Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 2

message: This paragraph is being repeatedly removed:
:Chiropractic medicine is generally rejected as being based on pseudoscience by most scientists and medical doctors. Classical chiropractic theory denies otherwise accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases, and instead holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease. Although manipulative therapy has been shown to have some efficacy in treating back pain, headache, and other symptoms of spinal-related conditions, few rigorous studies have supported the efficacy of chiropractic medicine outside of this specific area.  Many people colloquially use the term chiropractic to refer to manipulative therapy of the spine, even by non-DCs.
I can see some problems with this paragraph but most statements in it seem reasonable enough. What is the problem? Fred Bauder 11:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
The statements are unfounded, even if there was a way to quantify "most" and "generally" in respect to scientist and medical doctors rejecting chiropractic as a pseudoscience, there is no evidence that is the case. The next sentence implies that all chiropractors deny the "accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases" While the statement is accurate, it was the general conscientious of a hundred years ago. This can be covered in the "two schools" and/or "history"  The entire paragraph should not have been deleted, but felt out of place when editing the first two sentences.
I think the attitude of the medical profession has changed recently as has the attitude of some chiropractors about mainstream medicine. My last conversation with a real chiropractor, however, was fillled with paranoia about medical doctors.  I think some historical perspective should be added. Why don't you try some rewriting? Fred Bauder 13:20, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Two of the people I work with are (former) chiropracters. They refuse to get themselves vaccinated against diseases, and reccomend to parents that they do not vaccinate their children. They believe that viruses do not cause disease, and that vaccines do not work.  One of them denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS.  They tell me that they are representative of others in the field, and their statements match what I have read about some other chiropracters. They also don't believe in surgery for treating most diseases.  This is why some educated result-oriented chiropracters have developed a reform movment within the field. (See article.) RK 04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
:: Okay, so what? You know two chiropractors, and I know a few thousand. Not a single one would make all those claims, and doubt anyone of them would claim to be represenitive of the entire profession.  
::I just started Chiropractic College, and just know a fraction of the faculty and students, and while some are against vaccinations, not all are.  Frankly, I think that those who aren't vaccinated are simply benefitting from the fact that most people are, and the resulting low rate the diseases commonly vaccinated against, but that's neither here nor there.  I have, though, NEVER heard a chiropractor say that viruses didn't cause disease, or that AIDS is a  result of the HIV virus.  Yeah, we generally follow the idea that drugs and surgery shouldn't be used-at least not if they can be avoided.  However, no responsible chiropractor will tell a patient to stop taking a drug their allopathic doctor told them to take.  Also, while we might advise a patient to try to get adjusted before undergoing surgery in most cases, there are other cases where we would conceed that surgery is likely the best route, such as aneurysm.  And I would just like to point out that I would be mistrustful of ANY profession that resisted reform.  Any type of healthcare should be continuously adjusting to new techniques developed and new ideas found in research. Elaine M. Brady 
It is certainly understandable that some older doctors still have some residual paranoia, as it was not that long ago the American Medical Association took a policy against chiropractic “first the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic.”  
It is of my opinion that the newer generation of MDs and DCs have much better opinions of each other and are moving forward in a cooperative to provide optimal care for their patients.
I would like to do a lot of rewriting, but I fear it would be in vain. I had to take a chance with the history as it was absolutely pathetic. I am not sure I can do it justice, as there are volumes on the history of chiropractic and the people that influenced it. It seems daunting and unrewarding if people like User:RK, who have no apparent credibility or knowledge of the subject to come and "aggressively edit" with nothing more than an ambitious desire to be nothing more than skeptical of everything.
:Please stop you ad homenim attacks. Personal attacks against other users are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and do nothing to improve the article. Further, your claims are wrong. I had nothing to do with any of the research which disputes claims made by chiropracters. I merely added info on the POVs of major medical organizations, and POvs from the views of reform chiropracters themselves. Don't shoot the messenger. RK 04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
::Please stop using the term ad homenim like this, I didnt attack your person to reject your claim. Call it a personal attack if you want, but it is just an observation of your history. Further, I am baffeled how you can say my claims are wrong.  Irregaurdless why is it allowed when someone mearely states about the POV of opposing views, but the chiropractic POV is so often removed? 
:::Dear anonymous, a personal attack is an ad homenim attack. Please learn the English langauge. And if you do nto stop your personal attacks, you will be banned. RK
::::RK, please please please ask me to stop one more time. Do you believe that if you keep asking me to stop it appears as if I have actually been continually attacking you? In regards to learning English it's ad hominem not ad homenim, and I will not mention the bit about starting a sentence with a conjunction. Furthermore read about ad hominem and try to really understand that is is a type fallacy and is only applicable if i where trying to discredit your argument. Besides I don't even think my observation of your actions here are attacks. If you want to ban me get on with it, don't make idle threats. 
Well, I came on board as a critic, a chiropractor tried to "cure" my brother's mental disability and got a lot of money for his quackery, but RK goes way to far. I'll back you up to a certain extent should a problem arise, but try to avoid the cure cancer stuff. Fred Bauder 17:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)
:Would you become critical of auto mechanics as a whole if one tried to fix your house and failed?  Why would you judge an entire profession on the actions of one individual?  Are there bad chiropractors?  Of course.  But any time you set up a system, someone will find a way to abuse it.
:Maybe I am not going as far as you think. The article does not condemnd or dispute the effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for some conditions. If this is what you advocate, then you will find that I and many others would agree with you. In fact, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine holds by this view. The criticisms in this article are not against the idea that spinal manipulation may have some medical value. Rather, these arguments are against classical chiropractice beliefs about subluxations being the cause of all or most disease, and the belief that spinal manipulation can cure all or nearly all disease.  Your recent notes here seem to indicate that you do not adopt the maximalist view, so we are not polar opposites here. RK 04:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)
:Again, Fred, any comment on these specific points? I am willing to work with you. RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)
I am certainly sorry to hear that. It is unfortunate, but every profession has a few individuals that give the rest of them a bad name.  Going through the history of his page, I believe you have done a fair job at moderating. Given your personal history, I am impressed at your ability to do so. I can admit to my own bias here as well, I have benefited greatly from chiropractic in my life. Even though it is a claim fiercely debated, as a life long asthmatic I can testify to its ability to treat and manage it. I believe in it so much I have invested a great deal in my education, and am currently a chiropractic student.
I think we can all agree to get rid of at least the first sentence in that paragraph.  It is entirely unprovable and unhelpful to a reader.--DrThomasFrench 22:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Disputed material