Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 13

message: Refs 13 and 14 are blank, rather than take the time to look and see where tey are repeated from I thought I'd just notify. Quadzilla99 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Quadzilla, fixed it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ref problem

message: :::http://www.acatoday.com/content_css.cfm?CID=250
:::http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2007/may/b.htm
:::http://www.chiropractic.org/index.php?p=news/advisory_committee
:::AvB ÷ talk 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, they were mentioned as recently as 2007. . I stand corrected, even though they are just mentioned in the article, I still wonder if they have "produced" anything themselves in a long time. Hence my position. Thanks.--Hughgr 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You will note that they are mentioned in context to the year 2000. -- Levine2112 discuss 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm convinced. Here's an additional sampling of my reasons: (1) I don't agree we need sources for this (2) If I would agree to that, I would not agree with your 5-year cut-off (3) If I would agree with that cut-off, two of the sources refer to August 2002 (4) One of these three sources, published in May 2007, reports events from 2000. It then proceeds to indicate the same issues are still alive, and it does not say "Fortunately the NACM no longer exists". The fact that no chiro source (or any other source) has said that means something. Hughgr, their existence has certainly produced responses in mainstream chiro sources. But that's not the issue here. AvB ÷ talk 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Five years is arbitrary. But I would think that a notable organization worthy of mentioning in this article the way we are mentioning it should be active and doing something in the past five years. Otherwise it is yesterday's news and perhaps belongs on the history page - unless you want to load this page down with other historical organizations which used to claim to represent some group of chiropractors. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please address the main points I made. AvB ÷ talk 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

text: Please Fylsee, this is not a blog. We all know your POV, you don't need to keep spewing it out over and over.  Back on topic, you said, Whether that organization is alive or dead is just as irrelevant, to which I ask, then why do we need a history section? Or, when should something be put in the history section? And please don't say when we need secondary sources because most things in the chiro history article will not have those kind of sources. For the record, I'm not against mentioning the NACM, I just wonder if they play a role anymore? If the only mention of them anymore is one guy, doesn't that make it a super minority view and thus not include-able? Which, by the way, I'm all in favor of including in the history article in case you forgot.--Hughgr 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  If Levine2112 (and yourself) would drop this issue it would get no comments from myself. History is history, and at Wikipedia it is only documentable history. In fact everything we write here is history, otherwise it's OR, and OR won't do. As far as the NACM, that's not the subject of the section. Just read what I've written above.  -- Fyslee/talk 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  From my talk page 

message: More irrelevant arguments from Levine again. Dematt's research is also irrelevant. Dematt is also a chiro. Anyhow, Levine has already admitted he is a chiro. He said in part: As a chiro, I'd appreciate your input. According to Levine, he claims NACM is a dubious organization. So what. That is your opinion. The issue at hand is the factual statement. Basically: Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the NACM. Very simple. The fact that there is recent talk among mainstream chiros about NACM is evidence for their inclusion in this article. Manistream chiros oppose the minority group. There is a section in this article for the reformers bit. Every section has mentioned the organization or organizations which tend to share the same viewpoints of each chiro belief. Now then, why are chiros coming to this article and want to exclude the minority viewpoint. Because they have a pro-traditional chiro belief. They want to silence the minority voice. This is against NPOV. And it is against the spirit of Wikipedia. :) - Mr.Gurü (talk/contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not a chiropractor. Please read the statement you are quoting again. TheDoctorIsIn is (or at least claims to be) a chiropractor. Your behavior is disgusting, QuackGuru. -- Levine2112 discuss 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Jeeze Quack, learn to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--Hughgr 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: QG, I believe the concept here is that, as a chiropractic physician, I carry no more (and no less) weight than an ignorant contributor.  ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: [[WP:NPOV|let NPOV prevail]]

message: I took off the merge tag because this article is too long and has been shortened several times.  In fact, the information for that article was likely in this article at one time. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're right. Several other articles were developed as spin-offs for the "excess baggage" here when this article got too large. They should remain as separate articles where there is room to do justice to the subjects. -- Fyslee/talk 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  merge with [[Doctor of Chiropractic]] 

message: I agree with the sentiments for moving the quote (and related parts in that paragraph) to the "Scientific investigation...." section. It is not a logical part of the "History" section. It belongs in the first part of the "Scientific.." section, and since that section is quite long, it deserves a subheading labeled "Effectiveness: conflicting conclusions".
I would suggest that this is a job for Dematt. He is a chiropractor whom we can trust to ensure that NPOV is preserved and that all parties will be satisfied. Let's not do anything with it right now. Leave it as is and let him do it all. This will save a lot of time for the rest of us and avoid alot of edit warring. -- Fyslee/talk 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that is wise too. -- Levine2112 discuss 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Moving it 

message: I've streamlined the flow of this section, and added more information on the relationship between chiropractors and drug prescription.  
The entire "History of the Basic Premise" section could probably have its content merged in to other headings to make the entire article more coherent. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.60.18 (talk • contribs) 
: Good work on the prescription section. This is an improvement. -- Fyslee/talk 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation Section 

message: There is a lot of information out there about Criticism of chiropractic. It would be easy to fill pages of information on this topic. A new article titled Criticism of chiropratic would be an interesting read.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Unneccessary. See WP:COAT. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this article too long? Sub-articles along the line of "Criticism of chiropractic" become necessary when the main article has grown too large. This rarely results in a coatrack article and somewhat more often in a POV fork. Both should obviously be avoided but neither constitutes a reason not to split overlong articles. Also note that WP:COAT is currently just an essay. (Like WP:HARM, I hope it will develop into/be adopted as a guideline at some point though.) Avb 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, a POV Fork would be a better reason to describe why "Criticism of chiropractic" would be bad article to start (as opposed to "Chiropractic schools", which isn't about a POV necessarily). -- Levine2112 discuss 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Hi. I'd say a separate article on criticism might be a pretty good idea after all. A lot of the science is so restrictive and anal anyhow, I don't mind the negativity getting presented in one go. It'd also be good for moving some of the excess criticism from this article. The criticism is mostly from the science view folk anyway so it could be part of scientific investigation or vice verse. Anyhow, it may leave more room for showing more of the benefits of chiropractic on this article. To my mind the article is still on the stuffy-negative side and not all the flexible and positive views have been fairly shown. If you want to set up a critical article I don't mind spending a bit of extra time scrutinizing it. Arlen Wilps 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: You are quite right. A whole section is actually missing from this article, but there has been so much contention and protectionism involved, that to just get this far was good, and we can thank a great editor (and chiropractor) for doing much of the good work. The missing section is the long and tortuous past and present history of quackery within the profession. The opposition has not just been a turf war, but has been based on very real concerns that are still relevant today. That story needs to be included, but we just haven't gotten around to it. There is loads of information and documentation out there from good sources. -- Fyslee / talk 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism of chiropractic 

message: 1. Financial conflit between diff schools is a matter of record. It is not a biased statement. 
2. To keep the statement that the various types of conflict led to scientific research in a causal manner you will have to provide a source or reword the statement. Mccready 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  finance and science 

message: I made a small revert to dispose of some unsourced changes. -- Levine2112 discuss 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  unsourced changed 

message: "In 2003, 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases.[5]"
90% of surveyed chiropractor /= 90% of chiropractors
In this case I believe they are american chiropractors,  a subset of global chiropractors
 202.134.253.55 13:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  survey 

message: I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:
* Link to RfC at alternative medicine. 
-- Fyslee / talk 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC alert 

message: I seek to have the following update included in the article and three editors who often remove criticism of chiropractic on this and other pages have decided it is either not from a peer reviewed journal (please provide proof of the allegation), gives undue weight, or is covered already. The point is that it is peer reviewed, it is an update and belongs. Please discuss.:
:A 2007 report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concluded:
	 
:"Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."
Mccready 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No objection on my part, but it should be next to Ernst 2006 (and converted to a better cite and a cleaner URL).  But I only removed it once, not noticing it was different from Ernst 2006.  (I'm considered by some to be a fundamentalist chiropractic attacker, though.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: After reading that review, I'd say this belongs in the spinal manipulation article. The authors state "Moreover, this review is aimed at evaluating the risk of an intervention (spinal manipulation) and not that of a profession (chiropractic)". While a majority of spinal manipulations are performed by chiros, the review included ALL spinal manips. And it looks like Mccready hasn't changed after his 30 day topic ban.... "fundamentalist...." good lord --Hughgr 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. Move it. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's been deleted from here, but it's not there.  Put it there, or bring it back here.  (And I see no evidence that Mccready has  been topic-banned for more than 30 days, or blocked for more than a week at a time.)  — Arthur Rubin |  (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fyslee has added it to Spinal manipulation recently. -- Levine2112 discuss 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I moved the text in question to a reference for the 2006 study which made the same conclusion since it is made by the same author just one year later.  Since he is the only one saying it, it seems to be a minority position so it does not require the first sentence in the section.  We could leave the quote out altogether and just cite the reference, but out of respect for McCready's POV, we can leave it in. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dematt's solution is clearly the best way to handle this. McCready outted a certain editor in his edit summary on the article. When I did that once upon a time ago, I got blocked. TheDoctorIsIn 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Has anyone reported this "outting"? McCready, you might want to apologize to the party who you outted and promise not to do it again. That is usually how these issues get resolved. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I brought up the issue at WP/ANI and they deleted (or "oversighted") the edit summary where the offense was made. No harm, no foul. McCready, please be warned however that this editor doesn't want us to use his first name anymore. -- Levine2112 discuss 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Levine, I appreciate that. Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fundamentalist chiropractic defenders

message: Regarding this most recent revert: here
Particularly the edit summary, "The current discussion shows no consensus to include such material. the Ernst data is invalid for chiropractic and thus has been placed on Spinal manipulation".
I certainly respect any consensus that has been reached regarding this source, so I'll refrain from further enabling User:QuackGuru in his crusade by restoring his edits. But I hardly think the data is invalid for chiropractic. It covers all forms of spinal manipulation, including chiropractic. It does pertain to chiropractic, just not exclusively to chiropractic. I would imagine that the majority of spinal manipulations are performed by chiropractors (albeit with with increasing competition from osteopaths, PTs, and physiatrists), so that would indicate that any findings regarding spinal manipulation in general would certainly apply to chiropractors, if they constitute a majority of the professionals actually performing spinal manipulation. The study authors did point out that they were careful to confine their results to the intervention itself, and not draw any damning conclusions pertaining to the profession of chiropractic, but that does not mean that the data is invalid for chiropractic. In fact Ernst notes that while spinal manipulation is occasionally used by osteopaths, physical therapists, and physicians, it is the "hallmark treatment of chiropractors". In addition, a significant number of the manipulations he reviewed (out of those which mentioned the field of the practitioner) were performed by chiropractors. So, if you want to continue to exclude Ernst 2007 for whatever reason (and I respect consensus), please know that continuing to exclude it on the basis of "the data is invalid for chiropractic" is not really a valid reason. Thanks. — DIEGO talk 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Diego, you show good judgement.  The issue is  more about weight, as this article got way too long and had to be pruned.  In the interest of NPOV, to add a source that basically says the same thing by the same person only needs a second reference and we added the second date. Our other option is to take out the 2006 quote and use the 2007. There are other additions to the science section that were kept out from the other POV.  If someone finds something that says something different from either POV we can evaluate it and make adjustments accordingly.  I do appreciate your common sense. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the clarification. — DIEGO talk 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reverts of Ernst 2007 data 

message: QuackGuru, I'm not sure, but I think I am at 3RR.  The article is all yours. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I find it dishonorable that QuackGuru is engaging edit warring pushing to include material against consensus and claiming that it is because no one is discussing the passage which he keeps inserting and why it keeps getting removed all the while there has been a great deal of discussion on this very topic  in which QuackGuru has not participated in one iota. QuackGuru, please participate in the discussion and stop your edit warring. Thanks. -- Levine2112 discuss 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, I want to highlight for QuackGuru that the information which he/she is trying to get includes is already included in the article. So there is no reason to keep pushing to get it in. :-P -- Levine2112 discuss 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  I think I am at 3RR 

message: It is dishonest and misleading to put all of the information that chiropractic is unsafe in other articles, while leaving only the information saying it is perfectly safe.  RogueNinjatalk 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's a matter of weight (and we are not taking anyone's life lightly here). But the article you supply as a reference is a single case study describing someone with a prior adverse condition which chiropractors are trained to detect before cervical adjustment. Calling chiropractic "dangerous" as a response to this is a gross overstatement indeed. We are literally talking about an unsupported 0.00002% possible chance of a risk. Incidents of Gossypiboma are much, much higher but you wouldn't expect to see that on the Surgeon article. -- Levine2112 discuss 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article on surgeon doesnt have a section saying how surgery is extremely safe. RogueNinjatalk 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps because it isn't? People die all the time from surgery. Is that discussed in that article? -- Levine2112 discuss 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Roger Ninja, would you please give me URL on the surgery article.  I have many had surgeries and would like to see what the article reads.  Levine sorry but I think that information, the good and the bad, should be in this article.  --CrohnieGalTalk 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There was no article discussing surgery. The only time surgery was brought up was in comparing the Surgeon article and its lack of mention with regards to safety. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you Chan Yin Keen for taking the time to answer me.  I appreciate it.  Happy editing!--CrohnieGalTalk 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Safety 

message: Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research.:
:Evidence from controlled studies and usual practice supports chiropractic care (the entire clinical encounter) as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic. Evidence was promising for potential benefit of manual procedures for children with otitis media and elderly patients with pneumonia.
Thoughts about including this data? -- Levine2112 discuss 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting.  This basically tends to confirm the position that chiropractors take; that spinal manipulation is only one part of the chiropractic encounter and that when looking at the evidence base the efficiency of that encounter is what counts.  In other words, when looking at spinal manipulation for colic, there is no immediate measurable effect, but counting the number of days of reported crying is cut in half.  Is is the adjustment?  Is it the one on one care?  Is it the placebo effect?  Is it really working.  The point is that we don't know for sure, but EBM is now looking at outcomes more than procedures and this is one study that looks at outcomes.  I do think we need to consider that the source might be biased, but certainly no more than Ernst.  At this point, I think we can certainly use it as a reference for the parts about non-musculoskeletal conditions, while staying vigilant in watching for more information. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effectiveness for various conditions 

message: You have been exposed, GQ. You have blatantly deceived all the editors on the chiropractic and other CAM pages you edit by suggesting that you did not write, insert and try to maintain your original research. Your practice styles section is a direct text dump from many sites. You even admitted to authoring it yourself on your chirotalk forum.
http://www.chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=scuhs&thread=1201943337&page=1  (see reply #6)
Your profound ties to quackwatch, chirobase and Stephen Barrett leave little room for you contribute in an honest and constructive manner on the chiropractic page. Many experienced editors have questioned your ability to work towards a consensus, and your continuous attempts to cite quackwatch and stephen barrett as scholarly equivalent research is disingenius to say the least.  You continuously delete any constructive criticism on your talk page and falsely accuse me of deliberately violating copyright.  No one has agreed and there is no consensus to revert safety section.  I would appreciate if you would please work constructively with us here.  Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Credibility in Editing