Chiropractic/Archive 39

{{aan}}

Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017

"'Chiropractic"' is a form of 22:30, 5 April 2017 (UTC)unverified mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine. Proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.cite journal |vauthors=Nelson CF, Lawrence DJ, Triano JJ, Bronfort G, Perle SM, Metz RD, Hegetschweiler K, LaBrot T | title = Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession | journal = Chiropr Osteopat | volume = 13 | issue = 1 | pages = 9 | year = 2005 | pmid = 16000175 | pmc = 1185558 | doi = 10.1186/1746-1340-13-9 | url = URL | quote= The length, breadth, and depth of chiropractic clinical training do not support the claim of broad diagnostic competency required of a PCP. Look, this is a non-referenced bias comment that is obviously not based on a peer-reviewed literature and should be removed, the first reference is a book and the second is taken out of context of a non-peer review letter. ------~~~~Studies of chiropractic intern clinical experience provides no evidence that chiropractors are trained to a level of a diagnostic generalist for non-musculoskeletal conditions 22,23. --~~~~For chiropractors to describe themselves as PCP diagnosticians is to invite comparisons to other PC diagnosticians, i.e., family practitioners, pediatricians and internists. Currently Chiropractic is being recommended for spinal treatment over many traditional forms of medicine. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367. Epub 2017 Feb 14. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Qaseem A1, Wilt TJ1, McLean RM1, Forciea MA1; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians.Such comparisons will not reflect favorably on chiropractic. "PCP: primary care providers" The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.cite book|chapterurl=URL Content of practice|vauthors=Mootz RD, Shekelle PG |year=1997|title= Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research|pages=67–91|veditors=Cherkin DC, Mootz RD |location= Rockville, MD|publisher= Agency for Health Care Policy and Research|oclc=39856366 AHCPR Pub No. 98-N002. Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence".cite book|author= Keating JC Jr|chapter= A brief history of the chiropractic profession|pages=23–64|title= Principles and Practice of Chiropractic|edition=3rd|veditors = Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B |publisher=McGraw-Hill|year=2005|isbn=0-07-137534-1|display-editors=etalcite book|pages=145–90|chapter=The truth about chiropractic therapy|title=Trick or Treatment: The Undeniable Facts about Alternative Medicine|vauthors=Singh S, Ernst E |year=2008|publisher=W.W. Norton|isbn=978-0-393-06661-6 cite web |url=URL |title=Chiropractic |publisher=NHS Choices |date=20 August 2014 |accessdate=19 September 2016cite book |author=Swanson ES |title=Science and Society: Understanding Scientific Methodology, Energy, Climate, and Sustainability |url=URL |year=2015 |publisher=Springer |isbn=978-3-319-21987-5 |page=65 |chapter=Pseudoscience

Please remove "unverified" from "treatment of unverified mechanical...". Modern chiropractic education, except education from a few schools, teaches the identification and treatment of mechanical disorders, i.e. fixations, hyper and hypomobility vs the subluxation focused schools--who do treat "unverified" subluxations. "unverified" paints a broad brush to a profession with many schools and leaders rejecting the unproved vertebral subluxation complex. "unverified" should more accurately be used when using the term "subluxation".

Please add "Some" before "Proponents" in "Proponents believe that some ...". Not all practitioners believe "subluxations" have an effect on general health. Some organizations (in the US, Australia and Great Britian as well as some colleges) have rejected the "subluxation" theory and no longer use the term and/or don't teach it. Msimone 01:16, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

(1) As far as I can see "

a form of of alternative medicine concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders

" wouldn't be alternative medicine, it would be medicine. I disagree that such a definition would be an accurate representation of a body of thought where the majority position depends on the theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations". Where are your sources that contradict what the sources in the article state?

(2) You need the balance of good sources saying that "only some proponents believe that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" to add the word "some". See SOME. Adding it would allow the impression to be formed that a large, if unknown, proportion of proponents might disagree with the vertebral subluxations theories. But we know that most of the proponents of chiropractic affirm belief in vertebral subluxations.

(3) Before you post an edit request, you might at least have to courtesy to see if your request has been asked and answered previously. Just scan through the most recent archive, which you can find at Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 38 and you'll see that your assertions about chiropractic education have already been addressed and placed into context. The lead of the article is concerned with chiropractic practice, not education, and you'll find sources that speak to the mismatch between what is claimed to be taught and the pronouncements of the leading bodies representing chiropractic throughout the world. --RexxS22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

RexxS, see V policy. There is original research in the lede. The source(s) do not back up the some of the statements in the lede. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 01:39, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

not done

per QuackGuru. ProgrammingGeek "'ProgrammingGeek"' 16:58, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

I am curious how long the OR will remain in the lede. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 17:24, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

Chiropractors do work in a PCP role and are considered by peer reviewed literature as a better source of treatment for spinal disorders based on this study. Ann Intern Med. 2017 Apr 4;166(7):514-530. doi: 10.7326/M16-2367. Epub 2017 Feb 14. Noninvasive Treatments for Acute, Subacute, and Chronic Low Back Pain: A Clinical Practice Guideline From the American College of Physicians. Qaseem A1, Wilt TJ1, McLean RM1, Forciea MA1; Clinical Guidelines Committee of the American College of Physicians. —nbsp;Preceding 22:33, 5 April 2017 (UTC)

The most common MSK disorder treated by both chiropractic and MDs is non-specific low back pain. This is a diagnosis of exclusion. "Verification" is actively discouraged in the initial 6 weeks if no red flags are present. Additionally for chronic low back pain, often the person has had other issues ruled out by MRI before chiropractic care is initiated.

"Unverified" is a strange term as I make lots of "unverified" diagnosis following ruling out conditions that can be verified. Just think about chronic fatigue syndrome, fibromyalgia, and IBS. · email) 14:34, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicinecitation needed concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.12not in citation given Refs do not go at the end of the sentence per V policy and CITEFOOT since both refs do not verify the entire sentence. One ref verifies part of the sentence and the other ref verifies the other part. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 14:49, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

QG the page you list says "As in the above example, citation markers are normally placed after adjacent punctuation such as periods and commas."

Would be good to quote which text from the sources support the content in the first line. · email) 14:52, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This ref from the NCCIH says "Chiropractic is a health care profession that focuses on the relationship between the body's structure—mainly the spine—and its functioning." And the fact that it is listed there means it is "alt med" · Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email) 15:02, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is a debate over whether it is alt med and NCCIH does not verify it is a type of alt med. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 15:06, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Lots of sources call it alt med · Special:EmailUser/Doc James|email) 15:11, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

There is an internal and external debate over how to define the profession. See "Chiropractic still maintains some vestiges of an alternative health care profession in image, attitude, and practice. The profession has not resolved questions of professional and social identity, and it has not come to a consensus on the implications of integration into mainstream health care delivery systems and processes. In today’s dynamic health care milieu, chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine." User:QuackGuru|"'QuackGuru"' 15:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

Okay so how would you describe it? · email) 18:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

This was not originally about how to describe it. It is about the placement of the refs to verify each specific claim. The part "a form of alternative medicine" describes it without taking sides in the debate. Doing other stuff does not mean they are "mostly" concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders unless the source verifies the claim "mostly". QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 19:38, 22 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm perplexed to see QG arguing that chiropractic is not a form of alternative medicine, but he is correct that there is internal and external debate over how to define it. A very neutral way would be along the NCCIH source, which simply says that "Chiropractic is a health care profession..." DigitalC01:25, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

But wouldn't that be giving a false impression about a set of practices that has virtually no evidence of effectiveness and where the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of non-existent "vertebral subluxations"? --RexxS02:46, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes. Only in death does duty end 13:56, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

No. What false impression would it give? Is chiropractic a health care profession? Yes. Is it alternative medicine? There is internal and external debate about that, yet we are stating it like a fact. Which, speaking of, do you have a source the the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on a theory of subluxations? Because that is not my personal experience. In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness, just recently the American College of Physicians (ACP) released a Guideline on treating Low Back Pain - for acute LBP they recommend nondrug therapy, such as heat, massage, acupuncture, or spinal manipulation. For chronic LBP they exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, spinal manipulation (among other non-drug treatments). DigitalC15:04, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

od

As you ask, it would give the false impression that a set of techniques firmly based in mumbo-jumbo about vertebral subluxations has far more validity than it actually has. "Is chiropractic a health care profession?" No. Health care is based on real medicine, which by definition works. There's no reliable evidence that Chiropractic works. "Is it alternative medicine?" Yes, because that's how all the reliable sources label itnote-type-WikipediaModel_snd_note see the article. That's what is defined as a 'fact' in Wikipedia. As for subluxations, I have a source for this (from Vertebral subluxation):

talkquote|1=

... the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:

"Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."Robert Cooperstein, Brian J. Gleberzon. Technique systems in chiropractic. "Elsevier Health Sciences", 2004, ISBN|0-443-07413-5, ISBN|978-0-443-07413-4, 387 pages.

In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.Donald M. Petersen Jr. WFC Lays Foundation for Worldwide Chiropractic Unity. "Dynamic Chiropractic", July 2, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 14.

Fortunately, we don't write Wikipedia articles based on your personal experiences.

In terms of their practices having no evidence of effectiveness:

"An evaluation of the 29 recent reviews of spinal manipulation for back pain concluded that those authored by chiropractors tended to generate positive results, whereas the others failed to demonstrate effectiveness."cite journal |last=Ernst |first=Edzard |title=Chiropractic: A Critical Evaluation |journal=Journal of Pain and Symptom Management |date=1 May 2008 |volume=35 |issue=5 |pages=544–562 |doi=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004 |url=URL

"Collectively, their results fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is effective. The only possible exception is back pain. For this condition, manipulation may be as effective (or ineffective) as standard therapy."

In other words, chiropractic is as effective as "exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc." for back pain – in other words: no long-term benefit (as any MD will tell you). If you think that being as effective as acupuncture for treating medical conditions is a "recommendation", you need to look harder at what pseudoscience is. --RexxS17:43, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Hi RexxS, if you don't mind, please lay off the condescending dismissive attitude, it isn't appreciated. reliable sources disagree with your original research that chiropractic is not a health care profession. For example, the Meeker Haldeman source that QG cited/linked above, as well as the NCIIH source from Doc James. Further, your claim that all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine is demonstrably false, as evidenced by that same Meeker Haldeman article that QG cited, which back in 2002 stated that "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine". Thanks for the your links regarding subluxation, although they fails to demonstrate what you state, that the majority of practitioners base their diagnoses and treatments on subluxations. Instead, it demonstrates that national associations, not practitioners reaffirmed that more than 15 years ago. As for Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion, especially since the American College of Physicians explicitly uses the words "treatment recommendations" - i.e. "Treatment recommendations include massage, acupuncture, spinal manipulation, tai chi, and yoga".

In regards to effectiveness, a more recent review than the biased Ernst source you quoted is the very recent JAMA review by Paige et. al, which found that SMT was associated with modest improvements in pain and function for LBP. URL DigitalC18:13, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

Quit worrying about my attitude, and start focusing on the content. It's the usual tactic for POV-pushers to start making "ad hominems" to attack those who disagree with them when they have no actual facts to back them up. The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession; it's actually alternate medicine based on pseudoscience. Look at the article and you'll see PMC 1185558; PMID:18280103; ISBN|978-0-393-06661-6; ISBN|0-07-137534-1; ISBN|978-3-319-21987-5; and more.

One source from 2002 states "chiropractic stands at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine" and you try to use that to justify your claim that not all reliable sources label chiropractic as alternative medicine? Give us a break.

The Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic (representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries) all agree that chiropractic is based on (non-existant) vertebral subluxations and have done so for over 15 years. You try to tell us that doesn't represent the overwhelming majority of practitioners? Pull the other one.

What are you talking about:

"Guidelines not being recommendations, that is a bizarre assertion"

– I've made no such assertion. You're reading off the wrong cue-sheet. Of course ACP and lots of other bodies are happy to recommend chiropractic (and exercise, multidisciplinary rehabilitation, acupuncture, low-level laser therapy, etc.) for back pain, because they know for most people nothing is going to cure it, and people often feel better after some sort of management, even if it's a placebo. Take a look at Back pain Management for a fuller discussion.

Of course you try to dismiss Ernst as "biased". All chiro-fans do. But he's a very respected academic, a now-retired Professor of Complementary Medicine, and has many publications in the most prestigious of medical journals. The sources from Ernst used in this article are published by "Journal of pain and symptom management", "New Zealand Medical Journal", "International Journal of Clinical Practice", "Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine", etc. I suppose, according to you, those are all biased as well?

Interestingly, even Ernst also agrees that spinal manipulation is associated with modest improvements in pain and function for lower-back pain. But so is massage, exercise, yoga, heat treatment and any number of other techniques - not to mention pain killers. So what? That's the only claim to efficacy that chiropractic can muster, and that's by proxy, because plenty of other practitioners can carry out spinal manipulation. There's no other condition that chiropractic has been shown to be efficacious for, and that ought to tell you something. It doesn't work and its underlying theory of vertebral subluxations is complete woo-woo. --RexxS23:40, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

The reliable sources in the article contradict your assertion that chiropractic is a health care profession

None of those sources discuss whether chiropractic is or is not a healthcare profession. Those sources discuss the legitimacy of chiropractic. You also said

Health care is based on real medicine, which by definition works.

The dispute here seems to be a semantic debate about the meaning of the word "healthcare".

Healthcare: efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being especially by trained and licensed professionals

Meriam-Webster Dictionary That doesn't mention anything about evidence in the definition. Chiropractic falls under that definition.

Healthcare: the field concerned with the maintenance or restoration of the health of the body or mind.

Dictionary.com Again, no mention of the evidence you say is implicit with the word. Chiropractors also fall under this definition.

And then there's Wikipedia's healthcare page. Here's the lede:

Health care or healthcare is the maintenance or improvement of health via the diagnosis, treatment, and prevention of disease, illness, injury, and other physical and mental impairments in human beings. Healthcare is delivered by health professionals (providers or practitioners) in allied health professions, "'chiropractic"', physicians, physician associates, dentistry, midwifery, nursing, medicine, optometry, pharmacy, psychology, and other health professions. It includes the work done in providing primary care, secondary care, and tertiary care, as well as in public health.

you will also find chiropractic listed under the list of healthcare occupations. If you look around Wikipedia, (along with most sources) you will find chiropractic listed as a "Healthcare profession", which in no way ascribes validity to it. You're worried about the "impression" it will make if it says "healthcare", but that term is already used in several pages on Wikipedia to describe chiropractic. Ironically, the chiropractic page is one of the few that does not use the term healthcare"

Interestingly enough, I wasn't able to find an objective source that validated your opinion on the definition of the word "Healthcare". Do you have one you can provide? or one that explicitly states chiropractic is not a healthcare profession? I'm happy to provide several more that say it is.

Whether or not chiropractic is defined as alternative medicine is debated in many places and by many people, but the only debate as to whether or not chiropractic is a healthcare profession seems to be here.Jmg87304:09, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition, as might voodoo priests, white witches, homeopaths, faith healers, and any number of snake oil salesmen, who make a living from their "efforts made to maintain or restore physical, mental, or emotional well-being". If that's how you want to see chiropractic, that's fine with me. Otherwise get yourself a better dictionary. I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works. Not one based on pseudo-scientific claptrap. --RexxS10:22, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

If the definition of healthcare were to be taken as you wish it to be, then witch doctors would meet the definition

If a country has laws licensing witch-doctors to treat health conditions, then they are irrefutably part of its healthcare system. You tell me to get a better dictionary, yet I can link any number of dictionaries matching the definition of the word I've discussed. I asked you for a definition from an objective source (like a dictionary) that matches the definition of the word healthcare you are using, and you've yet to provide it.

If that's how you want to see chiropractic... I'm only interested in real healthcare based on medicine that works.

You can be interested in whatever you choose, but that has nothing to do with chiropractic being a healthcare profession. You're maintaining that this view is unique to me, but it isn't, and it doesn't matter how I see chiropractic. My view of chiropractic doesn't matter, that's why I cited dictionaries. Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body. Chiropractors are licensed by the government in the US and many other countries to treat health problems. That licensure is what defines chiropractic as a healthcare profession; That's not my view, it's an irrefutable fact. Jmg87313:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body". No it isn't. Chiropractic is a profession that claims to deal with health, based on the pseudo-science of vertebral subluxations, even though there's no evidence of its effectiveness, nor does any scientifically accepted method of action exist.

In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners. If licensure is the defining characteristic of a healthcare profession for you, and you're happy with magic as the curative mechanism, then you're welcome to your definition. I'll stick with real doctors for my healthcare, thanks. --RexxS13:37, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a profession which deals with the health of the human body." No it isn't

This appears to be another semantic argument. by "deals with", I meant that their treatments pertain to the health of the human body, and attempt to improve it. My phrasing has no implications of efficacy.

In those respects, it's no different from acupuncture, which has licensed (and certified) practitioners; or homeopathy which has licensed practitioners; or even from witch doctors, who are also licensed practitioners.

In each country that licenses those professions to deal with health-related issues, they are part of that healthcare system. You don't have to use them, you don't have to believe in them, but they are.

you're welcome to your definition

It's not "my" definition; it's the dictionary you're arguing with. Jmg87315:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

"My phrasing has no implications of efficacy."

snd

Indeed it doesn't. Which is why it's worthless.

"You don't have to use them"

snd

Indeed you don't. And our article needs to be clear why not.

"It's not "my" definition"

snd

But it's the definition that you choose to use to justify your advocacy of chiropractic, no matter how ridiculous it is. We don't do readers any favours by pretending that vertebral subluxations, acupunture, homeopathy, or white magic offer the same sort of healthcare as evidence-based medicine does. --RexxS15:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In addition to the sources listed above referring to chiropractic as a healthcare profession, the WHO repeatedly refers to it at a healthcare profession:

As a health care service, chiropractic offers a conservative management approach and, although it requires skilled practitioners, it does not always need auxiliary staff andtherefore generates minimal add‐on costs.

as well as:

"'Chiropractic"': A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders ongeneral health. There is an emphasis on manual techniques, including joint adjustmentand/or manipulation, with a particular focus on subluxations.

WHO.

I'm actually surprised that a reference to chiropractic as a "healthcare profession" is even a disputed point. Jmg87319:16, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

The dispute is about how we define chiropractic in the opening words of the article. And I'm surprised that it's not described as pseudo-science in that opening sentence. But we all have to make compromises. --RexxS19:31, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

See LEADSENTENCE. I'm curious how long the original research will remain in the first paragragh. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 19:35, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

In the WHO document chiropractic is only referred to as a "healthcare profession" three times: in the glossary on page 3, the same definition repeated on page 5 and in the educational objectives on 10. The introduction section written in 2004 explains that in some countries "there may be no educational, professional or legal framework governing the practice of chiropractic." On the NHS careers website there is only a mention- it is grouped under the section covering complementary and alternative medicine User:Drchriswilliams|Drchriswilliams19:41, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

It is not about a document. The pressing concern is about original research. A new editor knows there are problems with the first paragraph since 4 March 2017. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 19:43, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

@drchriswilliams, Chiropractic is actually referred to as a "Health care profession" in the document about 40 times. You have to search for "health care" as two words, rather than 1, but QG is right, that isn't the point. Jmg87301:55, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

@Jmg873, the word " profession" was in the first paragraph a little while ago along with sourced content. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 03:31, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Jmg873 While you say you are counting the use of a phrase, the WHO document does not use it in the way that you describe. It is most often used to refer to "other health care professionals", for example when describing where chiropractic might be given as "supplementary education". Drchriswilliams05:45, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

The WHO source is irrelevant since it is not being used as the first source in the article. This version uses Nelson. It says "The status of "licensed healthcare profession" confers upon the chiropractic profession certain privileges, but it also imposes upon it a specific set of expectations and ethical obligations." By law a chiropractic is "licensed" to be a healthcare professional. Can we focus on the real problems now? User:QuackGuru|"'QuackGuru"' 14:10, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree, let's get back to the primary issue: The version that you linked looks good. It removes the OR out of the lede; that revision should stand. Jmg87319:40, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Except that the 2005 Nelson article, published in a chiropractic journal, is an opinion piece which clearly identifies the objective of the authors to "increase market share of the public seeking chiropractic care". Drchriswilliams21:50, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

We are not trying to continue to discuss adding the word "healthcare" to the first paragraph. The tile of this thread is "Semi-protected edit request on 4 March 2017". Let's try to address the valid concerns. We are trying to remove the original research. For almost 10 years I have been trying to remove original research and content that failed verification from this page. The only problem remaining is the first paragraph. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 22:11, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Is there any objections? 15:54, 30 May 2017 QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 15:54, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

Yes I object to you adding to a 5 day old comment. It gives a misleading impression. Only in death does duty end 16:05, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I forgot to sign a new comment. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 16:17, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

I support QG's revision. Jmg87301:14, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It is far better than the current version. The failed verification content has been removed. See Talk:Chiropractic/Proposal to replace the current first paragraph. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 01:25, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

It's a complete whitewash of the subject which is never going to be more than alternative medicine. A series of techniques that has been demonstrated to be ineffective and based on a discredited theory is not comparable to real medical professions like dentistry. --RexxS12:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There is original research and other text that fails verification in the lede paragraph. That's no good here. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 14:33, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

profession or form of (alternative) medicine?

How other WP articles start...

""'Dentistry"' is a branch of medicine..."

* "A "'dentist"', also known in the U.S. as a "'dental surgeon"', is a surgeon who specializes in dentistry..."

""'Surgery"'... is an ancient medical specialty...."

*In medicine, a "'surgeon"' is a doctor who performs operations. Surgeons may be physicians, podiatrists, dentists, or veterinarians. "

""'Veterinary medicine"" is the branch of medicine..."

*"A "'veterinary physician"', colloquially called a "'vet"', shortened from "'veterinarian"' ..., is a professional who practices veterinary medicine ..."

Am finding it odd to call this a "profession" and not a branch of (alternative) medicine... Jytdog04:27, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

For the lede sentence we don't need to call it a "profession". We can't call it "alternative medicine" in the lede sentence when there is disagreement. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 04:45, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I see, so your moving toward "profession" is an effort to escape the "(alternative) medicine" problem - is that correct? Jytdog04:56, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not moving forward with "profession". I will not escape the "alternative medicine" content. There is no problem with "alternative medicine" content as long as the text follows the body. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 04:59, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I am not saying that in a bad way - artful editing can deal with difficult things. You certainly have been advocating for "profession". (note I said "moving "'t"'oward" not "moving "'f"'orward") Jytdog05:05, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm not currently advocating for using the word "profession" for the lede sentence. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 05:12, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I missed where your perspective has changed from this diff on the 19th or here on the 24th where you cited that diff. But OK fine, thanks for clarifying that you do not support using "profession" in the lead. Jytdog12:03, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The diffs you provided shows the removal of original research and content that fails verification. My main focus is to remove the content that is against policy and summarise the body simultaneously. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 14:46, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

I wouldn't have a problem with calling chiropractic a profession. After all, it's beyond doubt that some people make a living practising the art. But then again, so do confidence tricksters and witch doctors. However, I do object to these constant attempts by POV-pushers to pretend that it's something that it is not. It's alternative medicine and plenty of sources tell us that. Here's how our page introduces the subject: "Alternative medicine — or fringe medicine — includes practices claimed to have the healing effects of medicine but which are disproven, unproven, impossible to prove, or are excessively harmful in relation to their effect; and where the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not, or can not, work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims ...". Who is going to maintain, in the face of all of the evidence, that chiropractic claims to heal everything but has not been shown to be effective for anything beyond chronic LBP? --RexxS12:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

The body tells a different story regarding alternative medicine. We summarise the body. See "A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.9" The reason this is in the lede is because I wrote it. It takes a person to summarise the sources and summarise the body. That's what I have been doing. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 14:37, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Complete and utter nonsense. The body tells this story:

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine ref name=Chapman-Smith which focuses on manipulation of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.ref name=Nelson

Chiropractic's origins lie in the folk medicine of bonesettingref name=Ernst-eval and as it evolved it incorporated vitalism, spiritual inspiration and rationalism.ref name=Keating05

This "straight" philosophy, taught to generations of chiropractors, rejects the inferential reasoning of the scientific method,ref name=Keating05 and relies on deductions from vitalistic first principles rather than on the materialism of science.ref name=Chiro-Beliefs

Although a wide diversity of ideas exist among chiropractors,ref name=Keating05 they share the belief that the spine and health are related in a fundamental way, and that this relationship is mediated through the nervous system. cite book|vauthors=Gay RE, Nelson CF |chapter= Chiropractic philosophy|chapterurl=URL SF, Fast A |title= Alternative Medicine and Rehabilitation: a Guide for Practitioners|year=2003|isbn=1-888799-66-8|location= New York|publisher= Demos Medical Publishing

and so on

Summarise that and stop trying to whitewash the words "alternate medicine" out of the article, because that's exactly what the body of the article tells us it is. --RexxS16:26, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is misplaced content and does not tell the reader anything accurately. Later in the body it is summarized correctly. The first paragraph is about summarizing the definition and scope of practice for chiropractic. The proposal contains content that does summarise alternate medicine. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 17:10, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

No. "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is exactly in the right place because it sets the scene immediately for our readers. It is an accurate summary of the first sections of the article body. A reader who knows what alternative medicine is, will understand clearly that chiropractic is a manifestation of that; a reader who does not know what alternative medicine is, has only to follow the link to grasp that chiropractic does indeed claim to have the healing effects of medicine but those are disproven; and that the scientific consensus is that the therapy does not work because the known laws of nature are violated by its basic claims. There are no "vertebral subluxations" and manipulating the spine does not have a magical healing effect on general health. It's an open-and-shut case. Your proposal at Talk:Chiropractic/Proposal is a simple whitewashing exercise which attempts to elevate chiropractic to a status comparable with mainstream medicine. That is a travesty of how our encyclopedia should report on alternative or fringe medicine. The proposal is riddled with weasel words aiming to give the reader a false impression:

"diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – there's no evidence of effectiveness of treatment, nor of any effectiveness in prevention;

"the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – there's no such hypothesis: it's simply nonsensical conjecture, otherwise known as "woo-woo";

"generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – as if there is any other possible independent categorisation;

"a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – Mandy Rice-Davies Applies;

"chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – except for any evidence of being able to effectively treat any of the ailments that they claim to be able to treat;

"chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – no it doesn't: both of those have a measurable effect on health;

"A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – how large a number? If the number really is large, how come the main associations representing chiropractic both in the USA and world-wide still espouse the theory? Why can't this "large number of chiropractors" have any influence on the very bodies that they have set up to represent them?

If you want to make such a drastic change in how Wikipedia reports on chiropractic, then start an RfC and advertise it properly, because you'll find no consensus for that sort of change here. --RexxS21:51, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

"Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is duplication. It is not a summary of that section.

"diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – it is irrelevant whether there is or is not evidence of effectiveness for any treatment - that's not the purpose of the first paragraph;

"the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – there is such a hypothesis: it's simply another way of saying idea or concept;

"generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – as there is disagreement in the body of the article;

"a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – is accurate;

"chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – this is not regarding evidence of being effective or not being effective;

"chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – yes it does: both of those are not primary care providers like chiropractic;

"A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – how large do you ask. The source says substantial. How come there is still original research and other text that failed verification still in the first paragraph? QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 00:31, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

od

"chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" -- This is really a problem sentence and is only true if the scale of analysis excludes anything clinical. It's only true in a broad-brush context, like a taxonomic one: PCPs breathe air, and so to chiropractors. They are both humans. You can see where this goes. Chiropractors have almost no similarity to PCPs in a clinical context, and suggesting that they "share attributes" is misleading. Delta13C09:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

IMO, this content is better adjusted. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 11:34, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

reply to |BallenaBlanca What do you mean by it is "better adjusted"? QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

reply to |QuackGuru I think that this version fits better than the previous one to the text of the reference (Meeker-Haldeman), which says (page 218): ""With the advent of the category “complementary and alternative medicine” (CAM), chiropractors themselves are divided about how to define the profession; many do not want to be termed CAM practitioners (23). Chiropractors have many of the attributes of primary care providers and often describe themselves as such (24). Others point out that chiropractic has more of the attributes of a limited medical profession or specialty, akin to dentistry or podiatry (1). This is an ongoing internal and external debate affected by dynamic health industry forces."" --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

The change went against NPOV and V policy. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

reply to |QuackGuru

Of course "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine" is duplication. That's what summaries do.

"diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders" – "it is irrelevant whether there is or is not evidence of effectiveness for any treatment - that's not the purpose of the first paragraph;" The hell it's not the purpose: we have to establish in the first paragraph the nature of chiropractic, and the fact that it is ineffective as a form of treatment is anything but irrelevant. It needs to be stated loud and clear upfront.

"the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system" – "there is such a hypothesis: it's simply another way of saying idea or concept;" No it isn't – it has implications of method and suggests the possibility that evidence may be found. That ship has sailed a long time ago. If you mean 'concept', write 'concept', instead of trying to weasel it into something that it's not.

"generally categorised as complementary and alternative medicine" – "as there is disagreement in the body of the article;" That's the OR you're so fond of complaining about. It is categorised as alternative medicine, and the only dissenters are the chiropractors and their apologists. "Well they would, wouldn't they?"

"a characterization that many chiropractors reject" – "is accurate;" But tells us nothing. Of course many chiropractors reject the appellation; but we're not writing this article from the point of view of a chiropractor, and their views on the topic are anything but independent.

;::* "chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers" – "this is not regarding evidence of being effective or not being effective;" Yes it is. It's the single most important attribute of a primary care provider: that what they do works.

"chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" – "yes it does: both of those are not primary care providers like chiropractic;" No it doesn't. Those are respected medical specialities with the highest quality of regulation and lengthy training, based on sound principles. They also do what they claim to do: fix teeth or feet.

"A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence," – "how large do you ask. The source says substantial. How come there is still original research and other text that failed verification still in the first paragraph?" I'm still asking. What's the answer? --RexxS12:25, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I'm trying to remove the original research and other content that fails verification from the first paragraph. The first paragraph is not intended to focus on evidence. That's not how to summarise the body. Later on in the lede there is plenty of content about evidence. There are ongoing problems with the first paragraph. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 13:47, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It's already obvious to everybody what you're trying to do, and it's nothing to do with removing OR: you just want to turn this article into a glowing advert for chiropractic. The first paragraph has to focus on evidence, just as every other paragraph in the article has to. It's how we write our encyclopedia. I'm still waiting for an answer to how many chiropractors want to distance themselves from the woo-woo. A quarter? a third? 10%? 1%? We need to know some hard facts before you start this sort of "hand-waving". --RexxS16:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

It is inherently easy to understand where I am coming from. It has to do with removing original research (OR) and other content that failed verification in the lede paragraph, while simultaneously improving the first paragraph. There is content in the first paragraph that is against V and OR policy. The first paragraph must not focus on evidence, as it is explained later in the lede in other sections. It's not the way to write our encyclopedia. You don't need to wait for a specific answer because the source does not give a specific percentage. I go by what the source stated without engaging in OR or speculation. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 16:46, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

QuackGuru I would like to get the neutrality we all seek. Sorry if it has already been explained, I have not read all the conversations thoroughly... what exactly do you consider OR in this first paragraph? --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 17:29, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Every sentence in the first paragraph is either OR and/or not neutral and/or failed verification. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 17:35, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

More problems with the lede with this change. All the sources do not support the change and the first paragraph should not have that kind of content. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 18:48, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Rubbish. It was already in the lead before the previous edit removed it, and it is clearly supported by Chiropractic: a critical evaluation which uses almost exactly those words. You need to read the sources instead of pontificating about what the lead should and shouldn't contain. I see you're still sticking with your contention that "vertebral subluxations" and "innate intelligence" exist, in the face of all the evidence. --RexxS18:58, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Sourcing for not describing chiro as alt med

QG, would you please provide refs from mainstream medicine (outside the alt med and chiro "bubbles" which are distinct but overlap) that describe chiro as something other than alt med? Doing so would greatly strengthen your argument and without them you are unlikely to persuade anyone. Thanks. Jytdog16:51, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

I don't need to strengthen any argument or persuade others. Larry Sanger's V policy remains strong. I'm curious how long the policy violations will remain in the first paragraph. A short time ago the first paragraph did not contain any content that failed verification. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 17:41, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

Please see your Talk page. Jytdog19:11, 1 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added tlx|dead link tag to URL

Corrected formatting/usage for URL

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 15:43, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

PoV hatchet job

Why are we tolerating such a one-sided attack piece on an entire range of disciplines, that include doctors and quacks, not just quacks? There are multiple approaches to chiropractic, which did have pseudoscientific origins, but has evolved a long way since then. There are chiropractors who do hold with the nonsense 19th-century views (and probably also offer aromatherapy and naturopathy; if you encounter one, back out of the door slowly ...). But there are plenty of chiropractors who approach this as a scientific medical discipline, grounded entirely in observable facts, like whether one of the vertebrae is observably out of place. Anyone who's actually been to a chiropractor of the latter sort (e.g. because they couldn't stand up straight after twisting their back and were in great pain, and had this problem resolved in 15 minutes of manual or activator adjustment, with no hint of mumbo-jumbo) knows the difference.

I can't imagine that there are no reliable sources on the different approaches. I note that in the US at least, chiropractic is a regulated discipline like physical therapy, acupuncture (which also has questionable origins but produces results in modern practice), therapeutic massage, and other para-medical work, but unlike naturopathy, aromatherapy, colonic "cleansing", crystal therapy, past-life regression, and other pseudoscience – which have irrational adherents even within otherwise legit medical disciplines , etc.

This article would do much better by our readers to distinguish between a) different approaches to instruction, licensure, and practice, and b) the problems inherent in the ideas behind the genesis of the field, as a side topic, not as the singular focus. The lead is also flat-out misleading readers into believing that all modern chiropractors hold to the older, unscientific ideas. em|It's a lie and a caricature.

We are making such distinctions elsewhere, e.g. between modern medicine and the dangerous mercury, leeches, and "vapours" nonsense from which it originated; between modern psychology and psychiatry versus the Freudian and Jungian mysticism-laced psychotherapy pseudoscience of a century ago (which still continues aplenty); and between radically different medical versus bunk approaches of osteopaths (real doctors in the US, mystical weirdos in Europe). Our approach to traditional Chinese medicine and ayurvedic medicine is also doing a much better job than this article, which seems to have been taken over by the Anti-Chiropractic League or something. —  ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  19:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

The lede is where most of the disputes begin and end. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 39 for the previous discussion. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 19:48, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Do you have sources for this? First and foremost.

For the Lede, it might go a little too far in some areas. A few quotes could be put into the body rather than the lede. Harizotoh920:45, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

reply to |SMcCandlish you're simply talking bollocks. Your invective is completely free from sourcing and divorced from reality. If you're so sure that this article is a "POV hatchet job", do your homework and find the reliable sources that sustain your view. I'm sure we can all adduce stories of how a friend of a friend was cured of an otherwise incurable affliction by some miraculous intervention. Unfortunately for that theory of article-writing, the plural of anecdote is not data. If you're so certain that so many chiropractors reject the mumbo-jumbo of vertebral subluxations, then feel free to explain why the largest associations representing chiropractors believe in it:

talkquote|1=

... the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:

"Chiropractic is concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation. A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health. A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."Robert Cooperstein, Brian J. Gleberzon. Technique systems in chiropractic. "Elsevier Health Sciences", 2004, ISBN|0-443-07413-5, ISBN|978-0-443-07413-4, 387 pages.

In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.Donald M. Petersen Jr. WFC Lays Foundation for Worldwide Chiropractic Unity. "Dynamic Chiropractic", July 2, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 14.

Or you could at least take the trouble to look at the last archive where this was discussed no more than a few months ago. --RexxS21:01, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

We have yet another editor concerned about the lede. See " The lead is also flat-out misleading readers into believing that all modern chiropractors hold to the older, unscientific ideas. It's a lie and a caricature." That's a very strong statement by SMcCandlish. The last archive must be closely read in order for editors to make sure the lede follows Wikipedia:Verifiability policy and properly summarises the body. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 22:00, 13 July 2017 (UTC)

Both the Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic are not mentioned in the lede. Therefore, they don't represent the discussion for the content in the lede. Am I missing something? QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 02:13, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Been busy all day on other stuff. I'll try to get through this all later. To address RexxS's flameout:

First off, if one's "argument" is "

you're simply talking bollocks ... divorced from reality

" it's indistinguishable from the reactive defensive aggression of someone holding to an extremist position they know has holes in it. No one with a rational and bullet-proof position ever has to resort to "ad hominem" verbal abuse. It's the last refuge of the fallacious. Speaking of fallacies, look up straw man; no one said anything about any "cured of an otherwise incurable affliction" scenario, so your ranting about that is off-topic. Here's another straw man, though a cleverly disguised one: "...the largest associations representing chiropractors believe in..." – I never said anything about what specific organization state, and was pretty clear that there are differing views/positions. I never even suggested a guestimate of kook to scientist to in-the-middle ratios in this field, so there's no point throwing your own OR guestimates based on some organization sites you've singled out as particularly kooky. You're attacking a bunch of fake arguments I never made.

As for "completely free from sourcing": This is a talk page, it's not an article. I'm making em|a tone and balance complaint, for editors who specialize in MEDRS sourcing to deal with, they way they have dealt with similar matters at topics I already enumerated in some detail. I'm also making a demonization-by-overgeneralization complaint, which is perhaps a severable though related matter. Yes, it will take sources to demonstrate what the different approaches are and how they differ (including differing definitions of "subluxation", plus there are chiropractors who don't use the term, and just speak of alignment of the spine, joint mobility, muscle tension or painful pressure on a nerve due to a partial dislocation, etc.) I'm suggesting that it needs to happen that Wikipedia get this material right. I'm saying this primarily as a em|reader having a "WTF?" reaction, not as an editor. At first I suspected the page had been vandalized, the lead is that bad and out-of-character for Wikipedia.

MEDRS is not my area of great research productivity, largely because I do not presently have access to most of the full-text journal stuff. Anyone familiar with me knows the depth and breadth of sourcing work I can and will do when I GaF, often buying sources I can't get for free (over $3K so far). (Anyone familiar with me also knows I'm no friend of pseudo-science; I'm a rationalist without a "spiritual" or "mystical" bone in my body). But I also take a dim view of editors' GREATWRONGS deathmatch behavior against people who disagree with them. It's disruptive and it doesn't serve our readers. In the end, I DGaF all that much about this particular topic, and there are MEDRS people who already have access to every journal site they could ever need, and know how to use them very efficiently, and love working on articles like this. I don't need to ineffectively try to devote my WP time to this article in order to point out NPOV and OR problems with it.

If someone comes and tells me that, say, an article on English use of a particular punctuation mark is heavily, obviously biased toward only one viewpoint (e.g. British journalism or American academic publishing, whatever), or someone else tells me that an article on particular cat breed is a biased promotional piece obviously hacked together by breeders to make their breed sound unreasonably appealing, I'm not going to reflexively attack them, I going to look into the concerns. That's what Wikipedias do.

This article, at least its lead, is just a Wikipedia embarrassment. We never permit a piece this single-mindedly hateful to sit here like this for so long. This is a em|community matter, not a personal one.

So go ahead and yell at me for not fixing it all myself if that makes you feel magically superior. Everyone's entitled to an occasional irrational belief, especially if they spend their time mostly fighting others' irrational beliefs. Maybe it inevitably comes with the territory, like atheists who come to treat atheism like a religion (I call myself an agnostic instead, specifically to distance myself from them).

Finally, em|Of course I'm aware that this has been discussed before. This article has been problematic for years, and has lots of archived talk. The fact that it's still this biased is a clear indication that the prior discussions have failed to resolve the matter, so I'm hardly going to waste time quoting them. The very fact that there's this much discussion about this, involving plenty of rational people (as well as, naturally, various fringey thinkers) is a strong indication that the balance problem is actual and you just don't want to see it. I would surmise that's because you've been "too close" to the content for too long, in too many heated arguments. I recognize the tone of someone who's gotten "argued out" on something and is just pissed off that the argument hasn't gone away.

So, well, meh.  —  ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

ScienceBasedMedicine.org has a shorter but remarkably similar article. Despite a boatful of problems, it makes it clear (while trying to dodge or fudge about it) that "subluxation" has multiple meanings, that chiropractic views change, that spinal manipulation therapy is effective for low back pain (qualified unnecessarily with "for some patients", which is a qualification that applies to every treatment for everything) but "not superior to" other alternatives (a negative and bullshitty way of saying "as effective as" other treatments), that there are radically different kinds of chiropractors who (as I said) focus on SMT without mumbo-jumbo, versus those who are involved in kooky quackery, plus various stuff in the middle, like SMT chiros who also do massage therapy (a combination that is kind of obvious and not suspect in any way, any more than is an orthopedic surgeon's office with a physical therapist on staff). Like our article, that one tries to steer the reader into making assumptions, by bandying about claims that lots of chiropractors believe in insert various irrational shit here. It's a variant on "many dentists are Christians, who believe in stuff like a virgin birth and a man-god coming back from the dead, so dentists cannot be trusted!" transparent agenda-pushing, but craftily constructed to sound more plausibly scary.

Why does our article read so much like the people at ScienceBasedMedicine.org wrote it? Theirs is like an abstract of ours, and accidentally highlights many of the problems in it by reducing it to short sentences in which the guilt by association, argument to emotion, and other fallacies are more obvious due to the clipped brevity. While, yes, our lead is the most problematic, it's not the only trouble spot. Starting there, the main problem is a particularly "verboten" form of OR again: leading the reader to the editor's desired conclusion. We insert various "non sequitur" factoids as if they're damning evidence in a chain of logic when they're unrelated to each other, or to summarizing the topic accurately and informatively as  ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  14:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

There is a draft page without OR in the first paragraph. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 15:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 10 external links on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Corrected formatting/usage for URL

Added tlx|dead link tag to URL

Added tlx|dead link tag to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added tlx|dead link tag to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added tlx|dead link tag to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 07:54, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit Cyberpower678/FaQsInternetArchiveBot this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive URL to URL

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot "'InternetArchiveBot"' 11:21, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Baby colic

The review states "Moreover, a case of death after manipulation of the cervical and thoracolumbar spine in a 3- months- old infant is reported. For this reason, considering the lack of evidence of safety and effectiveness, manipulation of the vertebral column is not recommended.13"

The content added appears to be too close to the original source and it is duplication of existing content in the chiropractic article. See "and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including..." The list includes baby colic,125126. See Talk:Chiropractic/Archive_38Misplaced_article.3F for the other copyvio. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 20:38, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

What do you propose? There is no problem in reviewing it. Best. --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 20:45, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

Remove the copvio and duplication. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 20:46, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

IMO, there is no "copyvio". CLOP "Limited close paraphrasing is also appropriate if there are only a limited number of ways to say the same thing." And there are few ways to say this. In addition, it is not a creative text. They are just two short sentences (not even a paragraph), paraphrased to the extent possible, describing facts. See also NOCREATIVE and Wikipedia:Close paraphrasingSubstantial similarity.

And about the possible duplication and this you said: ""'and that the evidence from reviews is negative, or too weak to draw conclusions, for a wide variety of other nonmusculoskeletal conditions, including...' The list includes baby colic"" No, the list does not include baby colic, it includes "ADHD/learning disabilities, dizziness, high blood pressure, and vision conditions.(122)".

Baby colic is included in a list that says "Other reviews have found no evidence of significant benefit for..." and is backed by references dating back 14, 9 and 8 years. The review I have included is of 2017 and expands the information, discouraging manipulation in babies.

Let's see more opinions. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 00:46, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is "As there is no evidence of effectiveness or safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not endorsed.134" The content about safety was moved to safety and rewritten. See "A three-month-old baby died following cervical and thoracolumbar manipulation.134" The source does not mention it was "chiropractic manipulation". The source mentioned it was "manipulation of the vertebral column". That by definition is cervical manipulation. User:QuackGuru|"'QuackGuru"' 04:19, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

On the other page it says "Further, as there is no evidence of safety for cervical manipulation for baby colic, it is not advised.26 There is a case of a three-month-old dying following manipulation of the neck area.26" Both articles have slightly different wording from each other. QuackGuru "'QuackGuru"' 05:39, 19 September 2017 (UTC)

The current wording is fine. Thanks. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca 25px 12px 00:34, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 September 2017

The information provided in this article is very biased and one sided. Chiropractic is an evidenced based field. I would be happy to provide said articles upon request to clear up any inaccurate information that was utilized to piece together this post. Furthermore, The schooling required to complete the Doctor of Chiropractic program is rigorous and covers a multitude of varying subject matter that includes but is not limited to human Anatomy and Physiology as well as the diagnosis and treatment of diseases. Chiropractic is not a pseudoscience and the association of this type of false information provided on Wikipedia should be removed/corrected immediately. Provided below in ("'____"') are just a few of the correction that should be made. These are opinions of biased articles and are only facilitating the spread of this propaganda.

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.12 Proponents claim that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.2 "'These claims are not backed by any evidence."' The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.3 Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and "'chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas"' such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that are not based on sound science.45678

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.4 "'Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain."'4 A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.9 Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.10 The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.11 There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.12 It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.13 There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.14 Several deaths have been associated with this technique13 and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,1516 a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.16

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia.17 It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.18 Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.19 Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues.4 Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,420 but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers,2 so their role on primary care is limited and disputed.220 Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence" and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.21 Summerturn8315:03, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' please establish a consensus for this alteration "'before"' using the tlx|edit semi-protected template. – Nihlus15:09, 28 September 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2017

Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine mostly concerned with the diagnosis and treatment of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine.12 Proponents claim that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.2 These claims are not backed by any evidence. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially spinal manipulation therapy (SMT), manipulations of other joints and soft tissues.3 Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that are not based on sound science.45678

While even many chiropractic doctors agree that manipulation therapy (manual therapy) is sustained by pseudopscientific ideas they claim that more modern chiropractic treatments which ave emerged are based on sound science and accepted by mainstream medicine. Such as various traction and motorized decompression chiropractic techniques. Chiropractic Biophysics®(CBP®) is the most published named technique in the Index Medicus using traction methods. Motorized decompression provided by the DRX-9000 machine, approved by the USA Food and Drug Administration is supported by sound scientific research. Both DRX-9000 motorized decompression and Chiropractic Biophysics traction chiropractic therapy techniques can be objectively quantified through pre-therapy and post-therapy Magnitic Resonance Imaging and X-ray imagining.

Numerous controlled clinical studies of manipulation treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results.4 Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.4 A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.9 Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient.10 The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.11 There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations.12 It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.13 There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation.14 Several deaths have been associated with this technique13 and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative,1516 a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.16

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia.17 It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy.18 Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.19 Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues.4 Many chiropractors describe themselves as primary care providers,420 but the chiropractic clinical training does not support the requirements to be considered primary care providers,2 so their role on primary care is limited and disputed.220 Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence" and spinal adjustments, and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.21

D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s,22 after saying he received it from "the other world",23 and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century.22 Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.2425 Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject,26 which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.27 The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 196628 and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.20 Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.20 20:39, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. Repasting the entire introduction to the article without specifying your requested edits makes it difficult to see what you want changed Cannolis20:49, 5 October 2017 (UTC)

Just a link to a news story

URL

Roxy the dog "'Roxy"' the dog. 14:49, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

This seems like a pointless post; do you have any suggestions to improve the article? The news story ends with "and we look forward to the precise cause of his death being resolved as quickly as possible." Perhaps once we learn the cause of death the story will have more relevance?

Pointless? A SPA like yourself would say that I suppose. "Also" learn to sign your posts. -Roxy the dog "'Roxy"' the dog. 17:19, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Oh, so you are suggesting that it is not a pointless post to link an article with no commentary and no suggestion on what to do with the link you provided? I will give you the benefit of the doubt; so what is your suggestion for improving the article based on the news article you linked?

If you cannot see why I posted that, I really dont mind. "Also" learn to sign your posts. -Roxy the dog "'Roxy"' the dog. 09:53, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 November 2017

"These claims are not backed by any evidence." There is no citation for this. 06:59, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

questions

Which and which claim? –Ammarpadnbsp; 07:29, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

The sentence "These claims are not backed by any evidence" is in the lede. Which means there does not need to be a source: the lede summarizes the article, and the article, further down, has the citations needed. No action necessary here. --Hob Gadling11:17, 27 November 2017 (UTC)

A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.[9]

Several red-flags alarm when reading this and checking the citation.

First of which, two non-chiropractors evaluated a profession they have no learning and training in. It would be just as alarming to see an evaluation of a medical practice by a doctor of chiropractic.

Second, there is such a vast difference between a chiropractic adjustment and a spinal manipulation. Many professions use spinal manipulation as part of their treatments. D.O.s, physical therapists, etc. There is no specificity to a spinal manipulation, so what would lead anyone to believe it would be as effective as a specific chiropractic adjustment?

Third, modern day chiropractic makes no claims as to the chiropractic adjustment treating ANY condition. And, to research the Palmer father and son, they were FOUNDERS of a science and were working their own way through the understanding of it. As recent as the 1960's the practice of medicine claimed pregnant women should be treated with Thalidomide against morning sickness. Medicine felt bloodletting was an appropriate treatment for balancing the body fluids to treat all health illnesses. Of course any rational individual studied in any science understands the claims early on are based on observation and data available at that time. However, chiropractic, as a science has remained very consistent with the understanding that a central nervous system under the least amount of stress is the optimal form. If some chiropractors out in the field made public claims that chiropractic cures cancer, or heals the blind, etc., it is an error to then use that to brush the science of chiropractic as also making such claims.

So by using a "critical evaluation" performed by people who are not qualified to critically evaluate the science of chiropractic and then to post their findings as if such is scientific fact, is not only ignorant, it is also fallacious and dangerous.

Keeping it very simple, chiropractic works because the chiropractic adjustment locates, analyzes and corrects the vertebral subluxation complex and thus leaves the body in a more optimum state of healing and recovery. Because that is what the body is constantly attempting to do, maintain homeostasis. The body uses the CNS (central nervous system) to control and coordinate the actions of every cell in the body. Any unneeded pressure placed on the CNS reduces the ability of the body to be functioning at its optimal potential. Removing the unneeded pressure placed on the CNS by a vertebral subluxation leaves the body instantly in a more optimum state. If the body then is able to cure or heal ITSELF of cancer, headaches, mental illness, fatigue, WHATEVER, then the body did that, not chiropractic.

There is a wealth of peer reviewed critical evaluations of the science of chiropractic available done the correct scientific way. No need to use pseudo-research done by unqualified people.Dr Jeff Allen01:39, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of formatting the above post to a more usual presentation, so that it doesn't hurt my eyes. -Roxy the dog "'Roxy,"' the dog. 05:14, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Still hurts my brain though. Full of non-sequiturs, false analogies, ad hominem, and other bad reasoning.

So, Dr Jeff, are you trying to say that there are mistakes in the paper quoted, and that there are conditions spinal manipulation is effective at treating? Which ones are those conditions, and where is the evidence? Which mistakes are those, and where is the evidence?

Handwaving, as in the above diatribe, does not count as evidence. Neither does credential-waving. --Hob Gadling10:41, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Naprapathy

Is it possible to get any more information, like a dedicated section, on naprapathy? I went to look it up, but there is barely any info on it here. I see that it used to have its own article but then it got merged. Perhaps some reliable sources got lost in the merge. Googling around, I can see some candidates. Just a thought for anyone who would like to improve this article. Kbog "'K"'. 21:08, 14 March 2018 (UTC)

Check out the history of that article. Maybe you can rescue something there and create a section here. I can't guarantee it will be saved here, but at least you'll have the beginnings of a stub article. -- BullRangifer ""'PingMe""' 03:24, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

neuroleptic malignant syndrome

Chiropractors are decidedly not specialists with neuroleptic malignant syndrome. No chiropractor on the planet would even try to treat that unless they had a side-business as an undertaker. —nbsp;Preceding 01:33, 22 March 2018 (UTC)

Why is this pag3e locked?

There is inaccurate information on this page. It has been locked so that the corrections can not be made. One can only assume that this is done intentionally so that true information about the subject can not be read. CMS215216:18, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

I would suggest not to assume a conspiracy. Could you describe what exactly appears to be wrong in the article please? Retimuko16:53, 25 April 2018 (UTC)

Outdated, unfair, and bias

•The scientific community now recognizes that manipulation is of value for the vast majority of patients who seek chiropractic care (Haldeman Underwood, 2010)

•2018: The study led by investigators at the Palmer Center for Chiropractic Research, in conjunction with the RAND Corporation and the Samueli Institute– the largest randomized clinical trial in chiropractic research in the U.S. to-date – took place from September 2012 to February 2016 and involved 750 active-duty U.S. military personnel at three sites across the country. New study finds the addition of chiropractic care to usual medical care provides greater relief for low-back pain than usual medical care alone

•Furlan et al., 2010: Spinal manipulation significantly more effective at reducing pain in the short-term when compared to placebo or no treatment

•Rubinstein, et. al., 2011: 20 RCTs on acute low back pain: Similar clinical benefits to exercise, physiotherapy, and NSAIDS

•Goertz et al., 2013: Acute low back pain RCT of active-duty military personnel: Addition of SMT resulted in clinically and statistically significant reduction in pain and improvement in function

•Cochrane Review - adults with neck pain (Gross et al., 2010). 27 trials, 1,522 participants. Cervical spinal manipulation results in pain relief superior to that of sham control in the immediate and short-term for acute and chronic neck pain conditions

•Jull et al., 2002: Spinal manipulation favorable for cervicogenic-type headache

•Brantingham et al., 2013: Fair level of evidence for use of manipulative therapy for upper extremity conditions such as lateral epicondylopathy and carpal tunnel syndrome for short-term

•Systematic review - Brantingham et al., 2012, Fair level of evidence for manipulative therapy for knee osteoarthritis, patellofemoral pain syndrome, and ankle inversion sprains

•Cassidy et al. 2008: No evidence that patients receiving chiropractic care are at higher risk of suffering VBA stroke than patients visiting a primary care provider

•Cramer et al., 2013: Ascribed to increased joint mobility following the mechanical elimination of adhesions in hypo mobile spinal facet joints —nbsp;Preceding 17:21, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2018

change "find themselves is at odds with" to "find themselves at odds with" Richardpenner15:10, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

Done. -Roxy the dog "'Roxy,"' the dog. 15:44, 7 June 2018 (UTC)

When Wikipedia goes too far in the wrong direction in fight against pseudoscience

I gather from the article, and particularly this talk page that this article is under heavy attack from trolling, presumably proponents of chiropractic. It is now locked stating that chiropractic is a pseudoscience, as evidenced by a paper from last decade. However, things are moving. Just last year JAMA (yes, journal of American medical association) published a cochrane meta analysis of randomised clinical trials of the chiropractic spinal manipulation, and the results came out in favour of the intervention. So today it's simply not evidence-based to claim that it is a pseudoscience. Therefore I think this is a good example of overeager wiki editors trying to defend their own world view, rather than yield to evidence based world views. Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 06:57, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Lassefolkersen I've taken the liberty of moving this to the bottom of the talk page per convention.

Can I ask whether you have actually read the article that you referenced? First, it isn't about chiropractic - it's about spinal manipulation therapy. Some of the studies included did have chiropractors providing the SMT, but that was a minority. The review concludes that it appears that SMT is associated with only 'modest' improvements on average, and that it acknowledges that the heterogeneity of the outcomes of the studies was high, and that the quality of the review is limited by the low quantity of the studies, and the fact that more of the studies were low quality than high. In short, I don't think that it tells us anything particularly surprising - we don't really have any very good treatments for lower back pain, and that spinal manipulation therapy might help some people a bit, but not very much. That is very different from saying that it is has validated chiropractic. Girth Summit09:10, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Cochrane reviews are the highest form of evidence-base there is. Heterogeneity analysis and filtering of studies is what they do. Yes that includes talking about limitations. Such is the fact for any medical treatment. But one doesn't get to conclude on abstract in JAMA that "Among patients with acute low back pain, spinal manipulative therapy was associated with modest improvements in pain and function at up to 6 weeks, with transient minor musculoskeletal harms" if it is "pseudoscience" (neutral point of view). Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 11:28, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

It's about as good at that as massage. What makes it "pseudoscience" is the underlying theory and associated claims. And as pointed out, that review is of spinal manipulation, not chiropractic specifically. --Tronvillain tronvillain 13:07, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

This review says nothing about subluxations, it says nothing about innate intelligence, and it says nothing about chiropractic being good for anything except back pain - it basically says that spinal manipulations, including (but not limited to) those given by chiropractors, seem to moderately effective for back pain, while noting that the evidence isn't particularly good. This article already says in the lead that chiropractic might be effective for back pain, I don't see any conflict between the conclusions of this review, and the content of this article. Girth Summit14:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence based medicine does not require an explanation of mechanism of action. It only and absolutely requires properly conducted clinical trials to show improved effect over alternatives. If there was requirement for explanation of mechanism of action, large parts of psychiatric medicine would also be labelled pseudoscience according to your standards. But luckily FDA sets the standards and those are clinical trials. So it is your point of view that is much beyond neutral point of view, e.g. FDA standards Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 15:11, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Evidence-based medicine does restrict itself like that, yes. But Wikipedia does not. We do not simply concentrate on one aspect, we handle all the aspects of the subject if there are reliable sources on them. And the reliable sources say chiropractic is pseudoscience.

"large parts of psychiatric medicine would also be labelled pseudoscience according to your standards." Yes, large parts are indeed correctly labelled pseudoscience, for instance psychoanalysis, recovered memory, or Family Constellations.

FDA is one possible source. But Wikipedia is not a section of the FDA and does not have to follow exactly what it says and reject what it does not say. Instead, Wikipedia follows reliable sources.

You have not given any valid reasons for your opinion that this article goes "too far". You want us to use sources which come to the conclusion you would like to see, and ignore sources which come to the opposite conclusion. That is not how Wikipedia (or science) works. --Hob Gadling16:06, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Regarding psychiatric diseases; yes and antidepressants and antipsychotics, in everyday use in clinics around the world. Yet we don't understand their mechanism of action. Regarding FDA; so your argument is that Wikipedia indeed knows better than FDA what pseudoscience is. Ok. Regarding opinions why the pseudoscience-label is "too far" - I have: we cannot label as pseudoscience what is supported by controlled clinical trials. Simple as that. Anyway, I can see from the talk-archives that I'm not the first one that have tried this, only to be silenced by agenda-pushers such as yourself. Feel free to add whatever wise ending words you choose, you clearly are more entrenched in the Wikipedia system and I have no hope of ever winning this. Hopefully other readers will have the time to look beyond the article, and into the talk page. Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 16:39, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

You have no hope of winning this, not because of external circumstances, but because you are wrong and you only have bad reasoning on your side.

"supported by controlled clinical trials" - This is a gross misrepresentation of the facts. You picked one study out of the total data base. Tha fact that it confirms your opinion does not mean chiropractic is science, it means you used the invalid method of cherrypicking. "Agenda-pushers" is not the crux here, "bad reasoning" is. You are not competent to tell good reasoning from bad reasoning, and therefore your own agenda-pushing fails. Of course you fall back on argumentum ad hominem, as pseudoscience proponents usually do. --Hob Gadling17:05, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Hob Gadling, no I did not. Cochrane reviews are meta-analysis of all available studies, not cherry picking. Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 17:22, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Meta-analyses of all available studies "'of one specific treatment against one specific ailment"'. You cherrypicked the meta-analysis of the one ailment chiropractics can do something against and ignored all the other studies on ailments that they try to do something against, but fail abysmally. Somebody who tries to use a hammer for nailing, screwing, planing, painting, sawing, cutting, clamping, polishing, typing and milling is not a competent handyman just because the hammer works for the nailing. --Hob Gadling17:32, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I am not suggesting this vindicates anything chiropractics have ever thought of. But I understand that spinal manipulative therapy is quite central to chiropractics (ref, any chiropractor-website). The current article does not at all reflect that there is evidence-based cochrane-reviewed support for a central method. Rather, it seems to try to hide it under accusations of pseudoscience Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 18:04, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Spinal manipulative therapy is the hammer I was talking about. Chiropractics use it as a panacea.

As others have already explained, the study is not about chiropractics, it is about spinal manipulative therapy used by lots of different people, a minority of which were chiropractics. Using my simile, the study says that hammers are good for nailing. This article is not about hammers or about nailing, it is about the guy who tries to use his hammer for everything he can think of, including nailing. And you think the article should mention that, like the stopped clock, that guy is wrong most of the time, but is also right twice a day. You are right. It should mention that. And if you actually look at the article, you will find that it already does! It says, "'"Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.4""' So what is the problem? Do you want us to delete the fact that hammer guy is wrong most of the time? --Hob Gadling18:15, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I just don't see that being the case. All the top-hits for business on a search for chiropractor say that they are offering spinal manipulative therapy for back problems, in various different phrasings. Yet, you claim that is the exception? "The clock that shows right twice a day"? Anyway - let's agree to disagree, I realize we are out in the nuances where hard evidence have long stopped making sense, so I'm out of arguments. I won't do any more edits to the article. Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 18:40, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Wikipedia looks at the reliable sources, not at search engine hits.

A few years ago, there was a big stink about chiropractics: Simon Singh was sued for saying that a chiropractic organisation "happily promoted bogus treatments". He won because he was right. And the backlash against the quacks consisted of, among other tactics, reports to the authorities of chiropractic websites that happily promoted bogus treatments, resulting in fines. Maybe they learned that lesson, at least regarding websites, and now concentrate on happily promoting the nailing thing only, while still doing all the rest. --Hob Gadling18:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

Chiropractic is a pseudo-science because the entire theoretical basis of it is baseless, and filled with metaphysical claims. Imagine if a pseudo-science like Phrenology, happened to advocate exercize and healthy eating. Citing studies showing that this has scientific basis doesn't stop it from being a pseudo-science. For Chiropractic, Innate Intelligence and Vertebral subluxation, and other key concepts, are referred to as pseudo-science in many RS. Pointing to a Cochrane review of spinal manipulation is a dodge and avoids the broader issues relating to Chiropractic. Harizotoh916:48, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

If Phrenology did that, I should hope that it's Wikipedia-article editors would have the maturity to clearly mention that it was shown to be beneficial Lassefolkersen LasseFolkersen 17:12, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

I repeat - the article already says that chiropractic might be beneficial for back pain (in the lead no less). If chiropractic restricted itself to saying that it was good for back pain, nobody would say that it was pseudoscientific. The reason we say that of chiropractors is that they continue to assert that it's good for all sorts of things, in the face of all the evidence. This study shows precisely what this article already says - spinal manipulations, when practiced by chiropractors or anyone else, may help with back pain. If you know of any Cochrane meta-analyses showing that it works for anything else, I'd be interested to read them. Girth Summit18:50, 22 August 2018 (UTC)

conspiracy theory??

i get that chiropractic isn't sanctioned by "science-based medicine," but...conspiracy theory? that's more-woo-than-woo territory. unless Wikipedia has regressed to the preschool sensibilities of calling everything an editor doesn't like a "conspiracy theory." in real life this is generally considered the mark of a sore loser. Nonononocat08:47, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Your comment here makes no sense at all. What are you on about when you mention "Conspiracy Theories" -Roxy the dog "'Roxy,"' in the middle. 11:03, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

I think Nonononocat is referring to the Alt/pseudo science side panel - there's a reference to conspiracy theories there. Nonononocat Nonononocat, Chiropractic isn't in the conspiracy theories category - if you look at the side panel, you'll see that you can there are just some links to other articles in the series there. The article doesn't say that chiropractic is one of these. Girth Summit GirthSummit 13:53, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

OK, misunderstood the structure of the info box. apologies, i am new here.Nonononocat16:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

&quot;Chiropractors are not medical doctors.&quot;

Why is this being kept in the lead? This is a self-evident fact; CK. If someone didn't know, the first paragraph makes it abundantly clear. Alternative medicine, at odds with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific principles. There is no place on earth where chiropractors are medical doctors; why are we stating this?

Jmg873

18:10, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

Because chiropractors create confusion and many market themselves as family physicians and pediatricians, just a chiropractic (and superior) version. They misinform their clients. Therefore this needs to be stated clearly. -- BullRangifer ""'PingMe""' 05:48, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

That's not what the MEDRS compliant source stated. The content is cited to a news article. It is not a MEDRS compliant source. See MEDRS. The content also does not belong in the first paragraph even if cited to a MEDRS compliant source. QuackGuru12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

We don't follow facts. Wikipedia seeks verifiability, not truth. We follow verifiability. I recommended you work on rewriting the failed verification content on a related page. QuackGuru12:52, 3 November 2018 (UTC)

Agree with BullRangifer BullRangifer in that it is not "common knowledge" that chiropractors are not medical doctors Having this sourced information in the first paragraph is not an issue. -- User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff16:27, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

As it is not "common knowledge" it is then a MEDRS issue. It is also a WEIGHT issue when is not "common knowledge". QuackGuru18:14, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 31 January 2019

Change:

They were the third largest profession in the US in 2002, following doctors and dentists.

To:

They were the third largest medical profession in the US in 2002, following doctors and dentists. 05:52, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Done"' – Jonesey9507:57, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2019

This article says claims of subluxations affecting the nervous system are demonstrably false. There isn't even a reference for this statement. Until there's a reference, that's an opinion statement and should be removed. Jsed116:36, 23 February 2019 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' The sentence in question does not say "claims of subluxations affecting the nervous system are demonstrably false", rather, it says

"claim(s) that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system, through vertebral subluxation ... are demonstrably false"

. Although not indicated in the article through a placed ref tag, the reference for that statement is partially sourced from the following:

cite journal |vauthors=Keating JC, Charlton KH, Grod JP, Perle SM, Sikorski D, Winterstein JF | title = Subluxation: dogma or science? | journal = Chiropr Osteopat | volume = 13 | issue = | page = 17 | date = August 2005 | pmid = 16092955 | pmc = 1208927 | doi = 10.1186/1746-1340-13-17 "'"' 07:35, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractors do NOT go to medical school &amp; are NOT “doctors”..only MD,DO &amp; MBBS are doctors

Chiropractors are NOT recognized by the US Federal or state governments as so-called “doctors”. They don’t go to medical school like MDs and DOs in the USA or MBBS in the United Kingdom so stop misleading the public into thinking they are “doctors “ when they are not. Stop writing the fake claim that so-called “Chiropractic Medicine” is a medical “specialty “ when it is not even close. And stop writing that chiropractors are so-called “chiropractic physicians” when they are NOT real physicians, no chiropractor ever went to medical school they get a shorter inferior education compared to MDs. At the most chiropractors are just physical therapists and absolutely NOT “doctors” so stop lying to the public! —nbsp;Preceding 12:51, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

Chiropractors go to school for the doctorate in chiropractic and are primary care physicians in many states. They can legally call themselves doctors of chiropractic in every state in the United States. Your claim is not backed up by any definitive truth or fact. Drjakeh18:16, 13 April 2019 (UTC)

The poster above is actually correct in that, Chiropractors DO NOT go to medical school like regular physicians and ARE NOT medical doctors (MD's); they are not allowed to use the MD title in any state. -- Somedifferentstuff11:17, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, everyone, please remember that this is NOTAFORUM pepperbeast PepperBeast 20:33, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 May 2019

X - Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science.45678

Y - It's foundation works alongside mainstream medicine, cite web |url=URL |website=Cancer Treatment Centers of America |accessdate=05/02/2019 and chiropractic has methodology that is diverse with multiple techniques, but consistent in diagnosing and treatment of the spine and related problems.

X - Chiropractors are not medical doctors.9

Y - Chiropractors are doctors of chiropractic. cite web |title=Chiropractic Qualifications |url=URL |publisher=American Chiropractic Association |accessdate=05/02/2019 Drjakeh18:53, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

20px|link=|alt= "'Not done:"' please establish a consensus for this alteration. The current wording seems acceptable with regards to MEDRS and FRINGE. – ""'Þjarkur""' 19:21, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Clear MEDRS violation

"Chiropractors are not medical doctors.9unreliable medical source?" Salzberg, Steven (April 20, 2014). New Medicare Data Reveal Startling $496 Million Wasted On Chiropractors. "Forbes." Retrieved: September 12, 2018. Why is there a "Forbes" news article in the lede?

Does anyone support a MEDRS violation and content that does not summarise the body? QuackGuru16:52, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I propose this change to address the concerns made by Drjakeh and for a more neutral lede. QuackGuru16:56, 4 May 2019 (UTC)

There is no MEDRS violation here; you need to read the policy again. -- Somedifferentstuff15:20, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

Somedifferentstuff You can't just blanket revert with "slow it down, discuss on talk". Bold editing is encouraged as a matter of policy, and reverting back to a "longstanding consensus version" is not a valid reason to obstruct good faith improvements. Stonewalling edits without good reasons is disruptive, as is condescendingly rejecting others' arguments with personal attacks, rather than providing a nuanced refutation. You wanted to discuss the edit on talk? Then discuss. Explain this, or don't stonewall edits. Swarm "'~Swarm~"' 21:49, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

I suspect there is some confusion, so I'm giving this its own heading. I now see that your comment addressed two things, so I'll only address the first one.

That revert was actually a good one, but the edit summary wasn't at all precise. Let me try a better one to justify that revert of a pointless addition of over 9,000 bytes: ""Please don't add archive links to refs that aren't really "dead". You can set the bot to only add such links to real dead links. What you're doing is only bloating articles and making them harder to edit."" Some of their previous edits have added huge amounts of pointless bytes. Lately, it's not as many, but they are still adding them when they should set the bot to only do it where it's needed. -- BullRangifer22:28, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not about the archived links. That's irrelevant to this discussion. What about restoring the failed verification content and bias content? QuackGuru00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

Changing the lede section

Here are the changes without the archived links. Unless there is an argument against having a more neutral lede I think we should restore the lede to this version. QuackGuru00:56, 11 May 2019 (UTC)

The changes you suggest are not "more neutral", they are the opposite. The current and long-standing lede section provides an accurate, well-sourced, general summary of Chiropractic. Removing sourced material such as ""... through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false"" doesn't help inform the reader, it simply misleads them. You also want to remove ""Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and chiropractic is sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and "innate intelligence" that reject science."" Your suggested changes will white-wash the first paragraph of informational, well-sourced content, without any justified reason for doing so; see Weight for why your suggested version is not "more neutral". Also, you currently don't have consensus for those changes. And it's worth noting that consensus can change rapidly, but we need to exercise patience while other editors share their opinions. -- Somedifferentstuff15:03, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

Restoring failed verification content or unsourced content is not acceptable. Please tell me what you restored that failed verification and/or was unsourced. QuackGuru16:38, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

That's a strange diversion (I literally have no idea what you're talking about); more importantly, you need to respond to my previous comment with an argument(s) that support the changes you'd like to make. You can also, if inclined, initiate an RfC to get the attention and thoughts of more editors. Lastly, what is your motivation for the changes you propose? I see you were previously topic-banned in part due to your actions at this very article; I don't have a good feeling about where this is headed. -- User:Somedifferentstuff|Somedifferentstuff23:22, 12 May 2019 (UTC)

We are talking about just the changes to the lede at the top of this section. I am in favor of some changes but not sure what I want. Here are some things in this proposal that need some work -

*"Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry" - I put primary care doctors, dentists, and podiatrists in a medicine category, and chiropractors in an alternative medicine category. This comparison is odd. The source cited is actually quoting a 1992 chiropractic textbook; I interpret this as cultural context for their narrative and not the author's own views.

*I prefer simpler sentences. The old first sentence defined chiropractic as a system of diagnosis and treatment, and new first sentence tries to cover that and the theory behind it too. That brings too much to debate in one sentence. For difficult topics, make more simple short sentences. I do not object to the content, just so much mixed in one sentence with the same sources.

*I like the deletion or reform of "through vertebral subluxation, claims which are demonstrably false" - this article is too contentious to have a statement phrased that way hanging without a citation. There should be no debate about anything without a citation. Anyone can get rid of such things.

*Forbes citation needs to go. It is the same as no citation. The Keating subluxation article which is one part of the proposed replacement says "the clinical meaningfulness of this notion brings ridicule from the scientific and health care communities" which is adapted here as "a vitalistic notion that brings ridicule from mainstream health care". The wording is awkward here. I prefer breaking this long sentence into multiple sentences. One of them might revive that "demonstrably false" phrasing that the wiki community has had here. We are not actually ridiculing anyone, and instead we are recognizing the lack of scientific evidence.

*Are their religious origins? Why remove "after saying he received it from "the other world"?

Bluerasberry "' Blue Rasberry "' 02:08, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Please edit the section below. The current lede has too many sentences that fail verification. I prefer we start with the version that does not have any failed verification content or unsourced content. QuackGuru04:04, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

No, that's not how we proceed. We take the long-standing consensus version of the lede and go from there. Bluerasberry "' Blue Rasberry "' has made some reasonable suggestions and I trust that he will adjust the current lede accordingly and in an NPOV manner. I will post the current lede below so that it can be discussed. -- Somedifferentstuff10:47, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

I am in favor of deleting anything which fails verification. Anything without reliable sources can be dismissed without any sources. I do not see much of that here (Forbes and "demonstrably", as discussed) but by default wiki removes that and challenges proponents to show sources. Bluerasberry "' Blue Rasberry "' 12:33, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Changes to lede section without failed verification content

"'Chiropractic"' is a discipline that emphasizes diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, especially the spine, under the hypothesis that such disorders affect general health via the nervous system.cite journal |vauthors=Nelson CF, Lawrence DJ, Triano JJ, Bronfort G, Perle SM, Metz RD, Hegetschweiler K, LaBrot T | title = Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession | journal = Chiropractic Osteopathy| volume = 13 | issue = 1 | page = 9 | year = 2005 | pmid = 16000175 | pmc = 1185558 | doi = 10.1186/1746-1340-13-9 | url = URL It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM).cite book|vauthors=Chapman-Smith DA, ((Cleveland CS III)) |chapter= International status, standards, and education of the chiropractic profession|pages=111–34|title= Principles and Practice of Chiropractic|edition=3rd|veditors=Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B |publisher=McGraw-Hill|year=2005|isbn=0-07-137534-1|display-editors=etal Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry. The main chiropractic treatment technique involves manual therapy, especially manipulation of the spine, other joints, and soft tissues, but may also include exercises and health and lifestyle counseling.cite book|chapterurl=URL Content of practice|vauthors=Mootz RD, Shekelle PG |year=1997|title= Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research|pages=67–91|veditors=Cherkin DC, Mootz RD |location= Rockville, MD|publisher= Agency for Health Care Policy and Research|oclc=39856366 AHCPR Pub No. 98-N002. Traditional chiropractic assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence, a vitalistic notion that brings ridicule from mainstream health care. A large number of chiropractors fear that if they do not separate themselves from the traditional vitalistic concept of innate intelligence, chiropractic will continue to be seen as a fringe profession.

Numerous controlled clinical studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. Systematic reviews of this research have not found evidence that chiropractic manipulation is effective, with the possible exception of treatment for back pain.cite journal | author = Ernst E | title = Chiropractic: a critical evaluation | journal = Journal of Pain and Symptom Management| volume = 35 | issue = 5 | pages = 544–62 | date = May 2008 | pmid = 18280103 | doi = 10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004 A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation was ineffective at treating any condition.cite journal |vauthors=Posadzki P, Ernst E | title = Spinal manipulation: an update of a systematic review of systematic reviews | journal = The New Zealand Medical Journal| volume = 124 | issue = 1340 | pages = 55–71 | year = 2011 | pmid = 21952385 Spinal manipulation may be cost-effective for sub-acute or chronic low back pain but the results for acute low back pain were insufficient. The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.cite journal |vauthors=Leboeuf-Yde C, Hestbaek L | title = Maintenance care in chiropracticnbsp;– what do we know? | journal = Chiropractic Osteopathy| volume = 16 | issue = | page = 3 | year = 2008 | pmid = 18466623 | pmc = 2396648 | doi = 10.1186/1746-1340-16-3 There is not sufficient data to establish the safety of chiropractic manipulations. It is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects, with serious or fatal complications in rare cases.cite journal | author = Ernst E | title = Adverse effects of spinal manipulation: a systematic review | journal = Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine| volume = 100 | issue = 7 | pages = 330–38 | year = 2007 | pmid = 17606755 | pmc = 1905885 | doi = 10.1258/jrsm.100.7.330 | url = URL | laysummary = URL | laydate = 2007-07-02 | laysource = Med News Today | deadurl = bot: unknown | archiveurl = URL | archivedate = 2010-05-16 | df = There is controversy regarding the degree of risk of vertebral artery dissection, which can lead to stroke and death, from cervical manipulation. Several deaths have been associated with this technique and it has been suggested that the relationship is causative, a claim which is disputed by many chiropractors.cite journal | author = Ernst E | title = Deaths after chiropractic: a review of published cases | journal = International Journal of Clinical Practice| volume = 64 | issue = 8 | pages = 1162–65 | year = 2010 | pmid = 20642715 | doi = 10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x | url= URL

Chiropractic is well established in the United States, Canada, and Australia. It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions such as osteopathy and physical therapy. Most who seek chiropractic care do so for low back pain.cite journal |vauthors=Hurwitz EL, Chiang LM | title = A comparative analysis of chiropractic and general practitioner patients in North America: findings from the joint Canada/United States Survey of Health, 2002-03 | journal = BMC Health Services Research| volume = 6 | page = 49 | year = 2006 | pmc = 1458338 | doi = 10.1186/1472-6963-6-49 | pmid = 16600038 Back and neck pain are considered the specialties of chiropractic, but many chiropractors treat ailments other than musculoskeletal issues. Chiropractic has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, "innate intelligence", and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease; "mixers", the majority, are more open to mainstream views and conventional medical techniques, such as exercise, massage, and ice therapy.

D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, D. D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, and his son B. J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century.cite journal | author = Martin SC | title = Chiropractic and the social context of medical technology, 1895-1925 | journal = Technology and Culture| volume = 34 | issue = 4 | pages = 808–34 | date = October 1993 | pmid = 11623404 | doi = 10.2307/3106416 | jstor = 3106416 Throughout its history, chiropractic has been controversial.cite journal | author = DeVocht JW | title = History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint | journal = Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research| volume = 444 | pages = 243–49 | year = 2006 | pmid = 16523145 | doi = 10.1097/01.blo.0000203460.89887.8d cite journal | author = Homola S | title = Chiropractic: history and overview of theories and methods | journal = Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research| volume = 444 | pages = 236–42 | year = 2006 | pmid = 16446588 | doi = 10.1097/01.blo.0000200258.95865.87 Its foundation is at odds with mainstream medicine, and has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence. Despite the overwhelming evidence that vaccination is an effective public health intervention, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject,cite journal |vauthors=Busse JW, Morgan L, Campbell JB | title = Chiropractic antivaccination arguments | journal = Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics| volume = 28 | issue = 5 | pages = 367–73 | year = 2005 | pmid = 15965414 | doi = 10.1016/j.jmpt.2005.04.011 | url = URL which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic.cite journal |vauthors=Campbell JB, Busse JW, Injeyan HS | title = Chiropractors and vaccination: a historical perspective | journal = Pediatrics| volume = 105 | issue = 4 | page = e43 | year = 2000 | pmid = 10742364 | doi = 10.1542/peds.105.4.e43 | url = URL The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" in 1966 and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987.cite journal |vauthors=Cooper RA, McKee HJ | title = Chiropractic in the United States: trends and issues | journal = Milbank Quarterly| volume = 81 | issue = 1 | pages = 107–38, table of contents | year = 2003 | pmid = 12669653 | pmc = 2690192 | doi = 10.1111/1468-0009.00040 Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the United States.

Comments on Changes to lede section without failed verification content

The lede is too long. I think it can be trimmed. The current lede suffers from duplication and failed verification content. QuackGuru20:24, 13 May 2019 (UTC)