Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 10

message: An anonymous editor added the following to the bottom of the chiro page;
*Vertebral artery dissection (VAD) has been observed in association with chirotherapy of the neck.However, most publications describe only single case reports or a small number of cases. We analyzed data from neurological departments at university hospitals in Germany over a three year period of time of subjects with vertebral artery dissections associated with chiropractic neck manipulation. We conducted a countrywide survey at neurological departments of all medical schools to identify patients with VAD after chirotherapy followed by a standardized questionnaire for each patient. 36 patients (mean age 40+11 years) with VAD were identified in 13 neurological departments. Clinical symptoms consistent with VAD started in 55% of patients within 12 hours after neck manipulation. Diagnosis of VAD was established in most cases using digital subtraction angiography (DSA), magnetic resonance angiography (MRA) or duplex sonography. 90% of patients admitted to hospital showed focal neurological deficits and among these 11 % had a reduced level of consciousness. 50% of subjects were discharged after 20±14 hospital days with focal neurological deficits, 1 patient died and 1 was in a persistent vegetative state. Risk factors associated with artery dissections (e. g. fibromuscular dysplasia) were present in only 25% of subjects. In summary, we describe the clinical pattern of 36 patients with vertebral artery dissections and prior chiropractic neck manipulation.
J Neurol (2006) 253 : 724–730 
This is interesting information and in the right format it could be used in the safety section.  It needs to be properly referenced and cannot be original research.  So, anonymous editor, please sign in and reintroduce this right here in this discussion section and lets consider this.
BTW I'll be out till sunday.  Everyone have a great weekend! --Dematt 18:23, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Excellent work Gleng, it's amazing the things (mispelling, grammer, etc.) that you don't see after reading the same thing over and over:)  I'm impressed that you actually read the whole thing at least twice! I only saw one change that I question , but I can't figure the best way to say it. Have you finally decided that it is USA, not US or U.S.A. or United States or Yanks:) --Dematt 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  anonymous stroke study 

message: That was a joke, right!  ..  ...  or was it?--Dematt 23:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. They are two divergent disciplines. Levine2112 04:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Alot of principles apply to both, but bone-setting is new to me, chiropractic isn't.  That should spell alot.  Don't merge.  Drdr1989 00:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ummmm, I think it should have it's own article expanded, not merged with chiropractic.  Seperate and distinct.--Hughgr 02:39, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bonesetting 

message: I have been reviewing the so-called National Council Against Health Fraud "Fact Sheet" on Chiropractic and noticed that while it starts out with some facts, it quickly morphs into an anti-chiropractic opinion piece. Therefore I have removed the link.  Steth 12:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is a useful external link, and completely harmonious with our external links policy. However, it would be acceptable to call it something other than a fact sheet on the links if you prefer. Jefffire 12:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Fact" sheet? 

message: Could we archive this, its getting really long. Thanks.--Hughgr 19:45, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done, hopefully to everyone's satisfaction. -- Fyslee 20:15, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thankyouverymucha :)--Hughgr 23:34, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Muchos Gracios Amigos! --Dematt 03:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mange tak! Levine2112 03:50, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Det var så lidt. Da nada. -- Fyslee 09:45, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  archive? 

message: Conleydc, Welcome!  It is good to have some new ideas here on the chiropractic page.  You had some good input, but got a little carried away:)  Please don't take it hard that I reverted your changes.  Some of them were not bad, but when you deleted large volumes of text, you inadvertantly deleted other points of view(POVs).  While they may not be your POV, they represent months of work by countless numbers of editors that represent as many POVs.  Overall the compromised text covers all our POVs.  While your POV is important as well, please feel free to add whatever you like (though be prepared for some cross examination), but try not to delete text without discussion.  Looking forward to your input!! --Dematt 14:20, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conleydc changes 

message: I am beginning an RfC on National Association of Chiropractic Medicine, and would lke to get input from others as to whether it should or should not be referenced in the article.   
It is my view that it is not a source worthy of reference since it does not publicly reveal it’s membership numbers or names, does not hold elections for officers like real groups and associations do.  I could not find any information about regularly held meetings, or any scientific seminars that it sponsors for the chiropractic profession for continuing education credits.  
All I could find is a one-page website with three of the four links at the bottom to websites that are privately owned and operated by Stephen Barrett that solicit donations. Therefore I am skeptical about this so-called ‘Association’ and its inclusion in this article.
Even though it is a chiropractic group, Fyslee, who, curiously is a physical therapist, seems to know much about it.  I am assuming good faith that he or Artie Rubin can provide this needed data, as they felt strongly enough to ensure the inclusion of the several references to NACM.  I had asked for this information in the past, but nothing was produced.
Lacking verifiable data, perhaps we should consider removing it.  Would anyone care to comment?  Steth 02:29, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Assuming what you say is accurate - that it does not publicly reveal its membership numbers or names, does not hold elections for officers like real groups and associations do, and that it is not a ligitimate organization with any sort of majority or significant view - I would have to concur that any reference to it should be expunged... and perhaps its own article should face the test of an AfD. Levine2112 05:43, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was the one who added it to the "reform section", but those are valid points. All I know is what they (whomever they are) say in their website. If we can't prove that it is a real organization then it shouldn't be included.--Hughgr 05:47, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I would like to give anyone else an opportunity to provide the data on NACM.  Otherwise I will go ahead and remove the references as I think that is the correct thing to do for unverifiable additions.  Can anyone provide this information? Thanks Steth 16:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC on National Association of Chiropractic Medicine 

message: Mccready, take a chill pill.  I think you woke on the wrong side of the bed.  You know better, please be careful.  --Dematt 12:22, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Vandalism is too strong a word perhaps, but a reasoned approach is always better, with extensive use of the talk page. Jefffire 12:24, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deleting things because the "article is too long" is IMO poor justification, and inevitably leads to POVish deletions.  Removing otherwise good information from WP is imo a far worse "sin" than exceeding nominal article length. Better to seek consensus and perhaps split the article in such cases.  - Jim Butler(talk) 19:03, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here, here. McCready, we finally got this article running smoothly with editors of all POVs. Please respect. Levine2112 06:50, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism? 

message: The bulk of the verbose section "Changing political and healthcare environment" does not seem to relate to the topic.  Only at the end, the section makes a small connection with the topic.  I suggest the section be summarized into 2 or 3 sentences, and the irrelevant material removed.  Any objections? -Pgan002 00:18, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Section "Changing political and healthcare environment" 

message: I have been trying to establish if NACM is a legitmate organization, i.e. does it publish a list of members, elect officers, sponsor seminars, etc. like all real associations do.  I asked for comments as suggested by an admin.  I politely asked for the data many times. No one produced the data to verify it's legitimacy, yet Fyslee and Macready insist it should be in the article because...???  I 
I remove the references, they put it back. Back and forth, back and forth.  No discussion.  Fyslee says it is notable and I don't need to know more and I should just live with it. Why? Because he says so and they have a one page website so it must be a legitmate organization. After all, he is a physical therapist you know, and chiropractic's foremost historian, so there.  Mcreedy? Well Mccready is Mccready.  Spreading grief with massive POV McReverts (copyright) throughout WP. So what's an editor to do with?  I would gladly solicit suggestions, as I see others are just as frustrated with getting nowhere fast.  Steth 23:01, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  McReverts 

message: Mccready, this sentence in the lead really bugs you:
:"Chiropractors believe that alleged spinal joint misalignments, which they call vertebral subluxations, can interfere with the body's self-regulating mechanisms via the nervous system, resulting in bodily dysfunction."
What legitimate (from a Wiki viewpoint) reason do you have for changing it? It is written very carefully, in a NPOV way. It is true that chiropractors "believe" that unproven idea. That's the facts. If it stated that the belief itself was true, then you'd have a leg to stand on, but you don't. -- Fyslee 16:18, 29 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: parsing ambig. disagree that "belief" modifies self reg crap - which is common to all health interventions anyway. it's weasel alt med, like non invasive surgery etc, to create brand differentiation in the mind of the target Mccready 14:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In other words, you dislike the motivations of those who say it.  That's not a valid reason to delete.  I'm restoring.  thx, Jim Butler(talk) 16:26, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK - that was a bit hasty, sorry - I now understand what you mean by "parsing ambig."  It's a valid point, even though I disagree it was really that ambiguous.  Moot now given a string of edits to that part.  I'll leave it up to better-informed editors to hash out how important this "self-regulating" thing is, and how to present it.  You sure are cynical about product differentiation.  Agree it's a factor in the promulgation of any meme, but it's also possible that different approaches simply reflect honest differences of opinion. cheers, Jim Butler(talk) 05:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Revisions/reverts of Lead

message: Mcready, would you please explain why you keep removing one of the most important historical facets of chiropractic history. I do no feel that your earlier explanation that "the page is too long" or "there is already a Wilk page" are enough to justify your deletion. It is brief overview of the case, which the Wilk page covers in greater detail.--Hughgr 18:40, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wilk vs. AMA and Mcreadys repeated removal 

message: In the second paragraph in the introduction is this sentence.
::"However, the concept of the subluxation, for which there is disputed scientific evidence, remains integral to typical chiropractic practice, and in 2003 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases, and practiced accordingly."
My problem is with "for which there is disputed scientific evidence". The reference at the end of the sentence is for the 90% of chiros believe, but there is no evidence being stated for VS, so what is being disputed? BTW, here is some evidence,  while perhaps not conclusive, is it disputed?--Hughgr 18:08, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We would need to start with a definition of vertebral subluxation, to the extent to which there would be general agreement as to whether it exists in a given patient (and vertebra), to determine whether it has anything to do with symptoms.  I don't think that exists enough for there to be scientific evidence of any sort.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:31, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the reply Arthur, the definition is in the first paragraph of the VS page; a mis-aligned vertebra can compromise/alter nerve interferrence. Is the evidence of this disputed? Cheers.--Hughgr 17:12, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That (as written) is not a definition, it's an assertion.  But my question is (more or less) whether, in the case of an individual patient, would there be any general agreement (even among chiropractors) as to (1) which vertebrae are misaligned, and (2) which such misalighnments constitute subluxations.  If there would not be general agreement of some sort, any evidence related to subluxations is purely anecdoctal, even if nominally done in a scientific manner.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:56, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There would absolutely be agreement. Some doctors may read x-rays and may diagnose differently... you can't account for that in any profession (hence "getting a second opinion"). But by the strict sense of chiropractic diagnosis, in a room full of chiropractic doctors examining one patient, there would absolutely be an overwhelming consensus on which vertebra are misaligned (subluxated). Chiropractors are trained to detect vertebral misalignment on sight and by feel. Also, there are heat sensitive instruments (which are actually based on old school technology) which can detect a vertebral misalignment (as the misalignment of vertebra can also create a marginal difference in heat energy on either side of the vertebrae). These instruments have now been combined with computer techology, so if a doctor chooses, he/she can take a reading of a patient before an adjustment to find the heat imbalance, then perform the adjustment and re-scan. In my experience, the adjustment most always balances this instrument's reading. You can perform this experiment over and over, all day long with different patients (as many chiropractors do in their regular practice) and see the positive results time after time. What I like about this - in a clinical study sense - is that now you eliminate any subjectivity in the examining doctor. That being said, these devices may not be able to detect every misalignment.Read about one such device here. Levine2112 18:29, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the pointer Levine2112. I read up on the neurocalometer. I'll find the appropriate place to add it. KrishnaVindaloo 03:39, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That (agreement as to which vertebrae have subluxations) is subject to scientific testing.  Has it been done?  (For what it's worth, I have gone to a number of chiropractors, specifically for back pain, and they've never used a heat-sensitive instrument, although some have used electrical conductivity tests.) — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:14, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Arthur, please see this article. I think it addresses your questions.--Hughgr 23:19, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, no.  It says they're trained in them and believe in them, but there seem to be no studies confirming that two chiropractors might agree as to where the subluxations are. — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well Arthur, you may be right, I can't find that kind of study. But putting that aside for the moment, is the assertion that a mis-aligned vertebra can compromise/alter the action-potential disputed? Cheers--Hughgr 23:47, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose not.  Whether a misalignment diagnosed as a subluxation necessarily changes the action-potential is disputed, but I see no dispute that a misalignment can change the action-potential.  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 01:37, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: "However, the concept of the subluxation, for which there is disputed scientific evidence, remains integral to typical chiropractic practice, and in 2003 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases, and practiced accordingly."
should be re-phrased. How about, "However, the concept of the subluxation, which has marginal evidence, remains integral to typical chiropractic practice, and in 2003 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases, and practiced accordingly."
I bolded the possible change. Looking for input. Thanks.--Hughgr 22:50, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I have no problem with it, though I think Mccready was the one that put it in.  I like the arrangement better.  It flows. --Dematt 00:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intro question 

message: I just found out that an old Chiropractor follows the Pettibon school of Chiropractic. I don't know that much about chiropractic, so I don't know whether it's seperate from the 4 schools currently listed in this article or if it's a subset, so I don't want to add it. Maybe someone more versed could add it. Here's a good link: http://www.pettibonsystem.com
Thanks, Orblivion for your interest.  Pettibone is not a school per se.  It is one of several proprietory techniques that has been developed and marketed to individual chiropractors as method of treatment for their patients.  It does not have the same requirements that an accredited institution would be required to meet.  Similar to something like a new technique for implanting stents would be marketed to a cardiologist.  There may be some value in discussing various techniques, but it could open floodgates to all kinds of "advertising" claims. --Dematt 15:59, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Dematt, perhaps a seperate article on chiropractic techniques could elucidate further.--Hughgr 22:39, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto, the article is long enough without introducing theoretical information about the 100 or so chiro techniques.  It would take at least 10 pages to cover that.Abotnick 01:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest making separate articles for each notable technique (Activator, Gonstead, Specific, et cetera) and/or have a one article for "Chiropractic techniques" which describes basics about different techniques. Levine2112 02:07, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pettibon school 

message: Hi everyone,
I added some information about false avertising by chiro programs under education.  We need to warn those students that organizations aren't playing fair.Abotnick 19:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Restore by all means! --Hob Gadling 15:11, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If you look at the edit summary, you'll see why it was removed.--Hughgr 17:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think it was appropriate to remove it.  Instead someone should have simply paraphrased the text.  Levine you should not have removed it.  I have revised the text and inserted it back into the education section.Abotnick 11:45, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone removed the Sikorski paragraph in the education section.  Who did this and why was it removed?Abotnick 12:10, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Me. My edit summary reads: should probably be reworded (as not to plagiarize Stephen Barrett) & moved to a different place.  Maybe more appropriate here. Levine2112 17:08, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Levine it was reworded so please restore it.Abotnick 21:20, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually it wasn't reworded too much. Just one clause from the whole paragraph was moved around. It still would be considered plagiarism on your part. Additionally, the edit, as I mentioned, would be better suited on the chiropractic schools article. So once you have reworded sufficently, feel free to stick it there. That article is barely a stub as is and could probably use some more content. Levine2112 22:44, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Widespread false advertising by chiropractic programs-Sikorski study 

message: I see that a modification was made to the straight/mixer summary at the end.  It states that straight chiropractors do differential diagnosis.  Where are you guys getting this from?  Straights hate diagnosis and can't even order the required lab tests to do it in some states like Michigan Abotnick 19:05, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't remember when that happened, but it may have gotten there when some other editor came rolling through and made several changes that sounded reasonable.  I think the thought was that objective straights don't want to use differential diagnosis, but most regular straights do (as required by their state laws).  Just guessing though.  I may be totally wrong, but I'll do some dogging and see what I find. --Dematt 21:55, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Nope, I was wrong.  It was Hughgr.  When he combined the two versions that was incorporated.  Considering he is a Palmer grad, I wasn't about to make changes to that one:) --Dematt 02:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: When you label me, you negate me. :) From some of the books I've read on objective straights, their rationale is a medical diagnosis is irrelevent to locating and correcting VS. But if you follow the history of the objective straight schools(ie.Sherman), that while there was opposition to teach DDX, the CCE stepped in and said you must teach it, or you will lose (or fail to gain) accreditation.--Hughgr 17:30, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Opps, just realized you may be talking about trad. straights, I'll look into it.--Hughgr 17:32, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Depends on the label:) You can be proud of yours! --Dematt 17:44, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  What straight chiropractic programs often do is create a non-integrated dual curriculum where a few credit hours of differential diagnosis taught to meet CCE requirements but the clinical experience doesn't require it in order to diagnose and treat patients which are deemed subluxated by chiropractic analysis methods.  Regardless, the straight position is that DDX is not needed and the paragraph on Traditional Straight practitioners should be updated to reflect that these practitioners typically will only screen for red flags and not diagnose patient complaints using DDX.  The OSC paragraphs and mixer paragraphs are accurate however.  I'll make some changes and let you guys work with it.Abotnick 15:13, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Abotnick! --Dematt 15:55, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: yw Dematt.  It took a lot of rewriting but I think it's accurate now.Abotnick 01:23, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Straights do a differential diagnosis? 

message: This part, in the third paragraph of "Introduction", looks funny; suggest that someone change it:
:Today, there are 17[16] accredited chiropractic colleges
--Scott McNay 12:56, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good catch.  I'll work with it.  Thanks Scott. --Dematt 13:18, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Requested change 

message: I added a table that I found that seems to help better illustrate the dilemma of what is testable and what is not.  What do you think? --Dematt 15:00, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I like it! Great addition Dematt. Cheers--Hughgr 17:36, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chiropractic construct table 

message: G'day, this article has a mix of reference styles, with two independent series of numbered references. Someone (who cares about this article, i.e. not me) should consolidate reference styles to just one, preferably:
:reference address 
or even better:
:. 
Webaware 00:22, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree.  I should have done that a long time ago.  I'll work on that. --Dematt 01:49, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citation style 

message: Came across this fascinating and rich source of history and opinion - collated by Keating, but a very broad collation nonetheless 
Gleng 13:11, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, isn't that interesting. Thanks, Gleng. --Dematt 21:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Keating history collation

message: A user reverted my last edit based on an objection to my edit summary, not based on the contents. The user's revert also wiped out uncontrovesial edits. I have reverted and expect a discussion (of the edits). Mccready 13:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I did not revert based on your summary, I reverted because some of the changes you made were controversial, and not neutraly put. I warned you about your edit summary, which was incivil. You've just come out of a lengthly block on the understanding that you would not behave in this fashion. In your forthcoming absence I will do my best to represent some of the proposals you have introduced. Jefffire 13:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: We all know this article has a problem with POV pushers who have, as their stated aim, the goal of removing material critical of chiro. For me to borrow the words of an Administrator who said so may be confrontational to some, but the truth needs to be faced before we can move forward. Pls address the substance of my edits rather than revert for the reason of "controversial". Mccready 14:04, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mccready, I think your edits are getting deleted because they seem to be "deletionist POV pushing" as well.  We all know about sPOV, so there's no need for me to lecture you.  You do seem to identify areas that need work, and if we get a chance, we may actually be able to reach a verifiable and reliable consensus that works for everyone, but your heavy handedness triggers defensive postures in everyone that don't allow that to happen.  I'll be glad to support a well placed, thoughtfully constructed and accurate edit. --Dematt 16:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  revert based on edit summary 

message: My two cents on the Kinsinger article are:
Though it is quite possible that this MD did exactly as described in the paper, there is not enough information to determine if what the chiropractors did was inappropriate.  Anyone can go into any type of doctor's office and mislead them with the right information.  The fact that this guy was an anesthesiologist suggests he had some knowledge of how to answer the questions as well.  Had he also done the exact same thing in 9 medical doctor's offices, it is quite possible that he would have had similar experiences, though perhaps with more invasive procedures and at significantly more cost.  Certainly the "side stitch" that "could have been an appendicitis" and "killed him" would not have been considered life threatening.  Without a fever or a positive McBurney point test, the protocols would not necessarily call for an immediate appendix workup.  McBurney point pertains to this procedure:
*Slight pressure is applied to the right lower abdomen and released.  If this is painful, inflammation of the peritoneum(outer lining) and is a good indicator of infection.
Other observations will be evaluated:
*During the physical exam, a doctor may press down on the lower left quadrant of your body to see if the pressure causes pain in your lower right quadrant. You also may lie on your left side and extend your right leg to see if that position is painful. Your doctor may rotate your right hip toward the center of your body to see if you have pain in the appendix area.
If Dr. Kinsinger did not exhibit this behavior, then the likelihood of appendicitis was diminished and looking for other causes would be quite appropriate.  In fact, had he presented to his local emergency room, he would have spent a long as 24 - 48 hours lying in bed while they ran blood work and waited to see if the pain got worse before removing the appendix, thank goodness.  If the blood work was negative, it would be likely that a CT scan would be run as well to rule out other possibilities and it is likely that he would be placed on antibiotics just in case and hopefully, nothing unusual would show up that would require exploratory surgery, like a gall stone, or he would have ended up with a cholecystectomy.
Similar arguments exist for each of the scenerios that Dr. Kinsinger presents.  Considering the source, the credibility factor is lacking as well.  In other words, his intentions were predetermined to discredit, so we don't know how honestly he may have presented himself to these DC's or to the reader.  So, the problem with the Kinsiger paper is that there is not enough information to decide anything, much less whether Dr. Kinsiger thinks chiropractors are trained to recognize signs of cancer, etc..
Therefore, while it might be able to fit into the critiques section, I think it substantially lowers the bar and would allow low quality info into both critiques and advocacy.  It certainly does not belong as a source in the introduction, or really anywhere as a source.  It appears as one antagonists low level attack.  Material such as this is certainly valid for forums and blogs, but not for encyclopedias. --Dematt 14:13, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More like ten dollars worth than two cents. There's plenty of info to decide on chiro's behaviour and the reader can judge it. There was no "misleading". Yes by all means do the same to medical doctors (they aren't immune to being ripoff bullshit artists) but that's not the focus of this article. As to the intention to discredit. Right on. That's what science does. It sets up tests and if they are failed .... By the way, that's what examinations at university do too. And some of the ones presented here are the simplistic stuff I learned in first year clinical medicine. That's first year. So the chiros failed. So the source should stay. It certainly balances the ridiculous POV that chiros are trained to detect blah blah blah and then refer. And it belongs extactly where it is to balance the claim in the previous sentence, not tucked away in "the crititques section". Mccready 14:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I'd prefer you to replace the source until there is agreement (and try to spell my name correctly). The reference to anecdotoal evidence is unacceptable because it is an oxymoron. The evidence is fine regardless of his hypothesis (ie chiros are quacks). You of all people should know you can't reject evidence post hoc based on the hypothesis from which it was gathered. The accusation that it is therefore internally inconsistent is nonsense, with respect. It's like saying the discovery of penicillin was illegitimate because the null hypothesis model, controversial in itself, wasn't followed. "Minor mischief" is an attempt to denigrate the research. Not a scientific attitude. In any case the Rosenham stuff is well referenced and supported in wikipedia. Therefore why try to delete Dr Kinsinger who according to you is doing a similar thing? Your arguments don't stack up. There is evidence that contradicts the claim and you want to exclude it on spurious grounds. Mccready 15:10, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I must second the viewpoints and objections above. Even though I believe Kinsinger's conclusions were correct (he has only done what others, including law enforcement, have done before to chiropractors), it's being used in the wrong setting here, and just isn't good enough as a RS in the article, although it qualifies as a RS of an opinion, and as a possible External link, though I wouldn't recommend it here. I also can't support its inclusion because of Mccready's constant misuse of pop-ups to revert, and his making of large edits without discussion. His heavy-handedness in other situations thus affects the way his possibly reasonable edits are treated. Too bad. -- Fyslee 22:03, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kinsinger article