Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 7

message: I removed the following sentence: "The only study on chiropractic published in a peer reviewed scientific journal ( not a journal dedicated to chiropractic) was in "American Scientist"  "[A Scientific Test of Chiropractic's Subluxation Theory" ". Per American Scientist's submission guidelines, "American Scientist is a general-interest, nonrefereed [emphasis mine] science magazine". It also states: "If your article is accepted, an editor will be assigned [emphasis mine] to work with you on revisions—which may be extensive—captions and the plan of illustration. You will be asked to check illustrations and editorial revisions to ensure that accuracy is maintained. Our goal is to help you write and illustrate your article in such a way as to attract and hold the interest of the reader." Hence, the study is not peer reviewed. AED 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: ''American Scientist'' study

message: The article on chiropractic notes that DD Palmer was a magnetic therapist.  This according to all evidence is a valid assertion.  However, the article has a link to magnetic therapy.  Unfortunately while these sound the same they are vastly different.  Palmer appears to have been a student of Paul Caster.  Mr. Caster taught magnetic therapy in the later part of the 20th century in the Midwest.  This type of magnetic therapy had nothing to do with magnets and appeared to be related to Franz Mesmer's animal magnetism.  The practitioner attempted to force their own animal magnetism into the patient and thus affect a cure.  
Thus the link would be more appropriate to go to Mesmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer
Or animal magnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_magnetism
Here is a link to an article on Caster
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11619056&dopt=Abstract
Caster called himself a magnetic and that is probably why chiropractic ends similarly.
Smperle 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Magnet therapy 

message: 202.129.51.103 has twice made unexplained deletions of material that has earlier been a part of the article. The last edit summary stated:
* (also falsified, read talk page on double-blind studies and chiropractic) 
This User hadn't written anything on the Talk page that seemed to apply, nor could I find it anywhere else. I would like to have a link to the mentioned content.
The word "falsified" was used in two edit summaries, but I wonder if the User is using the word properly. Here is a whole article on falsification, a concept originated by Karl Popper. If the User would explain in what sense the word was being used, then it might make more sense. Without any context it's hard to know for sure if it was being used correctly, or if the User doesn't understand the concept.
I  invite 202.129.51.103 to explain what is meant by these edit summaries, and also to justify such sudden removals of the work of other editors, without any discussion or proper explanation here on the Talk page. -- Fyslee 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unjustified deletions

message: May I draw editors' attention to the following NPOV guideline: "neutral point of view NPOV means, among other things, that a reader should walk away from an article with a clear sense of what the controversy is all about." Given there is no disagreement that chiro is controversial politically and scientifically, a good introduction would point this out. An introduction would ideally cover what, who, when, why in 100 words or less. What we are doing here is writing a helpful encyclopedia, not defending a position on chiro. Mccready 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: So why create a position by calling it controversial in the first sentence? I think Israel is so more controversial and yet its first sentence doesn't mention contraversy. I feel you are trying hard to insert your own POV slanted against chiropractic by continuing to add "contraversy" here. Leave it out of the first sentence. This is not an article about contraversy. This is an article about chiropractic. TheDoctorIsIn 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV 

message: The references to greeks and ancient history contain no mention of vertebral subluxations. Before reverting please provide references. You have had many more than 3 reverts today and have not discussed your reasons on the talk page. May I suggest you read WP guidelines on dispute resolution. Mccready 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.
====Palmer’s account====
Palmer says that in 1895 he was investigating the medical history of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years prior, he felt a pop in his back and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910 Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this as it was accomplished with an object in view and the expected result was obtained. 
====Lillard’s account====
Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures. James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America
Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960s, it’s popularity is decreasing. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002. Chiropractic patients numbers dropped 25% from 1997 to 2002. Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.)
Mccready 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation

message: Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures. James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America
Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960s, it’s popularity is decreasing. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002. Chiropractic patients numbers dropped 25% from 1997 to 2002. Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.)
Mccready 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lillard’s account

message: Bone, joint and soft tissue manipulation has been and is still practised by traditional Chinese healers for thousands of years, where these practitioners are addressed as Doctors. This discipline is known as 'Tie-Da' in Mandarin Chinese and 'Ti-Da' in Cantonese. The meaning of this term is 'to be hit by a metal object', presumably because of the pain experienced in the treatment. So chiropratic is not really a new Western treatment. However it has to be said, Western society has been able to develop this and other treatments into a viable commercial franchise and to make investments into the study of the subject so that it could be studied, recorded and advanced in a scientific, profitable, professional and open manner; rather than the Eastern way of transmission of a 'secret knowledge' from father to son, which is not very profitable nor very open to further developments and advances. The unprofessional transmission of this traditional knowledge puts the discipline at risk of dying out altogether as patients seek treatment from more available commercialised forms of treatment. JC, 27 April 2006.
I have removed the following sentence from the history section. "Writings from China and Greece written in 2700 B.C. and 1500 B.C. mention spinal manipulation and the maneuvering of the lower extremities to ease lower back pain." The source quoted does not mention China and does not assign these dates. In fact the source says "Chiropractic is 105 years old." 
TheDoctorIsIn says on this talk page that manipulation is not the same as chiro. His logic is flawed if he then wants to claim manipulation as essential to the history of chiro. I don't think we can change the definition as will.  
I would also like to remove the reference to Hippocrates. If you check the context (part 44 on the referenced translation) you will see Hippocrates was discussing succussion. What do you think, DoctorIsIn. Mccready 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No logic flaws. Spinal and bone manipulation were predecessors to chiropractor and thus part of its history. TheDoctorIsIn 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

text: I will lay this out quite clearly for you. Ancient bone and spine manipulations were the predecessors to chiropractic adjustments. Therefore, it is part of the history of chiropractic. However, chiropractic adjustments evolved beyond these techniques and now are something different entirely. "A" led to "B" but "B" is no longer "A". A study of "A" is thus not a scientific study of "B" but rather a historical study of "B". I will now revert. TheDoctorIsIn 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  History manipulation 

message: The introductory sentence states: "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a system of health care that is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease." "A system of health care" in this context obviously means something different than what appears in the Health care system article. I would like to know if this sentence should be changed, or if a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Thoughts? -AED 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is there a general term that means the same as a service provided by doctors to promote health? Also, the Healthcare System article treats "Healthcare" as one word. On Chiro, we treat it as two words. Is this grammatically incorrect or does this provide the disambiguity that you are seeking? TheDoctorIsIn 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introductory sentence

message: There would have to be very strong reasons why non RCTs should go in the science section. The study reported said "Chiropractic office costs were higher for both acute and chronic patients (P < .01). When referrals were included, there were no significant differences in either group between provider types (P > .20)." The .2 figure is crucial here. Mccready 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, I must say that you've done a good job of cleaning up this mess. I've been over this ground before without success, since the one who placed all those links has little understanding of what consitutes good scientific research. Discussion was a waste of time. If you will look in the archives at my analysis of the links to so-called research, you'll see his remarks immediately before, where he considers it good research. He and his supporters have repeatedly claimed this junk was proof for many weird chiropractic claims, but have failed to realize that those links only place chiropractic in a very bad light, since better research regarding manipulation (not adjustments) is available from non-chiropractic sources, but certainly not for such wild claims. If that is the best that chiropractic can come up with, what a pity. Such claims and attempts to "document" (sarcasm!) them should be buried out of sight, and many enlightened chiropractors will thank you for your efforts. Those links were an embarrassment! -- Fyslee 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science section 

message: i am reporting user:steth for vandalism to the chiropractic article: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy. Mccready 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I haven't looked, in depth, at User:Steth's edits, so I can't comment on any charge that he is vandalising the article.  However, I should be clear that there are serious issues with the version of the article seen on the left here.  I can't find any dictionary which refers to the subject of this article as a religion, and the phrase crank has the distinct smell of non-WP:NPOV.  Certainly, if it can be properly sourced, a section of this article, or perhaps a separate article, could investigate the concents of this subject as a religion, but I cannot find a WP:RS that would support such a direction in this article at this point.  Justen Deal 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Chiropractic is a religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer. It is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease.
If it were a religion there would be churches. Christian Science is a religion. It is alternative medicine. If it is a religion then it has a prophet or teacher, not a "crank". Fred Bauder 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Introduction

message: Gleng said before that Steth should provided evidence, other than on a chiro page, that Norris has retracted. Steth has not done so. His claim to have done so points to a chiro page. I have redited having considered carefully the edits since my last edit - for example, Steth's removal of the note on NCAM. The systematic attempt to remove EBM is deplorable. Please discuss why EBM should be deleted. Please also discuss the deletion of Lon Morgon's summary - it is in the religion section and therefore apposite. Mccready 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gleng and Steth reverts 

message: To Steth, Justen and others who are in violation.
This is your third and final warning on reverting the lead to remove mention of science. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy and this is a serious matter, not a mere content dispute (you have not objected to the content in the body of the article).
[Steth revert of lead]
[Justen revert of lead]
The information, contrary to Justen's illfounded claim IS in the science section. 
NO ONE has yet provided a souce (other than a chiro site) that says Norris retracted. I make the point again, even if he did, that leaves 60 signatories.
The puff on the olympic games needs to be encylopedic. Words preferred by early editors are do not fit that category
Finally, in order to remove the tag, which FACTS are disputed.
Mccready 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do not remove the disputed tag until there is consensus on this page supporting its removal.  Asking your fellow editors what their specific concerns are is a great first step, but it doesn't constitute consensus for removal (yet).  Please add the tag back. Justen Deal 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3rd warning on lead 

message: It seems that Mccready is not allowing any edits of any kind to take place here. Have others found this to be the case?  Maybe he could explain why he has assumed a role of an administrator.  ThanksSteth 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  No edits allowed by Mccready?

message: I probably share some of Mcready's opinions on chiropractic, but when he states that chiropractors are only called "doctors" in the US, this is slightly misleading.  See  section 20 of the British Columbia Chiropractors Act.  I believe most Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws (but I haven't checked).
::Agreed, especially since many foreign doctors graduate in the U.S. (and Canada) with the Doctor of Chiropractic degree.  Drdr1989 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractors as "doctors" 

message: In reviewing all the articles and links in this extensive work, it occurs to me that the discussions relating to each section are being edited and re-edited by parties that must belong to either the so-called "straight" or "reform" POV's.  Unfortunately, they aren't described until nearly the end of the piece.  Perhaps if you were to move the information from the "Practice Styles and schools of thought" section that describes straight,mixer and reform to somewhere in the beginning (mabe even the intro), then instead of saying "chiropractors believe X", you can say "straight chiropractors believe X" or "reform chiropractors believe Y".  That way, each of the POV's are described, and you don't have to keep deleting each other's hard work.  The viewers can decide for themselves what they choose to believe.  Believe it or not, some people will only choose scientifically based methods and some people will only choose faith based methods.  You can't change that, just show each POV and let it stand.  Can't wait to see the finished work.  Who knows, maybe these discussions will eventually lead to a scientfically proven definition of the vertebral subluxation someday?  Then we can work on proving whether or not there is a God? -- DeMatt 03:31, 1 April 2006 
:Unfortunately, your assumption that there are two groups of chiropractors doing the editing is incorrect.  There ARE two groups editing and re-editing here: One group is made up of chiropractors and those who are OK about chiropractic. The other group are those who are not chiropractors or doctors of any kind, but are very much anti-chiropractic and seem to be obsessed with a hatred of chiropractic. 
:So I believe it is best to leave the ‘Style of Practice’ just the way it is.  Right now it is neat and organized in one area. Your suggestion would, I believe, only make this article more confusing for the reader. Steth 05:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Practice styles and schools of thought... 

message: Mccready, you slapped my wrist with the notation that chiropractors are only doctors in the US. Apparently, you were stating your opinion as fact since it has been pointed out to you by two other editors, that chiropractors are recognized as doctors in other countries as well, Canada for example.  Also most chiropractors are trained in the US where they receive the D.C. degree and then go to other countries.  This still doesn't seem to satisfy you.  
You seem intent on A) only allowing edits that portray chiropractic negatively -- my opinion  and B) monitoring my edits very closely and reverting them. Is there such a thing as a WikiStalker? In my opinion, this is very unWikipedian behaviour.
Has anyone else experienced this or have any thoughts on the subject?
I would appreciate the feedback.  Thanks Steth 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractic Doctors and Mccready's behaviour

message: I am seeking community input regarding the behaviour of Mccready and his attitude towards editors and their contributions to the Chiropractic article.  
Discussions have been attempted in order to resolve disputes, but this has yielded no progress.
If other Wikipedians feel that Mccready has engaged in violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or has been unreasonable in his edits and reverts of your contributions despite presenting your rationale to him, kindly go to this page and record your comments:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steth/RfC
Thank you Steth 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Request for Comment regarding Mccready

message: I am beginning an RfC against this user for violation of WP:LEAD. This user's constant reverts removing mention of science from the introduction are in violation of policy. If you are concerned by Steth's behaviour and wish to contribute to this RfC please leave a message on his/her page trying to get him/her to desist from violating policy. The RfC page states in part:
:"For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.” Mccready 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC against [[User:Steth]] 

message: Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine (EBM), but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors.  EBM is a relatively new and untried set of tenets touted by some medical authorities as a potential gold standard, either to bolster their own credibility or to further monopolize the field of medicine.  Tried to npov the preceding intro passage.  The intro is supposed to be about chiropractic, not about dubious initiatives by mainstream practitioners to prop up the sagging credibility of their orthodoxy while trying to cast aspersions upon alternative practitioners.  The issue of scientific verifiability seems to belong, but not the dubious EBM verbiage that was previously in the intro.  Ombudsman 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The article really ought to indicate when chiropractic was invented - it is relatively recent.  One of the points of EBM is that the tenets are not new and untried, they derive from around 1600 and the Royal Society - empiricism rather than seances and religious leaders.  Applying EBM as a deliberate and specific set of techniques and a movement dates from Cochrane et al. Midgley 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: EBM

message: I think we need to take another look at the Wikipedia guidelines for lead sections:
:"The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article."
In keeping with these guidelines, I basically support Gleng's proposal of adding the last sentence to the WFC version:
:"Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial."
The sentence stimulates interest. If anything in it could be moderated, it could be the removal of the next to the last word - "very." (Even "very" is putting it mildly!) "Controversial" is an undeniable fact, not just a POV, and makes the lead interesting, and not bland (which  it would be in the extreme without it). A removal of the mention of "controversial" would be like suppressing the fact that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. No other healthcare profession has such a controversial history. Small controversies happen in all professions, but chiropractic has always been characterized by internal and external controversy, both past, present, and future. That's not just a POV, but also a fact. The controversies surrounding this article and the tags on this talk page are ample proof of this fact.
As Gleng mentioned, "controversial" has nothing to do with the soundness of chiropractic. It has to do with the history of chiropractic. No reader of the article should be surprised to find mention of controversies in the article. The lead should prepare them for that fact. Following the Wikipedia guidelines above should ensure that that won't happen.
Above I wrote "basically" for a reason. The WFC version includes a very strong and manipulative POV: it deliberately avoids using the word "subluxation" (for the first time in history), yet retains the scientifically disputed assumptions of their supposed effects - "effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health."
Without the mention of subluxations, the description is actually more similar to a description of the Physical Therapy profession than of chiropractic. Since everything else about chiropractic is predicated on treatment of subluxations, this concept should be included in the lead section.
I propose a synthesis of the (1) existing lead, with the (2) WFC version, and the (3) last sentence proposed by Gleng:
:Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."
This synthesis retains the identifying and unique features that characterize chiropractic (philosophy, methods, and goals of treatment), while eliminating some of the more specific aspects in the current version, that can be left for the contents to explain. It contains no negative or judgmental POV, and is entirely factual. -- Fyslee 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am quite happy with your suggestion Fyslee. Maustrauser 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section: Synthesis

message: Currently states: In the United States of America chiropractors receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and are referred to as "doctor" and are licensed in all jurisdictions.
Suggested change: In the United States, graduates of chiropractic school receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), are referred to as "doctor", and are eligible to seek licensure in all jurisdictions.
Reasoning: 1) "United States" should be sufficient. 2) A student of chiropractic isn't a chiropractor until he or she graduates and receives his or her degree. 3) A chiropractor isn't automatically licensed in any jurisdiction - examination and licensure is needed first, I believe. Objections to this change? -AED 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Having received no objections, I'm going to make this change. -AED 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Chiropractic education, licensing, and regulation

message: Fyslee - I'm having trouble with the new citation link for Lillard's account (James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America)[8]?  I get the 23 pages but page 7 is missing and no mention of Lillard.  It could be me, but if not, maybe you can fix it.  Otherwise I'll look elsewhere for the source.  Thanks!Dematt 01:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what's happened to that link, so I've found another one that is verifiable. -- Fyslee 19:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  trouble with a link.. 

message: It seems that we may be coming close to an agreement on the lead section. Are there suggestions for the section entitled "Introduction"? I would like to see some version of the following sentences included in that section:
#Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using adjustments of the spine and sometimes other joints to correct "subluxations", which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of all disease.Moved to "Introduction".-AED 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Introduction"

message: Innate intelligence is mentioned in the article prior to this section. I cannot see how this section adds anything to the article or is necessary. Can we have some more discussion on whether this should stay or go? -AED 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It needs expanding to say that Palmer also used the claim of religious status to avoid prosecution and jail - he was jailed in the 1920's from memory for violations of medical legislation. Mccready 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree that an entire section is not warranted. If innate intelligence is no longer part of the chiropractic mainstream, should that be mentioned in the "Chiropractic subluxation" section? - AED 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: About 80% of chiropractors ("mainstream," "majority," call it what you will....) are not members of any national organization. The ACA only has about 15,000 members, and the ICA, WCA, and NACM make up the other 5%.) The WCA and ICA are openly subluxationist and innatist, and many of the 80% are as well. Some ACA members are as well. Innate Intelligence and subluxationism are very much alive and well in the mainstream. Many of the best selling CED seminars are subluxationist propaganda, marketing machines, while ACA seminars have few participants. Please do not aid revisionist efforts here. This side of the story needs to be told, not only from a historical perspective, but as a warning of what's going on now. There is an intense struggle going on between an enlightened few and the masses. Steth and his cohorts here seem to represent the masses, and would love to see this side of the story buried. They thus attempt to use Wikipedia to give support to the "old" viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Section entitled "Claims for chiropractic religious status"

message: I write disciplines, since it is clear that the article now asserts there are at least two varieties of people practicing as chiropractors - the old school ones (a minority, no need to worry aboutt hem, nobody believes their view ...?) who hold that all disease comes from "misalignments" in joints, and all disease can be cured by manipulating these invisible subluxations... and a second and new lot who say that they just bend bones to have an effect on the musculoskeletal system and whatever is connected to it.  
It won't do.  
Midgley 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current opening section does not reflect the underlying basis of the disciplines 

message: I would like to propose the deletion of the "opinion" of a Lon Morgan, D.C.  under the section entitled 'Chiropractic subluxation'.  It is just that, an opinion. His article is an opinion piece, expressing his thoughts.  Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to showcase opinions.  There are opinions to the opposite, so who is right?  Wikipedia articles are not the place for philosophical debates. Thanks. Steth 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, I feel that an "Opinion" is not appropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, so I recommend deleting it and will do so, unless there are convincing reasons not to. Thanks, Steth 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Describing it as an opinion isn't really helpful (to me in working out whether it should be in tehre or not).  More useful would be an indication of why it was put in there - and of whether the publication in which (it is a verifiable fact that) he wrote that is a reliable source.  As an opinion of one fraction of the group of people doing Chiropractic, it looks like an illustration that they are divided into those who harbour the original fantasy and those who have pragmatically and empirically added a collection of idas that allow them to actually diagnoses and treat some condtions - and to avoid "treating" the untreatable and send it to someone who can do soemthing for the patient.  The extent to which that debate is being resolved,and the basis of the people's practice established as sound and on reproducible findings linked to a real model of the universe is the extent to which a profession of chiropractic is on th way to being established.  I  suspect you'll find when and if it is that there already is one in that space, but reinventing wheels has never been prevented.  Midgley 12:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  :: This quote should stay.  It was published by a chiropractor in a chiropractic journal!  Why is it unacceptable?   I hazard to suggest that most of the case studies quoted in the chiro journals are simply opinion and yet they seem to be acceptable.  If we are only going to include RCT scientific trials then I would agree with you, but we don't and therefore his opinion is perfectly valid and demonstrates the range of views on chiro even within the chiropractic community.  I believe it should stay. Maustrauser 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I saw the quote as illustrating that chiropractic had moved on from its mystical origins to engage in a thoughtful and critical self-evaluating debate. Gleng 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, my thoughts on this mirror Gleng's. The idea in the quote should stay, but I think it's a lazy way to build an article or to make a point by simply quoting what someone else has said. I would rather see the sentence paraphrased and referenced rather than appear in its current form. -AED 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suggested deletion

message: What does the list of colleges in the external links add to the article?  External links serve two purposes: to provide further information that Wikipedia itself can not provide; and to help verify the information in the article.  I took a quick look though a few of the colleges pages and most of them don't appear to provide much, if any, relevant information that Wikipedia does not already cover.  There are already plenty of external links that do an adequate job at providing further information and verifying the content of the article, the list of colleges appears to serve only to bloat the external links section such that it's more difficult to find the useful sites.  Unless somebody can think of a reason why they might be useful they should be removed. Joe D (t) 21:18, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Colleges in external links 

message: "Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."
No one has given proper justification for removing this from the lead. There is nothing in the science section  which contradicts the claim. If anyone has evidence of systematic reviews with strict protocols which contradict the claim, then these need to be provided. Mccready 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Science in the lead 

message: I can see that you guys are discussing VS.
I think the scientific approach using good research is the way forward. On that we are agreed. I am disturbed by the example you (Hughgr) have chosen (which, BTW, is interesting), simply because it is a familiar example of chiropractic "research": It starts (backwards) with a premise that is assumed to be true (right in the title!), and then seeks to prove it, instead of seeking to find the facts, even if they were to prove the assumption to be incorrect.
Since you determined the topic and provided an "example of research done on an example of vertebral subluxation," I'll let another chiropractor provide his opinion of these types of lists (not specifically this one) regarding the topic of vertebral subluxation:
:While many factors contribute to this crisis in chiropractic, foremost is an issue of perceived credibility, or lack thereof. As the world moves steadily towards an evidencebased model of validating health care services chiropractic stands relatively empty handed. When policy makers ask for credible evidence for our claims we reflexively offer a mystical model of subluxation silliness and then wonder why we are criticized.
:A current chiropractic fad sees the subluxation as having three, five, seven, or nine “components”. (my emphasis - Fyslee) The number depending on the whim and motives of the promoter. These “components” have impressive sounding nomenclatures such as myopathology, histopathology, etc. By substituting complexity for substance proponents of this model imply that these “components” uniquely identify, define, and somehow validate the concept of subluxation.
:In reality these “components” are just generalized physiological descriptors that apply equally to any joint injury anywhere in the body. These “components” are not unique to the spine, do not correlate with general body health, and do not confirm subluxation. But since we need something to justify our existence, and since we are loath to submit to a credible scientific model, we instead conjure up and hide behind vague “components” that fail to predict health status.
:We then proceed with a infinite number of incoherent and conflicting methods to identify these spinal “booboos”. We follow that up with an equal number of exotic “techniques” to excoriate these “spinal demons”. These methods of “analysis” and treatment of the holy subluxation are more dependent on the promotional personality of the “technique” peddler than they are upon credible evidence. All too often these “analysis“ and “technique” methods and gadgets are packaged and sold to students and practitioners with a messianic fervor that obscures their lack of credible verification.
:Evidence continues to accumulate that joint manipulation procedures can be beneficial for many specified musculo-skeletal conditions. This in no way validates the theological dogma of subluxation. The benefits of manipulation are achievable by other practitioners outside of chiropractic without any reliance on the mystical nonsense associated with subluxation. This sobering realization should itself be enough to give subluxation addicts pause for thought.
:Dr. Carter observes that “evidence for subluxation is almost non-existent in peer reviewed data.” The only thing sadder than this is the absence of a collective critical thinking mass that can guide our profession out of this morass. Addiction to antiquated tradition all too often takes precedence. Had the medical profession followed a similar model they would still be relying on blood letting as their primary approach to treatment. Dr. Carter’s commentary is a breath of fresh air offering hope that a shift towards professional critical thinking in chiropractic is possible. It is time to assign subluxation theology to the dustbin of history.
:Lon Morgan, DC, DABCO
:J Can Chiropr Assoc 2000; 44(3) Letters to the Editor
:http://www.ccachiro.org/client/cca/JCCA.nsf/objects/Letters+to+the+Editor-September+2000/$file/10-Letters.pdf
-- Fyslee 22:53, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Vertebral subluxation

message: Gleng, I thank you for your much needed level-headed professionalism and continued participation here. I am truly sorry if I said things that didn’t sit right with you.  It is just a little hard for me to see Fyslee’s objectivity, when he owns/moderates many sites that call for the extermination of chiropractic.  Perhaps if it wasn’t for the fact that practically all of his edits cast aspersions on the chiropractic profession or doctors of chiropractic, maybe I would see things differently.
Question for the group…  Just because someone like Ackoz and Fyslee don’t agree with chiropractic, why should their viewpoint be in an encyclopedic article?  Shouldn’t it just be clear, clean, matter-of-fact type material, like this is what it is, here is what it does, here is who does it, here is where you find it, how you get it, etc. etc.?   Thanks   Steth 04:10, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can breathe easy now, Mccready. No need to blast you. Your own words above and edits reveal your anti-chiropractic viewpoints and intentions, and provide adequate examples of this.  Steth 11:13, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

text: OK everyone. This is WP, and in the end WP ethos and policies rule. WP:NPOV makes good reading, sorry to quote at length, please all refresh on WP policies. " we cannot expect collaborators to agree in all cases, or even in many cases,  ...We should, both individually and collectively, make an effort to present these conflicting views fairly, without advocating any one of them, with the qualification that views held only by a tiny minority of people should not be represented as though they are significant minority views, and perhaps should not be represented at all....There is another reason to commit ourselves to this policy. Namely, when it is clear to readers that we do not expect them to adopt any particular opinion, this leaves them free to make up their minds for themselves, thus encouraging intellectual independence"
There are good guidelines on controversies, for articles like this it is just very important that we reepresent all significant views fairly, i.e. represent the different positions honestly and accurately, with careful use of verifiable, reputable sources. 
On the history issue (Mccready): I like history, it enlivens and enriches. BUT if a history section becomes a way of weasel-like denigration, then this is a misuse in this article, and if it goes that way it should split off into a seprate history article, so that the history doesn't contaminate the present. I'm not suggesting that history should be rewritten/misrepresented at all, only that if it becomes difficult to introduce the history without it apparently slanting the article then it should be separate.Gleng 09:01, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question for the group 

message: I'm getting confused here, too many threads. Can we just re-focus the discussion a bit? 
1. I've proposed (above) that we split off History of Chiropractic into a separate article. The reason is that the History is interesting and colourful, deserves space, there are lots of good sources - but including it in this article seems prejudicial in that chiropractic today should not be judged by its origins any more than say modern psychiatry should be judged by an account of phrenology. 
2. I've proposed that we use the best V RS wherever possible - so if a link (to any website) can be replaced by a more secure link to a V RS then we should do so. For instance, any website is transient in its contents, but PubMed citations for instance are solid.
3. Partial websites should be cited sparingly and as sources of facts about opinions rather than as sources for facts.
4. Please forget about barring editors and keep the sniping down. It's wearing. Assume good faith
5. Please ADD material to the article in preference to deleting. Let's move ahead with expanding this.
I'm lost on the NZ issue now I'm afraid. If you have facts with V RS just add them.Gleng 20:17, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: (sigh)

message: thanks guys/gals
good to see more cooperation on this page. A warning on pubmed. just because something is in there in NO WAY means it can be relied on. just about anyone with a publishing house and an arrangement with them can put stuff on. Even in the best journals in the world mistakes are made and retractions have to be published - the good journals do this, the bad ones cover up or publish gobbledigook. I stumbled on this screamer for example . have fun. Mccready 13:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That's a new one!  Interesting.  wonder where i can get some of that glucose stuff with the lidocaine?..=)  not for me, of course.  for a friend.  Dematt 17:30, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pubmed 

message: :My response will be fletted in at the appropriate places... -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All forgiven. I understand your feelings. Unfortunately for chiropractic, the Wilk's decision was only directed at an illegal boycott, not against personal opinions or freedom of speech, or against the duty of physicians to warn against what they consider to be unsafe, quackery, or to engage in whatever else they consider to be consumer protection efforts. They just mustn't use illegal boycotts. Needless to say there are plenty of viewpoints for endless discussions above! (Just not here.) -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't dream of making any such claims. Regardless of your motivation (removal of subluxations), you are no doubt doing plenty that can help people. I might put another explanation on any improvement (not crediting the removal of subluxations...), but I wouldn't say that it is merely coincidental or psychosomatic (although that can always be a part of any treatment, including for MDs and PTs.) Manual therapy is still the treatment of choice for many conditions in the musculoskeletal system, at times in combination with pharmaceuticals for certain conditions. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm used to being in the "hot seat." I'm a big boy. As long as I'm being treated fairly, I can take it calmly....;-) -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I can't really address that point, since I haven't been involved with it, nor have I studied the background of the NZ situation. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: Spot on! We agree. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: No need to do that, since the abuses of the pharmaceutical industry already disgust me. OTOH, I am experienced enough to not take setbacks (that doesn't include abuses)  too seriously, since no progress can be made without occasional setbacks. The advantage of modern scientific medicine is that it's self-correcting. It keeps track of failures, self-corrects, and then moves forward. It's a slow process, but it does happen, and it works, although imperfectly. -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: I appreciate your candor and wish we could share a cup of tea, coffee, or better yet a bottle of Zinfandel: "To err is human, to Zin is divine!" -- Fyslee 12:25, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I've had a hard day so am just about to pour myself some Scotch - cheers to you all. I agree, pharma is not all clean (yes sometimes appalling) but they fund me, so it's not all dirty either). Yes modern med is self correcting, and it needs to be because it makes plenty of mistakes. Modern basic science makes different sorts of mistakes. We can learn a lot from our mistakes, if we recognise them. Gleng 16:52, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd join you, but it's only lunch time here!    Hey, just had a patient referred back to me from an MD.  Physiatrist actually, one that I don't know.  I had diagnosed a patient with disc bulge and somatic referred pain and suggested spinal manipulation and physiotherapy.  The short version: The patient's employer forced him out of my office to a Physician's Assistant(PA) who told the patient I was a quack(PA's words) and sent him to a Physiatrist.  The Physiatrist performed a CT scan, diagnosed a disc bulge and told him the PA was the quack(his words), commented that he used a chiropractor and sent him back over to my office.  Go figure.  I know you were discussing previously whether this kind of thing happened, so thought I would pass it along.  This kind of thing is happening more often.  I don't think it is because of anything I am doing.  I do think the attitudes in the MD profession are genuinely changing.  Thank Wilk.  Dematt 17:49, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't put yourself down. It may very well be "something you are doing." If you have gotten a good reputation in the area, you may find some MDs will trust your judgment and send patients your way. Good luck! -- Fyslee 18:42, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not to start a "I had this happen, so there" comparison, but I thought I'd share an experience I recently had.  An existing patient with an 10 month old that had not begun to crawl was told by their pediatrician to try PT and/or chiropractic.  After a couple weeks of PT with no change, they figured to try chiropractic.  They didn't get a specific referral, but since I was already known to both parents, they brought their 10 month old into my office.  I was skeptical that it would help, I'd never heard of such a thing before, but I try to keep an open mind.  Anyway, checked the kid out and only found and adjusted a v.s. at C2.  Within on week, the kid started to crawl.  At one week's interval, checked and again adjusted C2.  Within another week, the kid started walking.  Checked again at 3 weeks and did not need adjustment.  Nice to be able to help, even if there's no EBM study (yet).  :)--Hughgr 19:39, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I had a spot of tea, and I feel better :) 

message: Though the school ended up voting against opening a chiropractic school, the efforts did produce this report which is filled with facts and figure all of which may be useful for our article. It's over 200 pages! But it does include a detailed outline of the Chiropractic history, verifiable statistics and so much more. I've read the first 50 pages so far. Thought I'd share it with you all. -- Levine2112 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent choice! This might be a good place to list more good resources, starting with Levine2112's contribution. (I've experimented with a workable format.) -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Levine2112 20:02, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

text: -- Fyslee 21:07, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nice find Levine, maybe we could just delete the whole page and put a link to that.  HAHA  gonna take some time to pour over all this info.  It's getting time to consider starting a new talk page.--Hughgr 22:10, 27 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow.  If we can't write something with this info, then nobody can. --Dematt 12:38, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great resources (add to the list) 

message: Palmer initially did not talk about prevention, till much later.  My sentences do tend to run.  Feel free to shorten them if you want.  Also feel free to join the introduction talk and the last section.  It must be tough keeping up with everything.  This page is certainly getting long.  Let's get rid of the whole science question in the introduction for now and when Gleng is finished evaluating the scientific info, we might be able to improve it even more.--Dematt 02:10, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mccready is right! 

message: This is not going to be easy, so what I’ll do, next week I hope, is set up a sandbox to evolve a new section with inputs from anyone who wants to contribute. I don’t expect to get it right without help and criticism.
I’m not going to get into evaluating the details of the research – this is OR, but I will be looking for the best sources; these might include large recent studies in top journals, but might also include older studies or reports that have been influential in being widely cited in the profession. I’d want to include examples of the strongest tests of the effectiveness that support particular claims as well as examples of significant tests that fail to support particular claims. A plan might be to cover the following (not necessarily in this order) – your comments are welcome.
a) Report the major claims for the benefits of chiropractic – i.e. which conditions is there most acceptance for its efficacy. Report the evidence on which these claims are based (i.e. report the nature of the evidence that led to these claims, without criticising that evidence, give a V RS for one or two good examples))
b) Report that there are other claims less widely accepted within chiropractic. (Give an example of some of the disagreements within the profession with V RS) 
c) Observe (neutrally) that the evidence supporting chiropractic is mainly empirical (reported clinical experience of chiropractors and patient reports).
d) Observe (neutrally) that the scientific foundations of chiropractic are not accepted as well established, and that this was at the core of the historically hostile attitude of the AMA pre Wilks (quote AMA here?)
e) quote statements from chiropractors and chiropractic organisations reflecting their endorsement of the importance of evidence-based evaluation of benefits. 
f) Observe the particular difficulties of designing such tests. 
g) Report the outcomes of major, significant tests of chiropractic efficacy and of comparisons between different therapies. (selection based on best RS)
h) Report significant published policy statements of medical organisations and comparable significant bodies where they indicate establishment views about chiropractic
i) Report any significant evidence about current attitudes of conventional medics to chiropractic. (V RS studies).
I will aim to say nothing without V RS, aim to report claims without appearing to endorse them, aim to report evidence whether pro or con without judging the quality of evidence and without appearing to endorse any studies. By selecting studies to cite there is inevitable editorialisation, but I’ll aim to do this on quality of the source not on the conclusions,– good sources include peer reviewed journals of high status within the profession, not just good mainstream medical journals.
Comments welcome from everyone.Gleng 09:20, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  We have to start somewhere and you are the one to do it.  It's going to be tough waiting a week though, you don't need that much sleep do you?  Take a couple days off work, crack open the Scotch and enjoy!  You know you want to. --Dematt 12:46, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Commendable Garth but please note that your c) is not best EMB. Wouldn't it be better to frame article in terms of those chiros supporting those opposing emb? Mccready 14:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, I don’t think it’s a matter of opposing EBM, it just needs to be clarified better.  In addition to adding, “double-blind studies are inherently difficult to test chiropractic methods”, something like the following should be added:
“Evidence-Based Medicine has evolved substantially from its origins a decade ago, becoming less pretentious and more practical. Nonetheless, it must continue to evolve and address several important issues that will otherwise limit its value as an adjunct to health care decisions. Pressing matters include agreement on what constitutes "best" evidence; appropriate generalization beyond research projects; accurate and efficient communication with practitioners, patients and policy makers; and moral issues including distributive justice and individual autonomy. Given the substantial investment of society and commerce in fundamental and applied health research, and the high expectations of society for reducing the burden of illness, attention to these matters should have high priority.”    --Hughgr 19:34, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  science

message: I would like to respond to two of your statements.
>3) Like medical diagnosis, locating, analyzing, and adjusting vertebral subluxations is an art. There are going to be variables, not just differing opinions from different chiropractors, but because every patient is unique as well.
This is not a valid comparison.  In medicine assessments are tested for evidence showing that they describe a legitimate condition, are reliable and specific.  Chiropractic is based on largely erroneous biomechanical assumptions but instead of updating its theory, as medicine does, it uses misleading citations to pass it off as legitimate diagnosis.  You sir are perpetuating the fraud.
:The best medical diagnosis is accurate 70% of the time(mayo clinic).  That means 30% of the time the “best” are wrong or can’t explain why there is a problem.  Hmmm.  Also, the “legitimate” profession is somewhere between the 1st to 3rd cause of death in America.  In my opinion, I’d say the fraud is so close to you, that you can’t see it.
>4) Historically, and today, chiropractors get results in all kinds of cases. Due to the enormous variety (not just back pain and headaches) of disease conditions that have been helped, it doesn’t make sense to say chiropractic isn’t allowed help you because only 1 out of 100 people have shown benefit with your condition. That excludes that one person. Which is why a lot of chiropractors will say, “I look for vertebral subluxations, when I find them, I adjust them back into place, that is all I can do”.
The evidence you describe is not really evidence at all, merely anecdotal stories from field chiroprators who are known to suffer from observation bias, they want to believe that their treatment is effective.  Once again, you are pepetuating false information.
:Case reports and case series have their own role in the progress of medical science. They permit discovery of new diseases and unexpected effects (adverse or beneficial) as well as the study of mechanisms, and they play an important role in medical education. Case reports and series have a high sensitivity for detecting novelty and therefore remain one of the cornerstones of medical progress; they provide many new ideas in medicine. At the same time, good case reporting demands a clear focus to make explicit to the audience why a particular observation is important in the context of existing knowledge. --Hughgr 23:07, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Now, now. I thought we were through with the attacks. Let's not call anyone's opinions here "fraud". Keep it friendly. Levine2112 21:01, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hear hear. Welcome Abotnick, but please try to express your opinions forcibly without being offensive. This is a collaborative venture, and we need mutual respect despite differences in opinion. We cannot discount the clinical experience of practitioners; yes we can be aware of the problems of reporting bias, observational bias etc - these are not fraud, they are intrinsic difficulties. The practice of most medicine evolves through exchange of accounts of clinical experience. These are evidence; not proof, but evidence.Gleng 08:41, 29 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Response to Hughgr