Talk:Veterinary chiropractic

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] WP:FRINGE does not apply to veterinary chiropractic

It has been argued by a few skeptical editors that veterinary chiropractic is a fringe topic and deserves to be treated similarly to other fringe topics such as flat earth and homeopathy. I would like to refer all editors to the American Veterinary Medical Association press release here which demonstrates the rapid ascension of veterinary chiropractic (and acupuncture) into the mainstream scene. As such, it should be treated with the same dillegence, quality, respect as any other medical-related article.

The American Veterinary Medical Association press release is unreliable. It fails WP:RS. WP:FRINGE does apply to veterinary chiropractic. QuackGuru 04:22, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
So, a press release from the American Medical Veterinary Association is claimed to be unreliable and does meet inclusion criteria whereas the opinion of a rogue DVM (Ramey) which appears at Quackwatch is reliable and meets inclusion criteria? Talk me through this one, Quack. WP:FRINGE does not apply unless you consider the opinion and the AMVA fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:45, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
A promotional press release is not WP:RS. Ramey is a notable expert per WP:SPS. QuackGuru 17:00, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
I didn't suggest in including it, it was to provide a proper context for the topic at hand. You didn't address my question though; i.e. do you consider the AVMA and their conclusions, fringe? CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The press release is not WP:RS so therefore we can't consider their conclusions for this article. Agreed? QuackGuru 17:24, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Of course it is a reliable source. A reliable source for citing the opinion of the AMVA which appears to be that CAVM (such as Veterinary chiropractic) are becoming more mainstream. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:27, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not a reliable source for considering conclusions for this article. QuackGuru 20:30, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The AMVA veterinary organization representing more than 76,000 veterinarians working in private and corporate practice, government, industry, academia, and uniformed services. It is one of the largest and oldest not-for-profit associations for veterinarians in the world. The AVMA is designated by the U.S. Department of Education as the accrediting body for the 28 schools of veterinary medicine in the United States. The AVMA educational standards of excellence are recognized worldwide as the "gold standard" in veterinary education. So yes, I'd say that the AMVA is a reliable source for us to consider when drawing conclusions about this article. That they view Veterinary Chiropractic as a mainstream topic is significant. It pretty much blows any claims that this is a fringe topic out of the water (unless you can find some source of similar or greater magnitude which sees it otherwise). -- Levine2112 discuss 20:49, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed with Levine2112 re: the reliability of publications from the AVMA. Certainly it carries far greater weight than an individual DVM like Ramey for all intents and purposes is a vocal critic of chiropractic and his fellow veterinarians who practice veterinary chiropractic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:56, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The AVMA source is a promotional press release and an opinion. The opinions of an ureliable source fails WP:RS. We do not draw conclusions from unreliable sources. QuackGuru 07:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Yes this press release is promotional in that it is promoting the viewpoints of one of the largest veterinarian associations in the world. Of course it is a reliable source for the viewpoints of the AVMA. It would be absurd to think otherwise after all. And as its viewpoints ostensibly represent those of its 76,000 members strong, it is certainly one from which we can draw the conclusion that we are not dealing with a fringe topic here but rather one that is more and more mainstream. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The AVMA viewpoints are not WP:RS. QuackGuru 08:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That last statement of yours makes little to no sense. Obvious to all but one, the AVMA is a reliable source for its own position. The AVMA in its own right carries a lot of weight in the mainstream veterinary world. Consequently, the same can be said about its positions. Thus, if the AVMA say that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more and more mainstream, we can reliably state that here. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
In the Wikipedia world it is still unreliable. QuackGuru 08:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That is untrue and entirely unsupported. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

"Becoming more mainstream" kind of implies that it isn't currently mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 09:06, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Not at all. That is merely your assumption. One might assume "becoming more mainstream" to mean "becoming even more mainstream than it already was". Fringe/Mainstream is not a black-or-white issue. There are shades of grey. One thing is for sure from this press release, the AMVA position on Veterinary chiropractic is that it is become more mainstream in that it is being discussed widely at their annual convention and is taught in veterinary schools. Kind of makes this "fringe" claim rather moot. Unless some new source of equal or greater status is presented to counter the AMVA's position, I consider this matter closed. -- Levine2112 discuss 09:28, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Why would something mainstream be mentioned as being "more mainstream"? I think this source pretty much proves the subject isn't mainstream. Jefffire (talk) 09:31, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Because mainstream/fringe it is not a black-or-white, either-or, true-false label. There are varying degrees of mainstream and fringe. Of two things that are mainstream, one could be more mainstream than the other. The AVMA's position is that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more and more mainstream. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
I've opened the discussion up to a science RfC on whether V.C. in a mainstream veterinary procedure. Jefffire (talk) 11:47, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
You have? Where? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:16, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
The section is currently at the bottom of the talk page. The RfC bot seems to be a bit slow at filing it on the RfC page at the moment. Jefffire (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Jeffire, WP:INSPECTOR. We haven't even hit the top of the iceberg yet and I was getting some vet friends to provide more literature. There is no need to rush and get and get a judgment from parties who do not have the full picture and context. Where is the link so we can chime in as well? CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:59, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
A RfC is a tool for neutrally soliciting outside opinion. Jefffire (talk) 18:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Scientific Investigation

Let's start this article off on the right foot. Though I don't overly object to the 2 references used thus far; we must be vigilant in selecting, using and interpreting the evidence. Let's learn from the lessons of Chiropracticand not make the same mistake here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 13:36, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. I have my reservation since "Veterinary chiropractic" is a profession and not a modality which can be tested for efficacy. However, at least the studies referenced are specifically about chiropractic treatment and not about SMT in general. That said, the third reference added was to a "Chirobase" article last revised in 2000. Following our standards at Talk:Chiropractic, this is too old. Additionally, this is not a scientific paper, but rather an opinion piece published by a partisan group without any peer-review. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:59, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. This is a hard to find ref. I could not find another ref that covers this specific issue of risk to a horse. The other refs do not discuss this specific issue of "risk of injury." There are a lot of pro chiropractic partisian sources that are not peer-review. Removing the risk of injury bit is in violation of the spirit of WP:NPOV. QuackGuru (talk) 17:49, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The other two sources in this section are research published in peer-reviewed journals. The out-dated, non-peer-reviewed opinion piece doesn't cut it and thus will be removed. If you would like to cite a peer-reviewed source the opinion piece relies on (if there is one) to make such a risk assessment, please feel free. But my guess is that there is no such source and even if there were, it would be severely outdated. Further, NPOV doesn't mean that a pro piece must be countered by a con piece. Neither of the two pieces of research cited qualify as a "pro chiropractic partisan source" as you suggest. They are published in a scientific, peer-reviewed, veterinarian journal. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
The others sources are not a replacement for the text (risk of injury). Refs are being used in this article from pro chiropractic advocacy groups. Why remove the neutrally written injury bit but include links and refs to partisan chiro associations or groups. QuackGuru (talk) 18:53, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We have no reliable sources stating that there is a risk of injury. The other refs in the Scientific investigation section are not from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups" but rather a peer-reviewed scientific journal. A statement from an unscientific, non-peer-reviewed, opinion piece is inappropriate for this section (regardless if the source is pro or con chiropractic). Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
There are other refs in the article from "pro chiropractic advocacy groups." We have one ref that does discuss a risk of injury. That ref is the best available ref to write about "risk of injury" at this moment. There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. David W. Ramey. Veterinary Chiropractic. Retrieved on 2008-04-15. I cannot find a replacement for this ref. QuackGuru (talk) 19:39, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
It's old, unscientific, an opinion, not peer-reviewed, and unsourced to any piece of scientific literature. It is inappropriate for this article. Leave it out please. To pput it into perspective, it is tantamount to using as a source a veterinarian chiropractor's personal website who lists all of the benefits and states that there is no risk. Make sense? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:43, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Why do you want to leave out the best available reference for the specific topic of risk of injury and include partisan chiropractic groups such as Canadian Animal Chiropractic Certification Program added to this article. QuackGuru (talk) 19:51, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
We are not including any scientific research from CACCP or any conclusions about risk, benefit or efficacy, nor do I consider CACCP necessarily a partisan chiropractic group. This discussion is about the "Scientific investigation" of this article and the CACCP is not even referenced in this section. I wouldn't call Ramey's opinion piece "the best available reference" either. By all measures of WP:RS, it doesn't qualify as a reliable source for presenting risk. It is not a scientific paper nor is it investigatory. It is merely an opinion piece which relies on no scientific studies whatsoever. Thus it is entirely inappropriate for the Scientific investigation section. Rather than allow this to dredge out into a circular debate, please know that I intend not respond to any repeated arguments which I feel I have already dismissed. -- Levine2112 discuss 21:32, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
Then what is the best available ref for "risk of injury" info. We have one ref available. Going once... going twice... QuackGuru (talk) 22:08, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
I know of no caveat to WP:RS which states that when a reliable source can't be found then you can dredge up and use whatever unreliable source is available. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
In case anyone is curious, David Ramey is a notable equine specialist in Hollywood, who has written a number of books. The journal's search engine mentions him a few times. -- Fyslee / talk 03:23, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
Ramey as a source? He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we can include the text and ref. QuackGuru (talk) 05:50, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
First, see WP:SELFPUB criteria #2. I would argue that this is contentious. Second, this source is not scientific nor is it investigatory; thus it is inappropriate in the "Scientific investigation" section. It's also fairly old, relies on no scientific sources, and is not peer-reviewed. Let's reserve the Scientific investigation section for sources that are actually scientific; preferably those which have been published in a peer-reviewed journal of science and not an opinion piece posted on an unreviewed partisan website. This is very much aligned with WP:RS, WP:NPOV and the spirit of good article writing as per Wikipedia's founder Jimbo Wales. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:49, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
This material is neutrally written and NPOV. It is very appropriate to include it in this article. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 17 April 2008 (UTC)
It doesn't belong in a section about Scientific investigation, because it is not a scientific investigation and the statement is not investigatory nor based on science. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]. Agreed with Levine2112. QG, stop bringing more garbage from chiropractic over here. You're simply trying to insert these sections here so that can be justified in the main article. These tactics won't work and its just a continuation of questionable diversions used from the main page. Considering you have no expertise on this subject you should not pass yourself as an authority figure. How many times can we repeat ourselves here? Sure you're technically being "civil" but these kinds of edits are certainly disruptive or are at least interpreted that way. CorticoSpinal (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Adding NPOV text is not garbage. QuackGuru (talk) 02:40, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It's the application of the text that is garbage, not the source itself. Ramey is DVM who is quite critical of chiropractic, I suppose we might as well get his 2c in here now, Fyslee you got a source?
You can always improve the text and expand on it. QuackGuru (talk) 02:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
We can easily discuss the effectiveness of Veterinary chiropractic treatments. This is a highly relevant and on target. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The other references used must be carefully selected when used.--DavidD4scnrt (talk) 05:23, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness and Safety (REDUX)

QG,

I will please ask that you desist from engaging in a continued civil war by tendentiously pursuing these topic here at Veterinary Chiropractic after you and a few select editors have already done so at Chiropractic. You know very well that you cannot judge the effectiveness of a profession or a specialization. And the safety edit is a joke right? Talk about WP:POINT violation. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

Everything is NPOV and relevant. QuackGuru (talk) 05:46, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
This has been discussed before. The source for safety meets the inclusion criteria. QuackGuru (talk) 06:04, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Ramey as a source meets Wikipedia's standard. He is a notable expert on the topic. Per WP:SPS, we included the NPOV text and quality reference. QuackGuru (talk) 06:07, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
So, I understand your argument correctly, you are suggesting that David Ramey, DVM is an expert in veterinary chiropractic safety? You also suggest the source is strong enough for inclusion? I call BS, but I guess we'll say how it plays out. Also, the heading research is preferred; its NPOV and more appropriate. I won't bother to revert you (you're edit warring (again) needlessly and I won't take the bait) but I'll note it, of course. G'night, GQ. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:22, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Bottomline, it is a weak source. Take it to WP:RSN and describe precisely how you would like the source to be used. See what the outside perspective is here. Until then, let's not include a questionable use of a questionable source. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:42, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Please address my previous comment per WP:SPS. It meets Wikipedia's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 07:44, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
I already explained how it is a WP:SPS source. Ramey is a notable expert on the topic. The NPOV text is written by Ramey. QuackGuru (talk) 07:57, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The citation is very weak and I don't think it meets inclusion policy and it's getting long in the tooth as well. It's also better to rename "effectiveness" to "research" that way we can add relevant studies that pertain to veterinary chiropractic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Saying the citation is weak is not an argument. The citation is highly relevant because it is specific to Veterinary Chiropractic. "Research" is way too vague. A specific title is an improvement. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

My thoughts. . . the Ramey source is not reliable or verifiable. . . Publisher is an attack organization. . . no real research there. . . and it is fairly old. . . and just this guys opinion.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:19, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:SPS, it is reliable and meets Wikipedia's standard. QuackGuru (talk) 20:10, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

Per Cortico and Levine's explanation above, I agree that it fails as a reliable source for this particular usage.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 23:05, 20 April 2008 (UTC)

QuackGuru should probably respond directly to my comment above: First, it is not an WP:SPS as it is not published by Ramey, but rather by the partisan website. Second, even if it were a WP:SPS it would fail some of the qualifications, especially #2 "so long as... it is not contentious;" Again, feel free to bring it to WP:RSN, but be sure to describe exactly how you wish to use the source. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It meets Wikipedia's standard. Ramey is an expert on the topic and it is written by Ramey. Please stop trying to remove well sourced NPOV text. QuackGuru (talk) 07:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Common, QG. Enough is enough, already. You can't annoit experts, especially one who has not published a peer-reviewed article in a quality journal. Using NPOV as an argument is weak here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:06, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
QuackGuru, you still haven't addressed my concerns above. I think I am being clear enough, but let me know if I need to spell it out for you in simpler terms. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:53, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I have clearly explained how it meets the inclusion criteria per WP:SPS. This topic is controversial. Also see WP:PARITY. QuackGuru (talk) 18:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Good. I am glad you agree that it is controversial. And per WP:SPS, since it is controversial (aka "contentious") we cannot use it as a source. Great! That settles it. Thanks. (Oh and P.S. WP:PARITY does not apply here at all since we are not dealing with a Fringe Topic. :-) -- Levine2112 discuss 18:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What? The material is NPOV and well sourced. The topic is controversial. But that does not mean we can delete it. Why do you think it is settled? We are fringed out here. QuackGuru (talk) 18:09, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read #2 on WP:SPS. Since you agree that this is contentious, then SPS prohibits us from using such a source. EOS. You say this is a fringe topic, but do you have any reliable sources to back up this characterization? If so, please present them here. It would be good to determine if this is indeed a fringe topic before we go any further. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:26, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
There is no #2 for WP:SPS. QuackGuru (talk) 18:37, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
How about the second paragraph: Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications. However, caution should be exercised when using such sources: if the information in question is really worth reporting, someone else is likely to have done so. Is Ramey an established expert on Veterinarian Chiropractic? No. Or at least I haven't been privy to any sources establishing him as such. Also, note that this source is not published by Ramey but rather by a partisan organization; hence, we are not dealing with a self-published source and WP:SPS does not apply. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Self-published material may, in some circumstances, be acceptable when produced by an established expert on the topic It does apply. QuackGuru (talk) 19:03, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is not self-published and this is not one of those circumstances. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:21, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
The work is written by David W. Ramey, D.V.M. This is one of those circumstances. QuackGuru 17:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the best source currently available for discussing safety. QuackGuru 19:36, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Could it be worded differently, as Ramey's view? Jefffire (talk) 21:57, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

I read through this string. . . my view is that the Ramey paper is far too old. . . unpublished in anything credible. . . and Ramey is not an established expert in this field. . . I would say it is not a reliable source for this article. . . It reads more like propaganda.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:56, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Safety

There is a risk of injury to a horse if overly aggressive maneuvers occur. Manipulating the spine of a dog with a degenerative disk carries the risk of severe and permanent harm to the spinal cord.[1]

David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. Per WP:SPS, a notable expert on the topic meets Wikipedia's standard. QuackGuru 08:41, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Effectiveness or Efficacy (specific topic)

Effectiveness is a specific section. The title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 06:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

How about Efficacy? I gave it a shot. Let's see. -- Levine2112 discuss 06:54, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, upon reading it, I don't like it. I don't think "effectiveness" is a proper discussion for this, a profession. I could understand discussing research which the profession is conducting, but not efficacy... because who is to say that an entire profession is or is not effective? -- Levine2112 discuss 06:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The proper heading is Effectiveness. That is what the section is about. QuackGuru (talk) 07:45, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Efficacy can also work. As I previously explained, the title Research is too vague. QuackGuru (talk) 07:48, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
If that's truly what the section is about, then I am in favor of removing it. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is truly about Effectiveness (or Efficacy). Removing it for no reason constitutes WP:VAND. QuackGuru (talk) 08:00, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Not necessarily, QG. Things aren't always so black and white and you have a penchant for making it seem. Again, this section was added by yourself and it's validity was disputed by myself and Levine2112. We have offered to rename it Efficacy or as I prefer, Research but you have reverted all our suggestions and have not budged from your stance. I strongly suggest that you take a minute to review your actions because this does not need to escalate any further. Make us a counter-proposal. CorticoSpinal (talk) 15:51, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
It is essentially vandlism to delete an entire section without any good reason. I have already explained that the title Research is too vague. I am having trouble understanding why you prefer a vague title. I am doing my best to clearly explain this. QuackGuru (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
The argument that the efficacy of animal chiropractic cannot be covered in the article because it is a 'profession' is IMHO absurd. Vets and chiros learn specific manipulation techniques, apparently, and these can certainly be studied for effectiveness. IOW, Fido comes in limping and runs out of the office like a frisky pup! Take 50 creaky Fidos and do manipulation on 25 of them and 'fake manipulation' on the rest and keep track of behaviour, nociceptors and...number of tail wags? Unfortunately, there don't seem to be many studies of safety or effectiveness of this specialty. As for the article, without RCTs, data should be gathered where it exists. If a notable veterinarian, like Ramey, has something to say on the subject, include it! Everything else out there seems to be by the believers of this new 'profession'. CynRNCynRN (talk) 18:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
Welcome back, CynRN. The question is of weight, notability and validity. To propose a section on effectiveness based on one study is far fetched. Why do you think Ramey is notable and therefore an expert on veterinary chiropractic, moreso than say Dr. Willough, DC, DVM? You will learn, as I have, that we can't simply "annoit" experts and when we're talking about medical subspecialties, the inclusion criteria and relevance of that material is higher than non-medical articles. Also, 'believers' is a poor choice of words; are you suggesting that veterinarians now have been suddenly convinced by the evil chiropractors that manipulation is beneficial? A better section title would be "Research" and this would solve any problems of including various types of studies being done. So, based on WP:WEIGHT, WP:FRINGE, WP:NPOV and WP:MEDRS the current Ramey reference is not likely to meet inclusion criteria. Also, you're analysis at Chiropractic is a bit skewed; you suggest that effectiveness can't be measured in the professions of Medicine and Nursing because they are too broad. What about Physical Therapy? Chiropractic shares many similar attributes and clinically see many of the same conditions. Can you judge the effectiveness of PT or is it too broad? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 19 April 2008 (UTC)
David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. QuackGuru (talk) 19:30, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Cortico, you are putting words in my mouth! Who said or implied 'evil chiropractors!" Settle down. It seems to me that the whole veterinary chiropractic movement is putting the cart before the horse, pun intended.:-). IOW, where are the studies? Secondly, on Ramey's points that harm could be done to animals with improper manipulation; it's common sense that this is possible. He is apparently an equine expert and his opinion counts. I don't understand why veterinary chiropractic skeptics should not have a say in this article. I support a section titled Research instead of Effectiveness. It doesn't matter much either way, with so little evidence supporting animal chiropractic.CynRNCynRN (talk) 20:39, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

I apologize for seeming dismissive of this topic in my post above. It is certainly an interesting one and I appreciate CorticoSpinal's fine efforts here. However, I don't think that the veterinarians who have embraced animal chiropractic are the only vets that should be heard from here at this article. I would like to know what the profession as a whole thinks of this offshoot.CynRNCynRN (talk) 03:13, 20 April 2008 (UTC)
Find a reliable source which represents the views of the veterinarian profession as a whole then let's discuss it. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
A reliable survey of vets on this topic may not exist...CynRNCynRN (talk) 02:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, my initial though on reading the article was that it's a hoax, so I think it's somewhat unlikely that real vets have even heard of the subject. We are so far into the fringe here we're falling of the rug. I suggest we proceed accordingly. Jefffire (talk) 07:32, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
This is what happens when you mix laypeople and experts together trying to write an article. Suddenly DVMs now are fringe. CorticoSpinal (talk) 17:07, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well...yes they are. Jefffire (talk)
Really? Veterinarians are fringe? Since when? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:56, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Obviously I misread that as dc, no need to be a spanner about it. In that case Cortico's comment's make no sense at all since I never claimed anything of that nature. Jefffire (talk) 18:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
So what are you saying? DCs are fringe? I don't think that is established here at Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:01, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Alt is fringe, mainstream is mainstream. Obvious really. Jefffire (talk) 19:02, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's your opinion. This is not in agreement, as far as I know, which what is established at Wikipedia. For instance, there is nothing a Chiropractic alluding to your opinion that chiropractic is fringe. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You're welcome to your beliefs Levine, but don't try to force them on Wikipedia. If there are strong mainstream scientific sources then please bring them forward. Jefffire (talk) 19:48, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I am not trying to force my opinion that chiropractic and veterinary chiropractic are not fringe topics. That's your assessment. Your definition of fringe are those without strong mainstream scientific sources. So if you need strong mainstream scientific sources, then I shall point you to them. Chiropractic, for instance, is chocked full of strong mainstream scientific sources. Please peruse the article and examine the refs. And in this mere fledgling Veterinary Chiropractic article, there are already at least two strong mainstream scientific sources - each from a peer-reviewed mainstream journal of veterinary medicine. So based to your defintion, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

The section is about effectiveness. Research is vague. QuackGuru 19:34, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] consensus or not

Is there any consensus for the Effectiveness (Research) section. If not, then why does it remain in mainspace? QuackGuru (talk) 17:52, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to be clear, QuackGuru, do you feel that if there is no consensus, then the material should be taken out of mainspace? -- Levine2112 discuss 17:57, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I personally think the WP:CON policy on Wikipedia is outdated and does not take into consideration when content disputes such as this arise. Consensus can WP:CCC. Consensus wikilawyering can be used to game the system! As you can see, I have mixed feeling about consensus. I don't know how to answer your question. QuackGuru (talk) 18:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
While the WP:CON stands as is, I think we should follow it to the best of our abilities and not be so quick to resolve to WP:IAR. Maybe this is a question you can pose directly to the founder of Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:24, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to honest about this. I thought I was clicking on Show preview when I accidently clicked on Save page. I want the info included. Let's get that straight. I would like to know what others think about the consensus policy. I think it is a bit outdated. Do we even have consensus for this info? QuackGuru (talk) 18:34, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps your questions about WP:CON would be better suited for that policies talk page. I'm slightly in favor of keeping the Research section IF it stays focused on research specifically about veterinarian chiropractic published in peer-review journals. However, I can easily see the argument that since we are dealing with a profession and not a modality, that research into the effectiveness of specific modalities may be better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:39, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
You said the section is about effectiveness. That is the specific topic of the section. Why the vague section name of Research? QuackGuru (talk) 18:43, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I think there are other kinds of research than just efficacy. Why limit ourselves at this infancy stage of the article? Let's just resolve to use high-quality scientific sources in this section and not self-published opinions (pro or con) from partisan sources (pro or con). When we have something substantial written, we can always discuss whether it (as a whole) is appropriate for this article or if it (or its pieces) would be more appropriate for separate articles. I really think this is a vision Jimmy Wales had for good article-writing when he came up with Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
WP:PARITY. There are no high quality sources, just a sprinkling of very weak studies. This is a fringe subject, and should be treated as one. Jefffire (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
At the moment it is specifically about effectiveness. If you really think it is "better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one," then what are you waiting for? Do what you believe to be best for the project. We are WP:BOLD around here. If it does not work we can always revert or try again. This is a wiki. QuackGuru (talk) 18:59, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Who says we are dealing with a fringe subject here? WP:PARITY doesn't apply unless that can be established. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
It is not established that Vet chiros are mainstream. This topic is fringe. WP:PARITY is applicable. QuackGuru (talk) 19:11, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not how it works. You have made the claim that Veterinary Chiropractic is a Fringe Topic, now prove it. Otherwise, WP:PARITY clearly doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:15, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Rather. A fringe subject is one which cannot provide high quality references in mainstream scientific journals. If you cannot find them, then it is clear the topic is fringe. Afterall, WP:FRINGE is there exactly because real scientists don't touch such crap with a ten foot barge pole. Jefffire (talk) 19:44, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, currently in the article, we have at least two high quality references from mainstream scientific veterinarian journals discussing this topic. So by your assessment, Veterinary Chiropractic is not a fringe topic and hence WP:PARITY doesn't apply. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:55, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Curse my scientific ignorance Levine, but could you point them out for me? I mean, I did a quite check on the impact factors on the journals listed, and at first glance they seem rock bottom. Jefffire (talk) 20:00, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sure, here they are: [1] and [2]. If you would like to learn more about the EVJ, please visit this link. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:08, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Like I mentioned, rock bottom impact factor. There are not authoritative journals. I appreciate you have a lack of scientific literacy, but please don't PoV push by cherry picking from a myriad of weak sources. Jefffire (talk) 20:13, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
What do you consider rock-bottom and why do you think this is applicable to our discussion here? As of 2004 this particular journal scored 1.440 which ranks it #16 of the 123 veterinary science journals listed. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:18, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Ahem...Levine...that's 1.440, not 1,440. I don't think it's several orders of magnitude more heavily cited than Cell. Jefffire (talk) 20:25, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Apples and oranges - comparing to Cell. By your comparison then, there are no Veterinary Sciences journal up to snuff. But when we compare this journal to only those of Veterinary science, we see that it is consistently in the top ten. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:29, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I brought up Cell to show how off-the-wall your numbers were, not as a bench mark. 1.44 is pretty darn low (you might like to note how it's been dropping year on year. Perhaps publishing an article on a.c. is symptomatic of dropping standards...) the fact that there are few highly cited vet journals don't make it any better. Something nice and juicy from Veterinary Research would be better. If it's mainstream then you ought to be able to find lots of articles about it in there, yah? That would go a long way towards convincing us evil scientist types. Jefffire (talk) 20:38, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
And what is the impact factor for Veterinary Research? By the way, even the AVMA is saying that Veterinary chiropractic is becoming more mainstream. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:47, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
I take it you couldn't find any articles in Veterinary Research...why would that be? Why would such a mainstream subject not be abundant? Jefffire (talk) 07:18, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
It's kind of hard to search. It's in French. But I may give it a try later when I have a moment. In the meantime, here's another source from Canadian Veterinary Journal. Anyhow, still waiting for some kind of reliable source which calls Veterinary Chiropractic fringe, as you have asserted. Until then, WP:PARITY can't apply. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:39, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
That argument has already been dealt with. A mainstream topic would be well represented, with hundreds of sources in dozens of journals. You've found two journals with very low i.f.. Jefffire (talk) 07:52, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Oh, and Levine, Veterinary Research is in English [3]. Jefffire (talk) 07:56, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I see no reason for us to consider this a Fringe topic. You have made the claim that it is fringe, now it is up to you to prove it. Already many pieces of quality research and reliable sources have been supplied which distinguish this topic as not fringe, and this article is not more than a week or two old. I am through jumping through hoops for you (especially in the wake of all of the insults and personal attacks). Your turn to provide sources backing your opinion. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:04, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Dealt with. It is up to you to show that there are sufficient sources to judge this mainstream, prove it. If you cannot, I and others will continue to treat this as fringe. Jefffire (talk) 08:15, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
I disagree. You have made a claim so the onus to prove it lies with you. In the meantime, I'm moving on. -- Levine2112 discuss 08:22, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]Actually, Jefffire could stand to learn a bit more on Chiropractic, rather than spouting off inaccurate statements. He calls is fringe, yet for all intents and purposes it's practically mainstream. We should treat it much moreso mainstream than the skeptics who continue to push for fringe status and have a deletionist policy here. If references are wanted, they can be provided of course. CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] AFD discussion

This article contains a lot of uncited text and unreliable pro chiro partisan sources. I think we need to test the notability with an AFD. QuackGuru (talk) 17:36, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

It's getting a little out of hand how Users such as QG and Mccready consistently appear and show up, disrupt, obstruct and ultimately try to corrupt chiropractic related articles. If this type of crap continues, it's going to ANI. The material here more than meets inclusion criteria and is notable. We don't need non-experts in the field like Jefffire, Mccready and QG try to thwart the contribs of productive editors. CorticoSpinal (talk) 20:12, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
We are stepping into the fringe and non-notable topics. Wikipedia is not the place for promo pieces of non-notable fringe topics. QuackGuru (talk) 20:17, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Curse them and their insistence that articles are based on reliable sources. Jefffire (talk) 20:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Neither of you are hardly in a position to make that call. It's not a promo piece, it's informative and accurately represents the state of veterinary chiropractic. You were all keen on keeping it first, then probably due to some behind the scenes canvassing, you propose AfD. Anyways, this article, like Sports Chiropractic doesn't meet the criteria for deletion and if you push for this, well let's just say that if the spotlight were to turn the other direction, specifically to you, QuackGuru, you might not like where the investigation goes, or so I have been told by experienced Wikipedians.
Most of the references are from unreliable pro chiropractic partisan sources. An obvious promotional piece? Yes. AFD? Surely. QuackGuru (talk) 20:28, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Interesting how quickly your tune turned, QG. You were really trying to improve the article just 2 days ago and now its suddenly became more chiro propanganda. Anyways, I'm done discussing and working with you, it's not worth the time, energy and sanity. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:53, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Are editors not allow to grow concerned about the direction an article is heading, or to change their mind about issues? Perhaps if the concerns of editors were listened to progress could be made. Jefffire (talk) 11:59, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Controversy

I propose we need a new section titled 'controversy'. Several states are currently wrestling with legislation regarding scope of practice for vets. Vets are feeling threatened, for myriad reasons, by the growing animal chiropractic movement and see the need for more regulation.CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:51, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Post the sources here and let's discuss. Initially, I think "Controversy" doesn't seem to fit as a title. Maybe "U.S. Legislation"? Hard to say without seeing the sources first though. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:55, 21 April

2008 (UTC)

Isn't this topic inherently controversial? Maybe "legislation" could be a heading, though. Here is a 2007 year end summary regarding state legislative activity from the AVMA:
"The authority of non-veterinarians to treat animals is still a huge issue for state legislators and regulatory bodies. Massage therapists, physical therapists, acupuncturists, chiropractors and equine dental technicians all generated activity related to animal practice. See the section below titled “Scope of Practice/Complementary and Alternative Medicine” for details" http://www.docuticker.com/?p=19258
I follow the link and through a little sleuthing, I have found the originating source: Veterinary State Legislative 2007 Year-End Summary. I think this is a strong source with some good information in it for our article. It doesn't seem controversial, just legislative. Take a look and let me know. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:20, 21 April 2008 (UTC)
Sigh, it never ends. Controversy, criticisms, etc... all so out of proportion and weight issues abound... We don't need a whole new section, but if CynRN wants to dig up a reference, then we should include the fact that some vets are feeling threatened; but paradoxically they're also the ones collaborating with DCs and expanding the Animal Chiropractic programs and certs. CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:57, 22 April 2008 (UTC)
Regarding the legislative battle in Colorado:"The Colorado agency dealt the association its latest blow, dismissing a proposal to distinguish animal chiropractors from human chiropractors and veterinarians, by creating, in essence, a third profession. A 25-page report from the Department of Regulatory Agencies (DORA) claimed the AVCA's proposal failed to fully demonstrate regulations would benefit the pet-owning public."The scientific method provides the only realistic approach to determine the effectiveness of any particular therapy including manipulative therapy such as chiropractic," says Rogers (of AVMA). "I believe that such proof is generally lacking for manipulative therapy in animals."Dr. David Ramey, who practices in Southern California, adds, "In the past 20 years (of AVCA's existence), there is not one shred of evidence that any of what they're doing makes any difference as far as the health and welfare of animals go. They're trying to succeed by inference and anecdote."What they're trying to do is to grant themselves legislatively what they can't accomplish scientifically," he says. Rogers cautions, "If manipulative therapies are offered as primary approaches to general animal medical problems by doctors of chiropractic without the involvement of licensed veterinarians I believe that there will be high risk of inadequate diagnosis and care."[2]CynRNCynRN (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Sorry my link didn't work. Mainly, the vets are concerned that non veterinarians could become primary care doctors for critters and not recognize or have the experience to deal with many animal diseases. http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=41322 —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 03:04, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent]. So Ramey is blasting DVMs too who want to manipulate. Interesting. I guess he wants to be the Murray Katz, Stephen Barrett and Edzard Ernst of the vet profession. Let him publish a paper first. He does not deserve equal weight as others who went through the peer reviewed process. We don't just annoit experts because they're supportive or critical, either way. They have to earn their stripes at consistently producing high quality literature that is highly respected and generally trascends their field. Ramey meets none of these obvious criteria. Still an interesting read though. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:30, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for that quote. I really think that shows us either Ramey's lack of credibility or bias. Clearly, just from the research we have discussed here, there is much more than a shred of evidence that chiropractic benefits animals. Either Ramey has a lack of awareness of such research (which puts to question his credibility as a supposed expert on the subject) or he is conveniently ignoring such research (which puts his neutrality as a scientist in question). -- Levine2112 discuss 17:42, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Or perhaps he has legitimate reason to question the reliability of the research instead of accepting it without question. A gentle nudge to remind you that published =/= true. Jefffire (talk) 18:12, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not about truth. It is about verifiable information. Research published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal holds more weight than Ramey's off-handed opinions. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:22, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
...unless they have rock bottom impact factors. Jefffire (talk) 18:37, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Well, thank goodness we are not dealing with rock-bottom I.F. journals but rather ones at the top of their field. P.S., I see nothing in WP:V supporting this rationale. Can you point me to the policy which explains that journals with low I.F. scores should be given less weight than a non-peer-reviewed opinion published only on a partisan website? Appreciate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:45, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
Have we found significantly better sources than the 1.44 journal? Apologies if I missed it. Impact factors are used as a general guide to which journal are regarded as authoritative, being peer reviewed doesn't make something automatically reliable (as proof of concept, creationists have "peer reviewed" journals). Also, I don't believe anyone has proposed quoting Ramey as fact, just as opinion. There is no reason to exclude a few comments. Jefffire (talk) 20:08, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
You have not addressed Levine2112s point. Comparing the science of manipulation to creationism? Whoooooa! CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:32, 24 April 2008 (UTC)
No, I'm not comparing the subject to creationism, I'm saying why "peer review" isn't a gold standard by itself. The journals are Veterinary anyway, not Chiropractic. Jefffire (talk) 07:23, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
EVJ is consistently in the top ten of the veterinary journals. It is not a rock-bottom source. Oh, and maybe you missed this, but I see nothing in WP:V supporting this rationale about impact factor. Can you point me to the policy which explains that journals with low I.F. scores should be given less weight than a non-peer-reviewed opinion published only on a partisan website? Appreciate it. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)That survey by Schoen cited here reveals that many vets are interested in several unscientific modalities, for instance homeopathy. My former vet offered my dog homeopathy and I was offended. Many Americans are big suckers for that stuff and vets want to jump on the CAM bandwagon, I guess. "Thirty-six (87%) respondents believed that acupuncture, nutraceuticals, nutritional supplements, and physical therapy should be included in the curriculum, 25 (61%) indicated that botanical (herbal) medicine should be included, and 25 (61%) believed that chiropractic should be included. Only 17 (44%) respondents believed that homeopathy should be included. The majority of respondents believed that CAVM should be offered as elective courses." So, having 500+ vets in the AVCA doesn't impress me much as far as imparting credibility.Scientific education, be it medical, chiropractic or veterinary does not make a doctor immune from wierd beliefs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by CynRN (talk • contribs) 21:03, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

CynRN are you suggest that spinal manipulation is an unscientific modality? I can't tell if you're lumping it in there with homeopathy. A clarification would be appreciated. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2008 (UTC)
The survey lumped manipulation in with homeopathy, not me. I used the survey to indicate that a veterinary education apparently does not immunize the graduate against unscientific approaches, ie homeopathy. Sorry if I didn't make that clear.CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:39, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No worries. I suggest you read the Kaussler papers, I was surprisingly impressed at how he more or less captured chiropractic. The studies into manipulation now have been ongoing for close to 30 years, and I do not see such a body of literature for homeopathy. The comparison was not appropriate and wanted to make sure that we weren't lumping the 2 together here. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:08, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Sources and horses

-- Levine2112 discuss 08:17, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] RfC. Is chiropractic manipulation of animals a mainstream veterinary procedure?

Why the word of the American Veterinary Medical Association is essentially being ignored is beyond me. Even they say veterinary chiropractic is increasingly becoming mainstream here along with acupuncture. I suggest that readers look at the reference list. Suddenly, peer-reviewed journals (vet journals to boot, not chiropractic ones) is not good enough, and we're delving into impact scores which still validates that articles. To me, this is more attempts at marginilisation of a very notable, interesting and increasingly popular and used approach at treating animals. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:04, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Cortico, a RfC is filed to gain insight from currently uninvolved editors. It's not a place to rehash the same arguments again. I've explained that "becoming more mainstream" in my opinion intimates that it isn't mainstream, and I've explained that having a few articles in mainstream journals doesn't seem to make the entire subject mainstream. You are free to disagree, but please allow others a chance to comment. Jefffire (talk) 18:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

OUTSIDE OPINION Seeing the link CorticoSpinal posted above, I think it could be correctly stated as becoming increasingly mainstream. A sentence stating the opinion of the ACA (as debated below) would also be a good thing to include. Just find a way of saying, "respected associations disagree". JeremyMcCracken (talk) (contribs) 01:50, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic (controversy?)

Given that the official policy of the American Chiropractic Association is that veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer and is not really chiropractic, I think it's safe to say that it's not mainstream yet, at least, not in the chiropractic world. I added a Controversy section mentioning this. Eubulides (talk) 19:27, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

That is from 1994. Perhaps articles such as this could be used to augment the "controversy". That said, it appears to be the ACA's current position. Preferably, I wouldn't call this section "controversy" either. I don't think this constitutes one - or at least the sources given don't support naming as such. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:44, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
It is a controversy. QuackGuru 19:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
And you can verify that with what source? -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is not an appropriate title name. This is a controversy when ACA says it is a misnomer. QuackGuru 19:55, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
No it isn't. That's an assumption you are making. Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is much closer to NPOV than creating a controversy which doesn't seem to exist (or at least isn't supported). Please see this. There are some excellent stats to work in to the article from this. But no mention of "controversy". -- Levine2112 discuss 19:58, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
This is the definition of a controversy and I see a Lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic. QuackGuru 20:01, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
That's not the definition of controversy. It is just the position of the ACA. Nothing controversial about it, unless you are inferring there is. Lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic would also be an acceptable title for the section. That is, unless we find some other mainstream chiropractic organization (like the ICA) which does recognize vet chiro. I will look. But in the meantime I see no source suggesting prolonged public dispute - which is the definition of controversy, BTW. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:12, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic is original research. QuackGuru 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
How so? The section is about the acceptance of vet chiro by mainstream chiropractic. Currently, the source we are using establishes the position of the leading chiro org which at best only minimally accepts chiropractic. I think once we incorporate the 2001 study stats that section will be even stronger. But certainly according to the sources thus far there does seem to be a "lack of" acceptance. But the section title "Acceptance by mainstream chiropractic" doesn't imply anything other than the section will deal with mainstream chiropractic's position on vet chiro. Perhaps, "Mainstream chiropractic position" would be an even more appropriate title. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:22, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Ah, yes. "ACA policy" is a good way to go too. Thanks, Jefffire. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:24, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Could I ask that this discussion be conducted in a different section, so that this can be kept clear for new commenters? Jefffire (talk) 20:09, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. I added a section break. QuackGuru 20:17, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Nah. There is clearly a lack of acceptance by mainstream chiropractic. QuackGuru 20:45, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. But the controversy which you had asserted is unsupported and thus questionable. Anyhow, I prefer Jefffire's "ACA Policy" suggestion anyhow. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:43, 26 April 2008 (UTC)
Animal chiropractic is controversial, per Dr. Kamen, 'pioneer' animal chiropractor. 2001. http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3987/is_200106/ai_n8955737 CynRNCynRN (talk) 00:13, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
A press release touting the CAM presentations at a conference means that many vets are likely interested in CAM. That does not mean that the AVMA is endorsing chiro, accupuncture or any other CAM treatment. At a neuro conference I recently attended 'energy medicine' was a popular seminar but 'energy healing' isn't being endorsed by the AANN (American Assoc of Neuroscience Nurses). Evidenced based practice was the theme.CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:35, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Evidence-based practice is the theme for EVERY licensed health care professional, Cyndy. More importantly, you neglected the part that the majority of faculty at schools of veterinary medicine want chiropractic, in some form, included in the curriculum. I would suggest that's a reasonably notable "endorsement" if not "super strong interest". You choose the wording! CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
That is a PoV interpration. Jefffire (talk) 16:12, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I read somewhere that many CAM classes are being offered in veterinary schools (as they are in medical school here and there). The emphasis could be 'this is something legit and should be added' or 'this is something your clients will be asking about and you should know about it pro and con'. What is your source, Cortico, re. 'majority of faculty' in veterinary schools want chiropractic? The thing is, there is really no evidence here for the animal chiro, beyond those two studies, which are weak.CynRNCynRN (talk) 23:32, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

In the AVMA press release. I kinda shrug at the effectiveness bit. First, tge demand is growing. This isn't DVMs and DCs pushing manips. Clearly the consumer feels that it's helping. This is what kept chiropractic alive during orthodox's medicine's push to kill it. It was the satisfied patients. Also, what is the effectiveness of parachutes? Maybe this article will shed some light. Point is, not everything can be reduced, deducted. Sometimes things are obvious. Does animal chiropractic work? Ask the pet owners who voluntarily CHOSEN it, probably because conventional vet med didn't work. It's the same old, same old, from my perspective. Do you want to learn about the proposed physics of instrument manips and how such a small click can generate a large force? It's explained rather well in Haussler's paper, but if you need clarification I can provide. Cheers. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:44, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Funny parachute 'study'! "It might be argued that the pressure exerted on individuals to use parachutes is yet another example of a natural, life enhancing experience being turned into a situation of fear and dependency." Bad analogy, though. Sounds like the fallacy of 'clinical empiricism' to say, well it worked for this dog and that cat and everyone is happy with it, so the benefits are obvious. Same can be said of homeopathy.CynRNCynRN (talk) 18:41, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually, no, it's appropriate. Some things, after time, should be obvious. Spinal manipulation has been around for 2800 years. Orthodox medicine has tried to squash the modern reincarnation of it, chiropractic medicine. Similarly, SMT is likely to work in animals too, the same reason why it's been used for 2800 in humans. It's a useful modality that is cost-effective and safe compared to the alternatives. Confabulation of chiropractic with homeopathy? Yikes! CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:18, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I like to tease you about homeopathy. Sorry. "It's a useful modality that is cost-effective and safe compared to the alternatives" This describes homeopathy, too. My surgeon's assistant tried to give me homeopathic arnica, saying "we've found it to be very helpful, yada yada".CynRNCynRN (talk) 05:43, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
"Likely to work" is not good enough. Animals walk on all fours. If manipulation helps some conditions in humans, it's a stretch to transfer in to four-legged patients. More studies, please. BTW, Ayurveda has been around for 2,000 years, too, but that doesn't make it legitimate.--—CynRN (Talk) 04:07, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Civil Disruption

Just to note, I consider this topic bomb ("Controversy") as a needless, pointing and ultimately disruptive attempt at rocking the boat here. I have moved it to history, where, if at all, it belongs in the article. Clearly Levine2112 has provided a much more current and in depth source from the JACA that should provide clarification to the issue. Eubulides, you have a history now of being very controversial yourself at chiropractic medicine-related articles in a pretty heavy orthox-medicine POV push and statements that have marginalized the profession and edits that have carried inappropriate tone and severe weight issues. I'd ask that if you are going to contribute here that seriously consider changing your approach immediately, otherwise one could begin making a rather strong case that your edits frequently destabilize and disruptive chiropractic pages. I'd appreciate your thoughts on the matter. Very best. CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:40, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I am also pretty annoyed at Mccready's revert-fest. . . the two pieces of research here spell out likely benefits. . . how can he say there are no benefits? There are scientific skeptics. . . then there are pathological skeptics. . . and never the two shall meet. . . know what I mean, Cortico?TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 04:54, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

It is certainly relevant to Veterinary chiropractic that the American Chiropractic Association's official position is that veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer. I was surprised to see this not mentioned in the article, and figured that it was a simple oversight; was that incorrect? Anyway, the "in depth source from the JACA" doesn't seem to be cited in the article; if it's much more current and in-depth, shouldn't it be cited? Eubulides (talk) 07:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

According to your very own words that source would be 'obsolescent'. You needlessly disrupted the article with a highly contentious edit, with a subsequent section entitled 'controversy' to play it up. Please address my concerns from April 27/08. You have a habit of veering off topic. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I must have missed your reply, Eubulides. Please address my concerns. Thanks in advance. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:20, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

The source is not obsolescent. It reflects the current official policy of the ACA that the term veterinary chiropractic is a misnomer. This policy took effect in 1994 and remains in place today. I see now that the text has been edited to say that the ACA position is because "chiropractic medicine encompassed more than manipulative techniques". This claim is plausible but it is not in the cited source, so I removed it. This change also fixes some grammar problems, and made it clear that the ACA position remains in effect today, an important point. Eubulides (talk) 20:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Please provide proof that this 14 year old policy remains in place. You madke the claim, you need to back it up. You have also dodged my concerns re: your editing practices yet again. CorticoSpinal (talk) 22:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
  • Go to the home page for the ACA, click on "About Us", and you will get to the ACA's About Us page. Then click on "Policies", and you will get to the ACA's Policies page. This last page lists the current policies of the ACA, on a wide variety of subjects ranging from acupuncture to X-ray. Scroll down to the section marked '"VETERINARY" CHIROPRACTIC' for the policy on veterinary chiropractic; it's between 'VACCINATION' and 'VITAMINS, MINERALS AND FOOD SUPPLEMENTS: THE USE OR RECOMMENDATION OF'. '"VETERINARY" CHIROPRACTIC' is the source currently cited in Veterinary chiropractic#History on the ACA policy.
  • I'm not sure what is meant by "my concerns from April 27/08", but the edit to introduce this topic was a reasonable one: it brought a highly-relevant fact into the article. Introducing the mention of notable controversy about the main subject of the article is not needless disruption: on the contrary, it's fixing the article to fairly represent alternative points of view, in this case, the viewpoint of the leading chiropractic organization.
  • The topic of the ACA's policy, though important, does not really belong under History since the ACA's opposition is current. Controversy was just one suggestion for a section name for the new topic; no doubt there are better name choices, but History isn't one of them.
Eubulides (talk) 23:39, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Given that I have not found anything yet besides the 2001 survey it appears that in letter, you are correct. I doubt that it is correct in the spirit; but if you feel it's necessary to add it, I won't revert. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Reverts by TheDoctorIsIn

This user has twice reverted. I will not engage in editing warring with him. He claims the issue is solved already on this talkpage. The text he reverts reads "There is no known benefit of chiropractic for horses with back pain.[3][4]"

The first source states: "Chiropractic treatment and massage therapy increased spinal MNTs within horses not exhibiting signs of lumbar pain." ie when horses had no pain!!

The second source concludes: "The main overall effect of the chiropractic manipulations was a less extended thoracic back, a reduced inclination of the pelvis and improvement of the symmetry of the pelvic motion pattern." ie nothing about back pain!!!

Will this author pls self revert? Mccready (talk) 05:03, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The sources still do not back up your statement that there is no known benefit for horses without back pain. That would be OR/SYN. DigitalC (talk) 06:37, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

I agree with DigitalC here. . . add to it that the source flatout states that there is a likely benefit.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 06:46, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

This brazenness saying that black is white and this blatant misuse of sources is incredible. Only one source even uses the term benefit and it is an OPINION, not a scientific conclusion and thus fails RS. Thus the second source says "Some of the changes are likely to be beneficial, but clinical trials with increased numbers of horses and longer follow-up are needed." It is absurd to build your edits on this. I will have to reedit. I also note for the record that TheDoctorIsIn removed from his page my plea to desist from edit warring[4]. Hardly the actions of a good faith editor and more like the chiro POV warrior we have seen again and again to the detriment of wikipedia. Mccready (talk) 07:16, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

The conclusions you draw are from your fecund imagination. . . that equates to original research. I am not POV warrior. . .. please do not assume bad faith and insinuate I am. G'day mate!TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Ramey

Attribution is the way to go for sure. . . but Ramey is a tiny minority opinion. . . the kind WP:WEIGHT warns against. I am against inclusion still.TheDoctorIsIn (talk) 18:24, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

David W. Ramey is a notable equine specialist, who has written a number books. And EVJ mentions him a few times. Per WP:SPS, a notable expert on the topic meets Wikipedia's standard. This is the best source available for safety info. Attribution is unnecessary. QuackGuru 18:31, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
User:Orangemarlin made, yet again, another disruptive revert edit here using twinkle again. This user has also made blind reverts at Chiropractic without talking first. Given that this appears to be a chronic problem with him, what do you propse we do? Ramey is surely not notable to be included here, let alone be given his very own "safety" section. Let Haussler et al. be the notable, expert sources, not a vocal DVM who has not published even one article in a peer reviewed source. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:34, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Please read my comments. Ramey is notable and is appropriate for this article. QuackGuru 19:43, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't believe that you should engage in personal attacks. The edit was not disruptive, but merely reverting to what was written by others. Twinkle is a perfectly acceptable method to make reversions, since it uses buttons instead of undos. You may attack Twinkle over and over, but unless I push the "vandalism" button, which I have not, it does not indicate anything. You too can use Twinkle, because any user can get it. It's a great tool for quickly undoing inappropriate edits, managing articles to remove POV edits, and the such. I expect an apology on my user talk page today. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 19:44, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not a personal attack to get an editor who, as of late, makes frequent, blind reverts without participating in discussion first. If you want diffs, I can provide them. Also, had you read the vet chiro page first, you would have seen that there is far from any consensus from including Ramey as Levine2112 has made a strong argument that it doesn't meet WP:SPS. So, if I offended you, I am sorry, nonetheless, your contributions to chiropractic-related articles would generate much less interest and scorn if you were to become familiar with the salient points of the conversation. PS -Go PENS (and Habs)! CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:50, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
There is a general lack of authoritative weighting to any side of the v.p debate for the simple reason that it is too low on the radar to garner anything other than minor interest. Jefffire (talk) 20:19, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
Ramey has written several articles published in veterinary journals. One is "The End of Veterinary Homeopathy" published in the Australian Veterinary Journal, Dec 07. He is passionate against pseudoscience in veterinary medicine and has written a book on the subject and on various topics in equine veterinary medicine (see above). He is a notable expert to quote.CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:26, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Quoting from the journal or his published book shouldn't be an issue (with proper attribution); however, his opinions published by a highly partisan source do not pass the WP:RS threshold, in my opinion. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
OK, on Amazon his book can be 'looked into'. Of course, that's limited access.CynRNCynRN (talk) 22:52, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Amazon link to Ramey's book:http://www.amazon.com/Complementary-Alternative-Veterinary-Medicine-Considered/dp/0813826160/ref=sr_1_8?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1209441551&sr=1-8 CynRNCynRN (talk) 04:02, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Comparisons to vet homeopathy are not reasonable (nor valid) and Ramey has not published a safety article in the peer-reviewed lit. Considering he's had 16 years to do so since his initial lambasting of veterinary chiropractic at chirobase; that's telling. If skeptics need to dip down into books; fine, but remember it goes both way. CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:22, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
In this case, we know who has written the article. It was David W. Ramey, D.V.M.. Per WP:SPS, it is reliable. QuackGuru 02:29, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Ramey is a member of the task force on CAM for the AVMA. That's notable. "David W. Ramey, DVM has been in private equine practice since 1984. He is the author of numerous books and articles on equine health, including "alternative" veterinary medicine. He was selected by the AVMA as one of the nine-member task force on alternative and complementary veterinary medicine that conceived the current (2001) AVMA guidelines for the use of CAVM in veterinary practice."
http://www.blackwellpublishing.com/book.asp?ref=9780813826165 CynRNCynRN Talk 08:11, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Activators?

From my recent perusal of animal chiropractic, I notice that the activator is often used, on dogs and cats. What is the opinion of the DCs or MDs here about this device on humans or animals? For some reason, the activator is not mentioned in the main chiro article. I am too lazy to try to find out why by reading old, archived discussions...Example:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbue3_cbS4w&feature=related CynRNCynRN (talk) 23:27, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

Here's a 'better' one:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5UBbCpNlzq8&feature=related
Does this not appear to be a silly treatment? Forgive me, but really!CynRNCynRN (talk) 23:33, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
The opinion of MDs here really is irrelevant; it's not their field of expertise nor are they particularly strong in neuromusculoskeletal issues. I suggest reading Haussler et als article to get a primer on mechanical-force, instrument-assisted manipulation. You can also look for 'Collaca' [AU] in PubMed who has published some decent articles with Keller. More comments to follow later. CorticoSpinal (talk) 01:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Did you watch that video? Do you really think those little taps possibly helped that dog? My dog would have been freaked out by the sounds of the instrument!CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I mispoke. Anyone can research a topic, such as instrument-assisted manipulation and have a reasoned opinion on it's effectiveness. BTW, why isn't it mentioned in the main article? CynRNCynRN (talk) 15:41, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The man in the video is clearly a kook, but are those views really prevailant? Is this just the lunatic fringe, or is this a common view? Jefffire (talk) 16:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Calling the man a "kook" - in my opinion - is unfair and seems to come from personal bias. The urge to just reject and mock without considering the evidence (which CorticoSpinal has graciously provided) is a trait of a pseudoskeptic. I know we all have more open minds than that, and I am encouraging us all to us them. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:07, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
There comes a point (in this case where a man is moving a little clicker over a dog), when it is painfully obvious that one is not dealing with a rational mind. If there is better evidence than "it's published in [crap journal x], so it's true, your just close minded", then bring it to the table. If you are confirming that this type of procedure is common for animal chiropractors, then that goes a long way to settling the issue of whether this is fringe. Jefffire (talk) 19:53, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
The "little clicker" is what is known as the Activator. Activator Method is about 40 years old with over 15 years of clinical research. I believe that more chiropractors prefer manual adjustments over a machine activated one; however, please know that there are scores of related research published on the Activator and its corresponding techniques. Most of it seems to be published in JMPT, and I am guessing that this yet another journal which holds very little weight with you. That said, you can also find studies published in Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System, Clinical Biomechanics, and Spine. Here is a page filled with all kinds of research for you to peruse at your leisure. Then at least you will be able to have an informed opinion (even if the sum total doesn't sway your stance) rather than one which is more aligned with pathological skepticism. Anyhow, all this is a bit off topic and would probably be better suited for the Activator technique talk page. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:01, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

If one was a cynical git, one might accuse activator.com of having a rather vested interest in the subject, creating the rather real possibility of cherry picking (but hey, I'm an evil "pathological skeptic", who insists on such radical things as authoritative studies, rational thinking and burden of evidence) Jefffire (talk) 22:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

The activator seems to be a common adjunct on small animals. The human activator effectiveness seems questionable to me, from what I have been able to find out. Animal chiropractors are making a leap to use the activator on animals. Relevant? I think so!CynRNCynRN (talk) 23:06, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
On perhaps another side note, I think that the combination of activators and animals into studies is exciting because it perhaps provides researchers the ability to set up a true double-blind scenario (winding down the spring of the activator to the point where it is "ineffective" at toggling vertebrae). In effect, an animal is a blind subject simply because it doesn't have the wherewithal to know the difference; but the practitioner administering the treatment certainly knows the difference between a real manual adjustment and a sham one. However, the practitioners could be kept in the dark about which activators are "impotent". Anyhow, just a thought in case anyone here has the means to set up their own study. Oh, and Jefffire, I am not calling you "evil" or a "pathological skeptic". Sorry if that is how it came across. I just wanted you to be aware of the research that is out there. And yes, Activator.com collects only research which supports their beliefs, but my point there is to show that there is good research out there and that it could be a tad dismissive to just write off someone as a kook because they use such a device. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:06, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Hi Levine, Yes, it would be very cool to do these studies and not as demanding as setting up a human study protocol. Why haven't they been done? Animal studies wouldn't be a fraction of the cost of human studies. CynRNCynRN (talk) 03:55, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Use of the Activator was banned between 1977-2003 by the Chiropractic Association of Saskatchewan, and chiropractors have been fined. That's how quackish and unscientific it is. Unfortunately they caved in to pressure and allowed it, even though it was illegally being used, since it was (is?) not approved as a medical device by the Canadian authorities. It has quite a history. PBS showed it in use in their feature on chiropractic. Go to the "Adjusting the Joints" section, then turn on your speakers and watch the video. Make sure you start at the very beginning of the video "Drop that shoulder". Alan Alda is the host. Former chiropractic professor John Badanes participates and demonstrates. I think it's about 15 minutes long and well worth the time. Samuel Homola, DC, has also written about it: "Questionable Claims Made for Activator Methods (AM)" -- Fyslee / talk 06:17, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

Alan Alda = "I'm not a doctor, but I've played one on TV." -- Levine2112 discuss 16:56, 29 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Edit War over Ramey

There is currently a bit of an edit war occuring over the inclusion of the source, which definitely does NOT have consensus for inclusion in the article. I will be taking the source over to WP:RSN for further discussion. Please avoid inclusion in the article until that has concluded. DigitalC (talk) 23:38, 27 April 2008 (UTC)

You have just been reverted here by User:Orangemarlin. He does not seem to play well at chiropractic-related articles. Suggestions? CorticoSpinal (talk) 00:59, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
He has been warned on his user page. The discussion at WP:RSN is located at [5], however I would prefer that involved editors wait until an outside opinion has been given on the matter before commenting there. DigitalC (talk) 01:19, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
I also suggest we get an opinion on QuackGurus tendentious inserting of Ramey as well. He has added new text today that is dated and is used to mislead. SmithBlue has raised a similar argument at Chiropractic with respect to Eubulides using dated sources to contradict newer text. It appears the same has occurred here. I'm thinking of going to the Cabal or doing a major ArbCom asking a simple question: Is Chiropractic medicine fringe? Because the literature strongly suggests that it's now mainstream. Thoughts? CorticoSpinal (talk) 04:31, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Daniel Kamen, a pioneer in the field of animal chiropractic, considers the profession "controversial."[6] Even the pioneer of animal chiropractic considers it "controversial." Fringe? Clearly. QuackGuru 04:46, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Fringe and controversial are very separate concepts - the location of a new freeway may be controversial. But that does not make freeways WP:Fringe. SmithBlue (talk) 06:58, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
Definitely controversial, considering he was often teaching it illegally in states where it was not allowed. I think he was involved in some legal proceedings. I don't recall the details now, but he advertised alot and taught chiropractors and vets. The local veterinary associations were up in arms about it. -- Fyslee / talk 06:21, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Here is a bit about safety. This is a recent article about the proposed bill in Minnesota that would allow chiropractors (with training) to see animals without veterinary supervision. "Some vets who are trained in chiropractic care are also concerned about the bill.
Rachel Stephensen is a vet at Plymouth Heights Pet Hospital. She said she's concerned that chiropractors may miss a serious diagnosis. For example, she said, a chiropractor may not know that limb pain could be an underlying symptom of diabetes.
"There are times when adjustments can cause some damage and so there's that risk factor," she said. "The other risk is that we're delaying appropriate treatment in trying chiropractic if we don't know what the underlying cause of the animal symptoms are." We aren't going to get any studies or good surveys of vets, just educated opinions on safety and efficacy. CynRNCynRN (talk) 01:47, 29 April 2008 (UTC)http://minnesota.publicradio.org/display/web/2008/03/24/petdoctors/
Leave out the anecdotes, CynRN, they do not move the conversation forward. Stephensen is absolutely arrogant in her assessment. Diabetes is a common cause of limb pain in HUMANS and many the same principles applies to animals. She's trying to make DCs sound dumb and not qualified. Clearly her opinion is irrelevant in the big picture, look at the AVMA press release. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:30, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
It's not exactly an anecdote. Vets, including Stephenson, who is trained in manipulation, are against primary care by chiropractors for animals. They are lobbying the Minnesota legislature as we speak to retain vets as gatekeepers for animal care. The AVMA press release talks about the CAM stuff presented at the conference. It's not an endorsement of everything the speakers represented. CynRNCynRN (talk) 16:08, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Do you think chiropractors should be treating animals presentng with diabetes? CynRNCynRN (talk) 16:13, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
Stephenson's opinion is an informed one, considering she is certified in animal chiropractic and works in a holistic group practice with several other vets who practice acupuncture and manipulation. She maintains that veterinarian oversight is paramount for animal safety.CynRNCynRN (talk) 16:21, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

[outdent] So you are suggesting her opinion and notability overrides the AVMA? CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:12, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

I think you're missing my point. She is opposing primary contact care for animals by chiropractors. Where does it say that the AVMA is supporting primary care by chiroprators for animals? The conference press release is aimed at veterinarians, advertising 'sexy' CAM topics, that are obviously of interest to a number of veterinarians, including Stephenson.CynRNCynRN (talk) 05:04, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
I would be surprised if DCs were to legislatively push and consider themselves primary care/contact for pets. I would think it would be a specialist referal system and/or a joint venture (DC/DVMs). CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:34, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) I agree with you on that. But, in some states, like Minnesota and Colorado, chiropractors are pushing for more autonomy regarding animal care. As for the position of the AVMA, here is the AVMA Model Practice Act: "The AVMA Model Practice Act includes alternative and complementary therapies in the definition of the practice of veterinary medicine, and does not provide for the practice of these methods by non-veterinarians." This 2005 article goes on to talk about how diverse the scope of practice by non-veterinarians is among the states and abroad. CynRNCynRN (talk) 06:08, 1 May 2008 (UTC)http://www.avma.org/advocacy/state/issues/la_cavm_state_reg_models.asp

[edit] possibly controversial edits

Text have been moved to different sections of the article. Some text has been removed and unrelated sentences put together.[7] QuackGuru 20:00, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Feel free to propose a better change. CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:31, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
A revert back to the previous version is a better change. For example, merging unrelated sentences together is original research. QuackGuru 18:38, 29 April 2008 (UTC)
I don't feel that it's OR to but a 2001 reference before a 2002 reference on the same topic (controversy). You might want to format your citation though. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:13, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence says: In 2001, Daniel Kamen, DC, a pioneer in the field of animal chiropractic, acknowledged the new profession "controversial" with concerns over which profession should perform animal chiropractic, veterinarians, chiropractors or both. It does not seem that Daniel Kamen has the concerns. That would be original research. QuackGuru 18:22, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentences are interrupted by a semicolon; which implies a new thought or point is being made. Regardless, 2001 and 2002 are history. We don't need to mention Kamen; he's not notable enough, IMO. CorticoSpinal (talk) 18:24, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The sentence is clearly original research. The previous version was verifiable. When I read it I thought it was implying that Kamen had the concerns. QuackGuru 18:35, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
I'll fix it then if it seems like Kamen had those concerns. They're both mentioning the same topic (controversy and vet chiro) are both from the same time period (2001, 2002) but this can easily be solved by adding a period (.) at the end of the Kamen citation. Either way, I'll fix it so that yourself and potentially other readers do not think that Kamen is saying those words. Thanks for bringing up that concern, but I would appreciate it if you took a less abrasive tone "it's clearly OR" and assume good faith when I made the edit. Thanks! CorticoSpinal (talk) 19:31, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
All the edits need to be fixed.[8] Good luck. QuackGuru 21:02, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
The possibly controversial edits and the original research have not been fixed. Therefore it would be best to revert and fix. QuackGuru 02:00, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] third professsion

To date, no states in the US have approved the American Veterinary Chiropractic Association's proposal to regulate animal chiropractic as a third profession.[9]

Is there any states in the US that currently regulate vet chiro as a third profession. QuackGuru 03:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Efficacy (specific topic)

This change introduced a vague title name for a section about efficacy/effectiveness. We need discussion and better collaboration than simply making a change. How is a vague title better. I believe a specific title about the section would be an improvement such as efficacy. QuackGuru 05:46, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

"There is a lack of research for chiropractic care on horses.". This cited text would not be appropriate in a section titled researchefficacy. Research is not a vague term, and due to the limited research available on efficacy, a larger section for ALL research would be good. DigitalC (talk) 05:49, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
You said the "lack of research" sentence would "not be appropriate in a section titled research." You also stated there is "limited research available on efficacy." When the section is about efficacy do you believe it would more appropriate to have the title efficacy which is specific is the topic at hand. QuackGuru 06:10, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I meant to type efficacy, hence the strikethrough. Efficacy is NOT specific to the topic at hand, as it does not fit the following sourced text: ""There is a lack of research for chiropractic care on horses." Furthermore, "research" is not TOO vague, because we are talking about research into animal chiropractic, not research in general. DigitalC (talk) 06:55, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The research is not TOO vague? but it is still vague. The research (or lack of) into animal chiropractic is about its efficacy. QuackGuru 07:01, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
To be clear on your statement - you claim that ALL research conducted into animal chiropractic is conducted on its efficacy? DigitalC (talk) 12:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
I did not say that. Read what the section is about. It is about efficacy/effectiveness of animal chiropractic. QuackGuru 12:30, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
No, its about research. Agreed?--Hughgr (talk) 15:03, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The specific topic of the studies is efficacy/effectiveness. QuackGuru 15:06, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
Going once... going twice... and then we will use the Efficacy header. QuackGuru 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I prefer "Research" as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:48, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

[5]

[edit] consensus or no consensus for Ramey

There has been good arguments on both sides for the inclusion or exclusion of Ramey. But what does consensus say? Let's check consensus. Should we keep it or delete it. QuackGuru 19:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

The consensus which I am most aware of is that citing Ramey's published books may be okay, but the ChiroBase source is not reliable and thus should be removed. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:49, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
I did a bit of edit warring in reverting it back in. I'm sorry. The consensus at the noticeboard is that the current source is most certainly reliable. I'll abide. QuackGuru 19:53, 9 May 2008 (UTC)
Okay, so I'll delete it then. When someone has a ref from Ramey's published works then we can discuss including it. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
He was a member of the AVMA task force on CAM. Does his book on the subject qualify? "Following the AVMA’s lead on this subject, Complementary and Alternative Veterinary Medicine Considered thoroughly examines a variety of CAVM therapies and asks important questions regarding alternative treatments. For example, is acupuncture effective in pain relief? What is homeopathy? What is the history behind chiropractic? What does the research say (and not say) about various CAVM modalities? And, just as importantly, what are the ethical and regulatory considerations concerning such therapies? This book has the answers to those questions and more." Ramey and Rollin, --—CynRN (Talk) 20:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC) [6]
Yes, with proper attribution, his book is fine. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:17, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Ramey, The source is very reliable. Levine2112 specifically wrote in his edit summary: remove per WP:RS; please take to WP:RSN along with the specific statement and see if it passes; I'll abide. However, Levine2112 deleted the well sourced NPOV text after it passed the rigors of the RS noticeboard. QuackGuru 03:18, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
QG, I don`t see any such consensus over at WP:RSN. In fact, I`m disappointed by the lack of input by outside observers into the issue.DigitalC (talk) 05:37, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The input by outside observer(s) into the issue was that it was reliable. Please abide. QuackGuru 05:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm uncertain here. Are we citing the book, or just a website? The book's clearly a better source than the gaggle that's currently passing for references in the other sections currently. Jefffire (talk) 07:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
1 person does not a consensus make.DigitalC (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
And the 1 person there agrees that the Chirobase citation of Ramey is not a reliable source. I am not sure where QuackGuru is getting support for this statement above: The consensus at the noticeboard is that the current source is most certainly reliable. I don't see that at all. I see a consensus that a published book of Ramey may pass RS, but not this opinion piece published in a highly partisan website. -- Levine2112 discuss 07:34, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Slp1 believes the book as well as the Chirobase citation of Ramey are reliable. QuackGuru 11:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

FYI, the chapter in Ramey's book on chiropractic in horses is written by Joseph Keating. Jefffire (talk) 08:00, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

According to a comment at the noticeboard by an outside observer: Actually no, quite the opposite. Ramey has been published widely by peer-reviewed sources. The article in question therefore appears to qualify under per WP:SPS. I don't see anything more other, more reliable sources, regarding safety issues that would indicate the article is out of date. Having said that I believe that there are better, more clearly reliable sources by Ramey that can be used to source the issue of safety in the article, and these should be used where possible. --Slp1[10] The article Slp1 is referring to is the chirobase citation. QuackGuru 11:51, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Properly attributed I've no problem with it. I'm just surprised no-one seems to have a copy of this book. Jefffire (talk) 12:03, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
We can use the book but someone would have to read it. For now we will abide from the input by an outside observer at the noticeboard. We have gained consensus which was agreed upon. QuackGuru 12:09, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
You are claiming consensus where there is clearly none. Ramey doesn't publish Chirobase; rather it is published by Stephen Barrett. Ramey would have to have published his own work in order fo WP:SPS to even qualify as relevant. And if it were relevant, it wouldn't pass SPS because the material is contentious. -- Levine2112 discuss 16:06, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The external input from RSN said it is reliable. I already explained this in my early post. QuackGuru 16:15, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112 continues to ignore that there was discussion that the source is reliable from an external observer at the RSN. Slp1 said it qualifies under SPS. Levine2112 continues to remove[11][12] well sourced WP:NPOV text against the informative recommendations at the RSN. Levine2112, please abide by your agreement. QuackGuru 16:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Sorry. That's an inaccurate portrayal of the situation at hand. The one outside user who voiced an opinion here would prefer if we used Ramey's published works over the one published by the highly partisan site. Regardless, one outside user doth not a consensus make. We need much more input on that. Further, I don't understand why you aren't looking for information to put into the article from Ramey's published books. The user at RSN gave you the links to read and urged you to read it. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:14, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Slp1, who is an external obsever, wrote it qualifies under SPS. Further, I am not obligated to go buy or read a book. Sp1 suggested that Ramey's book can be used as a substitute for the website. But that does not mean anyone can force me to read a book. If someone wants to use the book (after reading the entire book) as a replacement then we will cross that road when we get there. In the meantime, please abide by your agreement. Slp1 believes the article qualifies under WP:SPS.[13] QuackGuru 19:25, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
One outside user doth not a consensus make. Let's wait until we get more feedback. Until then, feel free to review the published works of Ramey (as we all agree that they would make better sources than the one published on Chirobase). -- Levine2112 discuss 19:29, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The outside observer made a convincing argument and that was at the RS noticeboard which Levine2112 agreed he will abide to. You have no consensus to remove well sourced NPOV text. The current consensus according to outside observer(s) at the noticeboard is that the article qualifies under SPS. Levine2112, please abide. QuackGuru 19:36, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
His argument was not convincing to anyone but you. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:42, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Levine2112, please abide by your RSN agreement. Thanks. QuackGuru 20:56, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
If that's what you believe "consensus" means that I advise you to read WP:CON straight away. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:05, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
QG, There is clearly no consensus over at WP:RSN. The opinion of one outside observer does not make a consensus. If a consensus had been reached, I wouldn't be so disappointed with the RSN process. DigitalC (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
The external observer wrote it qualifies under WP:SPS.[14] That means the article is reliable. Please abide by the convincing argument of a neutral observer. There was no consensus to remove the well sourced text. A recommendation has been reached at RSN. Please abide. QuackGuru 02:38, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
We had third-party input from the WP:RSN. The external observer clearly believes the article qualifies under WP:SPS.[15] QuackGuru 04:25, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
No consensus has been reached on the issue. Again one opinion does not create a consensus, and one opion does NOT mean "the article is reliable". I will abide by consensus when a consesus has been obtained. DigitalC (talk) 04:28, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
There is no consensus to remove the well sourced info. Third-party input indicated the article qualifies under WP:SPS. Please abide. QuackGuru 04:32, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Well sourced info? What well sourced info? If anyone could get access to the books, we probably would have well sourced info in the article.DigitalC (talk) 05:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
It is well sourced. We already have a third-party opinion that the article qualifies under WP:SPS.[16] QuackGuru 07:20, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

In the absence of a review of Ramey's book his article here is sufficient. Jefffire (talk) 07:24, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is sufficent for now (meets WP:SPS[17]) per the third-party opinion. QuackGuru 07:29, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
Ramey is notable, even if his article is found on a POV site. He's an expert on this topic. I've ordered one of his older books on CAM and horses, but won't get it for a few weeks. We can't 'look into' his book on complementary veterinary medicine right now, the relevant pages are inaccessible. Let's leave his opinion in the article for now.--—CynRN (Talk) 16:22, 13 May 2008 (UTC)
I have no objection to using Ramey's books as a source. Once someone has access to a relevant book, we can include the respective information. However, per WP:RS, Organizations and individuals that express views that are widely acknowledged as extremist should be used only as sources about themselves in articles about themselves or their activities, and any information used must be directly relevant to the subject and their cause of notability. Chirobase is an organization that expresses extremist views, and should not be used as a source here.DigitalC (talk) 03:08, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
However, per WP:SPS, Ramey is a notable expert on this specific topic. QuackGuru 03:24, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
This source is not self-published, and therefore WP:SPS does not apply. Further, given that the chapter in his book on Veterniary Chiropractic is apparently? written by Keating, and afaik he has not written about Veterinary Chiropractic, let alone the SAFETY of such, he is not a notable expert on this specific topic.DigitalC (talk) 04:33, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
According to Slp1: Self-published does not mean it has be be published on Ramey's website. See WP:SPS for the lists of content it includes (self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources.) In this case, self-published means Ramey wrote something and somebody hosted it for him. But once again, I have pointed out that there are several, clearly reliable sources for the safety issue which still have not been included in the article. It seems more and more to me that people are arguing about this particularly source because they want to keep what they see as 'negative' content out of the article, rather than being committed to a well-rounded article that presents all the notable, reliably sourced content in a NPOV way as they should.[18]
According to Slp1: CorticoSpinal seems confident that Ramey should not be considered expert in the field. However, I disagree. He has written two recent books (1999, 2004) on the subject of alternative/complimentary vet medicine published by reputable publishers, has written at least two articles in peer reviewed journals on the same subject [19] as well many other books, including a 2007 book on evidence based practice in the field. He has also been on the AVMA committee responsible for the guidelines of use of alternative/complimentary vet medicine. It is clear to me that he meets the bar as an expert in the field whose opinion is notable. As I said before, it would be better to use his peer-reviewed books/journal article as sources, however. If you think his opinion has been supplanted/updated by recent research than you should argue that on the talkpage, though my personal take would be that the very small studies reported currently in the article, both of which clearly suggest that further research is needed, are not a slamdunk showing that Ramey is out of date.[20]
The external observer at the WP:RSN made clear and very convincing arguments. Thanks. QuackGuru 04:55, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
I read slp1's comments there, and there was no need for you to repost them here. "(self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources.)" - this source does NOT fall into any of those categories. Again, this source is NOT self published, and does not fall under WP:SPS.DigitalC (talk) 05:52, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Hey QG, I don't think anyones saying "Ramey's not a reliable source". I think their saying "use his book and not the quackwatch.com website" as the reference.--Hughgr (talk) 05:39, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Here is a letter critical of veterinary chiropractic in the Canadian Veterinary Journal 3/2000) co-signed by Ramey, Keating, Imrie and Bowles. "There is undoubtedly some degree of risk associated even with skilled manipulation in animals and such risk…may be increased in the presence of...equine cervical vertebral malformation and canine intervertebral disk disease." http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1476304&pageindex=1 --—CynRN (Talk) 23:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Perfect! Again, good find Cyn.DigitalC (talk) 05:01, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing, DigC! Maybe the above quote could replace the contentious Ramey quote from the Chirobase article.--—CynRN (Talk) 17:48, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Looks good to me. I assume the other signatories are relevant? Jefffire (talk) 17:53, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
Since this letter was a reply to the research of Taylor and Romano, I think we wwould be remiss in not including the conclusion of said research here as well. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:33, 15 May 2008 (UTC)
The article by Taylor and Romano was not 'research'. It was a detailed article describing their practice of vet. chiropractic. There is a long explanation of the Vertebral Subluxation Complex and how this is affected by manual manipulation or use of the activator. They make some extraordinary claims for the benefit of treatment, i.e. "Any organ pathology is potentially associated with spinal subluxation". No wonder several veterinarians, and even noted chiropractic historian Keating, wrote to the Canadian Vet Journal to caution against uncritical acceptance of veterinary chiropractic. The article already talks very positively about veterinary chiropractic. I wanted to see a little balance added to the mix.[7]--—CynRN (Talk) 00:38, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe I am misreading it, but is the response from Ramey and pals research? I though it was basically just a letter to the editor type thing. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:43, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
No, it is not research, and neither should be going into the "Research" section - however for Safety I think it is fine. However, this citation somes from a reliable source, unlike the chirobase one.DigitalC (talk) 01:12, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
If you feel comfortable with it, then so do I. It certainly is a better source than what we have now. Thanks! -- Levine2112 discuss 01:13, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] modality versus profession

I can see an argument that we are dealing with a profession and not a modality. Research into the effectiveness of specific modalities may be better suited for articles about these modalities rather than this one. QuackGuru 20:00, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

You are right, it may be a reasonable argument to remove the whole section. Thoughts from the community on this? -- Levine2112 discuss 01:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
I would argue that it isn't really a modality, or a profession. I wouldn't think it is a modality because an animal chiropractor may use more than just SMT, which would be the modality. However, a DVM that does animal chiropractic still may also use regular veterinary techniques, and a DC/DO using animal chiropractic may still treat humans. I guess I would consider it a specialty?DigitalC (talk) 04:09, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
It seems there is a reasonable argument to remove the research section and there has been a reasonable argument to expand it too. QuackGuru 16:10, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
Slow down. We're not there yet. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:41, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
We are almost there. No strong objections have been made. Can we remove it now or maybe it can be expanded. Is that okay with you. QuackGuru 19:56, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
QG, please stop with these style of comments. There is no rush, and no deadline. Levine clearly just DID object to the removal of the research, so it is untruthful to suggest there have been no objections.DigitalC (talk) 01:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
If I may, what is your position on the research. QuackGuru 01:43, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
In what regard? I don't think I have access to the full text of these publications, but I did just check the abstracts, and made a change to the article to reflect the findings of the second paper.DigitalC (talk) 01:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Is there any more sources available on effectiveness we can use. QuackGuru 03:45, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Again, I am not looking at sources for effectiveness, but any research into the profession. I have not come across any other sources.DigitalC (talk) 05:33, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
Maybe books can help. There are books on the subject matter. QuackGuru 05:35, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
I have tried to access the books online, with no success. I will check the local library, but doubt I will have much luck digging anything up.DigitalC (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC) - As I figured, no luck over at the local library (Ramey), but will keep my eyes open.DigitalC (talk) 23:16, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Here are guidelines from the American Animal Hospital Assoc. re. safety and effectiveness:AAHA/AAFP Pain Management Guidelines For Dogs & Cats, The American Animal Hospital,Association and the AmericanAssociation of Feline Practitioners, JOURNAL of the American Animal Hospital Association, September/October 2007, Vol. 43: "Although chiropractic intervention occasionally has been used to treat chronic pain, chiropractic methods potentially can cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force. Currently there are no clear standards for when chiropractic intervention should be applied or who is qualified to use chiropractic manipulations. Practitioners who have received formal training in animal chiropractic manipulation (typically 100–140 contact hours) report positive results in their patients experiencing chronic pain. There is currently insufficient published evidence of efficacy in dogs and cats to makespecific recommendations about the use of chiropractic intervention." It seems that caution is being advised by this group.http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RxDz2Tfeq4UJ:www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/PainManagementGuidelines.pdf+animal+chiropractic+contraindications&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us --—CynRN (Talk) 22:48, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Good find Cyn. DigitalC (talk) 22:50, 12 May 2008 (UTC)
http://www.jaaha.org/cgi/content/abstract/43/5/235 Here is an abstract of the article. Perhaps this can be added to the ref. QuackGuru 16:23, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Candidate for Insertion: Safety

Chiropractic methods can potentially cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force.[8] In addition, there is some degree of risk associated with even skilled manipulation in animals as the potential for injury exists with any technique used.[9][10] Some sources claim that there is an increased risk in the presence of structural disease, such equine cervical vertebral malformation or canine intervertebral disk disease,[9] however other sources claim that veterinary chiropractic has been shown clinically to be safe and effective for those conditions.[10]

(Please post feedback below)

[edit] Safety: Comments

Here is a draft safety section based on the references provided above. The unreliable chirobase article was not used.DigitalC (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

This is an improvement. Is it "chiropractic methods" or "manual therapies". If it's SMT being questioned, let's say its SMT. If it's SMT by a chiropractor, let's call it chiropractic SMT. If it's complete care of a chiropractor (whole clinical encounter) let's call it chiropractic care. If we can be specific let's do so, if not then that's OK too. Bottom line is these sources are better and the writing is better. Support for inclusion. CorticoSpinal (talk) 05:40, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Hi CorticoSpinal, welcome back! The source says 'chiropractic methods' which one would assume to be manual therapy. Page 11 of the ref. The draft looks good, DigC.[11]--—CynRN (Talk) 05:52, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
"Although chiropractic intervention occasionally has been used to treat chronic pain, chiropractic methods potentially can cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force." - verbatim from source. I have no objection to changing it to "chiropractic treatment", or "chiropractic care".DigitalC (talk) 05:53, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
So long as chiropractic treatment does not equal EXCLUSIVELY SMT, and follows the holistic approach advocated by DCs, which is what the ACA said, than the word chiropractic can and should be used. Either way, this draft addresses a lot of the concerns from both proponents and opponents. It's NPOV and well sourced. No objections for inclusion we can always tinker with the details, if needed, in the future. Hopefully we can get a consensus here and move on. (CynRN, not too sure if it's good to be back; I can't say I missed the needless drama and my blood pressure had normalized!  ;) CorticoSpinal (talk) 06:01, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
From what I have seen, Vet chiro seems to be very subbie, and the treatment mainly consists of SMT. However, we need to follow the sources, and in this case the source doesn't say SMT. DigitalC (talk) 08:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
It would be unfortunate if veterinary chiropractic followed the straight/subbie route. That being said, I trust your judgment, so whatever you feel is reliable, NPOV and relevant include it. CorticoSpinal (talk) 21:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
This looks really solid. I assume it is intended to completely replace the Safety section in place now, yes? -- Levine2112 discuss 23:22, 16 May 2008 (UTC)
Fine, DigC has three sources worked in and it looks OK to me.--—CynRN (Talk) 08:25, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

"Other" is bad form. It should be attributed properly, otherwise it just looks weasel worded. Jefffire (talk) 08:33, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Words like however and claim is bad form. Attribution may help. QuackGuru 08:42, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
Disagreed with Jefffire and QG, DigiC, listen to CynRN the voice of reason. There's a lot of white noise occuring on these pages that need a good filter. The draft proposed is much stronger in both tone and content. You have my endorsement for the CfI to go in. CorticoSpinal (talk) 16:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
See WP:WEASEL Jefffire (talk) 18:55, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I just re-read WP:WEASEL and I still fail to see how that applies to words such as "other", or "however". We can change "claim" to "state". Would that help?DigitalC (talk) 23:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
"Other" is not mentioned, but it clearly falls into the same camp as "some people" etc. It's just an important consideration for encyclopedic style. Jefffire (talk) 07:28, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
My opinion of this is that it's another classic example of stonewalling by dogmatic skeptics. CorticoSpinal (talk) 23:37, 18 May 2008 (UTC)
I took out the "claims", hope that's OK. I also added a phrase into scope of practice re. need for diagnosis by veterinarian, but my ref. doesn't seem to work. Here is the ref: An insight into the AVMA Guidelines, Complementary and Alternative
Veterinary Medicine, VETERINARY MEDICINE TODAY, Alternative and Complementary Therapies Task Force, avmajournals.avma.org/doi/pdf/10.2460/javma.2001.218.1729.--—CynRN (Talk) 02:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
I've added in attribution to avoid weasel words. Also, the reply article is not giving me a working link. Could someone look into it? Jefffire (talk) 07:34, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Here it is:http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1476304 --—CynRN (Talk) 20:58, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
Grand. Jefffire (talk) 22:48, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

(outdent)Perhaps we have enough about safety, however, I picked up Alternative Therapies in the Horse, edited by David Ramey, with the veterinary chiropractic article by Joseph Keating,PhD. Pretty interesing...totally skeptical, of course! He decries the lack of scientific basis for the subluxation concept and chides Sharon Willoughby for promulgating the straight version of the subluxation. "Apparently no condition cannot be caused by a subluxation, yet the clinical usefulness of equine spinal manipulation has not been demonstrated." and "Injuries to horses from overly aggressive manipulations have been reported in the lay publications as well as by veterinarians. Manipulating the neck of a horse with an injured or deformed verebra carries the risk of severe and permanent harm to the spinal cord. Taking your horse's limbs past their normal range of motion is also potentially harmful." I'm not going to spring for Ramey's newer book!--—CynRN (Talk) 05:53, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for going to the effort of picking this up Cyn. Is there anything in it that you think would add to a) the article or b) the safety section in particular? I think the subluxation bit is interesting, although I'm not sure how we would fit it into the article in a NPOV way? DigitalC (talk) 07:07, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
It could be interesting to point out that veterinary chiropractic is 'subbie' as you say. (That was a new term to me). I don't know what it would mean to the casual reader. I'll take a look in the morning.--—CynRN (Talk) 08:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] References

  1. ^ David W. Ramey. Veterinary Chiropractic. Retrieved on 2008-04-15.
  2. ^ http://www.dvmnews.com/dvm/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=41322
  3. ^ Sullivan KA, Hill AE, Haussler KK (2008). "The effects of chiropractic, massage and phenylbutazone on spinal mechanical nociceptive thresholds in horses without clinical signs". Equine Vet J 40 (1): 14-20. PMID 18083655. 
  4. ^ Gomez Alvarez CB, L'ami JJ, Moffat D, Back W, van Weeren PR (2008). "Effect of chiropractic manipulations on the kinematics of back and limbs in horses with clinically diagnosed back problems". Equine Vet J 40 (2): 153-9. PMID 18089466. 
  5. ^ Insert footnote text here
  6. ^ http://www.amazon.com/gp/reader/0813826160/ref=sib_dp_pt#reader-link
  7. ^ http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/pagerender.fcgi?artid=1539824&pageindex=1#page
  8. ^ http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RxDz2Tfeq4UJ:www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/PainManagementGuidelines.pdf+animal+chiropractic+contraindications&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us
  9. ^ a b Ramey, D.; Keating Jr, J.C.; Imrie, R.; Bowles, D. (2000). "Claims for veterinary chiropractic unjustified.". The Canadian Veterinary Journal 41 (3): 169. 
  10. ^ a b Taylor, L.; Romano, L. (2000). "Claims for veterinary chiropractic unjustified—A reply". Can Vet J 41 (3): 169-170. 
  11. ^ http://209.85.173.104/search?q=cache:RxDz2Tfeq4UJ:www.aahanet.org/PublicDocuments/PainManagementGuidelines.pdf+animal+chiropractic+contraindications&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=35&gl=us