Talk:Upper Cervical Specific Chiropractic

message: 75.138.100.47 is my father. Dad, you really should register with wikipedia and sign your contributions.(Drumorgan 19:35, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: my father

message: This article should be flagged. It reads very pro-chiropractic, and addresses none of the controversy surrounding the Palmers, the fact that "subluxations" are not scientifically accepted, and that neck adjustments cause strokes, and there are plenty of victims and a class-action lawsuit to prove it.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.174.133.42 (talk) 00:21, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article does not read pro-chiropractic.  It simply states what upper cervical chiropractic is (and it's labeled as a stub which means it is incomplete).  Subluxations are scientifically 'accepted'.  There is plenty of research to document joint fixation including many studies documenting decreased joint space in fixated joints using MRI's.  Subluxations may not be accepted with the AMA, but after all in 1997 the AMA was found guilty of conspiracy to destroy the chiropractic profession.  So, maybe the AMA isn't the best group to be deciding on the fate of chiropractic terminology.  Also, your claim of 'plenty of victims' of stroke after neck adjustments is greatly over-exaggerated.  It happens so rarely that it has been difficult to put an exact number on it. Currently, at worst the accepted number of strokes is 1 in 1,000,000 neck adjustments and at best is 1 in 7,000,000 adjustments.  Although I feel for those people, these numbers don't even come close to the numbers of people dying at the hands of medical doctors from unnecessary procedures and unnecessary medications.  One study sites iatrogenic deaths at 795,000 a year, making it the number one cause of death in the United States, above heart disease and cancer.  Prescribed anti-inflammatories alone kill 16,000 people a year.  Stroke after cervical manipulation is a microscopic drop in the bucket when you look at the big picture.  Chiropractic is extremely safe.  If you don't believe that, ask the people who know... the malpractice insurance companies.  Chiropractic malpractice insurance is at most a few thousand dollars a year.  Medical malpractice insurance is so expensive that some MD's can't even afford to practice.  Get your facts and priorities straight and stop bashing chiropractic with unsubstantiated 'facts' and urban myths.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.218.141.222 (talk) 22:22, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, it was very pro-chiropractic, and your arguments above ("just look how bad medicine is!") aren't pertinent or helpful. And btw, I'm a licensed DC. I've added some NPOV but it still needs work. Dr.simmer (talk) 18:43, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral POV

message: This is a valuable article in the large group of chiropractic articles we have here. I tried to do a little cleaning up without significantly changing anything. I did add the word "potential" to make it more NPOV, as this is certainly a disputed point. With that qualifier it is more acceptable. Hope this all helped. The history of the HIO is a very interesting story. User:Dematt can provide more info. -- Fyslee / talk 04:00, 14 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some cleanup and article improvement