Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 11

message: I'm looking to integrate some new information related to safety issues with chiropractic from NHS.  It basically evaluates some of the methods that were used in coming up with some of the studies.  We should probably work through this together so keep an eye on me.  Thanks --Dematt 00:50, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Gleng.  I think we can definitely use Homola (and that article) to represent the Reform POV.  IMO we need to be able to present the straight, mixer and reform POVs without making any judgements about any of them.  Chiropractic is given direction by the actions and reactions of all of them.  If we neglect one, this article would not be a true representation of chiropractic. I would always assume good faith in editing toward this end and be careful not to appear to advocate any particular POV.  If any of my edits head that way, please feel free to bring them to the talk page. --Dematt 01:51, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concure Dematt, what if we had a paragraph covering "Notable criques within the profession"? I am thinking of either a paragraph or in the links section. If in a paragraph, their main overlapping points can be made...it might eliminate some of the "battle of the links" currently going on.  :) Any thoughts?--Hughgr 03:04, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank goodness you feel that way:)  I just wrote a new Reform section (before I saw this).  Let me know what you think.  It is just a start, but I think it wil work. --Dematt 03:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Okay, I took a look at the critiques section again and I think Steth has a point.  I am not as concerned about the particular links, but the shear number of Keating links just looks funny.  Most of the articles say very similar things.  Perhaps we could narrow the list somewhat.  I think it would also be appropriate to add some positive articles (that aren't necessarily associations) from some notable sites as well.  Any other suggestions to clean it up? --Dematt 04:47, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Second thoughts maybe not appropriate, but any suggestions?Gleng 13:52, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why do you have second thoughts? Professor Edzard Ernst is very notable, especially since he is "the first Professor of Complementary Medicine in the United Kingdom." He is also trained in manipulative therapy, among other things. -- Fyslee 18:31, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Gleng, if you feel that the "Skeptic's Dictionary" should be removed, then why don't you remove it?  I have felt all along that it was nothing more than a list of things a PhD dislikes, not very encyclopedic.  It is also a link farm for Stephen Barrett Enterprises (Donations gladly accepted!)  And because it was placed here and defended strongly by an editor with a personal link featured prominently, that it really fails the smell test and should be removed as unverifiable.  I have given you the reasons, so, why not remove it?    Steth 02:46, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuff related to safety 

message: NCCAM Research Report: About Chiropractic and Its Use in Treating Low-Back Pain - Gleng 19:53, 3 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Link/source 

message: Would editors please note the chiropractic related discussion on the Pseudoscience article. If it is true that chiropractic is notably claimed to cure homosexuality then perhaps it should be included somewhere on this page.Gleng 12:24, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Why would anyone want to cure homosexuality?  Although, if chiropractors can "cure" it, it certainly should be included on this page:) --Dematt 14:02, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the reference section at Pseudoscience, the source is titled Ford, J. (2001). Healing homosexuals: A psychologist's journey through the ex-gay movement and the pseudo-science of reparative therapy. Journal of Gay & Lesbian Psychotherapy, 5(3-4), 69-86.  Sounds like an account of some of the crazy things that people in the ex-gay movement do.  They may use Chevrolets to kidnap their victims and try to deprogram them, but that doesn't mean Chevrolet in general supports the movement.  This just seems like more POV pushing from editor KrishnaVindaloo and is without merit as a source for anything other than an anecdotal account.  cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 02:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Well its pretty obvious what type of chiropractor uses this kind of treatment. Its the type who uses the subluxation theory (most of them). We can't refuse information on the basis of pinpointing the abuser. That would give proponents a valid excuse to delete anything that doesn't suit their personal agendas. Which is also why it is not part of NPOV policy. KrishnaVindaloo 07:10, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiropractic curing homosexuality?

message: Fyslee, your edit summary stated,Prof. sounds nice, but they are a blend - all being chiropractic; Uniform formatting), which of these are not "professional"?
* American Chiropractic Association (ACA)
* Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC)
* British Chiropractic Association (BCA)
* Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA)
*  Chiropractic Association of South Africa (CASF)
* Chiropractic Doctors' Association of Hong Kong (CDAHK)
* European Chiropractors' Union (ECU)
* Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO)
* Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (F.A.C.E.)
* Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) 
* Hong Kong Chiropractors' Association (HKCA)
* International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA)
* International Chiropractors Association (ICA)
* Japanese Association of Chiropractors (JAC)
* National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) 
* World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA)
* World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC)
Thanks--Hughgr 20:57, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe I misunderstood you. I was thinking of membership organizations, as in national associations. Not all of them are for that purpose. Fyslee 21:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would work because most in the first groups titles have the word "associations" which creates confusion. I did a quick check on the WCA's website because of their title (World..) and it states, "The World Chiropractic Alliance was founded in 1989 as a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening chiropractic around the world."  Wouldn't that make them international as well? Why don't you like calling them all just professional? BTW, professional derives from profession which means, "An occupation that requires expertise or a high level of skill." . I feel that fits perfectly.--Hughgr 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it looks good, and I don't have any trouble with changing the top one to "Professional organizations", I'm quite sure the ACA would love it, but the ICA would really take offense to it;)   --Dematt 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It requires what could be considered OR to determine who really is an official national organization, when several make the claim (Hong Kong?), and the WCA, an advertising agency with a few hundred members (about the same as the NACM) and secret membership lists does call itself "World" CA. I guess it's an impossible task, so Professional (which also means money making, which doesn't apply to several) will have to do. You're right about the ICA, since they carry the torch of "real" chiropractic.....;-) There is certainly no love lost between them. How about restoring the original "Chiropractic organizations"? That certainly covers it and it worked fine, since it can include national organizations, research and advertising groups, special interest groups, etc.. It worked fine and was never controversial. -- Fyslee 07:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Professional? 

message: To make it more clear what the list contains, I suggest a division. Let's see how it looks, and if it will work:
Official national organizations
* World Federation of Chiropractic (WFC) - International
* American Chiropractic Association (ACA)
* British Chiropractic Association (BCA)
* Canadian Chiropractic Association (CCA)
*  Chiropractic Association of South Africa (CASF)
* Chiropractic Doctors' Association of Hong Kong (CDAHK)
* European Chiropractors' Union (ECU)
* Hong Kong Chiropractors' Association (HKCA)
* Japanese Association of Chiropractors (JAC)
Special interest groups and associations
* Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC)
* Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO)
* Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (F.A.C.E.)
* Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research (FCER) 
* International Chiropractic Pediatric Association (ICPA)
* International Chiropractors Association (ICA)
* National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) 
* World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA)
How's that look? -- Fyslee 21:18, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that would work because most in the first groups titles have the word "associations" which creates confusion. I did a quick check on the WCA's website because of their title (World..) and it states, "The World Chiropractic Alliance was founded in 1989 as a non-profit organization dedicated to protecting and strengthening chiropractic around the world."  Wouldn't that make them international as well? Why don't you like calling them all just professional? BTW, professional derives from profession which means, "An occupation that requires expertise or a high level of skill." . I feel that fits perfectly.--Hughgr 21:45, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: While it looks good, and I don't have any trouble with changing the top one to "Professional organizations", I'm quite sure the ACA would love it, but the ICA would really take offense to it;)   --Dematt 00:32, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It requires what could be considered OR to determine who really is an official national organization, when several make the claim (Hong Kong?), and the WCA, an advertising agency with a few hundred members (about the same as the NACM) and secret membership lists does call itself "World" CA. I guess it's an impossible task, so Professional (which also means money making, which doesn't apply to several) will have to do. You're right about the ICA, since they carry the torch of "real" chiropractic.....;-) There is certainly no love lost between them. How about restoring the original "Chiropractic organizations"? That certainly covers it and it worked fine, since it can include national organizations, research and advertising groups, special interest groups, etc.. It worked fine and was never controversial. -- Fyslee 07:30, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A division

message: This sentence:
::"Mainstream medicine does not believe that such vertebral subluxations exist or affect general health, thus differentiating them from the medical use of the term subluxation."
Is using weasle words to avoid. For example, "Mainstream scholars/scientists/researchers...", or "The (mainstream) scientific community". While mainstream medicine isn't explicitly listed, I feel it meets the same criteria. Further more, it is an anthropomorphism, mainstream medicine can't believe anything. And while I get the sentiment, I feel it needs to be re-worded. Any suggestions?--Hughgr 04:22, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Gleng, I think that is getting there. Does anyone else have any input?--Hughgr 21:58, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the weasel words (though I think they were mine:).  Also, "thus" infers that one caused the other which would not be proper.  If anything, I like Glengs version.  Though, it really doesn't matter if that sentence just stays out.  The science factor is mentioned at the bottom or the page. --Dematt 22:02, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The lead, again :) 

message: I moved the discussion to this area to find it easier.
:steth wrote>Hi Abotnick. Could you point us to the source for this claim. Maybe a membership list. Otherwise unverifiable. Determined that most reformers not members.) 
Abotnick replied:
:What do you mean most reformers are not members? The platform stated on their website is the only reform message of any chiropractic organization. Their membership list is not available, try contacting them and ask for statistics. You are really picking nits here to try to keep NACM from being mentioned in the body and it's very immature. Just because you don't like their position doesn't give you the right to censor them from the body. 
:NACM is a legitimate chiropractic organization and does represent the reform chiropractors. They have a discussion group and a website. I previously added a line to them in the reform section but someone snipped it out. I ask that this be restored in fairness to the group.Abotnick 20:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Gleng, I guess I should have been more clear.  The interests I was referring to were the links to websites that editors add to articles when those same editors are in some way involved or connected to those websites.  The editors I cited above have added many links that fall into this category and should probably be examined.  Editors like you, Dematt, Levine, myself, etc. have never added links that we have had an iterest in.  I hope that is more clear.  Steth 22:29, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reply to Abotnick regarding NACM 

message: This comes from the NCAHF position paper on chiropractic on reformers in 1985: (Italics and bold emphasis is mine)
:The Reformers
:There is a small but growing number of chiropractors who recognize the failings of their profession, but sincerely believe that there is a place for chiropractic in the health marketplace.  It is estimated that 70-80% of people will suffer back pain at some time in their lives.  If, as studies seem to indicate, one third of these can find more rapid relief by having safe, conservative manipulative therapy, then there appears to be a large market for the services of scientifically oriented chiropractors.   Further, a national study of health practices found that three-fourths of chiropractic patients seek relief from musculo-skeletal problems. (42)  This means that a minority seek the type of treatments found in the plethora of nonsense practiced by the chiropractor/naturopaths.  If chiropractic were to purge itself of its quackery and offer valid back care, it could expect a substantial increase in physician referrals.
:One small faction of reformist chiropractors is conducting and publishing meaningful research in the field of manipulative therapy.  This group is not openly critical of chiropractic's shortcomings and has not agitated for outright repudiation of the "subluxation" theory.  They apparently seek to change chiropractic by evolution, bypassing the theory by ignoring it or applying the term "subluxation" to a number of spinal aberrations in a general manner.  It is NCAHF's view that these chiropractors are too greatly outnumbered and overshadowed by practitioners profiting from pseudoscience to effectively change chiropractic in this manner.
:A more progressive-minded group has formed the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM), a professional association with views which are in harmony with science and consumer protection.  Using guidelines set forth by the NCAHF Task Force on Chiropractic, NACM has openly renounced the "subluxation" theory and unscientific practices.  Members limit their scope of practice to neuro musculo-skeletal conditions, and its modes of treatment to those which have scientific validity. NACM does not present itself as an alternative health care system to medical science.
This is what I was remembering.  The first group this NCAHF paper is talking about is Joe Janse from National, those who started the JMPT (and others); Dana Lawrence, John Triano and the Texas Back Institute, and others from other mixer colleges.  The second group is the NACM, who cooperated with the NCAHF and first made news when they announced that they wanted to prescribe certain drugs.   They were not welcomed with open arms to say the least, particularly since they openly criticized the entire profession and alienated any potential allies.  Fyslee, this is the group that you are talking about, and you are right, they have not made much of an impact and are at the other fringe.  But, I think the first group is the group that the ACA and the silent majority have been moving toward since 1990 (right after the Wilk suit - even asked Homola back in 1991 - and remember ACA legal counsel George McAndrews letter in 1992).  In other words, this particular reform movement was not renouncing subluxation, but researching it, which is what most chiropractors want according to the survey we have cited.  I still think people like Homola (back in the 1960s) influenced these people indirectly to "prove what they preached."  Along with the Wilk suit, which forced DCs to really look at the science behind their practices.  After all, had it not been for Workers comp research and other testimony that forced the AMA to admit there was research that supported that chiropractic was better for some conditions, Wilk probably would not have won.  As as additional note however, I think a lot of these same people have since begun advocating dropping subluxation.  The question is if any of these people are members of the NACM, which we apparently will never know. --Dematt 23:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's pretty much my understanding too. There are those who seek scientific validation of the subluxation theory and perform research to those ends; those who seek to bring the profession away from its former antiscientific attitudes; those who already have dropped attempting to prove subluxations, but seek to perform research to find out what really happens when a joint is manipulated; and those who openly denounce subluxationism, vitalism, and innate intelligence as the foundation of the profession, because they see them as detrimental to the profession's progress and acceptance, and because they consider them to be unscientific holdovers from the "old days," which are used to justify misuse of manipulation, the creation and use of a myriad of quack devices (like the Activator), and all kinds of outright quackish and nonsensical practices and claims, including the whole practice building thinking, with lifetime treatment of asymptomatic individuals and their families (Flesia). -- Fyslee 04:54, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: More than one type of reform

message: Apologies guys, the link to the Smith reference doesn't work (it did once, honest, and I did read it Steth ;)). However now I can't confirm it or amplify it. Suggest if we can't find an on-line access we find an alternative. Can anyone help?Gleng 11:46, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It works fine now. -- Fyslee 07:08, 10 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Smith link

message: Mainstream medicine sounds so good and says a lot, but it as Hughgr suggests, it is a weasel word that is unverifiable. --Dematt 14:52, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll work on a reference. --Dematt 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Mccready, I disagree,  The subluxation sentence appears to be an accurate and NPOV statement --Dematt 18:11, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mainstream medicine 

message: As per Mcready request, placing this on the talk page until a verifiable and reliable source can be found.
*All  are trained to recognize signs of cancer, diabetes, and infectious diseases and refer these patients to medical physicians. 
--Dematt 15:35, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would think this pdf covers any questions in the USA. This is from Australia  and in this somewhere from Europe, --Hughgr 17:51, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Hughgr, I was able to use the CCE definition and considering all the US schools are CCE accredited, that should cover it. --Dematt 21:04, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cancer, diabetes, infectious diseases 

message: I'm working to clarify the ongoing straight mixer struggles in the history section.  Feel free to make some edits.  --Dematt 02:33, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  More Straight Mixer Clarity 

message: gleng reverted me saying I should explain on the talkpage. My edit summary was sufficient. he should not have reverted without stating reasons. I used popups to do so because it saves me 5 mins on dialup. we don't need bully boy tactics from you gareth. please do not employ them. edit cooperatively and you will gain more respect. Mccready 14:47, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, what was the purpose for your edits.  You basically just re-arranged the sentences into a sequence that did not flow well.  The intro touched on all the different facets that are explained further in the article.  We can't put the entire article in the intro.  Personally, I see your edit was nonsensical and created redundancy in the introduction. --Dematt 15:01, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Let's try this again. Step by step and then we'll return to your point of meaning claim. Did any of my edits today on chiro remove redundancy? Yes or no? Mccready 15:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

text: It could be much clearer if you were to apply logic to your discussion. The question was did ANY of the edits, not the edits as a whole, remove redundancy? I have addressed your claim about removing a point of meaning below. Please answer the question. Mccready 16:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  gleng revert 

message: Many thanks to you all, you have patiently led me to a clearer understanding. Maybe my role here is just to be ask stupid questions - after all this article is for the reader, whatever his background, not for those who know the answers.
This discussion has revealed a) a piece of unnecessary derogatory POV, b) points of ambiguity in the lead and 3) an unexpected insight into the philosophy regarding drugs. Maybe it's there somewhere, but for me this is such a distinctive flag separating chiropractic from other professions that it is notable.
So its not broke, but now we've done this, let's gain the benefits, because it seems to me that there is agreement on these.
So the replacement element I'd propose is:
Chiropractic's premise is that spinal joint misalignments (which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations), by interfering with the nervous system, can result in many different conditions of diminished health.[1]. By contrast, the term "subluxation" as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves.
Some chiropractors specialize in treating low back problems or sports injuries, or combine chiropractic with manipulation of the extremities, physiotherapy, nutrition, or exercises to increase spinal strength or improve overall health. Some also use other complementary and alternative methods as a part of a holistic treatment approach. However, chiropractors do not prescribe drugs; they believe this to be the province of conventional medicine, and that their role is to pursue drug-free alternative treatments (refs).
If there's no energy to look at this further now, I'd suggest shifting this to the top of the Talk page to preserve it through archiving, so it's there to come back to at some time in the future without having to re-cover this ground. I'll say no more on this, whatever is good for you is for meGleng 09:02, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm re-energized!  So we're here right now.  (Changes in bold):
Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative health care profession which focuses on diagnosing, treating, and preventing mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, their effects on the nervous system, and on general health. Chiropractic's premise is that spinal joint misalignments (which chiropractors call vertebral subluxations), by interfering with the nervous system, can result in many different conditions of diminished health.[1]. By contrast, the term "subluxation" as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves.
Some chiropractors specialize in treating low back problems or sports injuries, or combine chiropractic with manipulation of the extremities, physiotherapy, nutrition, or exercises to increase spinal strength or improve overall health. Some also use other complementary and alternative methods as a part of a holistic treatment approach. However, chiropractors do not prescribe drugs; they believe this to be the province of conventional medicine, and that their role is to pursue drug-free alternative treatments (refs). Depending on the country or state in which the Chiropractic school is located, some train in minor surgery. When indicated, the doctor of chiropractic consults with, co-manages, or refers to other health care providers.The Council on Chiropractic Education (2006), Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic Programs and Requirements for Institutional Status available online
   
There is both evidence for and evidence against spinal manipulation, a technique used by chiropractors, in the treatment of acute low back pain, tension headaches and certain musculoskeletal issues.Ernst E (2006) A systematic review of systematic reviews of spinal manipulation J R Soc Med 99:192-6 Available on-line  There are no objective controlled trials with definitive conclusions for or against chiropractic claims concerning other health benefits.McCrory DC, et al. Evidence Report: Behavioral and Physical Treatments for Tension-type and Cervicogenic Headache. Duke University Evidence-Based Practice Center, Durham, North Carolina, January 2001 available online (PDF format) Balon J. (1998) A Comparison of Active and Simulated Chiropractic Manipulation as Adjunctive Treatment for Childhood Asthma. New Eng J Med 339:1013-20 available online
--Dematt 16:07, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That looks great. Any objections?--Hughgr 18:46, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Last word from me on this

message: I added some more science stuff from Keating.  We're getting close to the end and then there is some filling in to do as well.  Let me know where the weak spots are.  --Dematt 03:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added some new movement toward science stuff 

message: I just noticed that you DCs employ assistants "to perform therapeutic activities"
Want to comment anyone?Gleng 19:12, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What's your question? :)--Hughgr 20:28, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Just wondering if you could recommend any particular agency or just put small ads in personal columns.Gleng 22:31, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your asking "where do these assistants come from?". If so, it most likely depends on what the state law dictates, but if they are performing therapeutics they are likely PT's. There are also CT's (chiropractic assistants )--Hughgr 01:25, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suspect you mean CA rather than CT. -- Fyslee 06:59, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiropractic Assistants (CA)

message: Okay - you asked for it - you got it.  The new practice page for us to try to merge the intro with the lead and integrate into the rest of the article is on the User:Dematt/ChiroPractice.  Don't make any significant changes on this page temporarilyor they may getreverted when we replace this page.  Soooo, anybody stopping by - join us on the User:Dematt/ChiroPractice page.  --Dematt 23:23, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[User:Dematt/ChiroPractice]] 

message: Editors here please note this ; they might wish simply to comment on its accuracy, or might wish to add their own evidence. (I really have gone, but I guess this is unfinished business ;)  ). On this page, many editors from many different perspectives have contributed to a balanced, thoughtful, reliable, authoritative article, because they have listened to each other with respect, despite differing opinions; it is clearly possible, I just wish that it were more common. Gleng 08:13, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep, the more the merrier. KrishnaVindaloo 08:19, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Arbitration

message: FYI. Levine2112 16:34, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The more, the merrier?  ;-)  -Jim Butler(talk) 06:51, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 3RR Violation for KrishnaVindaloo