Talk:Vertebral subluxation

message: I just restored reference to this source, as it appears to be on-topic, used appropriately, and reliable to the topic at hand. Is there any reason why this assessment is in error? - 2/0 (cont.) 22:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractors and Vaccination: A Historical Perspective 

message: Four scholarly chiropractors have concluded that epidemiologic evidence does not support chiropractic's most fundamental theory. Since its inception, the vast majority of chiropractors have postulated that "subluxations" (misalignments) are the cause or underlying cause of ill health and can be corrected with spinal "adjustments."  
After searching the scientific literature, the chiropractic authors concluded: 
* "No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal, this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability." - Mirtz TA et al. An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation." Chiropractic & Osteopathy 2009, 17:13, 2009
This new source may well provide some interesting content. It is also evidence that modern reform chiropractors are making their mark in the chiropractic literature. Brangifer (talk) 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Study pans chiropractic's "subluxation" concept 

message: The article needs substantial revision:
"Claims of Subluxation Causing Disease Prohibited in Great Britain"  "The General Chiropractic Council (GCC), a UK-wide statutory body with regulatory powers, has published a new position related to subluxation and the claims made by Doctors of Chiropractic."  http://www.chiroaccess.com/News/Claims-of-Subluxation-Causing-Disease-Prohibited-in-Great-Britain.aspx?id=0000165 Dogweather (talk) 08:33, 6 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This certainly needs to be incorporated into the article (and presumably also into the main chiropractic article).  Brunton (talk) 12:28, 10 June 2010 (UTC)

text: I've added it to the "Definitions and current official status" section.  The last paragraph of the lead probably also needs amendment to take it into account.  Brunton (talk) 06:55, 12 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: UK Governing Body axes subluxation

message: An interesting article from Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, an official journal of the Royal Pharmaceutical Society:
* Homola, S. "Real orthopaedic subluxations versus imaginary chiropractic subluxations". Focus on Alternative and Complementary Therapies, Volume 15, Issue 4, pages 284–287, December 2010. Article first published online: 25 NOV 2010. DOI: 10.1111/j.2042-7166.2010.01053.x Royal Pharmaceutical Society
Brangifer (talk) 16:24, 29 May 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Real orthopaedic subluxations versus imaginary chiropractic subluxations 

message: DO not see consensus for this new version thus restored back per discussion at WT:MED. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:39, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Old version

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Vertebral subluxation. 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 this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added  tag to http://9564e6cf93ec0c618a68-4f22a039f96a487025fe8e7x1cbbe8130.r40.cf3.rackcdn.com/Undergraduate/MChiro/Educational%20Statements.pdf
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070312090948/http://www.chiro.org:80/LINKS/FULL/The_VSC_1.htm to http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/The_VSC_1.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060911230816/http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org:80/media/asymptomatic.htm to http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/media/asymptomatic.htm
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20060407062053/http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org:80/resources/files/ccpguide.pdf to http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/resources/files/ccpguide.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:19, 20 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I just removed:
In 2015, 8 internationally accredited chiropractic colleges: AECC, WIOC, IFEC-Paris, IFEC-Toulouse, USD-Odense, UZ-Zurich, UJ-Johannesburg and Durban University of Technology made an open statement which included: "The teaching of the vertebral subluxation complex as a vitalistic construct that claims that it is the cause of disease is unsupported by evidence. Its inclusion in a modern chiropractic curriculum in anything other than an historic context is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary".
I searched for a primary source and found none. Especially since this datum is being presented as coming from these specific entities, we need a reliable source. 
(Heroeswithmetaphors) talk 15:23, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: *Here is the link for the original document:   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.152.109.249 (talk) 17:20, 2 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  8 colleges' open statement 

message: Have just radically trimmed the lead/intro to a more reasonable length. Most of the trimmed material either was already in the body, or properly belongs there. The intro should be a short summary of the body. - Snori (talk) 04:52, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummm....no, that's not how it works. The important points of the article should be duplicated in the lead. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 06:55, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  OK, granted I was a little hasty. However it seems very evident to me that the current lead is very poor. Perhaps the best example is the "A 2009 review performed by chiropractors concluded..." quote, which is a large duplicate section of the body text. Is it reasonable to discuss some trimming of that? - Snori (talk) 09:24, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Snori, lead improvement is always welcome, but my initial reaction was to seek more discussion before going forward, so thanks for your willingness to pursue that path. When I look at the concerns in that quote and compare it to what we have in the body, I think you have a point; we're covering those same concerns with the next paragraph, so we could dispense with that 2009 quote in the lead. Go for it. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 14:38, 7 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  . I've gone ahead and done it before I forget this discussion. I hope that's better. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 03:47, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  Actually that one change makes a big difference. I'm happy to leave it as it is. - Snori (talk) 08:32, 8 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Trimmed lead

message: BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 23:36, 3 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  The prevalence of the term subluxation in chiropractic degree program curricula throughout the world 

message: I read the reference listed and it does not mention anything about the five components. I read the rest of the journal and spent 10 minutes looking around the interent and could not find a RS. I will remove the ref and replace with citation needed. 
# Spinal Kinesiopathology
# Neuropathophysiology/Neuropathology
# Myopathology
# Histopathology
# Pathophysiology/Pathology
--Akrasia25 (talk) 01:38, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Components section has the wrong reference

message: I am trying to group similar selections of text in the same sections so that this reads as an article. For example, there are definitions scattered throughout the text along with critiques and procedures. I have not deleted anything and will first group the selections together so that it is clear that nothing has been deleted. I am leaving edit summaries along the way and going step by step rather than a full rewrite so others can see the revision change rather than one wide ranging rewrite.--Akrasia25 (talk) 23:24, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds like a wise procedure. -- BullRangifer (talk) PingMe 00:18, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: Moving text to different sections

message: This article is a mess. It contains around 20 very long quotes. Nearly all of them should be removed. If there is important information in those quotes and if they are from reliable sources then that information should be incorporated into the article. Some of the quotes don't seem to add much to the article and some are from unreliable sources. On Wikipedia, facts should be reported as facts and opinions as opinions. Polygnotus (talk) 23:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV