Chiropractic/Archive 12

{{atnhead}}

Not worldwide view

The opening statement

"It is now licensed in every state in the United States and practiced in more than 100 countries"

does not represent an international view; it equates a state of the US with a country anywhere else, which is a view which diminishes the importance of other nations and as such could be offensive. Rephrased accordingly. Graldensblud18:01, 20 February 2007 (UTC)

Good edit, thanks. -- Dematt Dēmatt 01:24, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

I notice someone put the US back in; I've removed it. You were right, and your edit were good. Garik garik 22:54, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Added quote

(Copied from above)After reviewing Strangs book for "auditory" below, I came across this. I couldn't find a ref online so I'll type what he quoted for review. This is a quote by Joseph Janse of National Chiropractic College in 1976 titled "The Wholistic Concept of Health Care Management", found in V. Strangs book called Principles and Practice of Chiropractic p.26

"Unless pathology is demonstrable under the microscope, as in the laboratory or by roentgenograms, to them allopaths it does not exist. For years the progressive minds in chiropractic have pointed out this deficiency. With emphasis they chiropractors have maintained the fact that prevention is so much more effective than attempts at a cure. They pioneered the all-important principle that effective eradication of disease is accomplished only when it is in its functional (beginning) phase rather than its organic (terminal) stage. It has been their contention that in general the doctor, the therapist and the clinician have failed to realize exactly what is meant by disease processes, and have been satisfied to consider damaged organs as disease, and to think in terms of sick organs and not in terms of sick people. In other words, we have failed to contrast disease with health, and to trace the gradual deteriorization along the downward path, believing almost that mild departures from the physiological normal were of little consequence, until they were replaced by pathological changes..."

I couldn't find the original on the web, does anyone have access to it. I guess we could use Strang's, its a secondary ref. I guess that shows we "can" all get along :) What do ya'll think?--Hughgr08:05, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I think it is an important aspect in chiropractic thinking that is well stated an well referenced. I think it would go well in the chiropractic approach to healthcare section. We might need to paraphrase or quote the important aspects, or put the whole thing in quotes. See what you can do and we can work with it. --Dematt12:48, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you already did it:) What are you a mindreader? --Dematt12:52, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, and you are thirsty :) But you neglected to answer my above question :) how should we make the reference? Or is it good like it is?--Hughgr19:02, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

OMG YOU ARE RIGHT! Dang you are good.. and yes it needs sourcing if you don't want Fyslee to zap it:) --Dematt00:55, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, the source I used is V. Strang's book (see above), but it's a quote, so should we find the original or go with strang's as a secondary ref.....you make the call!--Hughgr02:09, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Prevention did not originate with chiropractic, nor is it unique to it. (There isn't much preventive medicine thinking in endless adjustments, which is a common practice.) The statement implies some things (the hidden straw man attacks on "allopaths") that are not true. It looks like anti-medical propaganda (woops, it is!).

Here's a rebuttal from G. Douglas Andersen, DC (who doesn't see much prevention of anything):

"Conversely, how many thousands of people have been turned off by those who practice with a "philosophy" geared toward overutilization driven by greed? Where is the literature to support the "catastrophic effects" the vast majority of the people on this planet supposedly suffer because they are not receiving regular manipulations? Where are the insurance studies to prove that people who go to the chiropractor 15 or 20 times a year, whether they have pain or not, have fewer injuries, less illness, longer lives, or lower health care costs?" "http://www.andersenchiro.com/Food%20for%20Thought%202000.htm Originally from Dynamic Chiropractic"

-- Fyslee20:44, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

He looks hipporcritical to me.http://www.andersenchiro.com/image6.jpg--Hughgr00:17, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you referring to that might be construed as hypocritical? -- Fyslee10:53, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Looks like we need to do some of those studies, huh. I wonder if they have them for Lipitor, yet;) --Dematt00:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the biggest problems are first defining health and second being able to measure health.--Hughgr02:06, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Manipulation vs Adjustment

I am a Tri I student at a Chiropractic college and I noticed that Manipulation has been subistuted for Adjustment with no differentiation made between the two. From my limited exposure to Chiropractic I have been taught that a difference exists between the two. A manipulation is, as defined in Gatterman's "Foundations of Chiropractic Subluxation" second revision pg 12, "a manual procedure that involves a directed thrust to move a joint past the physiological range of motion without exceeding the anatomic limit." Where as an adjustment is defined as "any chiropractic theraputic procedue that uses controlled force, leverage, direciton, amplitude, and velocity directed at specific joints or anatomical regions."

To me this shows a distiction which should be made clear in the article. A chiropractic adjustment is not a manipulation. An adjustment has a specific force, direction, and velocity as well as a specific contact. A person popping their own knuckles could be considered to be administering a manipulation because afterall the only prerequisites for performing a manipulation involve a thrust and moving the joint past the phsiological range of motion without surpassing the anatomic limit. That is something that should be made clear.91z4me01:58, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi 91z4me, the distinction your seeking is on the Spinal adjustment article. While I agree with your sentiment, an effort is being made to reduce this pages total size, we can't put everything we want on this one page. :)--Hughgr02:20, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

I definitely agree you need to bring that to the spinal adjustment page to help differentiate the two. --Dematt04:00, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome 91z4me. You are right. There really should be a separate article for Joint manipulation, where the chiropractic "'intention"' (correction of VS) is not included (which is often the only difference). Right now the Spinal adjustment article is the place to make distinctions. The broad definition of manipulation you cite can certainly include non-specific movements, but in practice (for non-DCs) the practice is usually very specific, including specific force, direction, velocity, and specific contact. It involves "controlled force, leverage, direciton, amplitude, and velocity directed at specific joints or anatomical regions," the only difference (from chiropractic) being the intention and the indications and contraindications. -- Fyslee11:02, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, now you can check out the new article - Joint manipulation. Much is contained in the Spinal adjustment article, but I have added more refs and information, as well as making sure that readers understand that the risks apply to all professions using manipulation/adjustment, not just to chiropractors, even though they are using it 95%(?) of the time. Some of what I have added there can also be used in the Spinal adjustment article. -- Fyslee16:15, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

new lead

Trying to make the lead representative of the article. I think all that needs to be added is the science section (VS is covered in the first paragraph). Good luck on coming up with something everybody can agree upon. :) --Hughgr05:52, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

PS-I know you like it Fyslee but I hate having a reference section on the talk page. :) I vote to remove it. --Hughgr05:54, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The only reason I like having it here is when the talk page is used for its intended purpose - to work on proposed text in the article. This way we can see if the refs actually work and discuss them. When the talk page is used as a discussion group, the section is irrelevant.

Otherwise your work on the lead is a definite improvement. -- Fyslee10:07, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Cooperation

Things are not going so well on the PS article due to some rather silly and short-sighted arbitration inducing behaviour of some editors. I just added some information to this article that I realize some editor here will not like very much. I will remove it myself if things go more smoothly on the PS article. I trust editors here can cooperate. KrishnaVindaloo09:16, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

History

It is known to many within the field of health care that DD Palmer was a "magnetic healer" and obtained his knowledge of musculoskeletal manipulation by posing as a patient of AT Still, MD, the founder of Osteopathy. Chiropractors and their established associations do not like to admit this for some reason, perhaps historic rivalry; however, from an objective point of view, this should be mentioned. jkhamlin 2006-12-30 T 03:02 UTC

Hey jkhamlin, thanks for your help. If you look through the archives, you'll see that there was some discussion on this several months ago and the difficulty was with finding a verifiable and reliable source. So far all we have seems to counterweigh each other to the point that all we can reliably say is that Still had the similar idea first and then DD "came up" with his idea. I think the Chiropractic history article states that in a neutral tone that allows the reader to draw their own conclusions. I'm not sure that it matters in the long haul as osteopathy in the USA has pretty much disavowed those beginnings anyway. Those that hold to their original concepts pretty much stand on the same footing as DCs and their is mutual respect. If you look through the detailed histories, osteopaths used the word subluxation and manipulation to describe organs, muscles, and all the various soft tissues that they "manipulated" as well as Still using his "lightening" bonesetting skills. Of course there is Still's assertion that the "supremacy of the artery" was what he was working with - and it makes more sense when using those terms with the soft tissues. DD's refinement was to reduce it to the spine and "supremacy of the nerve". I'm sure that was cause for heated debate and accusation, but that is another article - as this one has reached it's maximum length and we can't really do it justice in NPOV manner.

References (for whole page -- keep this section at bottom)

!--

See Wikipedia:Footnotes for an explanation of how to generate footnotes using the tags.

When the list becomes too long, it's probably time to archive half the page. When archiving, remember to COPY this code to the bottom of the new archive page.

--

rv anonymous user

Hello anonymous! Thanks for your concern for the chiropractic article. I have reverted your edits, not because they are inaccurate, but because I don't see them as saying anything different than what is already there other than it is slightly less encyclopedic. It would be helpful if you would go ahead and create a user name and lets discuss. Maybe we can find something that sounds good and accurate to both of us. I am not married to this version of the lead and am always looking for improvement. --Dematt15:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

I hate the use of the word "aiming" as it was in the version you reverted. It sound so uneducated, like "I am aiming to go hunt some squirrel for dinner." ;-) Levine211220:35, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Anonymous user, go ahead and make a user name and sign in. We need you. I'm a chiropractor. I'm not that hard to understand, though I do tend to ramble:) --Dematt16:39, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I've made a couple of copyedits to the intro. I didn't feel the "holistic" part read very well. I copied that part from the holistic page here on wikipedia. I also removed a little in the last para because it didn't flow very good. The reader can find more in that part of the article. --Hughgr07:20, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know guys... am I being unreasonable about "aim"? I'll go with whatever you guys think. --Dematt15:10, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm going to have to agree with anonymous here, although there may be a better wording. To claim that chiropractic aims to do these things is absolutely certain. That it literally does do these things is highly controversial. For such a wording to be NPoV there would need to be a more or less complete validation of Chiropractic (both straight and reform) by the medical community. Jefffire15:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I've had anouther go at rewording it, although I'm having trouble understanding why the previous version, even if slightly ugly, was prefered. I mean, firstly there is a very great deal of controversy that most chiropractics can even diagnose some of the musculature disorders they claim to. From investigations I've seen there seems to be a significant number claiming problems exist when there are none. It's also highly contested that they could treat or prevent those all those problems with the set of treatments they have available. I'm sorry if this seems a little condesending but I honestly can't see how you guys thought the previous version was NPoV. Jefffire12:53, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

The diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders is regarded as factual; hence the reform movement which is entire about finding and fixing mechanical disorders. It's the treatment of other ailments through vertebral realignment which has yet to win the minds of all. That being said, there is a rapidly growing amount of science supporting chiropractic's other claims. For instance, five years ago, many scientists wouldn't accept that chiropractic could help with migraines... now it is pretty much a given. If you'd like, I can point you to several resources with literally hundreds of pieces of scientific research and case studies detailing chiropractics effectiveness with a variety of medical conditions. Levine211217:45, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Please do provide them. To avoid controversy, please stick to the big names (eg. Nature, Science, Lanclet). Jefffire20:24, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I fully appreciate that you sincerely believe that Chiropractic does all these things, but it is disingenious to present it that way as long as there is notable contention. You may sincerly believe that that opposition is mistaken and/or biased, you may even be correct. But so long as they remain notable and influential then we still need to present that view. Jefffire12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Dematt raises the objection to the use of the word "aim" on the reasoning that the terms "diagose" and "treat" do not imply that a chiropracter can actually detect and rectify disorders. I disagree, on the grounds that they very much do imply that they can, even if the words themselves can be construed to mean otherwise. To illustrate by satire, I give the following ficticious Wikipedia intro in which I have decided to set up a heart clinic-

"'Jefffire is a Wikipedia editor who diagnoses and treats congenital heart defects."'

I propose that such a wording will leave a significant number of readers with the false understanding that I can literally tell who has a congenital heart defect, and can rectify it. Compare with a correctted version-

"'Jefffire is a Wikipedia editor who aims to diagnose and treat congenital heart defects."'

Now, by Dematt's reasoning, the two mean exactly the same thing. However, I think that with such a wording we eliminate the possibility of readers walking away with the false implication that I am a heart doctor.

Given that the worst objection to the term "aim" is that it may be considered superfluous, but that it dramatically increases the clarity of what is meant by the sentence, I would like to propose that the inclusion of the word "aim" is entirely the best move. Jefffire12:50, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

My humble reply to Jefffire, who suggests that adding the word 'aims' to:

"'Jefffire is a Wikipedia editor who aims to diagnoses and treat congenital heart defects."'

makes it more correct. I submit that it doesn't. All that is required is a verifiable and reliable source that states that he does. If I can't find one, I then delete the sentence. Otherwise, inserting the word 'aim' is not only superflous (I do like superfluous), but it is PoV, weasely, and nonsense (as anyone can diagnose and treat anything - these are not magic words reserved only for medicine). --Dematt15:33, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

That's overextending my analogy a little, don't you think? My point is that some readers will leave with the impression that it is certain that chiropracters can detect and rectify back problems. That may be completely true, but it isn't certain yet, and medical doubt still persists. That is why I prefer a different wording. Jefffire14:08, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I do understand what you are saying, but I disagree with your assessment that there is medical doubt that we can detect and rectify back problems, MDs don't disagree that we diagnose and treat back pain, and is what the Reforms want us to do - everyone agrees to that. It is that they are not convinced that there is any effect whatsoever on the nervous system that affects the organs. That is all that they disagree with. As far as diagnosing and treating musculoskeletal problems, we dot it. So the "aiming to" part is "aiming to effect the nervous system to improve general health." That is where the question is. IOWs, some readers are going to go away with whatever verifyable and reliable information is out there. --Dematt14:39, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

I would like to see verification that there is no significant medical doubt for diagnosis and rectification, as it has been put to me that there is by M.D's. Jefffire10:52, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Definition of diagnosis from Answers.com

Medicine:

The act or process of identifying or determining the nature and cause of a disease or injury through evaluation of patient history, examination, and review of laboratory data.

The opinion derived from such an evaluation.

Clarification of the question? Are you asking whether chiropractors diagnose, because as you see from the definition, a diagnosis is an opinion based on the history, exam, etc. I also assume that any medical doubt would be related to accuracy of that diagnosis (opinion). Is that what you are asking? Not sure what you mean by rectification? Do you mean treating that which was diagnosed? -- Dematt Dēmatt 13:57, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's confusing you here, but I would like a "Reliable Source", stating that "Medical Doctors", consider "Chiropracters" to be capable of reasonably accurately "Diagnosing" and "Treating" back disorders. Jefffire14:49, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

It's in the http://www.ama-assn.org/ama/pub/category/8332.html AMA's official policy for chiropractors: "A physician may refer a patient for "'diagnostic"' or therapeutic services to a chiropractor permitted by law to furnish such services whenever the physician believes that this may benefit his or her patient." Levine211219:00, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Intro and article suggestion

Hi all. I've been doing a fair bit of research on the subject recently, and so I would like to make a small suggestion. I think it would be useful to make the distinction between the reform school and the others much more clearly and definate from the very begining of the article, or even splitting the article. In my opinion the only similarity of reform to the other schools is the name chiropractic and the fact they deal with the back. It would seem to me fairly uncontroversial to detail the dubious nature of the practices and philosophy of the straight school, and to treat reform as a branch of physiotherapy that isn't fully tested yet. How does all this sound to everyone? Jefffire15:34, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not a totally bad idea, but the problem is that we have run out of space... How about we make articles for each of the different groups and let them explain each of their positions on their own pages, since each has different pros and cons? Whatcha think? --Dematt15:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think this situation is almost unique in Wikipedia. Turning this page into a disambigious to the different school might be inelegant, or even a PoV fork. Keeping it in its current form conflates two subjects which have vast differences. I strongly recommend substantial discussion by many parties of all view points. Jefffire16:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Not so much a disambiguation, but in the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ChiropracticPractice_styles_and_schools_of_thought Practice Styles and Schools of Thought section we can link to the different pages just like the Chiropractic history and Spinal adjustment. BTW, where have you found information on Reform group? I have been looking for a V and RS source that we can use for them. --Dematt17:24, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Am I wrong in stating that the "reform" group is miniscule in numbers (in the low hundreds). So small in fact, that its mere mention in this article is questionable in notability? Levine211218:02, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I think the thing to remember is that chiropractic covers a lot of ground - not just back pain, it treats all types of people with all kinds of conditions. No one technique is used by all chiropractors and not all chiropractors treat the same kind of conditions. You won't get 100,000 MDs to agree on anything much less 100,000 chiropractors. Heck, I just had a patient who brought in his hair analysis and Bart's homeopathic remedy his MD gave him - he was asking if I thought it was okay! Anyway - Every profession has a fringe reform group that is interested in pulling the profession in their direction - medicine had one in the 1920-40s that wanted the AMA to endorse the use of insurance companies. To actually organize as a Reform group, with a capitol R, is different. I don't think there is a group that is actually a Reform group. I think the NACM was at one time a viable group of chiropractors who teamed up with Barrett and NAHF (or whatever it is) and wrote what they wanted chiropractors to be - including writing prescriptions. The profession outright said no. Since then, I think the NACM could be considered ineffective as a chiropractic association if not outright defunct. However, I think a group of reform minded chiropractors, with a small r, remain and have been effective but more through the ACA and a circle who has been pushing for dropping the use of subluxation. Is that your take Jefffire? --Dematt18:33, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

I certainly couldn't have put it better. The numbers for the NACM are indeed low, and have been estimated (by the ACA, WCA, or ICA - I can't remember which) to be about the same as the membership numbers of the WCA (a fact conveniently ignored here), which has a lot more influence, much to the chagrine of large numbers of the scientifically oriented (reform -small "r") chiros, both in the rank and file, but also among professors and leadership, all of whom are considered "mainstream" chiros. The influence of these reformers is another matter, with internal struggles for influence in many areas caused by their very existence. Without them there would be no motivation for internal self-criticism, better research, or reform. Their influence with other medical professions and government representatives (for example the VA) is of course much greater than the straights, whose antics and rhetoric cause other professionals (and other chiros) to role their eyes in amazed disbelief that such people are actually members of a "profession," since the "mainstream" leadership's PR machine has lead the public to believe that such dinosaurs are extinct. Unfortunately they aren't. The WCA and ICA, Life U., Sherman, etc.., are very much alive and refusing to either reform or die. They will be the death of the profession if not contained by internal forces. Outside criticism isn't doing it. -- Fyslee18:59, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

That, too, is a fair assessment from a different POV. Of course, that assumes the end of the world doesn't come first and we find out that it was all controlled by a higher power after all! Wouldn't that be something;) --Dematt19:27, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

And to just to clarify this thread about NACM, I would have to agree more with Dematt. While Fyslee's curious interest and "concern" for the future of chiropractic is unusual for a PT, his conclusion that the NACM has been important in anything, is at best, IMO, pure wishful speculation. NACM holds no meetings, seminars, elections, nor does it reveal it's so-called membership or officers. History shows that this "secret society" has never made a single contribution (including funds) to research or colleges. I have been unable to find any of this, and have asked for it several times, but the result is nothing. The real danger signal that it is likely a sham is that of the four links on it's site, three transport you directly to ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett-owned anti-chiropractic attack sites, where donations, are of course, gladly accepted. So I guess it is just another branch of Stephen Barrett Enterprises. Does that give you a radioactive warning about NACM? Ya think? Steth18:41, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as disambiguation goes, the Osteopathy and Osteopathic medicine situation is similar. The proposed soluton above (short coverage here and linking to separate articles) is perfectly appropriate. It is only a POV fork if mention and linking is either miniscule or denied here. The LEADs from those articles could be used as the content for their mention here. That way the significant points of those articles is included here, with the detailed (and place consuming) explanations available for those interested in hopping to those main articles. -- Fyslee19:04, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Huh, well in my proximity the reforms appear to be in the majority, although there is a clinic which is definately in the pseudoscience wings nearby. Perhaps the ratio is the reverse in Britain than in the US? If the reforms are a tiny minority, then perhaps Chiropractic is best classified as a pseudoscience. Jefffire12:19, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Definitely not. On the contrary, chiropractic is one of the most scientific of all medicines... mainstream or alternative. Research is consistent and constantly ongoing. There are several scientific journals dedicated just to the research of chiropractic. And let's not forget that the AMA was found guilty of surpressing chiropractic research as far back as the 1950's and as recently as the 1990's (for the fear of competition). Generally, people get beeter with chiropractic treatment. It has one of the highest rates of patient satisfaction and the lowest rate of malpractice. Labelling chiropractic a pseudoscience is not only inaccurate, it is a great disservice to world health. Levine211217:50, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to what Levine2112 said in her response. Chiropractic research is constantly being conducted, just over a month ago I participated in a research study on heart rate variablility in relation to adjustments given by the Proadjuster insturment. Not only that but each student must conduct their own research study prior to graduation. Given that my school has over 800 students and graduates them in about 3 years that would mean that just student research will produce 2400 research studies approximately every 3 years. And that is just 1 school out of the 15+ in the US. Also lets not forget the overseas research that occurs with Chiropractic. So before Chiropractic is called a psuedoscience due to lack of research people should probably do their own research.91z4me23:04, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Jefffire, I think you just made the point I have been trying to make since I started here. Most chiropractors have reformed (with a small r) already. Whether the Reformers had anything to do with it, I really don't know. The really funny thing is that now that we have reformed, more MDs are starting to do alternative medicine. This week I had a patient come in and ask me if the hair analysis and Bart's homeopathic remedy that his MD gave him were okay?? I stopped doing that stuff in the 1980's because it didn't work! Go figure??? I told him that if his MD told him to use it, by all means use it. We have to be careful which kettle we're calling black. We are all trying to help people the best we know how. We continue to look for new and better ways. Without large budgets of money, we depend a lot on case studies and talk amongst ourselves about what does and what doesn't work. And you know what, all statistics show that chiropractic patients are the most satisfied patients. It's not because we have dynamic personalities, because I am really kinda dry, it's because they get what they came for, relief from their problem at a fair price. The only reason we might be a little confused is because instead of getting the pat on the back that we should deserve, we get slapped with PS and quackery labels. Maybe those who put us there either have alternative motives or are just falling inline with the rest, I don't know for sure, because most people have no idea what we do, but are really happy to give us their opinion of whatever it is. --Dematt04:09, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree, Dematt. I think your personality is rather sparkling! The relics who hate chiropractic are a few obsessively whacked-out PTs and quacky old MDs who have created a new career based on bigotry of others to keep the heat off their badly behaved collegues and their own issues at home. You would think with all the problems in their own fields, like being the number one killer of Americans with almost 800,000 victims http://www.lef.org/magazine/mag2004/mar2004_awsi_death_01.htm Death by Medicine, that they would devote their energy to cleaning up their own backyard. Today, even though one or two PTs are filled with intense chiro-hatred, PTs are falling all over themselves to become just like chiropractors, doing spinal manipulation. Problem is they just take a weekend course making them a danger to society. Just some thots. Steth04:42, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Those thoughts are logical fallacies. Tu quoque and Ad hominem combined, I believe. Jefffire20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Have you ever considered starting a blog? I think you could single handedly hold your own against all 6 of those guys. --Dematt05:06, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Whilst I would not accuse Dematt of pseudoscience, it is clear that a lot of his colleagues are guilty of the offense. I've personally seen Chiropracters offering their services as treatment for acne to teenagers, and its quite clear that is not based on science. It seems quiet clear that "innate intelligence" is unscientific, and according to my sources chiropractors are the number 1 prescribers of homeopathic treatments in the US, so something is amiss. Jefffire20:35, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

And again you make another great point, the distinction between chiropractic and the chiropractor. Chiropractic is the practice of treating vertebral subluxations (and this means different things to different DCs) for the purpose of maximizing function and therefore health. Some chiropractors and medical doctors may use other practices as adjucts to their care, there is nothing illegal about that. Certainly straights don't, but mixers might use something like homeopathy, but that is no more chiropractic than it is medicine. You can't condemn chiropractic for homeopathy's shortcomings. You can condemn homeopathy, and perhaps the chiropractor or MD who uses it, but that is not a reflection on the sciences of chiropractic or medicine. It would be a fallacy to say; A is a B, A uses C, C is quackery, A is a quack, therefore B is quackery. See what I mean. This article is about chiropractic. If we were to expand the "practice style section" then we can expound on who is likely to use what with the links (like homeopathy) without offending chiropractic itself. Then the other articles (like homeopathy) can discuss their shortcomings. --Dematt00:06, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

That's really not what I'm saying (it would also be a logical fallcy). My point is that at least a significant number of US chiropracter are not scientific, so to present the entire field (reform and straight) as scientific would be unwise.

I'd like to address anouther point. Levine claims that reform is a tiny minority (yet also claims that Chiropractic is "one of the most scientific of all medicines", suggesting to me a slight blind spot in logic). Dematt claims reform is the vast majority. Which is it? Jefffire12:14, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with point 1 above, and I think we can certainly do better to differentiate some here, then go ahead in the split articles to fight out the different points for each. It's just a matter of taking the time to do each.

For point 2, we have to be careful with how we use the word reform/Reform like I was saying at the beginning of this discussion. When I say that most DCs (and schools for that matter) have reformed to become more scientific and practice accordingly, I am not saying they are part of the the so-called Reform group that I think now is pretty much severely small because a lot of their ideas were incorporated in the ACA and some other groups, so their membership may have gone elsewhere. However, no-one has endorsed prescribing drugs, which was a Reform position - which is probably what killed them, along with their antichiropractic stance (I believe they wanted to start a field called orthopractic in the 1970s). So Levine and I are both saying that the "Reform group" is small yet the "reform in the direction of scientific practice" is big. So, in other words, they weren't all wrong, and there are still some out there pushing for drug prescribing, but I don't think it is going to pass in my lifetime - but miracles do happen. You can't say that Reform = science, DCs aren't Reform, therefore DCs aren't science. You can be scientific without being Reform. --Dematt13:32, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Ah, a semantical matter. That makes more sense. However I must make haste to mention that I am not proposing "Reform = science", since that remains to be seen. However it is very clear that "Straight" is very much not science, to the point of being justifiably called pseudoscience. A big issue here I think is what proportion of chiropracters still subscribe to many of the traditional notions. From anecdotal accounts it would seem to be a majority (or nearly so) in the US, but a minority in the UK. Jefffire14:41, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

Understood that you were not saying the Reform = science, just using it as an example. I appreciate that you have kept a doubting attitude rather than denial, as a true scientist should. That is all that I would ask. As far as the US and UK, I don't know the answer to that. It may be as much a figment of my imagination as yours - confirmation bias, etc. When I go to continuing education classes nowadays (in the US), it's all about the research. IOWs, right now research is directing a lot of what we do - on the musculoskeletal level, and there is enough of that to go around! But don't let that throw you - I still believe that a straight and healthy spine allows a person to have a healthier body, but I don't think anybody in the healthcare professions doubt that. I think DCs are the onces that have been concentrating on trying to do something about it. To say that there is no value in that would be losing a lot of valuable information that has taken decades to develop. Granted, some of the treatment protocols may have been developed from anecdotyl methods or word of mouth in the early years, but that is what brought chiropractic to this point. And that point is that the research says that the methods we use are successful for the treatment of low back pain, headaches, and neck pain. That does not mean that they are not effective for other things, because nobody has figured out how to effectively test these things, yet. However, I happen to think that if scientists were to design some good studies for some of this stuff, they would start to find some statistically significant results. Over time, meta analysis may start to show what that value really is - or isn't. That's what we're waiting for, and I think we are being patient while guys like you begin to see through the junk. Meanwhile, we treat a lot of MS type conditions and let our patients know that it is a good idea to take care of their spines as they would their teeth. But then I'm rambling again, but you started it;) --Dematt16:43, 22 January 2007 (UTC)

To bring us to the point again, is anyone able to give us the proportion of chiropracters who still subscribe to the "Straight" school. Jefffire12:38, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Not school, but there is a research paper on a survey that was put out. Give me a minute and I'll dig it up. --Dematt15:35, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.jcca-online.org/client/cca/jcca.nsf/0/3a50e838d8ad234f852569b400589dc1?OpenDocumentClick= Here is something from 1997 out of Canada concerning Canadian schools. I wouldn't want to venture a guess as to how well this correlates to the US or UK, and unfortunately it doesn't suggest what the moderates are thinking, but it must be something in between. IOWs it looks like 1/4 no to Palmer, 1/4 yes to Palmer, and 1/2 everything in between. Unfortunately it gives us no mean or median from which to draw any precise conclusions from this research. I think I would probably be in the moderate group, simply because, while I work hard to back up what I do with the latest research on musculoskeletal conditions, I haven't seen where it has proven DD "or" BJ wrong about the "mind" being the master and the nervous system being the method of communication for control of body functions. Now the other stuff, well.. you have to admit it makes a good story, but I don't think it is much different than anything that we now consider knowledge. Just my POV for your review. --Dematt16:54, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Videos or detailed photos?

Is there any place to get videos of what actual chiropractic procedures are like? All I've seen of them are fictional representations, and am curious what the real thing is like. Identity011:35, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

http://www.pbs.org/saf/1210/video/watchonline.htm A different Way to Heal? Shows a clip on Chiropractic, and shows some of their procedures. Make sure the clip is set to "Drop that shoulder" --Havermayer13:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Yeah... that was one of the most biased pieces I've ever seen. I would love to find something short that just shows a typical adjustment without the disparaging and low-brow commentary. Levine211219:02, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Damn those scientists, skeptics and former chiropractors! Damn them! :P --Havermayer19:31, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Losers, losers, all of them, losers ;P*** --Dematt19:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Manipulation under anesthesia

I created a new article Manipulation under anesthesia for the majority of the new information place by anonymous user. I think one or two paragraphs left here and then more on the spinal adjustment article and then the link to its own article is appropriate. Also, some can go to the Chiropractic history article if you like. Do we have some references for this stuff? ---- Dematt Dēmatt 13:44, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Apology

I do apologise if I have upset contributers to wikipedia - I had no wish to do so. I have tried to use the undo button. My reasons are that as a chiropractor I feel we do ourselves a disservice in the eyes of our clients if we are not strictly honest. There are enough bad chiropractors already giving us a bad name. I say 'belief' because that, strictly, is what it is. There is no proof for the belief, and some well known chiropractors, including myself, do not share the belief. That is why I also say 'some'. I hope this clears things up. Thank you for your patience. —The preceding 12:56, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

The wording of that first paragraph was arrived at after long collaboration between numerous editors of varying backgrounds. Your change is unacceptable. Please see the definition of the word premise, "A proposition antecedently supposed or proved; something previously stated or assumed as the basis of further argument; a condition; a supposition." I, for one, feel that fits perfectly. Thank you for your effort but I am reverting your change.--Hughgr17:33, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

The fact remains that it is wrong. I am a chiro, as I have said, and therefore, and I am supported by many other chiros, we should say SOME. You failed to address this point. I am happy to compormise on premise but belief is more accurate don't you think.

The reform school is a minority view of chiropractic. The opening paragraph should be a general overview of the article. Vertebral subluxation is a scientific theory. Theories have premises. It is just better semantically. -- Levine211217:33, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

""Vertebral subluxation is a scientific theory"" might want to tell the editors over at Vertebral_subluxation then :-) Shot info00:37, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

How do you mean? I have been an editor there at times. There is a section there entitled http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertebral_subluxationFunctional_theory_of_vertebral_subluxation Functional theory of vertebral subluxation. -- Levine211204:59, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

Who is running the chiro wiki? Group consensus or dictator?

I was trying to amend the chiropractic webpage (with fully valid references mind you) and I encountered a disturbing act of censorship.

I am a scientitic person, first and foremost, skeptical in nature, evidence-based. My personal philosophy towards health is holistic, first, but not dogmatic in nature. Here are my main concerns with the way the chiropractic wiki is being handled

1) I was adding a passage regarding chiropractors being clinicians (i.e. being a clincal setting, doing a medical history, physical examination, coming up with working and differential diagnoses and presenting the patient with a plan of management with objective and subjective outcome measures to determine treatment efficacy.

This is when a user (i foget his name) a MEDICAL DOCTOR from Hungary said that chiropractors, were NOT CLINICIANS unlike MD's and PHYSIOTHERAPISTS and was thus reversing my edit. Can someone please explain to me in the logic of having a medical doctor unilaterally reverse an edit to the chiropractic wiki by a chiropractor who provided a reference from a peer-reviewed journal. This would be the equivalent of me reversing an edit to the Allopathic Medicine wiki by a medical doctor. Does this make any sense, given the fact that I provided a valid reference?

2) Why was my edit stating that spine manipulation was first peformed by Hippocrates, the father of medicine, removed? This provides a historical context and was the FIRST EVER DOCUMENTED occurence of bone manipulation. The reference for this was provided in the internal annals of medicine and this was also conveniently censored.

3) This link http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/ provides the most fair, balanced and OBJECTIVE look at chiropractic, it is a national organization it is evidence-based and referenced. ENCYCLOPEDIAS MUST CONTAIN EVIDENCE-BASED FACTS with supporting documentation, not conjecture, hearsay, innuendo and PERSONAL INTERPRETATIONS OF THE EVIDENCE.

4) If state (country) laws state that chiropractors are CLINICIANS or CHIROPRACTIC PHYSCIANS why are these routinely being editted out by wiki gatekeepers, who I perceive as being grossly un-objective?

5) Why is there such a heavy AMERICAN slant to chiropractic if it is a global profession. For example, NO CHIROPRACTIC SCHOOL IN CANADA endorses subluxation theory. Hence, all DC's from Canadian schools REFUTE THE SUBLUXATION THEORY. Hence, how is this such a "small minority" of reformers when the chiropractic educational system of an entire country is espousing a completely different paradigm of chiropractic compared to the US. The contrast of CHIROPRACTIC in CANADA is vastly different that the US and I can name you 5 fundamental differences from the top of my head

1) entry to the 2 Canadian schools requires at least 3 years of undergraduate, university education, and 90% the entry year class to CMCC has an undergraduate degree and a GPA of 3.3-3.5/4. The admission standards are much higher and more rigorous compared to the US. The schools use an EVIDENCE-BASED paradigm and graduates from these schools are taught to be doctors of chiropractic who are specialists in neuromusculoskeletal medicine. There is proof that DC's are FAR SUPERIOR to MD's in education and diagnosis of NMSK pathology.

2) Canadian chiopractic only has 1 national association, thus there is relative UNITY in the profession in Canada in contrast to the plethora of national associations in the US

3) Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA) supports the use vaccination. US associations do not (THIS IS A FUNDAMENTAL DIFFERENCE IN PHILOSOPHY)

4) The Canadian schools (UQTR, CMCC) were founded on the premise that they rejected the Palmerist (DD/BJ) concept of dis-ease originating from the spine.

5) European Schools are also evidence-based (reject subluxation theory) and within Denmark the chiropractors and medical doctors GO TO THE SAME UNIVERSITY and take the SAME COURSES for the first 2 years (basic medical sciences) before they split in years 3 and 4 to specialize.

My point is, that this wiki is being seen by everyone world and this page is grossly deficient in providing a balanced perspective of chiropractic GLOBALLY. Which, I guess is typically American and par for the course (sorry, but it's true).

Solutions: 1) an objective group to moderate the chiro wiki that consists of chiropractors and other health care professionals or persons with credials in chiropractic medicine, history etc.. so it doesn't turn into a political turfwax between MD and DC and their approaches to health care. All statements MUST BE BACKED BY A VALID REFERENCE OF THE HIGHEST AVAILABLE QUALITY.

2) Separate Wiki's for Chiropractic (in Canada) Chiropractic (in US), Chiropractic (EU) etc... since, unlike medicine, there is NOT A UNIFORM STANDARD IN EDUCATION AND PHILOSOPHY which is a fair critique of the profession.

In the end, because chiropractic medicine is rooted in holism it is academically disingenious to have medical doctors or any other profession dictate and control/censor information to a wiki that is either supported by facts either through state/government laws or by valid, peer-reviewed scientific journals. We are a self-regulating profession, we define ourselves, not other health professionals. This is critical to achieving a chiropractic medicine wiki of the highest quality and that is not discriminative. Furthermore, I would like to be on the group that is responsible for the chiro wiki as I will be an asset to bridge the gap between reformers-straights and MD-DC in a objective, fair, scientifically minded but philosophically open view.

Marc. Marcbronson20:33, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marc, I believe I am the one who reversed your edits. I'm a DC as well, and have had a hand in helping bring the article to its present form. I'm not a dictator but I've been on a "protective" bent since it took so much effort between DC's and skeptics over the last year to get the article where it is today. I don't disagree with your edits per se, I was just suffering from OWN. My apologies. I like where your coming from, but if I may offer a bit of advice. The lead (first couple of paragraphs) have been the most contentous. It'd be best for all (there's still some of us lurking around) to discuss changes to the lead here first, then wait a couple of days to get input from other editors.

On the Canadian vs. US differences you speak of; perhaps a paragraph or two in the "Practice styles and schools of thought" section would best accomadate what your trying to get across.

Lastly, don't take offence when one of your edits gets reverted. It took me awhile to get the hang of things around here and to get any of my edits to "stick" :) Also, read the talk page history. It's in the archive at the top of this page. It'll bring you up to speed on all the past discussions on how we got this far. --Hughgr21:42, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

Hugh,

PM me please regarding a way to give this page a more global outlook; there are several sections here at are unique specifically to the US (4 groups, objective-straight, straight, reformer, etc..) that is not representative of the situation in many other countries. This wiki must provide an objective, representative sample of the entire profession, which the wiki unfortunately does not provide.

Best,

Marc. Marcbronson04:23, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

No need to do things in private. Just discuss on this talk page what you have in mind. Myself, and other editors will chime in. Just an FYI, one of the recent happenings with the chiro page was a complaint that it was too long, thus a big pruning took place and other pages popped up to fill in. I see you've taken the inititive to expand on some of those pages and thats great. Perhaps the additions you seek here can be done in a sentence or two and linked to those other pages. Just a thought.--Hughgr19:39, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marc, I absolutely agree with you. The lead does not provide a world view at all, and I think it is wrong to suggest the Canadian vs. US differences belong in the schools of thought, with the lead staying as it is. The lead should describe chiropractic worldwide, rather than describing chiropractic in the US and then detailing differences globally.DigitalC02:57, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

External links

Why do we have so many links to organizations? I would remove them myself since Wikipedia is not a directory, but there are a lot of them and they seem to be long-standing links, so I'm bringing it up here. --Wafulz18:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that you be bold and delete those you feel inappropriate. If others feel differently they will be reverted. But good call to bring it here however it is unclear which ones you would like to remove, so just remove them and we can all see. Shot info22:37, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

See the thing is I want to delete all of them (the organization ones anyway). It doesn't make sense to me to have links where it's not specified how they provide information. Then if I remove some but leave others, I always end up getting "if link x is allowed to be on here then why not link y" and so on. For now I'll remove them all- if people feel that the links are absolutely necessary, I guess they can come here and discuss. --Wafulz05:34, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Chiropractic (USA)

Hugh,

After much reflection and talking to a few colleagues in the UK, Canada and in the EU, we feel that it is imperitive that a distinction between chirorpractic in the USA and non-subluxation countries be made. This is due to the following exerpt

"It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.2 Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well. In contrast, the term subluxation as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves."

Like I mentioned before, no school in Canada teaches/espouses the subluxation theory. Nor do they do it in the UK from accredited schools. Hence, like I mentioned previously, there are entire countries that educate their chiropractors differently than the majority of the US schools. The biggest controversy still surrounding chiropractic medicine is the concept of subluxation and in Canada the new grads and every future DC who is trained here graduates under a different paradigm than the US. It's not fair that the wiki states unequivocally that ALL DC's correct subluxations. I'm going to take the initiiative to make a complementary yet distinct Chiropractic entry that recognizes that different countries have different models.

I'm not suggesting that aren't DC's in Canada who don't use the term subluxation, annd those that do are largely either from (a) straight American chiro schools or (b) past generation of DC who graduated under that model. But, I can assure you that the prevalence of subluxation-based chiropractors in Canada is declining, as we are moving onwards in the evolution of this great profession and not letting a metaphysical construct hold us back towards integration in mainstream health care.

Anyways, I hope that we can cooperate in this manner, and do hope you understand where I am coming from. Public education is very important; and it is a reality that a lot of people get informed by wiki's since its so convenient. As always, I will provide references for my entries and I look forward to hearing your input regarding this very legitimate concern.

Marcbronson

14:17, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Again, I'm going to have to agree with Marcbronson. Chiropractic in Canada is not based on spinal joint misalignment (BOOP) or vertebral subluxation. In reality, sublaxation theory and Chiropractic are both based on the same thing. They are both based on spinal manipulation. Subluxation theory did not come until long after spinal manipulation has been practiced, and it also came after the founder of Chiropractic adjusted H. Lilliard. DigitalC03:10, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Current Lead

As per the discussions above about the lack of world view of chiropractic of the lead, I think that this is the part that really needs improving:

"It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.2 Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well."

Many Chiropractors may practice Chiropractic that is based on that premise, but many chiropractors worldwide also do not practice based on that premise. Only those who believe in the VSC practice on that basis. To state that treatments typicaly include spinal adjustments to correct the VS only includes a subluxationist viewpoint. As Marcbronson has pointed out, this viewpoint is taught in most/all? of the schools of the US, but is not taught in other countries. DigitalC03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree. I think that there should be a little one or two line amendment in there that states either this is the current predominant model in the USA and does not necessarily reflect the chiropractic canada viewpoint. This word is such a sacred cow for so many that I've been told I'm not a 'real' chiropractor because I don't espouse the VSC. Regardless, I'm hoping the Hugh, Fryslee and others can joint this talk discussion to see if we can hammer out some kind of agreement that at least takes acknowledges, within the main chiro wiki, that not all countries teach the VSC paradigm. Marcbronson02:33, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Article editing suggestion

The policies of Wikipedia were not followed by this author. Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia not an opinion paper posting site. Please follow the pillars of Wikipedia when submitting and article. The pillar not followed by this article is pillar 2 which states, "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV)". I have been impressed by Wikipedias screening process thus far, but this article clearly states opinons of the author, not unbiased facts. I suggest you revise this article for quality purposes.

Usgeorgelopez

23:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

I might be coming in late in the game... which author are you referring to? TheDoctorIsIn07:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)