Chiropractic/Archive 2

{{atnhead}}

It seems that User:RK is merely attacking the completely rational and medically accepted chiropractic care field over a personal viewpoint. Hmm. I thought that was frowned upon- due to Wikipedia's neutrality and non-biased nature? User:capitolZ

Please stop your personal criticisms. This page reports the views of mainstream doctors and scientists, not just advocates of chiropractice. Stop acting as if all their studies and statements were written by me. If you think that there is an error, and that this article does not accurately represent the views of the mainstream medical and scientific community, then state precisely what you think the error is, and give us citations to back up your position. By the way, your claim that chiropractic is "medically accepted" is wrong. We must take care not to distort the positions of other people, in order to make our own position look more popular. RK

RK's bias is not actually personal but Scientism. He tends to demand hard evidence which in the case of chiropractic is hard to come by. Testimonials of patients who feel healthy and prefer to consult a chiropractor when they have a problem is considered anecdotal and not evidence as such. Fred Bauder20:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

My God, the Chiropractic medicine page is a cesspool of misinformation and personally biased opinions! Does anyone have any medically relevant information on chiropractic care to put on that page, so that that it can become more than an attack on the chiropractic field of medicine? User:capitolZ

I would just like to note that the Chiropractors I know do not consider chiropractic to be a "field of medicine". We generally consider Chiropractic as something different, especially since we generally disagree with the "use" of medicine. We are, however, Primary Healthcare Providers. desdemona47 Elaine M. Brady

While I agree RK goes way overboard, some mild criticism is appropriate. Fred Bauder15:49, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that this page "does contain" "medically relevant information on chiropractic care"; Use "capitalZ" is just angry that the results of such medical studies are at odds with his beliefs. RK19:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

What is lacking in the article is material which has a postive point of view regarding chiropractic medicine. This lack, in the face of the cautionary points of view RK has liberally inserted in the article, skews the entire article towards a negative point of view. But, in the main, the solution is to add positive material not to remove negative material, although can also be improved. Fred Bauder19:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

We can't just manufacture positive points of view in an attempt to give balance. If positive evalutations are shown to exist, then of course we should add them. The trouble is, we can't really find any; all we can find are personal testimonials. Yet we can also find personal testimonials that Jesus cured their cancer, and that flax-seed oil cured Cronhn's disease. We can report the existence of these many testimonials, but we also need to note if there is any evidence to back them up. Remember, anyone can claim anything. RK15:22, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

My thought was to use chiropractic's representations of itself and also to summarize the opinion's of those who use chiropractic. See below what I consider acceptable. Fred Bauder16:28, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Content of the Wikinfo article

Chiropractic is a holistic healing profession which attempts to take into account all factors such as patients' attitude toward their work, the healing potential of caring and empathy, and the relationship between the patient and the provider.

It seems to me that you are writing something that has little to do with chiropractice in specific. Chiropractice is the use of spinal manipulations to remove a putative type of blockage ("subluxation") thereby restoring correct energy flow within the body. Anything else is "not" chiropractice, but rather a set of additional ideas that people sometimes (not always) add to chiropractice. It seems to me that many proponents of chiropractice theory on Wikipedia are "not" defending chiropractice in of itself, but rather describing multiple ideas, including chiropractice, some peer-reviewed medical results, and an assortment of separate alternative medicine techniques. This seems off-topic, or better related to the article on alternative medicine in general. RK23:14, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I see this article as containing information about what a person can expect who consults a chiropractor as well as information for those who are curious as to why anyone would consult a chiropractor rather than simply going to a doctor. It presents chiropractic at its best from chiropractic's viewpoint, which includes a negative view of mainstream medicine. Fred Bauder00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Traditional (allopathic) medicine is criticized as being dehumanizing and depersonalizing because it is based on a biomedical model which tries to explain disease in a mechanistic manner focusing only on biochemical and physiological factors while ignoring other significant factors.

If by other factors you are referring to emotions, and viewing the patient as an integrated whole, then that too is well within mainstream (allopathic) medical practice. It is something of a myth that mainstream medical science is only concerned with biochemistry and treating diseases after their appear. For many years mainstream medical practice has recognized the link between a patient's emotional well-being and their health. One's emotional state has a significant effect on hormone levels and the immune system, which can have a dramatic effect on a patient's wellness. And of course, changing a patient's emotional state alters their behavior, leading to healthier living. None of this is alternative medicine; none of this is chiropractice. All of this, in fact, has been a part of modern mainstream medical science for many years. RK23:14, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Among its best practitioners, yes. Among the butchers and pillpushers no, and especially absent at some HMO's. Fred Bauder00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree! This is a major problem with mainstream medicine. I think that perhaps I have not been sensitive enough to this point in my previous editing of Wikipedia articles. RK04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation versus chiropractice

Special emphasis is placed upon misalignment of the joints of the back which are believed to affect the nervous system producing disease symptoms. It is generally accepted by many health insurance providers that chiropractic treatment is effective in treating back pain.

According to doctors I know, using spinal manipulation to treat back pain has "nothing" to do with chiropractice. Mainstream medical doctors have long recognized that some spinal manipulations have some medical benefits, as the article already states. You and I are in agreement. However, chiropractice is very different: It is the use of spinal manipulations to remove a putative type of blockage ("subluxation") thereby restoring correct energy flow within the body, to correct any and all medical problems. "That" is what mainstream medical doctors disagree with. RK

Nevertheless chiropractors do 90% of the spinal manipulation done. Although some cures occur when chiropractors attempt therapies outside this area, such treatment would basically amount to fraud if chiropractors and their patients did not have faith in it. Fred Bauder00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

We have more agreement here than you might see at first blush. I agree that chiropracters happen to do these spinal manipulations, which do happen to have some effectiveness for some conditions. However, I am specifically trying to diffentiate true chiropractice from mere spinal manipulation. True chiropractice is the belief that all (or nearly all) disease is caused by subluxations, and that all diseases (or nearly all) can be cured by manipulating the spine. Unless I misunderstand you, you do not seem to be supporting this maximalist view. As such, there is much less disagreement betwen us than both of us first thought. In fact, there may be some actual agreement occuring here. RK04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, why no response? I saw an attack from you against me on the Wiki-En list, and I don't understand. RK01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatments which move beyond spinal adjustments are two controversial and may not be covered by health insurance. Nevertheless they may be effective due to factors not readily explained by a biochemical model.

Sometimes this kind of stuff does work. Fred Bauder00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. RK04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Again, Fred, will you please respond? RK01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

NCAHF is not NPOV

The National Council Against Health Fraud should not be included in any discussion that wants to maintain NPOV. Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a man with an anti chiropractic agenda. When you find a source attempting to debunk any part of the chiropractic profession, you need not look too hard to find. Dr. Barretts name. Doctor in the loosest since, as it has been reported that he surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. Numerous lawsuits pending, and all that have been ruled on where ruled against him should raise some flags about his efforts and any organization which he is a leading member. (Anonymous)

This makes no sense. NPOV policy "requires" that we add all major points of view. You can't say that that points of view are forbidden if you disagree with them. And the NCAHF is not a one-man organization, as your paragraph implies. As for Dr. Barrett, his claims about chiropractice are "agreed" with by major medical and scientific organizations. You seem to be trying to remove the facts and arguments he mentions by ad homenim attacks on him. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

It is simply impossible to include all points of veiw, as it is equally impossible to distinguish which is "major". Your abilitly to distinguish what is major is suspect. I imagine the problem here lies in the firt line of NPOV "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly." There is a clear differents bewtween writting articales without bias, and representing all veiws. It is quite obvious there is a bias in the present state of the article, and there are no major viewpoints.

A quote from Barrett himself, as seen in Time Magazine ~ April 30, 2001 Vo. 157 No. 17 "Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media," he says. "Today I am the media."

I have always been uneasy about this mans accusations and statements and in trying to learn more bout his history, have only found accounts of him being a "bully". Suing, threatening to sue, and other threats for those that have questioned or attracted his position. Investigating the source of criticism of chiropractic reveals one person. Just because someone is skeptical, does not mean they are creditable. (Anonymous)

Um, so what? This article is "not" about chiropracters versus this one man. I don't know why you have animosty towards this man, but the arguments in this article against chiropractice in this article are "not" unique to Dr. Barrett. Please stop ad homenim rebuttals and criticisms. In any case, on this issue his views happen to be the views of mainstream science and medicine. RK

This artical as I found it is about this one man vs chiropractic. His views are no where near mainstream, and your constant claiming of such does not make it so. I find it humerous we are supposed to allow Dr. Barrett (if we can personify chiropractic as a profession ) ad homenim attacks, while you try to strifle my attempts at unbiasing this artical with claims of the same technique.

The anonymous person is flat-out lying. The views of Dr. Barett on this topic "are" mainstream. I find it difficult to co-edit an article with an anonymous editor who willfully creates lies in order to push an agenda. RK01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Lying? Unfounded, baseless claim. Find and Prove ONE lie. I have stated my bias, and have contributed to the article only a small amount. None of which is even close to being agenda pushing. I am not the first to voice concern on your actions Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK, but you are the only one calling out mine.

Too easy Dr barret did not surrender his lisence he deactivated it. Your claim that all the cases that have been ruled on were ruled against. In 2002 he won a cases against an osteopathic physician. Case reference Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 01 L 009026, filed July 30, 2001. There are other cases but one was enough to disprove your statementGeni00:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lets see, cas against an osteopathic physician. I shouldn't have assumed that since this was a disscussion for an article about chiropractic that I need not to have specify relevent cases. I have no way to keep up with all the court issues, exspecially as it appears Dr. Barrett is involved with many. He has won some defamation cases based on a pamphlet someone made, he then sued the people that made it, created it, or used it ( as I beleive was the case you mentioned ). However, his case has been thrown out in california, and pennsylvania. I will conceed that my wording about nature of his lisencure situation could be missleading, but he is in fact currently un-lisenced. If you deactivate your lisence, you must surrender it. I am not going to argue the semantics of it any further.

In the interest of being NPOV contributions to the article by TNCAHF should be excluded. I feel that linking to these sites in the external resources is fine, but allowing them to push their agenda in the articles is defiantly not NPOV. (not signed)

See above. This proposal is a clear "violation" of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Please read the NPOV article. RK03:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

the NPOV article has been read, and understood. I suggest you try

the latter. If we are to allow all sides, then why has this site been so hostile to most chiropractic claims? The reason I see over and over is that because the other veiw says differently, if I am not mistaken that too is a claer "violation"of the NPOV policy. I see this pattern of removing chiropractic claims, and overstating the medical and scientific communities skeptic veiws on chiropractic.

I think it is ok to have it but the viewpoint should be attributed. Perhaps you should write articles about The National Council Against Health Fraud and Stephen Barrett, M.D. What I find missing is good strong recommendations of chiropractic medicine which would then balance the article. Fred Bauder00:38, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think this should be a forum for an entire profession to defend every skeptic and crackpot opinion. I also do not feel that I should be obligated to write articals, and baby sit them to assure that my version of the truth is not edited out by an opossing voice. Bottom line this part of the artical adds nothing to the content, except a biased and skeptical opinion based on apperently isolated events.

This leads into the inclusion of chiropractic risk, while the numbers are accurate some perspective should be added. April 15, 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that more than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year from reactions to drugs that were correctly prescribed and taken; 106,000 Americans die annually from those side effects.

Or even a note that the results are so rare that is statistically insignificant. Even less than the "beauty parlor stroke syndrome", a rare situation when a customer leans their head back on a sink to get their hair washed.

I do not think those side notes would be nessasary, if the information was presented in a NPOV. Is it really within the scope of this site to post every arguement and counter arguement? (not signed)

Most of that stuff was put in by User:RK, a rather aggressive editor who takes a rather negative view. I agree that most of it should be put in proper perspective. Fred Bauder13:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

(A)I have nothing to do with any of these reports. I have not done any of the research or studies quoted or referenced in the article. All of this work was done by others. I am only guilty of adding the points of view of these organizations. (B) Many chiropracters themselves have come to agree with these views. See the section on this very article on reform within the chiropractice community. RK03:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, any response to these specific points? RK01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

You are very off on point on (B) chiropractors are entirely missrepresented in all acounts in this article, and the article on the reform specifically is need of major work.

If Stephen Barrett's name truly does appear on so many prevalent criticisms of chiropractic, then he represents a major view. That means Wikipedia should mention NCAHF. --SpacemanAfrica05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed material

This paragraph is being repeatedly removed:

Chiropractic medicine is generally rejected as being based on pseudoscience by most scientists and medical doctors. Classical chiropractic theory denies otherwise accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases, and instead holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease. Although manipulative therapy has been shown to have some efficacy in treating back pain, headache, and other symptoms of spinal-related conditions, few rigorous studies have supported the efficacy of chiropractic medicine outside of this specific area. Many people colloquially use the term "chiropractic" to refer to manipulative therapy of the spine, even by non-DCs.

I can see some problems with this paragraph but most statements in it seem reasonable enough. What is the problem? Fred Bauder11:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The statements are unfounded, even if there was a way to quantify "most" and "generally" in respect to scientist and medical doctors rejecting chiropractic as a pseudoscience, there is no evidence that is the case. The next sentence implies that all chiropractors deny the "accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases" While the statement is accurate, it was the general conscientious of a hundred years ago. This can be covered in the "two schools" and/or "history" The entire paragraph should not have been deleted, but felt out of place when editing the first two sentences.

I think the attitude of the medical profession has changed recently as has the attitude of some chiropractors about mainstream medicine. My last conversation with a real chiropractor, however, was fillled with paranoia about medical doctors. I think some historical perspective should be added. Why don't you try some rewriting? Fred Bauder13:20, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Two of the people I work with are (former) chiropracters. They refuse to get themselves vaccinated against diseases, and reccomend to parents that they do not vaccinate their children. They believe that viruses do not cause disease, and that vaccines do not work. One of them denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS. They tell me that they are representative of others in the field, and their statements match what I have read about some other chiropracters. They also don't believe in surgery for treating most diseases. This is why some educated result-oriented chiropracters have developed a reform movment within the field. (See article.) RK04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so what? You know two chiropractors, and I know a few thousand. Not a single one would make all those claims, and doubt anyone of them would claim to be represenitive of the entire profession.

I just started Chiropractic College, and just know a fraction of the faculty and students, and while some are against vaccinations, not all are. Frankly, I think that those who aren't vaccinated are simply benefitting from the fact that most people are, and the resulting low rate the diseases commonly vaccinated against, but that's neither here nor there. I have, though, NEVER heard a chiropractor say that viruses didn't cause disease, or that AIDS is a result of the HIV virus. Yeah, we generally follow the idea that drugs and surgery shouldn't be used-at least not if they can be avoided. However, no responsible chiropractor will tell a patient to stop taking a drug their allopathic doctor told them to take. Also, while we might advise a patient to try to get adjusted before undergoing surgery in most cases, there are other cases where we would conceed that surgery is likely the best route, such as aneurysm. And I would just like to point out that I would be mistrustful of ANY profession that resisted reform. Any type of healthcare should be continuously adjusting to new techniques developed and new ideas found in research. desdemona47 Elaine M. Brady

It is certainly understandable that some older doctors still have some residual paranoia, as it was not that long ago the American Medical Association took a policy against chiropractic “first the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic.”

It is of my opinion that the newer generation of MDs and DCs have much better opinions of each other and are moving forward in a cooperative to provide optimal care for their patients.

I would like to do a lot of rewriting, but I fear it would be in vain. I had to take a chance with the history as it was absolutely pathetic. I am not sure I can do it justice, as there are volumes on the history of chiropractic and the people that influenced it. It seems daunting and unrewarding if people like User:RK, who have no apparent credibility or knowledge of the subject to come and "aggressively edit" with nothing more than an ambitious desire to be nothing more than skeptical of everything.

Please stop you ad homenim attacks. Personal attacks against other users are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and do nothing to improve the article. Further, your claims are wrong. I had nothing to do with any of the research which disputes claims made by chiropracters. I merely added info on the POVs of major medical organizations, and POvs from the views of reform chiropracters themselves. Don't shoot the messenger. RK04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop using the term ad homenim like this, I didnt attack your person to reject your claim. Call it a personal attack if you want, but it is just an observation of your history. Further, I am baffeled how you can say my claims are wrong. Irregaurdless why is it allowed when someone mearely states about the POV of opposing views, but the chiropractic POV is so often removed?

Dear anonymous, a personal attack "'is"' an ad homenim attack. Please learn the English langauge. And if you do nto stop your personal attacks, you will be banned. RK

RK, please please please ask me to stop one more time. Do you believe that if you keep asking me to stop it appears as if I have actually been continually attacking you? In regards to learning English it's ad hominem not ad homenim, and I will not mention the bit about starting a sentence with a conjunction. Furthermore read about ad hominem and try to really understand that is is a type fallacy and is only applicable if i where trying to discredit your argument. Besides I don't even think my observation of your actions here are attacks. If you want to ban me get on with it, don't make idle threats.

Well, I came on board as a critic, a chiropractor tried to "cure" my brother's mental disability and got a lot of money for his quackery, but RK goes way to far. I'll back you up to a certain extent should a problem arise, but try to avoid the cure cancer stuff. Fred Bauder17:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Would you become critical of auto mechanics as a whole if one tried to fix your house and failed? Why would you judge an entire profession on the actions of one individual? Are there bad chiropractors? Of course. But any time you set up a system, someone will find a way to abuse it.

Maybe I am not going as far as you think. The article does not condemnd or dispute the effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for some conditions. If this is what you advocate, then you will find that I and many others would agree with you. In fact, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine holds by this view. The criticisms in this article are "not" against the idea that spinal manipulation may have some medical value. Rather, these arguments are against classical chiropractice beliefs about subluxations being the cause of all or most disease, and the belief that spinal manipulation can cure all or nearly all disease. Your recent notes here seem to indicate that you do not adopt the maximalist view, so we are not polar opposites here. RK04:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Again, Fred, any comment on these specific points? I am willing to work with you. RK01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am certainly sorry to hear that. It is unfortunate, but every profession has a few individuals that give the rest of them a bad name. Going through the history of his page, I believe you have done a fair job at moderating. Given your personal history, I am impressed at your ability to do so. I can admit to my own bias here as well, I have benefited greatly from chiropractic in my life. Even though it is a claim fiercely debated, as a life long asthmatic I can testify to its ability to treat and manage it. I believe in it so much I have invested a great deal in my education, and am currently a chiropractic student.

I think we can all agree to get rid of at least the first sentence in that paragraph. It is entirely unprovable and unhelpful to a reader.--DrThomasFrench22:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know what chiropractic TREATMENT is, but what is chiropractic MEDICINE? The disambig page didn't resolve any ambiguities for me. All I know is:

manipulation relieves pain (and this is well documented)

manipulation is CLAIMED to promote general health and even cure a multitude of diseases (this part is disputed)

I'd like to see an article that explains manipulation, such as "cracking" the back, and which concentrates on the PROVEN (i.e, non-disputed) benefits of chiropractic.

A related article on the disputed claims of chiropractic wouyld be nice, perhaps delving into the "schools" such as straight chiropractic. Ed Poor --user:Ed Poor 18:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

The RK factor

I apologise for the drastic and theatrical nature of such a heading, but I find that the overwhelming majority of the negative view of chiropractic on here comes from a single user, RK. If it is inappropriate, may a mod delete it, and hopefully inform me of its inappropriate nature. To non-mods, I ask that you leave this intact for as long as it is relevant:

I came here to see what the skeptics said about chiropractic, but when I read the article, it seems to have been completely taken over by skeptics, at the exclusion of useful info, such as actual chiropractic procedures. It seems that if a person or organization is opposed to chiropractic, they get to have their full say, but any attempts by actual professionals in the field are erased and stifled as "biased."

Reading the discussions, it seems obvious that much of this is due to one very motivated "RK," who attacks any definition of chiropractic as other than a pseudoscience cult as "spine manipulation" but not true chiropractic, insisting that chriropractors believe subluxations at the SOLE cause of disease. As long as this defnition stands, any attempts to debunk his claims will be irrelevant in the face of this "definition." While he (or she) constantly calls for citations and proof, I strongly caution all readers to scrutinize RK's own posts for the same, as they are often sorely lacking. For example "By the way, your claim that chiropractic is 'medically accepted' is wrong. We must take care not to distort the positions of other people, in order to make our own position look more popular." Nice words, but while actual victories showing chiropractic's acceptance in court for example are cited throughout the page, RK has failed to show how it is NOT accepted, and has merely presented an unsubstantiated claim to, in his own words, make "(his own) position look more popular." Other such claims include "According to doctors I know, using spinal manipulation to treat back pain has nothing to do with chiropractice. (sic)" In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the disputed material in the chiropractic talk page, aside from RK's writings, are complaints about the unnatural skew against chiropractic treatment in the article.

To achieve the most unbiased, widely accepted definition of chiropractic, I cite a dynamic souce I have no control of, Google definitions: Search for "define:chiropractic" and you will find overwhelmingly that chiropractic care is simply a scientific application of methods to manually manipulate the spine to cure spinal, sometimes generally muscular-skeletal (and some nervous) system ailments. This "chiropractic cures everything" cult of RK's seems almost entirely fabricated, unless you take one or two of twenty available definitions and consider that they COULD also fit his definition due to the wording. Additionally, chiropractic is a system that does not make use of medicine, but this is very different from rejection thereof. It simply does not concern chiropractic care and is a separate practice. No medicine is required to move vertebrae, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't be utilized to treat other conditions, and the unproven claims of chiropractors shunning medicine are simple scare tactics unless substanciated and proven to be a common belief of chiropractors.

I am not the only user who has taken note of RK's tactics, and I will gladly put my wiki membership on the line to call him/her on it. If this is an unfounded personal attack, then may my account be deleted for violation of terms. I would normally pursue this from a more neutral, PC point of view, but given things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/RK RK's "Requests for comment" page, it seems obvious that this user is knowingly or unknowingly a chronic troublemaker in the Wiki community, and in this instance, the case is pretty clear-cut against them, as the majority of other contributors is arguing against, and attempting to repair edits by, RK. To RK, I apologise for getting personal, but you will find that this is not an ad hominem attack, as I have specifically cited issues taken against both your arguments, and you by others, and now most recently, myself. If your point is valid, surely you could not only sit back a bit, and let someone else who sees your POV comment on it, or at the very least, follow your own advice and post more sources for your claims.

Finally, I would like to say that while I have personally enjoyed the benefits of chiropractic care on a regular basis, and owe my ability to move my upper body to said practice, this article would be incomplete without the point of view of skeptics, and a frank discussion of the risks involved. Personally, I believe that chiropractic is far too open to interpretation and thus succeptible to unqualified practicioners, however I've found it is not hard to find a skilled, rational practicioner even in small towns. I wholeheartedly support such a section, and in fact I came here to read such, but as it stands, the entire article on chiropractic care has been skewed to make it sound like an ineffective dangerous hoax, or even a form of faith healing/alchemy. This is no more accurate than if you were to look up modern medicine and find information regarding the "four humours" and bleeding techniques. I am now addressing what I consider the root of this bias based on thorough study of the article and discussion regarding it.

systemic review by Ernst

I think that the risk vs benefit comments in this article need a better source. If you read the article it is not a systemic review but a collection of case studies over many years and like it says in the lower section (i think risk vs benefit) Ernst admits it does not review the benefits of chiropractic yet when i read it, it gives the impression that a systemic review (very high quality evidence) has concluded that the risk out weighs the benefit. This study does not support these conclusions although I am aware that it does make them. Read the whole article and i think you will agree.

Should it be removed? or is there a higher quality study available? Does wiki have a minimum standard that studies should meet before being included? I also saw a consumer survey quoted which might want to be checked