierarchy of manual therapy treatment methods, manipulation is a Grade V mobilization. In some countries all five grades of mobilization, including manipulation, are called mobilization, and in others the first four are called mobilization, and Grade V is called manipulation.


Mobilization and manipulation are manual therapy techniques that are commonly used to treat spinal pain and dysfunction. Mobilization (or “articulation”, as it is known in osteopathy) involves passive rhythmic and repetitive movements within a range of motion or against a restrictive barrier. It is an extension of passive motion testing and can be applied to a single articulation or a group of spinal segments. It is a gentle technique where the force and amplitude can be controlled depending on the response of the tissues and the severity of the condition being treated.

High velocity, low amplitude (HVLA) thrust manipulation (known also as mobilization with impulse, or grade V mobilization) involves a small amplitude thrust to produce joint cavitation, and is often accompanied by an audible ‘cracking’ sound. Brodeur suggested that the audible release is produced by the sudden ‘snap back’ of the synovial capsule, in association with formation of a gas bubble within the joint.

Spinal manipulation and mobilization have been proposed to have a number of therapeutic benefits, including the stretching of shortened and thickened peri-articular soft tissues to improve range of motion, improved drainage of fluid within and surrounding the joint, and changes in pain modulation, motor activity and proprioception.

Source: [2]



According to Maitland's concept, [3] the different grades of mobilization will produce selective activation of different mechanoreceptors:

  • Grade I - Activates Type I mechanoreceptors with a low threshold and which respond to very small increments of tension.
Activates cutaneous mechanoreceptors.
Oscillatory motion will selectively activate the dynamic, rapidly adapting receptors, ie. Meissner's and Pacinian Corpuscles . The former respond to the rate of skin indentation and the latter respond to the acceleration and retraction of that indentation.
  • Grade II - Similar effect as Grade I.
By virtue of the large amplitude movement it will affect Type II mechanoreceptors to a greater extent.
  • Grade III - Similar to Grade II.
Selectively activates more of the muscle and joint mechanoreceptors as it goes into resistance, and less of the cutaneous ones as the slack of the subcutaneous tissues is taken up.
  • Grade IV - Similar to Grade III.
With its more sustained movement at the end of range will activate the static, slow adapting, Type I mechanoreceptors, whose resting discharge rises in proportion to the degree of change in joint capsule tension.
  • Grade V - In the premanipulative position it has the same effect as a sustained grade IV.
In the snapping action, manipulation activates Type II and Type III (high threshold) mechanoreceptors.

Source: [4]

You know this stuff is the same stuff we're taught. We just didn't call it mobilisation. Gate theory, mechanoreceptors, golgi bodies, muscle spindles, spinothalamic tract, dorsal columns, etc, etc, etc. Half those chiropractic techniques were techniques used to affect these same things. How much of this is politics and money? --Dematt 03:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
A good and legitimate question. I have no doubt that for some people politics and turf protection play a large role in their opposition to chiropractic. I have a number of other issues that are central, with turf protection being a very peripheral matter I rarely consider, partially because it is irrelevant to me. If one judged chiropractic only in relation to the local effects of manipulation, and removed the issues of claimed general health effects, unethical practice building methods, wellness care of asymptomatic "practice members," use of scripts, numerous quackery methods and beliefs, etc., then there wouldn't be as much difference or reason for complaint. What really bothers me is that the actions of so many woo-woo chiros create problems for many other very sincere, skilled, ethical, and generally good chiros. It's really unfair to them. The problem of lack of internal self-policing needs to be fixed, but there are reasons why that can't be done. -- Fyslee 06:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I think they probably come down to more of a marketing question. You have to admit, medicine markets itself just as much as chiropractic, only better. Being outside the loop, forces chiropractors to market differently than medicine. Your profession is in the loop and I'm not sure if this keeps you from seeing this or if it's a stance that you have to take for other reasons. I think as chiropractic gets involved more and more with mainstream medicine, the loud overpromoting chiropractors will slowly dissappear, but I also think we need to keep pressure to continue to investigate the neurological effects of abnormal function of vertebrae on overall health. There is no reason that this can't happen and I assume one day it will. I have a feeling you'll be right in the middle of it. --Dematt 16:12, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Until recently PTs in Denmark weren't allowed to advertise more than their phone number and address, not even being allowed to mention any specialty education they might have. Advertising has simply been considered unethical for many years because it blends commercial interests with what should be humanitarian efforts, especially if it attempts to get more patients. They are considered to be the ones who initiate contact, not the other way around, which is an old tradition in aggressive chiropractic marketing. I can remember back in the sixties when MDs could get prosecuted for advertising. Things have changed since then, and it's not for the benefit of patients, which gets to the crux of the ethical problem with advertising healthcare services - it turns patients into customers and practitioners into beasts of prey. Basically there are ethical ways to do it and unethical ones, and then some that are in a grey area that's a slippery slope. I still stick to a yellow pages spot that doesn't even have my opening hours or mention any of my specialty interests, although the last is now allowed here.
As far as investigating the neurological effects of abnormal function of vertebrae, great. Real research is always welcome. The claims can come afterwards. It's the claims made (based on old beliefs) in the absence of proof, and used to get patients to become lifelong customers....that's where I disagree with the practice building firms. I see them as one of the biggest problems in the profession. Their very existence is a puzzle to most PTs I know, but I fear that such things will begin to creep into PT as well. In medicine, practice building used to solely concentrate on effective office management, continuing education, etc.. -- Fyslee 19:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Yeah, I only have the one line in the phone book. I have never advertised, but mostly because I couldn't afford it. Mine has always been word of mouth, but it was a hard way to go. I just squeaked by for several years, not to mention the 4 kids coming in the middle of all that;) If I didn't think that I was doing soemthing important, I would have quit a long time ago. Chiropractors fill a need for people and I'm not sure that if we all jumped in to the medical mainstream, that some other group wouldn't fill the gap. As far as advertising, they have pretty much tied the hands of state government with freedom of speech issues, and unlike MDs and yourself, threatening to lose priveledges doesn't really work when you don't have any anyway. But I do have to admit, it is a freer feeling to know no-one holds that over me. Anyway, I think you would make a grat chiropractor;) What do you think? --Dematt 19:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
I suspect that we actually practice very similarly. Let's both do our best to serve our patients, hold a high ethical standard, and try to keep the kooks from getting to much influence (yep, we have some in PT too). -- Fyslee 19:40, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Deal;) --Dematt 21:08, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Literature

Cyriax, J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, Vol. I: Diagnosis of Soft Tissue Lesions 8th ed. Bailliere Tindall, London, 1982. Cyriax, J. Textbook of Orthopaedic Medicine, Vol. II: Treatment by Manipulation, Massage and Injection 10th ed. Bailliere Tindall, London, 1983. Hoppenfeld, S. Physical Examination of the Spine and Extremities. Appleton-Century-Crofts, New York, 1976. Kendall FP, McCreary EK, Provance PG. Muscles Testing and Function Ed 4. Williams and Wilkens, Baltimore, 1993. ISBN 0-683-04576-8 Kessler, R.M.; Hertling, D. Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders: Physical Therapy Principals and Methods. Ed. 3. .Lippincott, Philadelphia, 1996. ISBN 0-397-55150-9 Maitland, G.D. Peripheral Manipulation 2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1977. Maitland, G.D. Vertebral Manipulation 5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1986. McKenzie, R.A. The Lumbar Spine; Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand, 1981. McKenzie, R.A. The Cervical and Thoracic Spine; Mechanical Diagnosis and Therapy. Spinal Publications, Waikanae, New Zealand, 1990. Mennel, J.M. Joint Pain; Diagnosis and Treatment Using Manipulative Techniques. Little Brown and Co., Boston, 1964. Richardson JK, Iglarsh ZA. Clinical Orthopaedic Physical Therapy. WB Saunders Co., Philadelphia, 1994.


[edit] Image help

Help provided by Dematt to my question:

I need help to upload an image. I've never done it. What should I do? -- Fyslee 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

  • First make and name the image file and place it somewhere on your computer ( I usually go with the desktop).
  • It will bring up a page and warn you that it better not be copyrighted:), scroll down and it will bring you to the upload page.
  • Click on Browse to go to the place you saved the file. It will automatically put the name of the file in (you can change it if you want).
  • Then you have to tell WP that it is public domain by putting in the {{pd-whatever it might be(US if before 1923 or -user if your own work}}(I can help you with this after you put it in)
  • Then find the same thing in the drop down box.
  • Then click on upload file.
  • There you go!
  • Now you have to put it in your page by using the Image:Whatever on you page. It should find it.
  • The most important thing here is to NAME THE IMAGE LINK THE EXACT SAME THING OR YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FIND IT:) It happens to me everytime. If you lose it, just do it all again.
Let me know what happens. I usually have to do it a couple times till I get it right! --Fyslee 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
Thanks so much for the instructions. Now I just need to follow them! -- Fyslee 21:19, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
(step 2) note: after you have entered the image name, with double brackets - save edit, then click on the your newly contructed link - this will bring up the copyright page - then on with step 3 ROxBo 16:06, 11 March 2007 (UTC)
btw, thanks for listing this - it is hard to gind simple instructions!! ROxBo 16:27, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] "Adjustment" or "manipulation"

  • source
  • "While the terms "spinal adjustment" and "spinal manipulation" are often used interchangeably by chiropractors in their literature and research, [citation needed] most straight (foundational) chiropractors tend not to use the term "manipulation", preferring to use the word "adjustment" to describe the nature of their work."

Here is evidence made into a reference: [5]

[edit] References code

<div class="references-small"><references/></div>

[edit] Subluxation repudiated

From here.

Good question. The first part ("never been proven") is a falsifiable comment. Of course what is deemed acceptable "proof" in this case means different things to DCs on the one side, and MDs/PTs, etc. on the other. The medical world is not yet convinced by the chiropractic claims of proof. To make it worse, so many aspects are mixed up in the differences in definitions of the same word that it gets pretty hard to explain or "prove." That's why I think that the chiropractic use of the word "subluxation" is a confusing misuse of the term that creates many more problems for the profession than it is worth. Keating and others (like Carter) say basically the same thing.
Carter's basic message below (and in the whole article) is that adherence to "subluxation" is the "silent killer" of chiropractic:
It appears that a small segment of our profession, with some elected leaders, appear intent on answering this crisis with only the 1910 chiropractic subluxation model. Their approach is not only wrong, but it prevents what is right from being done. Dr. Darrel Ladell stated it so well in his report on the Radiology Issue: Beware of the enemy for he is us.
Subluxation, though a vital part of our history has been described as the Achilles Heel of our profession. When you review the available literature and combine it with knowledge of our history, it quickly shows where the subluxation model has failed. This model has cost us years of positive growth.
This paper proposes that there is no need to beat our profession up again, punishing us with a misdirected allegiance to our dysfunctional history....
Today, the molding of the future of chiropractic in parts of Canada is being shaped by some elected members and volunteers who appear to have an obsession with only the subluxation model of chiropractic while being blinded to the many other very positive options. To challenge this philosophical position one should review the wealth of evidence from our past that indicates this model is not only ineffective but, at times, has been extremely damaging to the profession. Subluxation, unfortunately with a great deal of truth, has been referred to as the “Achilles Heel” of chiropractic....
The direction of this paper will now examine and discuss the chaos “subluxation” has created in different contingencies of the chiropractic profession. It may well be the silent killer of the chiropractic profession. Understanding this threat will enable you to know our enemy. (Beware of the enemy for he is us.)...
Certainly how we define one word, subluxation, should not create these emotions which divide the profession. Its more than a word, it represents belief systems, different philosophies, it challenges our ethics, it provides the different factions an issue to fight about. Our own justification of this word allows us to keep, and observe our peers breaking, the Eleventh Commandment: Thou shalt not take advantage of the sick.....
(Long passage about NACM, NCAHF, Duval, Slaughter, Homola, Keating, etc..)
Reformist Samuel Homola, D.C. has noted that the orthopaedic subluxation is an obvious and detectable entity (presenting obvious local symptoms), while the chiropractic subluxation is theoretical, elusive, and primarily an imaginary process to which the chiropractor has attached the primary cause of disease.


Reformist Peter Modde, D.C., has pointed out that if chiropractic subluxation theory were correct, people with scoliosis would have every disease mentioned in chiropractic “nerve charts” and quadraplegics could not live. Joseph Keating, Jr., Ph.D., an out spoken chiropractic educator, considers the philosophy subluxation a “holy word” that has outlived its usefulness and “will become an increasing embarrassment.” But Craig F. Nelson, D.C. another outspoken educator recently lamented that “the number of chiropractors who are animated by 19th century pseudoscience seems to be growing rather than shrinking, and these chiropractors will abandon their philosophy when hell freezes over”


Haldeman also states that minor misalignments of vertebra “are normal and not necessarily a sign of trouble”...
“There is a picture developing. Those who would choose success will see the picture early and understand it. Remember the laws mentioned earlier which govern our lives. You either get it, or you don’t was the first law with a strategy of becoming one of those who get it.”38 In the last 100 years we have being telling about the big picture, the subluxation. The public hasn’t got it, the scientific community hasn’t got it, many chiropractors haven’t got it, and the government and health care planner haven’t got it. Who has got it are the 15% of those who profess to be straight or principal based chiropractors....
The evidence for subluxation is almost non-existent in peer reviewed data, however, “... manipulation/adjusting is well established in more than 30 randomized clinical trials studying the effectiveness of spinal manipulation. There are eleven studies on the effectiveness of manipulation on chronic low back pain. There are seventeen studies looking at the relative costs of chiropractic. There are numerous studies that show an overall reduction in costs in work time lost. All studies have looked at the degree of patient satisfaction in patients seeking manipulation or chiropractic care have demonstrated much higher patient satisfaction scores compared to other forms of treatment and other professions.”...
Those attempting to push the subluxation model while believing in professional isolation can no longer be tolerated.
It is now time for the silent majority to make their voices heard. Remaining silent increases the division, dulls our focus and weakens the science of chiropractic to a point of potential collapse. The subluxation story regardless of how it is packaged is not the answer.
-- Subluxation - The Silent Killer, A 2000 commentary by Ronald Carter, DC, MA, Past President, Canadian Chiropractic Association in the Journal of the Canadian Chiropractic Association
If chiropractic is to survive at all, then its "killer" (the chiropractic vertebral subluxation) must die.
I hope these thoughts from the inside of chiropractic will inspire you all to make changes within the profession. These are just might thoughts here, and certainly not for the article. -- Fyslee 13:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Incomplete list of chiropractic techniques

This list was left by User:76.176.197.135 [20]

Diversified chiropractors are the most common chiropractic group. Diversified Chiropractic (or simply "Diversified") is a combination of any of the techniques listed below and includes all Mixers. Straight chiropractors are not included in this group, however, most Diversified chiropractics use some techniques found in Traditional Straight in combination with other methods of chiropractic. Some of the most common methods used by Diversified chiropractors are Activator Methods, Gonstead Technique (also known as Straight Chiropractic), Directional Non-Force Technique, Pierce-Stillwagon Technique, Thompson Terminal Point Technique, Logan Basic Technique, and the Chrane Condyle Lift. The following is an incomplete list of chiropractic methods used today:

   * Activator Methods
   * Active Release Therapy (or Active Release Technique)
   * Advanced BioStructural Correction
   * Advanced Muscle Palpation
   * Applied Chiropractic Distortion Analysis
   * Applied Kinesiology
   * Applied Spinal Biomechanical Engineering
   * Aquarian Age Healing
   * Arnholzt Muscle Adjusting
   * Atlas Orthogonality Technique
   * Atlas Specific
   * Bandy Seminars
   * Barge Technique
   * Bio Kinesiology
   * Bio-Energetic Synchronization Technique (BEST)
   * BioSET (Bioenergetic Sensitivity and Enzyme Therapy)
   * Bioenergetics
   * Bio-Geometric Integration
   * Biomagnetic Technique
   * Blair Upper Cervical Technique
   * Buxton Technical Course of Painless Chiropractic
   * Cerebrospinal Fluid Technique (CSFT)
   * Chirodontics
   * Chiroenergetics
   * Chiro Plus Kinesiology
   * Chirometry
   * Chiropractic Biophysics (CBP)
   * Chiropractic Manipulative Reflex Technique
   * ChiropracticNeuro-Biomechanical Analysis
   * CHOK-E System
   * Chrane Condyle Lift
   * Clinical Kinesiology
   * Collins Method of Painless Adjusting
   * Columbia Technique
   * Contact Reflex Analysis (CRA)
   * Cox Flexion-Distraction
   * Craniopathy
   * Directional Non-Force Technique
   * Diversified
   * Endo-Nasal Technique
   * Extremity Technique (Ext)
   * Focalizer Spinal Recoil Stimulus Reflex Effector Technique
   * Freeman Chiropractic Procedure
   * Fundamental Chiropractic
   * Global Energetic Matrix
   * Gonstead Technique
   * Grostic Technique
   * Herring Cervical Technique
   * Homeokinetics
   * Howard System
   * Kale Technique
   * Keck Method of Analysis
   * King Tetrahedron Concept
   * Laney Technique
   * Leander Technique
   * Lemond Brain Stem Technique
   * Life Upper Cervical
   * Logan Basic Technique
   * Master Energy Dynamics 
   * Mawhinney Scoliosis Technique
   * McTimony Technique
   * Mears Technique
   * Meric System
   * Micromanipulation
   * Mitza Neuroemotional Technique
   * Morter HealthSystem
   * Motion Palpation
   * Muscle Palpation
   * Muscle Response Testing
   * MusculoSkeletal Synchronization and Stabilization Technique
   * Myofascial Technique
   * Nambudripad's Allergy Elimination Technique (NAET)
   * Nasal Specific
   * Nerve Signal Interference (NSI) Removal
   * NerVerteBraille
   * Network Chiropractic
   * Neural Integration Technique
   * NeuroCranial Restructuring (NCR)
   * Neuro Emotional Technique
   * Neuro Lymphatic Reflex Technique
   * Neuro Organizational Technique
   * Neuro Vascular Reflex Technique
   * Nimmo Receptor Tonus Technique
   * NUCCA Technique
   * Olesky 21st Century Technique
   * Orthospinology
   * Ortman Technique
   * Perianal Postural Reflex Technique
   * Pettibon Spinal Biomechanics
   * Pierce-Stillwagon Technique
   * Posture Imbalance Patterns
   * Polarity Technique
   * Pure Chiropractic Technique
   * Reaver's 5th Cervical Key
   * Receptor Tonus Technique
   * Riddler Reflex Technique
   * Rumpt Technique
   * Sacro-Occipital Technique (SOT)
   * Soft Tissue Orthopedics (ST)
   * Somatosynthesis
   * Spears Painless System
   * Specific Majors
   * Spinal Stressology
   * Spinal Touch Technique
   * Spondylotherapy
   * Sutter Upper Cervical Technique
   * Sweat Adjusting Technique
   * Tensegrity Therapy
   * Thompson Terminal Point Technique (Thompson Drop-Table Technique)
   * Tiezen Technique
   * Toftness Technique
   * Toggle Recoil Technique
   * Top Notch Visceral Techniques
   * Tortipelvis / Torticollis
   * Touch for Health
   * Total Body Modification (TBM)
   * Truscott System
   * Torque Release Technique
   * Triunified Health Enhancement System
   * Ungerank Specific Low Force Technique
   * Variable Force Technique
   * Von Fox Combination Technique
   * Webster Technique
   * Zimmerman Technique
   * Zindler Reflex Technique

[edit] Safety issues

The International Chiropractic Association (ICA) suggests that the chiropractic profession is one of the safest health professions and chiropractors have some of the lowest malpractice insurance premiums in the health care industry. [6]

A New Zealand Commission report in 1979 said "We are satisfied that chiropractic treatment in New Zealand is remarkably safe... By the end of the inquiry we found ourselves irresistibly and with complete unanimity drawn to the conclusion that modern chiropractic is a soundly based and valuable branch of the health care in a specialized area." (Report of the Commission of Inquiry Into Chiropractic 1979:p 77). However, the judge in the Wilk vs AMA case described this report as "unsatisfactory", and a review by the US Congress' Office of Technology Assessment found 'serious problems' in its treatment of safety and efficacy issues.[7][citation needed]

In a 1993 study, J.D. Cassidy DC and co-workers concluded that the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disk herniation by side posture manipulation is "both safe and effective."[8]

[edit] Types of risks

As with all interventions, there are risks associated with spinal manipulation. According to Harrison's, these include vertebrobasilar accidents (VBA), strokes, spinal disc herniation, vertebral fracture, and cauda equina syndrome.

[edit] Risks of upper cervical manipulation

Serious complications after manipulation of the cervical spine are estimated to be 1 in 3-4 million manipulations or fewer, based on international studies of millions of chiropractic cervical adjustments from 1965 to the present. {needs citation} The RAND Corporation's extensive review estimated "one in a million."[9] Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000, while Jaskoviak reported no vertebral artery strokes or serious injury in approximately 5 million cervical manipulations from 1965 to 1980 at The National College of Chiropractic Clinic in Chicago. [10] In comparison, there is a 3-4% rate of complications for cervical spine surgery, and 4,000-10,000 deaths per million neck surgeries. [11]

A 1996 Danish chiropractic study confirmed the risk of stroke to be low, and determined that the greatest risk is with manipulation of the first two vertebra of the cervical spine, particularly passive rotation of the neck, known as the "master cervical" or "rotary break." They concluded that "there seems to be sufficient evidence to justify a firm policy statement cautioning against upper cervical rotation as a technique of first choice." [12]

[edit] Potential for incident underreporting

Statistics on the reliability of incident reporting for spinal manipulation vary; the RAND study assumed that only 1 in 10 cases would have been reported. However, Dr Ernst surveyed neurologists in Britain for cases of serious neurological complication occurring within 24 hours of cervical spinal manipulation (not specifically by a chiropractor); 35 cases had been seen by the 24 who responded, but none had been reported. He concluded that underreporting was close to 100%, rendering estimates "nonsensical." He concluded by suggesting that "clinicians might tell their patients to adopt a cautious approach and avoid the type of spinal manipulation for which the risk seems greatest: forceful manipulation of the upper spine with a rotational element." [13] The NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination stated that the survey had methodological problems with data collection. [14] Both NHS and Ernst noted that bias is a problem with the survey method of data collection.

A 2001 study in the journal Stroke found that vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) were five times more likely in those aged <45 years who had visited a chiropractor in the preceding week, compared to controls who had not visited a chiropractor. No significant associations were found for those aged >45 years. The authors concluded: "While our analysis is consistent with a positive association in young adults... The rarity of VBAs makes this association difficult to study despite high volumes of chiropractic treatment." [15] The NHS notes that this study collected data objectively by using administrative data, involving less recall bias than survey studies, but the data were collected retrospectively and probably contained inaccuracies.[14]

There are also concerns about using cervical manipulation for conditions for which it is not indicated. In 1996, Coulter et al. surveyed 4 MDs, 4DCs and 1 MD/DC to evaluate the risks and benefits of manipulation or mobilization of the cervical spine (not necessarily performed by a chiropractor). After looking at more than 700 conditions, there was consensus in only 11% of those conditions that cervical manipulation or mobilization was appropriate.[9]

[edit] Misattribution problems

Few studies of stroke and cervical manipulation take account of the differences between "manipulation" and the "chiropractic adjustment". According to a report in the JMPT, manipulations administered by a Kung Fu practitioner, GPs, osteopaths, physiotherapists, a wife, a blind masseur, and an Indian barber had all been incorrectly attributed to chiropractors. The report goes on to say:

"The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors." [16]

In a 1999 review [17] of the scientific literature on the risks and benefits of manipulation of the cervical spine (MCS), special care was taken, whenever possible, to correctly identify all the professions involved, as well as the type of manipulation responsible for any injuries and/or deaths. It analyzed 177 cases that were reported in 116 articles published between 1925 and 1997, and summarized:

"The most frequently reported injuries involved arterial dissection or spasm, and lesions of the brain stem. Death occurred in 32 (18%) of the cases.....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)."

In Figure 1 in the review, the types of injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine are shown, [18] and Figure 2 shows the type of practitioner involved in the resulting injury. [19] For the purpose of comparison, the type of practitioner was adjusted according to the findings by Terrett. [16]

The review concluded:

"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." [17]

[edit] Quackwatch lead

Original lead:

Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [20] whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies" and whose claimed "primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere". [21] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., who founded the non-profit in 1969, with input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. [22] The Quackwatch website was started in 1997, [23] and though it has won numerous awards, it is not free from criticism and controversy.

New revision. I believe this version mentions the major high points, is written in a prose style, and gives better mention to the critics section, unlike the present version:

Quackwatch is the primary website of Quackwatch, Inc., and is part of a network of websites dealing with related subjects. Its stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and its primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [24] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [22] The website contains many types of information related to consumer advice and strategies. While the website has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, it is also a very controversial website. Since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the organizations and persons who practice them, it has attracted numerous critics who claim the comments are unbalanced, unreliable, and/or misplaced.

Information to move:

  • started in 1996 [25] and operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization founded in 1969, and incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [26]

Please place comments immediately above the References section. -- Fyslee 09:48, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Quackwatch lead

Original lead:

Quackwatch is a website operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [27] whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, and fallacies" and whose claimed "primary focus is on quackery-related information that is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere". [28] Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., who founded the non-profit in 1969, with input from his board of advisors, and help from numerous volunteers. [22] The Quackwatch website was started in 1997, [23] and though it has won numerous awards, it is not free from criticism and controversy.


This is looking like something I had envisioned. The criticisms section is now much better represented, and some of the information in the start is appropriately shortened. It still needs some work, but it's moving in the right direction. Because the present wording has been in place for quite awhile and was achieved by the consensus of many editors, it is important to preserve certain phrases in their present form as much as possible. If we don't do that, then we end up getting in controversy all over again over the same matters. But all in all a good start. I'll try to come up with a version, incorporating some of the better additions above.

Revised:

Quackwatch is the website of Quackwatch, Inc., whose stated purpose is to "combat health-related frauds, myths, fads, fallacies, and misconduct," and whose primary focus is on what it defines as quackery-related information that it claims is difficult or impossible to get elsewhere. [29] The website is part of a network of related websites dealing with similar subject matter.
Quackwatch is operated by Stephen Barrett, M.D., a retired psychiatrist, with input from his board of advisors and help from numerous volunteers. [22] The website contains articles written in an easily accessible style for the non-specialist consumer, as well as scientific reports, books, government reports, Frequently Asked Questions, consumer advice and strategies, as well as other forms of information.
Quackwatch has won numerous awards and is quoted favorably in the press and medical journals, but it is also a very controversial website, since part of its mission involves criticisms of various practices and the persons who practice them. This has attracted numerous critics who claim the criticisms are unbalanced, unreliable, or misplaced.
Some critics of Quackwatch and Barrett have been involved in libel lawsuits filed by Barrett with mixed results. Barrett himself has never been sued for libel.


How's that look? The mention of the criticisms is substantially increased.

The last two sentence can be sourced, but aren't very relevant here, since Quackwatch has not been involved in lawsuits. NCAHF has been involved in the King Bio lawsuit, and Barrett has filed several libel suits all related to repetitions of the same libel coming from one single source -- Tim Bolen. Therefore those two sentences don't really belong in this article, but in the Barrett article.


Boring information to move into the body of the article:

  • started in 1996 [30] and operated by Quackwatch, Inc., an American non-profit organization founded in 1969, and incorporated in the state of Pennsylvania [31]

-- Fyslee 21:53, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Redirect experiment

Fyslee/Sandbox 2

[edit] Quackwatch: another correction of NATTO's POV OR

NATTO's original:

  • In it Best of the Web directory Forbes magazine publishes a list of websites in various categories. Quackwatch was listed among 24 sites in the Health category. On that list Quackwatch was not rated by Forbes as 'Forbes Favorite' or 'Forbes Best of the Web pick'. [32] sites in the "Health" category: [33] Forbes states that Quackwatch is:

Revised:

  • In a subcategory [34] of its "Best of the Web Directory," Forbes magazine listed Quackwatch [35] among 24 other sites, and provided this review:
"Mostly attacking alternative medicines, homeopathy and chiropractors, the tone here can be rather harsh. However, the lists of sources of health advice to avoid, including books, specific doctors and organizations, are great for the uninformed. BEST: Frequently updated, but also archives of relevant articles that date back at least four years. WORST: Lists some specific doctors and organizations without explaining the reason for their selection." [35]


[edit] Weil: correcting NATTO's misrepresentation

NATTO's original:

  • Forbes wrote " Dr. Weil, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, is one of the most widely known and respected alternative medicine gurus " and rated his web site Best of the Web in their Best of the Web Directory [36]

Revised:

  • Forbes on-line magazine wrote: "Dr. Weil, a graduate of Harvard Medical School, is one of the most widely known and respected alternative medicine gurus," and listed his web site in their Best of the Web Directory in the "Alternative Medicine" category, [37] listing it as one of the three "Best of the Web" picks in that category. [38]


[edit] Barrett's books

His 50 books include:

  • Consumer Health: A Guide to Intelligent Decisions - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, Kroger M, London WM (2006). (textbook, 8th ed.) McGraw-Hill, ISBN 0-07-248521-3
  • The Health Robbers: A Close Look at Quackery in America - Barrett SJ, Jarvis WT, eds. (1993). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-855-4
  • Health Schemes, Scams, and Frauds - Barrett SJ (1991). Consumer Reports Books, ISBN 0-89043-330-5
  • The Vitamin Pushers: How the "Health Food" Industry Is Selling America a Bill of Goods - Barrett SJ, Herbert V (1991). Prometheus Books, ISBN 0-87975-909-7

[edit] Sites run by Barrett


[edit] Barrett talk page

Attempt to reconstruct Stephen Barrett talk page after I apparently screwed it up. I'd better make any mistakes here:

  • User:Fyslee/Sandbox_Barrett_talk

[edit] Barrett v. Mercola suit

(The following is an attempt to explain some confusion in the mind of editor NATTO, leading to false charges and insinuations being made about myself and Barrett here. If I can do it successfully in my sandbox, I'll copy the information to the Barrett talk page. I hope that I can make an experiment for NATTO and Levine2112 to try, so they can duplicate the errors that have been made, leading to the false charges and insinuations.)


No changes have been made to Barrett's website in reaction to this discussion. The explanation for the confusion is simple, so conspiratorial insinuations say more about the mind of the editor, than they do about the actual facts. (Assuming good faith would have prevented this situation. It's a good policy and mental attitude. It's better to ask questions from those who understand the issues and people involved, than to assume bad faith and make accusations.)

There are several references with links in the section involved, and NATTO has pushed the wrong link and this has confused the issue. To analyze what happened, anyone can do the same thing, but we'll need to have the now-deleted section here, with the references:

Barrett v. Mercola suit

In June 2001, Barrett withdrew his libel suit against osteopath Joseph Mercola days before the trial date on jurisdictional grounds and refiled it in Illinois, the residence of Mercola. The case was eventually settled out of court. [39] Barrett wrote on his web site, [40] that Mercola had republished one of Tim Bolen's derogatory messages and added some thoughts of his own. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. [40] Dr. Mercola has neither confirmed nor denied the above and there has been no independant corroboration of Barrett's version.

I will use direct quotes from the Barrett talk page found here:

NATTO wrote: Interesting development. The text related to the above on Barrett's website has been recently ( within the last 24 hours ) changed. It is now the following:
In October 2000, I filed suit in my local court against Joseph Mercola, D.O., of Schaumberg, Illinois, who had republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. After Mercola contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois [7]. In March 2002, the Illinois judge dismissed some of my allegations but ruled that five statements that Mercola posted "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provide grounds for a libel suit. It now appears that to escape liability, Dr. Mercola will have to prove that they are true, which, of course, he cannot do.
Please note that the name of Dr. Mercola is now included, however there is NOW no mention at all of the phrase " In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000. " At the bottom of the page we can read " This article was revised on July 9, 2002 "..... This is most interesting, since the article has been modified recently.... I have thus removed the section on the Mercola lawsuit for all the above reasons. NATTO 15:41, 15 September 2006 (UTC) Explanation: NATTO has pushed the wrong link. We were discussing this one - Reference 2 - "A Response to Tim Bolen," (from the current website), and NATTO pushed and now cites this one - Reference 1 - "Bolen suit archive" (from the incredible "Internet Archives"), an old copy with Mercola's identity, which thus serves the purpose of the ref in that spot in the sentence. This is not OR, but simple documentation, showing the evolution of that URL as time went by. Barrett (or his helpers) regularly updated the information as the case developed and was later resolved with an out of court settlement. Therefore the URL has several different versions. One can easily verify that after the out of court settlement, Barrett removed Mercola's name from the page. I would guess that (based on what I know about him) to him, the case was settled, and there was no need to cause unnecessary irritation. He got what he wanted - a retraction. "The Experiment" Now try both links and you'll see that the current site is unchanged (Mercola is no longer named, although clearly described; it describes a past event; and the date is from May 27, 2006), while the older version of that same page from the Internet Archives shows the information cited by NATTO above, including Mercola's name; it is written in the future tense; and the old date from July 9, 2002. This simple experiment reveals the source of the confusion, and if NATTO had been more careful, and supplied the correct URL when asked, we could have been saved a lot of time. The section was originally written in such a way as to lead readers to think that Barrett had filed suit against Mercola, but had simply dropped the suit. Period. It was a very tendentious and antagonistic wording:
Heading was: Cases Barrett has lost or withdrawn from
Original text: In June 2001, Barrett dismissed his libel suit against Dr. Joseph Mercola, DO, just days before the trial date.
As we can see, that was very deceptive wording, since he actually won the battle. Of course he didn't win the case, since it never was finished. Mercola saved a lot of money by quickly settling out of court. Documentation has since been provided to show the falsity of the original editorial addition. Since that time, more documentation has been added to the original section, and the section has undergone a number of edits. It would therefore be better to simply rewrite it so the original words (leading to the false implication) are left out. They aren't (and never were) necessary anymore. Here's a possible new version that explains the case more clearly: Barrett v. Mercola suit In October 2000, Barrett filed a libel suit in Pennsylvania against Joseph Mercola an osteopathic physician in Illinois. In June 2001, Barrett withdrew the suit on jurisdictional grounds and refiled it in Illinois. [41] In 2003 the suit was settled out of court. Barrett writes on his web site that Mercola had "republished one of Bolen's messages and added some thoughts of his own. Bolen's message had falsely claimed that I (a) was "de-licensed," (b) had committed extortion, and (c) had been disqualified as an expert in a malpractice suit. After the doctor contested the suit on jurisdictional grounds, I withdrew it and refiled in Illinois. In March 2002, the Illinois judge ruled that these statements "imply the existence of objectively verifiable facts" and therefore provided grounds for a libel suit. In April 2003, the suit was settled with a retraction and payment of $50,000." [40] Dr. Mercola has neither confirmed nor denied the above and there has been no independant corroboration of Barrett's version. -- Fyslee 21:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Litigation

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stephen_Barrett#Litigation

This section introduces libel suits, but blends other types of suits into the mix, making for a confusing picture. There is also a defective reference or two at the end that need fixing. I don't know who did it or what they were trying to do, so I'll experiment here and see if it can be fixed.


One of the stated missions of Quackwatch Inc. is "assisting or generating consumer-protection lawsuits". [42] However, the NCAHF and Barrett have been involved in several libel cases, with mixed results. Courts have dismissed two such lawsuits under Strategic lawsuit against public participation (SLAPP) statutes and have ordered Barrett and the NCAHF to pay attorneys' fees of the parties they have sued. Judges have noted that his position as a public figure has weakened his ability to defend himself, since the plaintiff in such libel cases is required to show "actual malice," per the precedent in New York Times v. Sullivan, which states, "Because of the extremely high burden on the plaintiff, and the difficulty in proving essentially what is inside a person's head, such cases rarely, if ever prevail against public figures."

  • In November 2000, Barrett and two associates sued Hulda Regehr Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and their related companies. [43]
  • In a 2001 suit NCAHF brought against King Bio Pharmaceuticals, a homeopathic pharmaceutical company, Judge Haley J. Fromholz noted Barrett had used the NCAHF to pay himself fees to appear as an expert witness, giving him a "direct, personal financial interest in the outcome." The judge declared Barrett and another Plaintiff's expert to be "zealous advocates" rather than "neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts." The judge feared that a NCAHF victory would lead to more lawsuits where Barrett can pay himself more witness fees from NCAHF funds. The judge concluded Barrett's "testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility". [44] That decision was affirmed on appeal in 2003. [45]
  • In July 2001, Barrett filed a libel suit against Owen R. Fonorow, and Intelisoft Multimedia, Inc.[46] That case was dismissed, and Fonorow filed a motion for sanctions, which was also dismissed. Both lower court decisions were affirmed on appeal. [47]
  • In July 2001, an Alameda County (California) judge dismissed Barrett's libel suit against Ilena Rosenthal and awarded Rosenthal attorney's fees against Barrett. [48]
  • In November 2002, a federal court judge in Eugene, Oregon ruled that Barrett is a "public figure and the defamatory statements involve a matter of public concern, and that plaintiff has failed to meet his burden to prove actual malice, and/or actual injury". The judge dismissed Barrett's $100,000 defamation lawsuit against anti-fluoridation advocate Darlene Sherrell. [49]
  • In 2003, his case against Carlos F. Negrete and Hulda Regehr Clark was dismissed under SLAPP. [50]
  • According to Negrete, "Barrett acts like a shill for the medical and pharmaceutical cartels and his bully tactics and unjustified discrediting of leading innovators, scientists and health practitioners should not be tolerated." [51]
  • Negrete claims that "Barrett has filed defamation lawsuits against almost 40 people across the country within the past few years and has not won one single one at trial." [51]
  • Barrett claims: "NCAHF sued about 40 defendants, and I have also been involved as a consultant or expert witness in similar cases filed by other parties. Overall, at least ten have been settled with agreements under which the defendants promised to stop making the false claims to which we objected. A few cases were dropped for technical reasons, such as our discovery that the defendant was not doing enough business in California to justify continuing the suit. In two other cases, involving about ten defendants, NCAHF received adverse rulings in which the courts rejected our legal theory that sellers should carry the burden of proving that what they claim is true. (The courts ruled that the state attorney general can enforce the law in this manner, but private citizens and public-interest group cannot.) These rulings don't prevent similar cases from being brought in the future, but they make them more complicated than they are worth."
  • In 2005, an appeals court reversed the district court's decision, and the case was remanded for further procedings. "The scurrilous nature of the defendants' allegations of wrongdoing and their efforts to publicize them widely on the Internet, when coupled with their utter failure to offer any proof of their charges" provided sufficient reason for the case to proceed. [52]
  • In October 2005, Lehigh County Court of Common Pleas overturned an earlier arbitration ruling that chiropractor Tedd Koren had committed libel after Koren published that Barrett was "de-licensed," "in trouble because of a $10 million lawsuit" and a "Quackpot." The judge found that Barrett had failed to prove "actual malice" ("knowledge of falsity" or "reckless disregard for the truth"). [53]


[edit] Spinal disc herniation

User:Fyslee/Sandbox Spinal disc herniation


[edit] BLP template test

Purple version:

This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately.[21][22][23][24]

This tag should only be placed on the talk page of the article.


'Newest version:

This article is about a living person and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation; the Three-revert rule does not apply to such removals.



Code for light green color

CCFFCC


Test of purple version with light green

This article must be edited in accordance with our policy on biographies of living persons. Unsourced or poorly sourced negative material about living persons should not be posted to articles or talk pages. If you find any, please remove it immediately.[25][26][27][28]

This tag should only be placed on the talk page of the article.


[edit] Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare.

I'll start with Negrete's quote:

"For years, Barrett has touted himself as a “medical expert” on “quackery” in healthcare and has assisted in dozens of court cases as an expert. Also, Barrett has testified that was called upon by the FDA, FTC and other governmental agencies for his purported expertise. He was the subject of many magazine interviews, including Time Magazine and featured on television interviews on ABC’s 20/20, NBC’s Today Show and PBS." -- Carlos Negrete

Now Negrete is definitely a very biased and antagonistic source. For awhile some of us actually wondered if his press releases were actually written by Tim Bolen, they were so filled with hyperbole, exaggeration, spin, and logical fallacies, definitely telling only one side of the story. But Bolen goes further, including direct lies, deceptive and weasel wording, and lots of conspiracy theories. Of course he can't prove it, and had to admit it was just "euphemism" he made up for what he himself believed, yet he couldn't produce one shred of evidence. The fact that they can work together is quite telling about Negrete's (lack of) integrity.

Yet, in spite of his antagonism, Negrete starts out with the important fact, which some here keep trying to ignore or get around, that Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare. The board certification matter is irrelevant to that point, since there are others who aren't even MDs or board certified who are also eminent experts on quackery, and with whom he is allied.

In fact, when one looks at the matter of expertise from the side of those trained as homeopaths, naturopaths, etc., expertise in the subject of quackery is something which the promoters and believers in those quackeries are thereby disqualified from possessing. Their belief disqualifies them. They wouldn't believe it if they understood science, critical thinking, or the true nature of quackery. Since they don't understand the issues, they aren't qualified to expose quackery. They cannot add balance to the discussion, only their side of the story, which is a sales pitch that deceives.

Nobody else has any problem with his expertise on the subject of quackery, only those who believe in those quackeries and risk losing their ill-gotten gains when he exposes them. His researching of the subjects, his understanding of the scientific literature, his many resources and collaboration with other experts, his information from experts on the fields he criticizes (including practitioners), all together help him produce articles that are not merely his own opinion, but a summary of the information available. The articles (with all their documentation) are information sources that help to provide a little balance to offset the massive one-sided sales talk and deceptions put out there by various true believers, sales persons, practitioners, quacks, conmen, and criminals. He correctly labels it "quackery," reserving the label "fraud" only for clearly illegal situations.

Barrett's area of expertise is quackery in healthcare. If and when he actually has claimed expertise, one could (and we have) discuss to what degree he is or is not an expert in those other areas, like the legal area. He got dissed on that one, and fortunately uses lawyers (but apparently needs better ones). Other areas such as the actual practice of medicine and engaging in psychiatric lawsuits are clearly less poignant now, since he no longer engages himself in those areas. Even those areas were no problem during his entire career, in spite of lacking board certification. So even specifically for the area where board certification is most relevant, it wasn't considered problematic by the courts or the medical community!

Now, much later, some Wikipedia editors are trying to make a mountain out of an unrelated molehill, and they're building the mountain beside the molehill, since they can't really build on top of it, since it is another matter. But they are still trying to build on top of it. If they succeed here, they may think that they will thus be able to hide the fact that the foundation of their argument is fallacious, but the facts will always be there, and their edits won't hold.

That some others may make the same error, and can be cited here, might be possible, but it must be done using verifiable sources. That should be easy enough. But we must also use reliable sources (that eliminates using Bolen), and editors must not take sides with them. Just because an opinion is cited from a verifiable source doesn't make the opinion reliable or true. Spin is not NPOV, especially in a biography about a living person.

The insistence on connecting the board certification matter with his anti-quackery activisim is unwarranted. It is simply taking one (very old) fact and attempting to build a current, irrelevant, and huge straw man argument around it. That's OR and POV pushing. It also happens to be a poorly disguised ad hominem attack, reproduced here and willingly supported by some editors here. -- Fyslee 11:09, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Chiropractic lead

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health.[54] There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation.[54] While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.[55]


[edit] AED's input

Fyslee, Have you seen this? AED came up with a cleaner third sentence that seems pretty accurate from my POV. What do you think?

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health[54]There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation[54]. (Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function to interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

I suggested adding motion or function to the abnormal displacement of vertebrae.

(Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations

The only thing it is missing from a chiropractic POV is the prevention.

Does this look like something we could all get behind?--Dematt 17:40, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Alternate endings to lead

[edit] Mine from above

While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.[55]

[edit] AED's (modified by Dematt) from above

(Chiropractors/Some chiropractors/Many chiropractors/Most chiropractors/The majority of chiropractors) believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function to interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

Dematt: "The only thing it is missing from a chiropractic POV is the prevention."

Fyslee: Yes, that should be in there.


[edit] Modified version of AED's

Most chiropractors believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with (*) the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.

(*) Emphasis added (but only here).


[edit] Broken down into component parts

Keep:

While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments."


Use one of these or combine them:

1. Most chiropractors believe that the healing process can be obstructed by what they term "subluxations" of the spine and/or extremities, and that they can remove these obstructions using adjustments.

2. Most chiropractors believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability.


Keep:

Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.[55]


[edit] Attempt to synthesize

This version uses number 2:

While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.[55]


[edit] New chiropractic lead, synthesized version

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the functions of the nervous system and general health.[54] There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal adjustment and other joint and soft-tissue manipulation.[54]

While chiropractors acknowledge the body's own natural ability to regulate itself, they believe they can support this process by using manual treatments, especially spinal manipulations termed "adjustments." Most chiropractors believe that abnormal displacement or motion of vertebrae, termed vertebral subluxations, can impair or alter nerve function, and thus interfere with the body's ability to stave off disease or other pathology, and that adjustments to the spine and/or extremities can restore this ability. Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain.[55]


(I have chosen to use two paragraphs, as it makes for easier reading and parsing.)

Next:

Dematt: "The only thing it is missing from a chiropractic POV is the prevention."

Fyslee: Yes, that should be in there.

Another thing that is missing is that most chiropractors believe subluxations can cause disease. It is the super straights (like F.A.C.E.) that don't "treat" disease, only correct subluxations. Other chiropractors also treat disease using adjustments.

[edit] Kitia

Hi I'm Kitia if you want to add a micronation to the main wikipedia artice but cant, add it here:User:Kitia/Micronation


[edit] Chiropractic: WHAT is it?

The debate about the inclusion of chiropractic is likely to continue on endlessly, unless we clarify what we're talking about. The following sums up a fallacious argument we've heard before:

"You have presented people that say chiropractic is pseudoscince. I have presented people that say chiropractic is science. User:Levine2112 07:18, 2 August 2006 (UTC)" [29]

Now just what is wrong with that statement? It treats "chiropractic" as an object that is either/or, instead of both/and. That is a rather rare situation when dealing with people or professions. Most are blended. Most deceptive ideas - and especially the "best" ones - are composed of both truth and falsehood. The better the deception, the more truth it contains. That's what makes it so deceptive. The existence of a truth in a scam doesn't make it any less of a scam, on the contrary, it makes it a more dangerous scam. So it is with a profession like chiropractic, it is made up of many elements, some true, some false, and some of little consequence in this matter. (I am not saying that chiropractic as a whole is a "scam," I just used that as an example of a deceptively blended subject.)

So what are the decisive factors that weigh heavily in the balance for or against inclusion in the pseudoscience category? I'd say that multiple key elements that are important and fundamental for a profession, method, theory, or system, are what determines inclusion, not single elements. Just because we can easily point to a potentially scientific element that is included in chiropractic, does not negate the fact that the foundation of the profession, as well as many of its ideas and practices, are unscientific and unethical.

According to the quote above, some people say it's pseudoscience and some say it's science. Well, they are talking about different aspects, so fallacious reasoning is being used in that sentence. Chiropractors point to one potentially scientific aspect (manipulation) and call "chiropractic" (as a whole) science, while scientists and skeptics point to all the factors that are fundamental to, and/or characteristic for, chiropractic, which are unscientific and unethical, and call chiropractic pseudoscience. They don't consider something that isn't even unique for chiropractic (manipulation), to be significant enough to outweigh the negative factors.

So WHAT is chiropractic? It is the sum of its parts, and some of the most fundamental ones are pseudoscientific. Chiropractic is not solely manipulation. Manipulation is not chiropractic. Chiropractic is characterized by its reasons for using manipulation, and those reasons are the pseudoscientific fundament of the profession. Hence calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" is justified.

Resources for studying this subject:

"Many people go to chiropractors for relief of back pain. But there is reason for caution. Much of what chiropractors do is nonsense, and they often misinform their patients."
"Survival of a Pseudoscience
The illusionary "subluxation" not only is the theoretical basis for chiropractic but constitutes its legal basis as well. Many state laws describe chiropractic as the finding and removal of subluxations. It is enigmatic that such a system thrives late in the twentieth century, which has seen such progress in the biological sciences and health care. While biological scientists have unraveled the genetic double-helix, chiropractors have failed to scientifically define their theory or scope of practice, or to justify their very existence as primary health-care providers.
Chiropractic's survival and success is undoubtedly due to the reality that healthcare delivery involves much more than science. Politics, business considerations, and the clinical art often take precedence. Although it is the scientific validity of the methods employed that justifies modern health-care, in practical terms of survival in the marketplace, chiropractic demonstrates daily that the scientific aspects of health care are of least importance and in greatest need of protection."
Department of Biochemistry and Molecular Biology
University of Louisville School of Medicine
ON-LINE READING FOR JANUARY 10, 2006
CHIROPRACTIC, OSTEOPATHY, MASSAGE, ANTI-VACCINATION MOVEMENT
"Chiropractic is a pseudoscience. The thinking behind it has no basis in fact, and even after more than a century, its core belief, the subluxation, cannot be shown to exist; even though it is a scientifically testable theory.
Some of the beliefs, such as the anti-vaccination stance, actually go against scientific evidence, medical opinion and government policy. Opposing germ theory exposes the 19th century thinking that Chiropractic is based upon.
Chiropractic is not one technique that can treat one class of illness or disease. It is promoted as a panacea and an all-encompassing preventative measure to be used from the moment we are born onwards.
A healing system that is based on a mystical life-force that gets blocked by imaginary subluxations, and that relies on anecdotal evidence; special pleading; the placebo effect; and subjective diagnoses is clearly an irrational concept: no matter how much credence is given to it with qualifications and self-regulation."

-- Fyslee 20:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References (includes all references on this page)

  1. ^ The included falsifiable statement must not be significantly altered or deleted unless it can be countered with a well-referenced statement that proves it to be false. It can be very easily disproved (and therefore removed) by the simple production of verifiable and reliable scientific sources in the body of the article which prove it to be wrong. Such evidence should be discussed on the talk page before deletion of the sentence. See: [[Category:Falsifiability disputes]]
  2. ^ The effect of manipulation and mobilisation on pressure pain thresholds in the thoracic spine. Fryer G, Carub J, McIver S. Journal of Osteopathic Medicine. 2004;7(1):8-
  3. ^ Maitland, G.D. Peripheral Manipulation 2nd ed. Butterworths, London, 1977.
    Maitland, G.D. Vertebral Manipulation 5th ed. Butterworths, London, 1986.
  4. ^ How Manipulation Works. Christopher So, PT, Journal of the Hong Kong Physiotherapy Association, Vol. 8, 1986
  5. ^ To provide examples of interchangeable uses (as well as false positives), a search of the largest chiropractic website, Chiroweb.com, for "manipulation" yielded 1,610 hits, and for "adjustment" yielded 1,490 hits. A similar search of the oldest "straight" organization, International Chiropractors Association, for "manipulation" yielded 49 hits, and for "adjustment" yielded 86 hits. A similar search of the ultra-straight organization, World Chiropractic Alliance, for "manipulation" yielded 369 hits, and for "adjustment" yielded 74 hits. Retrieved on Nov. 06, 2006
  6. ^ ICA website
  7. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named Wilk
  8. ^ Cassidy JD, Thiel H, Kirkaldy-Willis W (1993). "Side posture manipulation for lumbar intervertebral disk herniation.". J Manip Physiol Ther 16: 96-103. PMID 8445360. 
  9. ^ a b Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH, et al. (1996) The appropriateness of manipulation and mobilization of the cervical spine 'Santa Monica, CA, Rand Corp: xiv [RAND MR-781-CCR]. Current link
  10. ^ Lauretti W "What are the risk of chiropractic neck treatments?" retrieved online 08 028 2006 from www.chiro.org
  11. ^ The cervical spine research society editorial committee. The Cervical Spine, Second edition. Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Company 1990: 834.
  12. ^ Klougart N, Leboeuf-Yde C, Rasmussen L. "Safety in chiropractic practice, Part I; The occurrence of cerebrovascular accidents after manipulation to the neck in Denmark from 1978-1988.". J Manip Physiol Ther 19: 371-7. PMID 8864967. 
  13. ^ Ernst E (2002). "Spinal manipulation: its safety is uncertain.". CMAJ 166: 40-1. PMID 11800245.  Original article
  14. ^ a b NHS Evaluation of the evidence base for the adverse effects of spinal manipulation by chiropractors
  15. ^ Rothwell D, Bondy S, Williams J (2001). "Chiropractic manipulation and stroke: a population-based case-control study.". Stroke 32: 1054-60. PMID 11340209.  Original article
  16. ^ a b Terrett AGJ (1995) Misuse of the literature by medical authors in discussing spinal manipulative therapy injury. J Manip Physiol Ther 18:203. PubMed - PMID: 7636409
  17. ^ a b Di Fabio RP. "Manipulation of the Cervical Spine: Risks and Benefits" Phys Ther. 1999 Jan;79(1):50-65. PMID: 9920191 Current link
  18. ^ Figure 1. Injuries attributed to manipulation of the cervical spine.
  19. ^ Figure 2. Practitioners providing manipulation of the cervical spine that resulted in injury.
  20. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations
  21. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  22. ^ a b c d Rosen, Marjorie (October 1998). Interview with Stephen Barrett, M.D. Biography Magazine
  23. ^ a b Internet Archives copy of original site.
  24. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  25. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  26. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations
  27. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations
  28. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  29. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  30. ^ Quackwatch - Mission Statement
  31. ^ Pennsylvania Department of State - Corporations
  32. ^ Forbes: Best of the Web
  33. ^ Web Site Reviews - Health- Forbes "Best of The Web" list under "Health" category
  34. ^ Forbes: Best of the Web Directory - "Health" sub-subcategory
  35. ^ a b Forbes.com, Best of the Web website reviews: Quackwatch.
  36. ^ Ask Dr. Weil- Forbes Best of the Web pick
  37. ^ Forbes Best of the Web: Alternative Medicine category
  38. ^ Ask Dr. Weil listed as a "Forbes Best of the Web" pick.
  39. ^ Bergstein SA (June 20, 2001). Letter requesting discontinuation and motion for dismissal in No. 2000-C-2524,Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County. See Mercola suit archive and Bolen suit archive via Quackwatch.
  40. ^ a b c Barrett SJ. A Response to Tim Bolen.
  41. ^ [1] "Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 01 L 009026".
  42. ^ Barrett SJ (July 6, 2006). Mission Statement. via Quackwatch. Retrieved July 23, 2006.
  43. ^ Stephen J. Barrett, M.D., Terry Polevoy, M.D., Christopher E. Grell, v. Hulda Clark, Tim Bolen, Jan Bolen, JuriMed, Dr. Clark Research Association, David P. Amrein, Ilena Rosenthal, and Does 1 to 100. Case No. SJBMVHC165479
  44. ^ Fromholz wrote: "Furthermore, the Court finds that both Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett are biased heavily in favor of the Plaintiff and thus the weight to be accorded their testimony is slight in any event. Both are long-time board members of the Plaintiff; Dr. Barrett has served as its Chairman. Both participated in an application to the U.S. FDA during the early 1990s designed to restrict the sale of most homeopathic drugs. Dr. Sampson's university course presents what is effectively a one-sided, critical view of alternative medicine. Dr. Barrett’s heavy activities in lecturing and writing about alternative medicine similarly are focused on the eradication of the practices about which he opines. Both witnesses’ fees, as Dr. Barrett testified, are paid from a fund established by Plaintiff NCAHF from the proceeds of suits such as the case at bar. Based on this fact alone, the Court may infer that Dr. Barrett and Sampson are more likely to receive fees for testifying on behalf of NCAHF in future cases if the Plaintiff prevails in the instant action and thereby wins funds to enrich the litigation fund described by Dr. Barrett. It is apparent, therefore, that both men have a direct, personal financial interest in the outcome of this litigation. Based on all of these factors, Dr. Sampson and Dr. Barrett can be described as zealous advocates of the Plaintiff’s position, and therefore not neutral or dispassionate witnesses or experts. In light of these affiliations and their orientation, it can fairly be said that Drs. Barrett and Sampson are themselves the client, and therefore their testimony should be accorded little, if any, credibility on that basis as well." See California Superior Court Judge Rules on Quackbuster "Credibility" via Quackpotwatch.
  45. ^ Cite error: Invalid <ref> tag; no text was provided for refs named NCAHFvKing
  46. ^ Barrett v. Fonorow, 18th Cir., DuPage County, Illinois, No. 01 L 820.
  47. ^ See Circuit Court of Du Page County, Barrett v. Fonorow, No. 2--02--0886.
  48. ^ Barrett, et al. v. Rosenthal. A096451 (Cal. App. Crt., 1st App. Dist., 2003). See also Barrett et al. v. Rosenthal (114 Cal.App.4th 1379, 9 Cal.Rptr.3d 142), opinion superseded by California Supreme Court review.
  49. ^ Barrett v. Sherrell (PDF) 99-813-HO, 2002.
  50. ^ Stephen J. Barrett v. Negrete et al. (PDF) Civil No 02-CV-2210-L(RBB)
  51. ^ a b Negrete CF (October 22, 2005). Breaking News!!! Quackwatch Founder Stephen Barrett Loses Major Defamation trial in Hometown
  52. ^ Appeals Court Upholds Malicious Prosecution Suit against Hulda Clark and Attorney Carlos Negrete , (Mem,. No. 04-55193 D.C. No. CV -02-0221 O-JML; No. 03-56663 D.C. No. CY -02-0221 O-JML March 14, 2005).
  53. ^ Barrett vs. Koren, In the Court of Common Pleas of Lehigh County Civil Division, No. 2002-C-1837
  54. ^ a b c d e f World Federation of Chiropractic. Definition of Chiropractic. Retrieved May 15, 2006.[2]
  55. ^ a b c d e Cooperstein R, Perle SM, Gatterman MI, Lantz C, Schneider MJ. Chiropractic technique procedures for specific low back conditions: characterizing the literature. J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 2001 Jul-Aug;24(6):407-24. PMID 11514818.