User talk:Fyslee/Sandbox Charges of quackery in chiropractic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

From an editing POV, it looks pretty good. There are probably a couple of points that appear to be taken out of context and therefore might actually detract from the topic's point, but otherwise it makes a strong statement and uses strong sources.

From my chiropractic POV, I think we all live in glass houses. While no-one should throw rocks, at least Keating throws them at his own house. Hopefully, we will all benefit from his criticism which if taken constructively could bring positive change, whatever that might be. My only caution would be that you don't throw out the baby with the bathwash. --Dematt 17:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

I felt you deserved to read it. Some editors and chiropractors feel that accusations and criticisms from skeptics are totally unfounded and a part of some remains of the AMA boycott and conspiracy. Well, the judge in the Wilks case stated that the AMA had grounds to be concerned about quackery in chiropractic, but also found that it had chosen the wrong (and illegal) method to combat it. The charges and criticisms aren't going away, much to the chagrin of good and honest chiros who have no part in the shenanigans described by Keating. They are unfairly tainted by the deeds and beliefs of many other chiros.

I have always sensed a great deal of fairness and objectivity in your manner of dealing with affairs here, and I just wanted you to read this, so you know that I'm not the only one who has doubts, and that some of those doubts are reasonable and are entertained by people within the profession. Keating is far from the only one, but certainly the most notable and authoritative.

To get an idea of the degree of denial that's going on here, you should read what I wrote here, and the denial here. Someone's got blinders on, and fits the description of a "true believer." Unlike that editor, you have the ability to see both sides of the coin. You don't participate in the attitudes of the "dark side," and are thus able to more accurately present all sides in an NPOV way.

If the chiropractic article is going to be the best coverage of all aspects of the subject ever written, then it's important that we both watch each other's backs and help each other. You can help me to not be too skeptical, and you can also help to ensure that reasonable skepticism is accurately represented. I in turn will hope that reasonable facts that are positive continue to be presented, and will defend them from unreasonable skeptics who don't collaborate. I think you know to whom I'm Mcreferring....;-) -- Fyslee 23:03, 22 August 2006 (UTC)