Chiropractic/Archive 1

{{atnhead}}

"New comments at the bottom please"

RK, as I said on your talk page, I have no viewpoint on this subject. But I am ""'not""' going to let you get away with such terms as "mysterious" and "unidentifiable". That is hardly NPOV. -- Zoe

Do not lie. The subluxation is very mysterious, as it is a scientific fact that it is unidentifiable. No scientist or medical doctor has ever seen such chirpractic subluxations, ever. There is a difference between having differents points of view on a phenomenon, and lying about facts that you are uncomfortable with. Sadly, you have crossed that line. RK

Zoe, I am still willing to work with you. But what you are doing now verges on vandalism. Stop pushing this pseudoscientific religious belief as some sort of scientific fact. Your continued refusal to discuss the issue, your huge deletions, and the way you hide facts that make you uncomfortable identify you as a vandal. Is this what you want? If you think that particular facts need some context, or needs to be rewritten in a different way, then fine. Let's work together. But I won't let people push pseudoscientific and religious beliefs as facts. That is a violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. RK

Wow. This is the first time I've had any particular dealings with you, RK, and I don't see why we can't work together on this. I have no intention of leaving the Wikipedia, but the use of the terminology that you use is hardly NPOV. Please tell me what is NPOV about "mysterious and unidentifiable." As I keep telling you, I have NO POV on this subject, but you obviously do, and it isn't letting you remain neutral. A disagreement is not vandalism, and you know it. -- Zoe

"Unidentifiable" is fine, I think, but "mysterious" is definitely not.

Whoever claimed that disagreements are vandalism? Not I. But wiping out 75% of an article at first looked a bit like vandalism! I just don't think you have yet responded to my specific points, nor to the points in the material which I added. (Material, by the way, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of medical doctors and scientists!) This subject is a scientific, historic and religious issue, but you seem to be overlooking the science, and even Palmer's own 18th century religious views. What is left? A discussion of "your" own theory of chiropractice. RK

I've taken it to the mailing list, where others with less of an axe to grind can see if you or I is more NPOV. -- Zoe

Subluxation is a simple term... if you guys actually looked it up in a dictionary.. its meaning is given... no doubt its used in pseudo-science variants of chiropractive medicine as well as the legitimate ones. For the rest of the article, deal with chiropractic medicine as a science and as a healing art, and leave all extra-ordinary claims for a subheader of 'pseudoscience' or non-scientific healing arts, etc...-SV

Should your changes be ported to the subluxation article, too? Stephen C. Carlson SCCarlson

A discrace

The article as it stands is "way" out of line. As it stands, it's a disgrace to Wikipedia. It reads like chiropody is some kind of weirdo cult. We are talking about a branch of medicine that had thousands of practioners in dozens, maybe hundreds of countries around the world, that is regulated by governments to ensure profesional standards (just like dentistry, to name only one), that is taught as a five year course in outstanding universities like RMIT and the University of Sydney, that health care insuracnce funds and government medical subsidies pay out for as a matter of routine, that general practictioners refer paitents to as routine. Better to nuke the page and start afresh. Tannin15:12 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Sorry, but what you call "way out of line" is called by the rest of us mainstream science. You obviously have littlke knowlesdge of the field or of the scientific method. Please underatand: These are not just about Palmer's bizarre religious claims (which I will amplify, because no one here seems to know "anything" about them) but rather, about the physical and medical claims that are being made by chiropracters. We cannot allow people to push pseudo-scientific claims and religious claims as facts. That violates our NPOV policy. I do note that your response to me ignores every one of the facts I mentioned; your argument is only that it "must" be reliable because thousands of people are involved in it. That is nonsense. If that were true, then we'd still be using leeches to treat the flu, because "thousands of doctors" do it! RK

And the original article (some paragraphs of which we still have) appears to have been take from http://www.straightchiropractic.com/language_of_straight_chiropracti.htm.

Tannin is right; we have no article now.

-- Toby Bartels Toby 19:25 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Uh, permission was explicitly given to use this information! Please don't falsely accuse me of copyright infringement. RK

Glad to hear it. It's good practice to document that fact on the talk page. Of course, I never actually accused anybody of copyright infringement, since I didn't know for sure. And I certainly didn't accuse "you", unless you're 213.65.123.104. -- Toby Bartels Toby 05:56 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Bibliography

I don't have a problem with including a bibliography on the dangers of chiropractic, but this bibliography is almost 20 years out of date! The newest article is from 1984. Since the bibliography is found in the link to the 1985 article, I'm removing the bibliography but would not object to listing more recent literature (e.g. after 1990). Stephen C. Carlson SCCarlson 19:23 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

I am reverting this deletion. This is science and medicine, not politics. Real scientific papers always quote previous works as well as current ones. Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? I have. Have you read over a hundred such papers? I have. This is how it is done. Old food goes stale; that is not necesarily true for scientific studies. RK

Actually, I'm in the process of preparing an article for submission to a peer-reviewed biological journal, and, of the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles I've read for my research, for the life of me, I cannot recall a single article whose most recent reference is 19 years old. Perhaps, you could help matters by citing a peer-reviewed article in medicine or biology that did "'not"' cite a single reference that was published within 10 years of its publication date? Stephen C. Carlson SCCarlson

Please do not criticise ridiculous distortions of my actual statements. I "never" claimed that many new research papers had references that were always at least 10 or 20 years old. Your mockery does not further the discussion of this article. The point is this: the bibliography I submitted was partial, like everything on "all" Wikipedia articles. Like all our articles, this entry could use a more updated bibliography, and as time goes by, it will get one. If one wants to help, then one should contribute more up-to-date references. There is no need to delete everything old. Think of what that would do to the bibliography on organ transplants, or special relativity, none of which make any sense without references to decades old articles. RK

Thanks for updating the bibliography to make it more current. As for "ridiculous distortions," please take a bit more care in reading my words because no such distortions were intended or reasonably inferred. In fact, I would suggest that fewer edit wars would break out if we all were to read and interpret each other's remarks in a more collegial manner. Stephen C. Carlson SCCarlson

RK: Maybe you should stick to writing scientific papers and leave WP to other, more cooperative people. (By the way, if you remove, alter, or misinterpret this comment, I'll email Jimbo and have you banned.) Chris mahan Christopher Mahan

Indeed I do know very little about chiropractic, but I can tell a POV hatchet job when I see one. We are talking about a branch of medical treatment that may or may not have an interesting past, but is, in the modern world, unquestionably both reputable and common. Alas, I have no more knowledge of chiropractic than I have of dentistry, so I cannot be the one to replace this ridiculously biased entry with a better one, but I certainly hope that someone steps forward to do it. Tannin22:33 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC)

Don't expect any help from me. Chiropractic medicine is in my mind as scientific as astrology. Here's another external link for you guys to look up: http://www.chirowatch.com/ -- Tim Starling02:09 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Please RK, set forth under References at the bottom of the page the sources of each assertion. If there is significantly useful material a user could find on the subject please put it in a section called Further Reading. At the bottom of the page along with Further Reading and Reference please make a 3rd section called External Links. Fred Bauder01:44 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Alright, I'm stopping by here from the mailing list. Here's my outlook. Chiropractic medicine has some scientific elements as well as some holistic elements to it. However, to say that it is mysterious, cultlike, or that it has no scientific backing is very NPOV. An overwhelming percentage of the population respects chiropractic medicine as being medically useful, and they believe in its efficacy. Being that there are a lot of these people, they are not in conspiracy, and are not total kooks, that opinion should be represented to counter-balance what seems to be an also widely-held belief that Chiropractic medicine is largely holistic and non-scientific. Cprompt cprompt 04:55 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

Cprompt, it is a "'scientific fact"' that chiropractic theory has no basis , and no proof. That is not debateable. In fact, multiple Nobel prize winners in science have pointed this out. Please don't accuse me of NPOV violations for mentioning scientific facts. I agree with you that millions of people claim that this method helps them. So what? Millions of people also claim that praying to angels or to God gives them miracle cures. The same amount of evidence exists for these claims as well. Perhaps you are confusing medical spinal maipulation with chiropractice; they are "not" the same thing. Chiropracters are free to make all the claims they like, but medical scientists have never found any support for them. RK

You may cite your scientific facts, and proofs. However, the article as I last read it was definately asserting that your opinion (even if it is the opinion of educated doctors and members of the medical community) is correct, and only quacks and kooks believe in it. Personally, I believe that angels and gods do not exist. However, I'll agree that the articles God and Angel is definately NPOV. The recent edits by Fred Bauder (Mar 16-17) seem to be closer to NPOV.

That's fine by me. I have no problem with you or him changing what I wrote. I state my case, you state yours, and over time the article evolves towards something better. Your points are well taken. However, I did not mean to say that only quacks and kooks believe in it. I agree that millions of people have been led to believe that there is serious scientific basis for chiropractic theory. However, mainstream scientists hold that its adherents are mistaken; many people accuse the industry of promoting quackery. This is especially critical to note when we are dealing with a field which - up until recently - denied that germs cause disease! However, if you want to change what I wrote, please do so. I recognize this is a cooperative effort. RK

From the article NPOV:

1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.

Cprompt cprompt

"'How come there's nothing in here about osteopathy?"'

My impression is that both osteopathy and chiropractic are organized around spine manipulation, both started from the same roots in Andrew Still and that chiropractic went down one path (advertising: "If your spine's in line everything's fine") while osteopathy went the other (the only alternative medicine ever to get into the big tent). Crude typology to be sure, but there should be some compare and contrast in both these articles, and maybe a better article on the spine too. Ortolan8822:26 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC)

There is a link to osteopathy through the link to manipulative therapy, next time I do a revert I'll try to put a link to osteopathy in. I found a phrase that seemed to link all the hands on therapies together while researching this, but have forgotten it. The idea of a better article on the spine is good. Fred Bauder15:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

It is a "'fact"' that merely manipulating the spine, or other bones, is not chiropractice. In fact, I've met some medical doctors who would feel that they would be victims of slander if it was said that they were chiropractors. So why is it being labeled a "POV violation" when I try to point out this common mistake? They aren't the same thing, no matter who chiropractic-apologists would like people to believe. Also, take a look at the material at the beginning which keeps getting deleted: Doctors write medical reports saying that there is some evidence that non-chiropractic spinal manipulation had medical benefits, but they are angry that chiropractors dishonestly claim that these reports support chiropractice. Yet this disclaimer keeps getting erased...and someone keeps proving this point by taking a quote out-of-context in precisely the same way! "That" is not intellectually honest. RK

Fred, stop your reverts right now. ou are doing something intellectually dishonest. You are linking to an article which attacks chiropractice as fradulent, you take one sentence of it out of context, and then present this article as "support" for chiropractice. Did you even read what you are linking to? That entire article says that there is "'no support"' for chiropractic at all, and that the only support is for non-chiropractic spinal manipulation. Your reverts and edits imply that the article says the exact opposite. It doesn't. RK

It is my intention (admittedly an impossibility) to write an article with both points out the benefits of chiropractic medicine and fully incorporates criticisms of it. The article cannot say there is "no support" for chiropractic, but that there is sphere within which it is useful. Fred Bauder15:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC)

Fred, your latest actions have crossed the line. You are now committing academic fraud. You keep citing a paper that attacks chiropractice as frauduent and falsely claim that this article offers "support" for chiropractice. My previous comments to you noted this error, but your continued reversions of the article, and your repetition of this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume that you are deliberately lying. If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report that supports chiropractic theory, fine. But no one has the right to lie about the views of people who are against chiropractice, and who explicitly and repeatedly write that it has no medical support. That is grossly dishonest. RK

As long as this discussion is confined to only chiropractic and only this article, it can never end.

What we need:

A good article on the spine and its possible contribution to health problems.

A good article on back problems, their prevalence, degree to which they are psychosomatic.

A good historical article on the 19th century history of Still and Palmer and the diverging paths of osteopathy and chiropractic, relationship to orthpedic surgery, other medical disciplines

Then, good articles on osteopathy and chiropractic.

I don't have a horse in this race. I wouldn't go to either osteopath or chiropractor, but I am sure there is some fascinating social history behind the divergence of these disciplines, and the earlier acceptance of osteopaths and the recent acceptance of chiropractic. So, mark me down as curious, and disappointed at the lack of progress despite all the energy expended on this single article. Ortolan88

RK, once again I request that you stop labeling editing desputes "vandalism". Both you and Fred have particular points of view that are clashing. This is not vandalism; it's simply a problem achieving NPOV. So please, stop sounding the VANDALISM ALERT. -- Stephen Gilbert17:01 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC)

Tannin, I appreciate your reworking of this article into a more NPOV form, and I hope my additions don't bother you too much. In fact, if you want to change or edit my newest additions, that is fine by me, but I ask to you to understand why I am trying to make these clarifications. I agree that the American public at large views chiropractice as valid medicine, just like the Chinese public at large believes in Chi; however, that doesn't mean that some or all of these beliefs are considered valid by the medical stream. I removed one sentence, because the definition of chiropractic subluxations offered was incorrect. You used the "medical" definition of a subluxation, which the majority of chiropracters "disagree" with. I thus just kept the link to the Wikipedia article on subluxation, where it is described in more detail. I do not want to inadvertently ascribe beliefs to chiropracters that they reject. RK

Thankyou, RK. I didn't write that medical bit. I know nothing about the details of chiropractic (and while it would be interesting to learn a bit about it, I have a million other thgings I'd rather learn first). However I "do" know that it is very much a mainstream alternative health care method here in Australia, in NZ, and (I gather from my reading) in Canada too. Doubtless other places as well. By "mainstream alternative" I mean "not traditional medicine, but generally accepted". I am "'not"' talking about public opinion here - I've never seen a poll on this. I'm talking about "governments" - bodies which are notoriously loath to spend a penny that they can't justify, especially when it comes to health budgets.

I can walk into a chiropractor's office on Monday morning with a back problem, show my medicaire card, and the "government" pays for it. Well, some of it - they are stingy and our "free" medicine means "we will pay about half or two-thirds of the bill, you have to put your hand in your pocket for the rest". (This applies, of course, to all forms of treatment - the chiropractor, the opthalmologist, the GP, the brain surgeon, whatever. Except dentists: you have to pay 100% of the dentist's bill. Dentistry, it seems, is considered less vital to health than chiropractic. I have no idea why.) Tannin16:02 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC)

In the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskawtuen (sp!) Ontario and ... er ... where is "MB?" ... chairopractic care is paid for. In the other provinces, it's not funded.

And "of course" doctors oppose it. Ford opposes General Motors, doesn't it?

Now undoubtedly some of that opposition is genine and motivated by care for patients. But it's stretching credulity to breaking point to believe that all of it is. Asking MDs to judge chiropractic is like asking your wife to comment on your mistress.

For example, in Australia, the ACCC (government consumer watchdog fair trading authority - watches out for corporate fraud and consumer rip-offs) ruled that the Australian Medical Association was in breach of the law. Although the AMA had removed written policies against chiropractic, it was still stopping its members from cooperating with chiropractors by acting as if ethical restraints existed. The ACCC required the AMA to publicly remove opposition to chiropractic within six months or face legal action, and put aside $2,000,000 to prosecute the case. Eventually, the AMA backed down. Tannin

The new disclaimer is an appropriate thing to have. The old one was way over the top. Tannin

I can't take credit for it, it is simply the standard medical disclaimer. -º¡º

I am extremely unhappy with Fred Bauder's constant changes. Its not his point of view which bothers me; it is his disreagrd for facts. I am especially disturbed by his misleading and inaccurate definitions of subluxations, and his false claim that chiropractice is about spinal health. The latter claim bears no resemblance to reality. We are forced to keep re-editing everything he writes, because he is not only wrong, he is misrepresenting the beliefs of chiropracters themselves. I find it ironic that an apparently pro-chiropractic advocate ends up distorting their beliefs to make them appear more mainstream, while an advocate of science is forced to state the chiropractic theory accurately and in its historical context. RK

Stephen C. Carlson, please take the time to read this talk page, and please stop your reversions. This article needs to develop through adding more text that is accurate, and through discussions to insure our NPOV policy. I am more than willing to work with you, or most other people, to do this. I fear that you totally misunderstand what is going on here: The current dispute isn't about POV (point of view). Some people are pro-chiropractic, some are not. That's fine. The problem here is that Fred Bauder is deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs of chiropracters to such a large degree that he effectively is lying. He is stating falsehoods about what chiropracters believe in, what they term subluxations, and what they intend to do, and is deliberately pretending that non-chiropractic medical spinal manipulation is the same thing as chiropractic medicine. It isn't, and even chiropracters themselves say so. Fred is a zealous pro-chiropractic missionary, but he is ignorant of the subject, and thus misrepresents "their own" point of view! If you think there is something that needs to be added, then please do so...but stop the revisions, which end up pushing Fred Bauder's demonstratably false claims. RK

All very interesting, but upon examination of the article you reverted, I don't see much of any representation of what chiropracters (I assume D.C.'s) believe, much less the alleged misrepresentations you are talking about. The article has changed considerably, and I hope you read the current text of the article more closely and bring up specific issues in the current text of the article rather than rehashing issues that may be more relevant to some older version of the aricle. I did add much material, and you reverted it, despite my attempt to accommodate some of your views. A lot of work has gone into producing an NPOV article and your reversions to a what looks like a much older version are not helping. Stephen C. Carlson SCCarlson

"MB" is, I believe, Manitoba -- right there between Ontario and Saskatchewan. Jaknouse jaknouse 03:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC)

I haven't waded through all the above, but I'll just say two things before I study it:

be nice to each other, and

remember the magic words "premise" and "viewpoint"

--Ed Poor Uncle Ed 21:36 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

First and third paragraphs are too similar, needs rewritting.

kleindoc; 7/27/03. It seems a shame to blot out the previous article. The research was excellent and the writing erudite. However, the discussion focused on a fringe argument rather than the major issues. We live in a pragmatic (rather than ideologic) world. Who cares what Chiropractors believe. People go to a chiropractor when they are hurting. Why should we try to convince people that our model of human physiology is better? Why do Chiropractors feel the need to respond when some MD has a hard-on and calls us a name? Why does that MD feel the need to set the world straight about us? The bottom line is that we know spinal manipulation best and that sometimes spinal manipulation is the best thing for the patient. We are the best at what what we do.

The beliefs of chiropractors "are" important. They're important because I (and others) are interested to read about them. This an encyclopedia, not a pamphlet collection. -- Tim Starling15:00, Aug 2, 2003 (UTC)

Requests for comments on RK

Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK has been created as structured way to gather support in the Wikipedian community for action to be taken against user:RK for his consistent use of aggressive editing tactics that are counter productive to the development of high quality encyclopedic articles. Now, is your chance to voice your grievances against user:RK.

Please take a few minutes of your time to air your comments. Feel free to expand the list of problem areas by adding problems or grievences of your own. At least two users must document and certify my efforts in Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK. If the listing is not certified within 48 hours of listing, it will be removed. -- Mr-Natural-Health John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 14:20, 12 Apr 2004 (UTC)

After deletion by User:RK I have restored this section so that this issue can be aired out. Fred Bauder03:08, Apr 13, 2004 (UTC)