As I recall, you were strongly influenced to accept the misleading arguments of editors who wished to keep any mention of reform in any form out of the article. They used specious arguments, and nothing could cause you to see through them. Even the fact that the whole controversial history, right from the beginnings of the profession, has received lots of notable coverage in chiropractic and other literature, and we have a well-sourced (using just a few of the available sources) article about the NACM, the subject is ignored. (It makes no difference whether the NACM is active or not anymore.) We gave up on you as a reliable editor on this point. On this point you went over to the dark side. I wish you would do some study on the subject.