Talk:Subluxation

message: True enough, but both subjects should be covered in one article to avoid a fork (improper Wikipedia practice).
There are real "orthopedic" subluxations, and then chiropractic "Vertebral subluxations." The orthopedic ones could be covered very shortly (in fact they are so real that they don't even need an article, just a definition!), while the chiropractic ones will be a battleground, with never ending discussions, not only between chiropractic true believers and chiroskeptics, but between chiropractors themselves, since there is still great disagreement within the profession, with whole organizations devoted to different definitions, the ACA on one side, the ICA and WCA on another, and the NACM completely renouncing the metaphysical and theosophical chiropractic subluxation hypothesis (and thus in agreement with science and medicine):
:The first and foremost requirement for membership in the NACM is that a Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine renounce the chiropractic hypothesis and/or philosophy; that is, the tenets upon which their scope of practice is based. The original chiropractic hypothesis, stated simply, is that "subluxation is the cause of dis-ease." Modern day chiropractic associations may have expanded and changed this simple statement for the public, but the reality is that this remains the backbone of chiropractic education and practice to this day. In clarification, the term "subluxation" has never been defined by the profession in a way as to have universal acceptance within the chiropractic profession. Chiropractic "subluxation" is not the same as medical subluxation, which represents a partial dislocation of joint structure and would be a contraindication to "adjusting" or "manipulating" the joint structures. Chiropractic "subluxation," not having universal definition, and, thereby, not having received universal scientific status of existence, has evolved into a metaphysical status. Further, the profession has neither defined nor outlined what disease or "dis-ease" that the correction of the "subluxation" might cure or affect. Because the hypothesis has found no validity in universally accepted, peer-reviewed, published scientific journals, belief in the hypothesis, then, is essentially a theosophy. Science has not found any organ system pathology which "adjustment" or "manipulation" of spinal joint structures has effect; that is, no disease or "dis-ease" process is affected.
:For these reasons, members of the NACM renounce the chiropractic hypothesis as a basis for their scope of practice. NACM (emphasis original)
A summary: The NACM considers the chiropractic "subluxation" to be a "chiropractic hypothesis and/or philosophy" that has attained a "metaphysical status," such that "belief in the hypothesis, then, is essentially a theosophy."
Thus the suggestion of making a short disambiguation page isn't all that bad, but another solution might be better - simply use two existing articles:
*1. One short one (this one) devoted to orthopedic subluxations. Since they are objectively confirmable and symptomatic, there is no dispute about their definition or existence.
*2. Merge the chiro stuff into Vertebral subluxation, where it belongs. To maintain a NPOV, that page should then contain two sections representing the chiropractic claims and the chiroskeptic claims regarding the subject matter. Let them claim what they wish, as long as they label it a claim.
:It's not certain that Wikipedia will allow this, since the scientific viewpoint is considered the majority viewpoint, and thus NPOV, while chiropractic's unscientific claims will have to be labeled as claims.
*End result: This article remains to represent the real orthopedic subluxation (since no one, including chiropractors, is in doubt about it), and the chiropractic content here (with only a link remaining) gets moved and merged into the Vertebral subluxation article. (Let the battles happen somewhere else than here.)
The only advantage to allowing them both to remain on the same page here would be for chiroskeptics, who would love to have everyone in cyberspace who seeks for information at Wikipedia for "subluxation," discover that chiropractic's dirty underwear is hanging on the same page. The quackery in chiropractic should be exposed for what it is.
"Vertebral subluxation" is an exclusively chiropractic term, one rarely heard anywhere else. Thus it is the proper chiropractic term for their mythical, illusory, and evasive "subluxation." Not being a concrete entity, they can never really "pin it down."
It differs from the orthopedic subluxation in innumerable ways, with a disproportionately large amount of chiropractic and chiroskeptic literature being devoted exclusively to its discussion. That's what always happens with fantasifuld metaphysical concepts. When free fantasy is allowed to do the defining, the definitions become myriad and controversial. No other subject divides the chiropractic profession more than discussions of "subluxations," nor provides more mirth to chiroskeptics when they observe these antics and exercises in creative and delusional thinking.
What's incredible is that this delusional belief in an illusory fantasy is the foundation of the profession, which is why it is categorized as a pseudoscience and intimately involved with quackery in many ways.
*More: Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation
-- Fyslee 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: First off (and this is not an attempt to be contentious - just a point of etiquette) calling vertebral subluxations "mythical" in bold print (as you have done above) is not a very friendly way to begin what you are proposing. Following this route would surely lead to another page such as what Chiropractic has become: a confusing article that is essential a litany of point/counterpoint agruments in alternating sentences. I don't think a good Wikipedia article should be - as you describe - a "battleground". An article like "Vertebral Subluxation" should be written from the perspective of the people who know most about Vertebral Subluxations and work to correct them everyday - chiropractors. But I agree with you: the skeptics point-of-view should be entirely contained within a separate section. Keeping these point-of-views distinct from each other will prevent this from becoming another muttled hard-to-read article where every other sentence is: This-side-believes-this and here's their supporting reference while this-side-believes-the-exact-opposite and here's their supporting reference. Levine2112 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Divide *and* merge 

message: Hi guys:
I have been told, repeatedly, for the last thirty years, that I in fact have "subluxated" lenses in my eyes.
I don't need to cite any sources; I am the source. I can't see properly without thick glasses. And this is because I HAVE Marfan's syndrome.
Anyone who wants to dispute this may, but you will have to prove to me that I can see without said glasses. I know that some people think that I could see by using "eye exercises." That only works when you are talking about muscles that surround a healthy, properly-positioned lens inside of the eye itself. Sadly, in my case, the lens is almost completely out of the line of sight (between the pupil and the retinal wall).
I also have a cateract, at least one, in my right eye. (The left lens is still, thankfully, out of sight). Unfortunately for me, the right lens became dislodged in 2004, and is now a floater. It bounces around; depending on which way I'm looking, up, down, or sideways, I can see the lens. It is all but opaque.
You may find more about Marfan's by clicking on http://www.webmd.com, or by visiting http://www.marfan.org.
Thank you.
- Sammy James
:I'm sure you will be pleased to see that our resident ophthalmologist has added this feature to the article. Thanks to User:AED! -- Fyslee 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Um... actually, apparently there are more than "two" definitions of subluxation... 

message: Just wondering what people think overall for a subluxation disambig page: One with the medicine, one with opthamology, one with orthopedics, one with chiro. What do people think?
*Support --Deon555|talk 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split into DAB page 

message: The sentence I had deleted was:
* "The chiropractic definition of a subluxation refers to joint hypomobility, whereas the medical definition of a subluxation refers to joint hypermobility."
That sentence is too simple (in two senses) to encompass the concept. The vertebral subluxation article is a better place to get into this, but for this discussion page I'll attempt a short explanation:
The chiropractic concept often includes hypomobility, but not always. The medical definition refers to position, regardless of mobility.
My apologies for not leaving an edit summary. -- Fyslee 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Whatever. You will of course insert something like that into the article? Moriori 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'll let someone else do it if they think it's that important, but it includes so many imprecisions as to be a waste of (my) time to deal with it now. -- Fyslee 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hyper- hypomobility 

message: Why does opthamological def have a ref for who/chiro?--Hughgr 05:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't. Maybe you're thinking of the medical definition? There the WHO reference is included because it clearly contrasts the medical and chiropractic definitions. The wording from the WHO quote is used and/or adapted to apply the relevant parts to the two definitions. I added the word "necessarily" because the chiropractic vertebral subluxation can (rarely) include real medical subluxations, and therefore be visible on X-ray at those times. On such occasions it would usually be considered (by MDs and PTs) a contraindication to the use of HVLA manipulation. -- Fyslee 09:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WHO ref 

message: I'm working on the hip dysplasia {human} page and wanted to link here for subluxation.  I was surprised that the hip was not mentioned under "medical" here.  I don't want to stir too many pots, so if s.o. could please add a few words on subluxated hips I'd be happy. Lisa4edit  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add hip joint 

message: Why does this article contain ""?  Is it perhaps "left over" from some in the past when there were multiple articles about Subluxation?  Should it be removed now?  --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It functions as a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. More information can be found at the respective articles. That's why the content is in summary style. The medical part contains the whole subject from a mainstream medical standpoint, and therefore there is no other article. An objective anatomical reality is easy to describe and requires no more, while the chiropractic version needs a whole article, since it is a controversial subject without any objective proof for its reality. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Why does it say '''"<nowiki>{{disambig}}</nowiki>"?''' 

message: Subluxations and dislocations are common; they may occur spontaneously or with minimal trauma and can be acutely painful.
Reference:
Levy HP. Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type. 2004 Oct 22 [Updated 2016 Mar 31]. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1279/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.212.25 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type 

message: Is it really true that they can always be seen on xrays?  Doesn't it depend on how obvious they are and the skill of the radiologist? RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xrays