Talk:Chiropractic

Template:Cleanup taskforce closed Older discussions may be found here:

• Talk:Chiropractic medicine/Archive 1

--Gyrofrog (talk) 03:48, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Criticisms

Frankly, I give up on wikipedia all together. If this is the kind of caliber we can expect to see, I don't see how it can serve as an information hub for the world. Out of thousands of positive articles, they choose to use one of the few old negative study as the reference. If someone brand new to the chiropractic came and read this article, they'd think NACM is actually a legitimate chiropractic association. There are just so many problems in the article, it should be purged and rewritten from scratch. It's pointless arguing about what should be included and what wording we are going to use. Definition of chiropractic has already been written. Practice scope can be imported from state board. History of chiropractic can be supplied by legitimate associations. There are proper channels of information which can be used to write the article. Yet it's written by a group of chiropractors not even making up a percentage point. From this point on, I'm boycotting wikipedia and will make sure many more does the same thing. Jesus..this is about the most degenerate site I've ever wasted my time on. Rest of you good intentioned guys should do the same. Don't waste time trying to improve the garbage. All you are going to come up with is another garbage.

---

Its unfortunate that this page seems to be incredible hard to update and provide accurate information to. The National Association for Chiropractic Medicine has no authority on Chiropractic. Chiropractic is regulated by its own boards (similar to medical) and we have to answer to governments and other agencies. Chiropractic is not a pseudo-science, it is a science. Chiropractors are recognized as Doctors in North America and other countries. Chiropractors sued the AMA and won.

Comparing the entrance requirements and curriculum of a chiropractic college with that of a medical school is like comparing Harvard to a community college, or the Navy Seals to a naval basic training unit. I won't belabor the debate over whether chiropractic is quackery or not, but I was amused to read the description in the current article of a chiropractor's education as "similar" to that of a medical student, as well as the observation that chiropractic students take more class hours than medical students. If, as the joke goes, you call the medical student who graduated last in his class "Doctor," then the imagination runs wild as to what to call the new-ager, former jock or dental school reject that finishes last in his chiropractic class. Brian H., Kankakee, IL

• Agreed. I've removed the incorrect nonsense and replaced with correct info... with a source! *gasp* --brian0918™ 02:48, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

--Brian..so much emotion there. Did you happen to fail out of a chiropractic school? There had been many in my class as well and ended up remaining bitter towards the profession. If you try to put aside your bitterness and see things objectively, compare the pre-chiro and pre-med prerequisites side by side and tell me what the difference is. Put the Med school curriculum and chiropractic school curriculum side by side and try to repeat what you've posted. All that would make you a liar. Facts are facts. As a clinician who deal with many misdiagnosed patients by our counterparts you are comparing us to, I would like to honestly recommend you to get a life. Get married. Have some kids. Life is worth living. Why do you waste your time hating?

You know, so much crazy stuff flies back and forth about Chiropractic. I am a chiropractor and let me make it really simple for some of you (especially those who are writing below). Chiropractic is very effective, often more effective than drugs and physical therapy. Patients who use it know this. Medical doctors refer patients for chiropractic all the time, in fact many are chiropractic patients themselves. I know this because it is true in my practice where I have treated MD's, nurses, surgeons, dentists, etc...

Chiropractic did survive an all out war with the AMA last century however, and unfortunately the fallout of that battle is the mounds and mounds of misinformation that was promulgated for years. The good news is that was the past and things are so much brighter now. The military now uses chiropractic on the bases. Every VA hospitals will have chiropractic services within the next few years (many already do); chiropractic is covered by almost all major medical insurance, Medicare and Medicaid. The bottom line is: Don't believe all you read! Just try it, be your own proof!

Good luck, David Richards, D.C.

David mentions an "all out war". The structure and function of a US court proven conspiracy to contain chiropractic still impacts upon our profession. Read the "Iowa Plan" and you see influences that continue to keep, or to 'contain' chiropractic in the small private health marketplace and out of the massive public health marketplace.

The containment of chiropractic defends medical income. Containment denies, those public patients who have subluxation related disorders, access to chiropractic. Containment exposes those public patients to the risk of iatrogenic harm.

A foundation of the Iowa Plan was disinformation. That is misinformation presented with the intent to deceive. Turning fact upon its head has been a common method of creating that disinformation. The safe-medicine-dangerous-chiropractic myth exemplifies turning fact upon its head. When compared to the rate of medical harm arising from the full spectrum of iatrogenesis, chiropractic is remarkably safe.

All practising chiropractors in Australia are subject to at least some aspects of containment, chiropractic in Australia is a contained profession. Arrangements that exile a nation’s profession to the periphery of mainstream health care are hugely significant. By not incorporating an explanation about the structure and function of containment Wikipedia fails to clarify this phase of the continuing “all out war” on chiropractic.

My thanks for an interesting page,

Michael McKibbin DC

David, Michael, could you perhaps try to get this page into better shape? Currently, there really is next to nothing about what the treatment actually is. Instead, it's all about dispute about whether it works, and information about how it is learned (well, very parochial information that probably only applies to a single country, but information nontheless), and a brief bit about history (which has potential), and soundbites about its effectiveness). We don't need those things. We don't need a page that would be better called Dispute about effectiveness of chiropractic treatment. (Well, maybe there is room for such an article at a later date, when the article about what chiropractic treatment it is done.) I would simply like to read information about what chiropractic treatment is. I guess I want to now about the mechanics of manipulation, or about spinal anatomy ... I simply don't know enough to even formulate the question. Maybe I also want how it is supposed to work. (That is not to say that the debate about if this treatment delivers what it promises is interesting. I am not saying that should be ignored.). I encourage you to have a go at it. Arbor 11:09, 12 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It seems that User:RK is merely attacking the completely rational and medically accepted chiropractic care field over a personal viewpoint. Hmm. I thought that was frowned upon- due to Wikipedia's neutrality and non-biased nature? User:capitolZ

Please stop your personal criticisms. This page reports the views of mainstream doctors and scientists, not just advocates of chiropractice. Stop acting as if all their studies and statements were written by me. If you think that there is an error, and that this article does not accurately represent the views of the mainstream medical and scientific community, then state precisely what you think the error is, and give us citations to back up your position. By the way, your claim that chiropractic is "medically accepted" is wrong. We must take care not to distort the positions of other people, in order to make our own position look more popular. RK

RK's bias is not actually personal but Scientism. He tends to demand hard evidence which in the case of chiropractic is hard to come by. Testimonials of patients who feel healthy and prefer to consult a chiropractor when they have a problem is considered anecdotal and not evidence as such. Fred Bauder 20:01, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

My God, the Chiropractic medicine page is a cesspool of misinformation and personally biased opinions! Does anyone have any medically relevant information on chiropractic care to put on that page, so that that it can become more than an attack on the chiropractic field of medicine? User:capitolZ

I would just like to note that the Chiropractors I know do not consider chiropractic to be a field of medicine. We generally consider Chiropractic as something different, especially since we generally disagree with the use of medicine. We are, however, Primary Healthcare Providers. Elaine M. Brady

While I agree RK goes way overboard, some mild criticism is appropriate. Fred Bauder 15:49, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

The problem is that this page does contain "medically relevant information on chiropractic care"; Use capitalZ is just angry that the results of such medical studies are at odds with his beliefs. RK 19:10, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

What is lacking in the article is material which has a postive point of view regarding chiropractic medicine. This lack, in the face of the cautionary points of view RK has liberally inserted in the article, skews the entire article towards a negative point of view. But, in the main, the solution is to add positive material not to remove negative material, although can also be improved. Fred Bauder 19:56, Sep 4, 2004 (UTC)

We can't just manufacture positive points of view in an attempt to give balance. If positive evalutations are shown to exist, then of course we should add them. The trouble is, we can't really find any; all we can find are personal testimonials. Yet we can also find personal testimonials that Jesus cured their cancer, and that flax-seed oil cured Cronhn's disease. We can report the existence of these many testimonials, but we also need to note if there is any evidence to back them up. Remember, anyone can claim anything. RK 15:22, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

My thought was to use chiropractic's representations of itself and also to summarize the opinion's of those who use chiropractic. See below what I consider acceptable. Fred Bauder 16:28, Sep 5, 2004 (UTC)

Content of the Wikinfo article

Chiropractic is a holistic healing profession which attempts to take into account all factors such as patients' attitude toward their work, the healing potential of caring and empathy, and the relationship between the patient and the provider.

It seems to me that you are writing something that has little to do with chiropractice in specific. Chiropractice is the use of spinal manipulations to remove a putative type of blockage ("subluxation") thereby restoring correct energy flow within the body. Anything else is not chiropractice, but rather a set of additional ideas that people sometimes (not always) add to chiropractice. It seems to me that many proponents of chiropractice theory on Wikipedia are not defending chiropractice in of itself, but rather describing multiple ideas, including chiropractice, some peer-reviewed medical results, and an assortment of separate alternative medicine techniques. This seems off-topic, or better related to the article on alternative medicine in general. RK 23:14, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

I see this article as containing information about what a person can expect who consults a chiropractor as well as information for those who are curious as to why anyone would consult a chiropractor rather than simply going to a doctor. It presents chiropractic at its best from chiropractic's viewpoint, which includes a negative view of mainstream medicine. Fred Bauder 00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

Traditional (allopathic) medicine is criticized as being dehumanizing and depersonalizing because it is based on a biomedical model which tries to explain disease in a mechanistic manner focusing only on biochemical and physiological factors while ignoring other significant factors.

If by other factors you are referring to emotions, and viewing the patient as an integrated whole, then that too is well within mainstream (allopathic) medical practice. It is something of a myth that mainstream medical science is only concerned with biochemistry and treating diseases after their appear. For many years mainstream medical practice has recognized the link between a patient's emotional well-being and their health. One's emotional state has a significant effect on hormone levels and the immune system, which can have a dramatic effect on a patient's wellness. And of course, changing a patient's emotional state alters their behavior, leading to healthier living. None of this is alternative medicine; none of this is chiropractice. All of this, in fact, has been a part of modern mainstream medical science for many years. RK 23:14, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

Among its best practitioners, yes. Among the butchers and pillpushers no, and especially absent at some HMO's. Fred Bauder 00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree! This is a major problem with mainstream medicine. I think that perhaps I have not been sensitive enough to this point in my previous editing of Wikipedia articles. RK 04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Spinal manipulation versus chiropractice

Special emphasis is placed upon misalignment of the joints of the back which are believed to affect the nervous system producing disease symptoms. It is generally accepted by many health insurance providers that chiropractic treatment is effective in treating back pain.

According to doctors I know, using spinal manipulation to treat back pain has nothing to do with chiropractice. Mainstream medical doctors have long recognized that some spinal manipulations have some medical benefits, as the article already states. You and I are in agreement. However, chiropractice is very different: It is the use of spinal manipulations to remove a putative type of blockage ("subluxation") thereby restoring correct energy flow within the body, to correct any and all medical problems. That is what mainstream medical doctors disagree with. RK

Nevertheless chiropractors do 90% of the spinal manipulation done. Although some cures occur when chiropractors attempt therapies outside this area, such treatment would basically amount to fraud if chiropractors and their patients did not have faith in it. Fred Bauder 00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

We have more agreement here than you might see at first blush. I agree that chiropracters happen to do these spinal manipulations, which do happen to have some effectiveness for some conditions. However, I am specifically trying to diffentiate true chiropractice from mere spinal manipulation. True chiropractice is the belief that all (or nearly all) disease is caused by subluxations, and that all diseases (or nearly all) can be cured by manipulating the spine. Unless I misunderstand you, you do not seem to be supporting this maximalist view. As such, there is much less disagreement betwen us than both of us first thought. In fact, there may be some actual agreement occuring here. RK 04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, why no response? I saw an attack from you against me on the Wiki-En list, and I don't understand. RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Chiropractic treatments which move beyond spinal adjustments are two controversial and may not be covered by health insurance. Nevertheless they may be effective due to factors not readily explained by a biochemical model.

Sometimes this kind of stuff does work. Fred Bauder 00:50, Sep 9, 2004 (UTC)

I agree. RK 04:21, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Again, Fred, will you please respond? RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Risk of stroke

By putting information regarding risk of stroke during adjustments in a paragraph concerned with the rotary neck movement (sometimes called Vaster cervical or rotary break) the impression is created that that procedure presents low risk for stroke rather than adjustments in general. Fred Bauder 16:05, Sep 8, 2004 (UTC)

"The practice of greatest concern is the rotary neck movement (sometimes called Vaster cervical or "rotary break"). This type of manipulation has led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients. Even chiropractic's legal advisors have warned against its use. Although study results have varied, the actual risk of stroke is typically calculated to be one in 2 to 5 million adjustments. A recent study published in the Canadian Medical Association Journal puts the risk at 'one in 5.85 million adjustments'."

NCAHF is not NPOV

The National Council Against Health Fraud should not be included in any discussion that wants to maintain NPOV. Stephen Barrett, M.D. is a man with an anti chiropractic agenda. When you find a source attempting to debunk any part of the chiropractic profession, you need not look too hard to find. Dr. Barretts name. Doctor in the loosest since, as it has been reported that he surrendered his medical license in the early 1990s. Numerous lawsuits pending, and all that have been ruled on where ruled against him should raise some flags about his efforts and any organization which he is a leading member. (Anonymous)

This makes no sense. NPOV policy requires that we add all major points of view. You can't say that that points of view are forbidden if you disagree with them. And the NCAHF is not a one-man organization, as your paragraph implies. As for Dr. Barrett, his claims about chiropractice are agreed with by major medical and scientific organizations. You seem to be trying to remove the facts and arguments he mentions by ad homenim attacks on him. That is a violation of Wikipedia policy. RK

It is simply impossible to include all points of veiw, as it is equally impossible to distinguish which is "major". Your abilitly to distinguish what is major is suspect. I imagine the problem here lies in the firt line of NPOV "The neutral point of view policy states that one should write articles without bias, representing all views fairly." There is a clear differents bewtween writting articales without bias, and representing all veiws. It is quite obvious there is a bias in the present state of the article, and there are no major viewpoints.

A quote from Barrett himself, as seen in Time Magazine ~ April 30, 2001 Vo. 157 No. 17 "Twenty years ago, I had trouble getting my ideas through to the media," he says. "Today I am the media." I have always been uneasy about this mans accusations and statements and in trying to learn more bout his history, have only found accounts of him being a "bully". Suing, threatening to sue, and other threats for those that have questioned or attracted his position. Investigating the source of criticism of chiropractic reveals one person. Just because someone is skeptical, does not mean they are creditable. (Anonymous)

Um, so what? This article is not about chiropracters versus this one man. I don't know why you have animosty towards this man, but the arguments in this article against chiropractice in this article are not unique to Dr. Barrett. Please stop ad homenim rebuttals and criticisms. In any case, on this issue his views happen to be the views of mainstream science and medicine. RK

This artical as I found it is about this one man vs chiropractic. His views are no where near mainstream, and your constant claiming of such does not make it so. I find it humerous we are supposed to allow Dr. Barrett (if we can personify chiropractic as a profession ) ad homenim attacks, while you try to strifle my attempts at unbiasing this artical with claims of the same technique.

The anonymous person is flat-out lying. The views of Dr. Barett on this topic are mainstream. I find it difficult to co-edit an article with an anonymous editor who willfully creates lies in order to push an agenda. RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

Lying? Unfounded, baseless claim. Find and Prove ONE lie. I have stated my bias, and have contributed to the article only a small amount. None of which is even close to being agenda pushing. I am not the first to voice concern on your actions Wikipedia:Requests for comment/RK, but you are the only one calling out mine.

Too easy Dr barret did not surrender his lisence he deactivated it. Your claim that all the cases that have been ruled on were ruled against. In 2002 he won a cases against an osteopathic physician. Case reference Circuit Court of Cook County, Illinois, No. 01 L 009026, filed July 30, 2001. There are other cases but one was enough to disprove your statementGeni 00:28, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Lets see, cas against an osteopathic physician. I shouldn't have assumed that since this was a disscussion for an article about chiropractic that I need not to have specify relevent cases. I have no way to keep up with all the court issues, exspecially as it appears Dr. Barrett is involved with many. He has won some defamation cases based on a pamphlet someone made, he then sued the people that made it, created it, or used it ( as I beleive was the case you mentioned ). However, his case has been thrown out in california, and pennsylvania. I will conceed that my wording about nature of his lisencure situation could be missleading, but he is in fact currently un-lisenced. If you deactivate your lisence, you must surrender it. I am not going to argue the semantics of it any further.

In the interest of being NPOV contributions to the article by TNCAHF should be excluded. I feel that linking to these sites in the external resources is fine, but allowing them to push their agenda in the articles is defiantly not NPOV. (not signed)

See above. This proposal is a clear violation of Wikipedia NPOV policy. Please read the NPOV article. RK 03:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

the NPOV article has been read, and understood. I suggest you try

the latter. If we are to allow all sides, then why has this site been so hostile to most chiropractic claims? The reason I see over and over is that because the other veiw says differently, if I am not mistaken that too is a claer violationof the NPOV policy. I see this pattern of removing chiropractic claims, and overstating the medical and scientific communities skeptic veiws on chiropractic.

I think it is ok to have it but the viewpoint should be attributed. Perhaps you should write articles about The National Council Against Health Fraud and Stephen Barrett, M.D. What I find missing is good strong recommendations of chiropractic medicine which would then balance the article. Fred Bauder 00:38, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

I do not think this should be a forum for an entire profession to defend every skeptic and crackpot opinion. I also do not feel that I should be obligated to write articals, and baby sit them to assure that my version of the truth is not edited out by an opossing voice. Bottom line this part of the artical adds nothing to the content, except a biased and skeptical opinion based on apperently isolated events.

This leads into the inclusion of chiropractic risk, while the numbers are accurate some perspective should be added. April 15, 1998 issue of the Journal of the American Medical Association found that more than 2 million Americans become seriously ill every year from reactions to drugs that were correctly prescribed and taken; 106,000 Americans die annually from those side effects.

Or even a note that the results are so rare that is statistically insignificant. Even less than the "beauty parlor stroke syndrome", a rare situation when a customer leans their head back on a sink to get their hair washed.

I do not think those side notes would be nessasary, if the information was presented in a NPOV. Is it really within the scope of this site to post every arguement and counter arguement? (not signed)

Most of that stuff was put in by User:RK, a rather aggressive editor who takes a rather negative view. I agree that most of it should be put in proper perspective. Fred Bauder 13:23, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

(A)I have nothing to do with any of these reports. I have not done any of the research or studies quoted or referenced in the article. All of this work was done by others. I am only guilty of adding the points of view of these organizations. (B) Many chiropracters themselves have come to agree with these views. See the section on this very article on reform within the chiropractice community. RK 03:58, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Fred, any response to these specific points? RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

You are very off on point on (B) chiropractors are entirely missrepresented in all acounts in this article, and the article on the reform specifically is need of major work.

If Stephen Barrett's name truly does appear on so many prevalent criticisms of chiropractic, then he represents a major view. That means Wikipedia should mention NCAHF. --SpacemanAfrica 05:37, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Disputed material

This paragraph is being repeatedly removed:

Chiropractic medicine is generally rejected as being based on pseudoscience by most scientists and medical doctors. Classical chiropractic theory denies otherwise accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases, and instead holds that the correction of subluxation can cure or treat most disease. Although manipulative therapy has been shown to have some efficacy in treating back pain, headache, and other symptoms of spinal-related conditions, few rigorous studies have supported the efficacy of chiropractic medicine outside of this specific area. Many people colloquially use the term chiropractic to refer to manipulative therapy of the spine, even by non-DCs.

I can see some problems with this paragraph but most statements in it seem reasonable enough. What is the problem? Fred Bauder 11:32, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

The statements are unfounded, even if there was a way to quantify "most" and "generally" in respect to scientist and medical doctors rejecting chiropractic as a pseudoscience, there is no evidence that is the case. The next sentence implies that all chiropractors deny the "accepted medical facts about the origin of diseases" While the statement is accurate, it was the general conscientious of a hundred years ago. This can be covered in the "two schools" and/or "history" The entire paragraph should not have been deleted, but felt out of place when editing the first two sentences.

I think the attitude of the medical profession has changed recently as has the attitude of some chiropractors about mainstream medicine. My last conversation with a real chiropractor, however, was fillled with paranoia about medical doctors. I think some historical perspective should be added. Why don't you try some rewriting? Fred Bauder 13:20, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Two of the people I work with are (former) chiropracters. They refuse to get themselves vaccinated against diseases, and reccomend to parents that they do not vaccinate their children. They believe that viruses do not cause disease, and that vaccines do not work. One of them denies that the HIV virus causes AIDS. They tell me that they are representative of others in the field, and their statements match what I have read about some other chiropracters. They also don't believe in surgery for treating most diseases. This is why some educated result-oriented chiropracters have developed a reform movment within the field. (See article.) RK 04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Okay, so what? You know two chiropractors, and I know a few thousand. Not a single one would make all those claims, and doubt anyone of them would claim to be represenitive of the entire profession.

I just started Chiropractic College, and just know a fraction of the faculty and students, and while some are against vaccinations, not all are. Frankly, I think that those who aren't vaccinated are simply benefitting from the fact that most people are, and the resulting low rate the diseases commonly vaccinated against, but that's neither here nor there. I have, though, NEVER heard a chiropractor say that viruses didn't cause disease, or that AIDS is a result of the HIV virus. Yeah, we generally follow the idea that drugs and surgery shouldn't be used-at least not if they can be avoided. However, no responsible chiropractor will tell a patient to stop taking a drug their allopathic doctor told them to take. Also, while we might advise a patient to try to get adjusted before undergoing surgery in most cases, there are other cases where we would conceed that surgery is likely the best route, such as aneurysm. And I would just like to point out that I would be mistrustful of ANY profession that resisted reform. Any type of healthcare should be continuously adjusting to new techniques developed and new ideas found in research. Elaine M. Brady

It is certainly understandable that some older doctors still have some residual paranoia, as it was not that long ago the American Medical Association took a policy against chiropractic “first the containment of chiropractic and, ultimately, the elimination of chiropractic.”

It is of my opinion that the newer generation of MDs and DCs have much better opinions of each other and are moving forward in a cooperative to provide optimal care for their patients. I would like to do a lot of rewriting, but I fear it would be in vain. I had to take a chance with the history as it was absolutely pathetic. I am not sure I can do it justice, as there are volumes on the history of chiropractic and the people that influenced it. It seems daunting and unrewarding if people like User:RK, who have no apparent credibility or knowledge of the subject to come and "aggressively edit" with nothing more than an ambitious desire to be nothing more than skeptical of everything.

Please stop you ad homenim attacks. Personal attacks against other users are a violation of Wikipedia policy, and do nothing to improve the article. Further, your claims are wrong. I had nothing to do with any of the research which disputes claims made by chiropracters. I merely added info on the POVs of major medical organizations, and POvs from the views of reform chiropracters themselves. Don't shoot the messenger. RK 04:05, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Please stop using the term ad homenim like this, I didnt attack your person to reject your claim. Call it a personal attack if you want, but it is just an observation of your history. Further, I am baffeled how you can say my claims are wrong. Irregaurdless why is it allowed when someone mearely states about the POV of opposing views, but the chiropractic POV is so often removed?

Dear anonymous, a personal attack is an ad homenim attack. Please learn the English langauge. And if you do nto stop your personal attacks, you will be banned. RK

RK, please please please ask me to stop one more time. Do you believe that if you keep asking me to stop it appears as if I have actually been continually attacking you? In regards to learning English it's ad hominem not ad homenim, and I will not mention the bit about starting a sentence with a conjunction. Furthermore read about ad hominem and try to really understand that is is a type fallacy and is only applicable if i where trying to discredit your argument. Besides I don't even think my observation of your actions here are attacks. If you want to ban me get on with it, don't make idle threats.

Well, I came on board as a critic, a chiropractor tried to "cure" my brother's mental disability and got a lot of money for his quackery, but RK goes way to far. I'll back you up to a certain extent should a problem arise, but try to avoid the cure cancer stuff. Fred Bauder 17:49, Oct 8, 2004 (UTC)

Would you become critical of auto mechanics as a whole if one tried to fix your house and failed? Why would you judge an entire profession on the actions of one individual? Are there bad chiropractors? Of course. But any time you set up a system, someone will find a way to abuse it.

Maybe I am not going as far as you think. The article does not condemnd or dispute the effectiveness of spinal manipulation as a treatment for some conditions. If this is what you advocate, then you will find that I and many others would agree with you. In fact, the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine holds by this view. The criticisms in this article are not against the idea that spinal manipulation may have some medical value. Rather, these arguments are against classical chiropractice beliefs about subluxations being the cause of all or most disease, and the belief that spinal manipulation can cure all or nearly all disease. Your recent notes here seem to indicate that you do not adopt the maximalist view, so we are not polar opposites here. RK 04:13, Oct 10, 2004 (UTC)

Again, Fred, any comment on these specific points? I am willing to work with you. RK 01:45, Oct 12, 2004 (UTC)

I am certainly sorry to hear that. It is unfortunate, but every profession has a few individuals that give the rest of them a bad name. Going through the history of his page, I believe you have done a fair job at moderating. Given your personal history, I am impressed at your ability to do so. I can admit to my own bias here as well, I have benefited greatly from chiropractic in my life. Even though it is a claim fiercely debated, as a life long asthmatic I can testify to its ability to treat and manage it. I believe in it so much I have invested a great deal in my education, and am currently a chiropractic student.

I think we can all agree to get rid of at least the first sentence in that paragraph. It is entirely unprovable and unhelpful to a reader.--DrThomasFrench 22:25, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I know what chiropractic TREATMENT is, but what is chiropractic MEDICINE? The disambig page didn't resolve any ambiguities for me. All I know is:

• manipulation relieves pain (and this is well documented)
• manipulation is CLAIMED to promote general health and even cure a multitude of diseases (this part is disputed)

I'd like to see an article that explains manipulation, such as "cracking" the back, and which concentrates on the PROVEN (i.e, non-disputed) benefits of chiropractic.

A related article on the disputed claims of chiropractic wouyld be nice, perhaps delving into the "schools" such as straight chiropractic. --user:Ed Poor (talk) 18:18, Jan 17, 2005 (UTC)

The RK factor

I apologise for the drastic and theatrical nature of such a heading, but I find that the overwhelming majority of the negative view of chiropractic on here comes from a single user, RK. If it is inappropriate, may a mod delete it, and hopefully inform me of its inappropriate nature. To non-mods, I ask that you leave this intact for as long as it is relevant:

I came here to see what the skeptics said about chiropractic, but when I read the article, it seems to have been completely taken over by skeptics, at the exclusion of useful info, such as actual chiropractic procedures. It seems that if a person or organization is opposed to chiropractic, they get to have their full say, but any attempts by actual professionals in the field are erased and stifled as "biased."

Reading the discussions, it seems obvious that much of this is due to one very motivated "RK," who attacks any definition of chiropractic as other than a pseudoscience cult as "spine manipulation" but not true chiropractic, insisting that chriropractors believe subluxations at the SOLE cause of disease. As long as this defnition stands, any attempts to debunk his claims will be irrelevant in the face of this "definition." While he (or she) constantly calls for citations and proof, I strongly caution all readers to scrutinize RK's own posts for the same, as they are often sorely lacking. For example "By the way, your claim that chiropractic is 'medically accepted' is wrong. We must take care not to distort the positions of other people, in order to make our own position look more popular." Nice words, but while actual victories showing chiropractic's acceptance in court for example are cited throughout the page, RK has failed to show how it is NOT accepted, and has merely presented an unsubstantiated claim to, in his own words, make "(his own) position look more popular." Other such claims include "According to doctors I know, using spinal manipulation to treat back pain has nothing to do with chiropractice. (sic)" In fact, I'd go so far as to say that the majority of the disputed material in the chiropractic talk page, aside from RK's writings, are complaints about the unnatural skew against chiropractic treatment in the article.

To achieve the most unbiased, widely accepted definition of chiropractic, I cite a dynamic souce I have no control of, Google definitions: Search for "define:chiropractic" and you will find overwhelmingly that chiropractic care is simply a scientific application of methods to manually manipulate the spine to cure spinal, sometimes generally muscular-skeletal (and some nervous) system ailments. This "chiropractic cures everything" cult of RK's seems almost entirely fabricated, unless you take one or two of twenty available definitions and consider that they COULD also fit his definition due to the wording. Additionally, chiropractic is a system that does not make use of medicine, but this is very different from rejection thereof. It simply does not concern chiropractic care and is a separate practice. No medicine is required to move vertebrae, but it certainly doesn't mean it can't be utilized to treat other conditions, and the unproven claims of chiropractors shunning medicine are simple scare tactics unless substanciated and proven to be a common belief of chiropractors.

I am not the only user who has taken note of RK's tactics, and I will gladly put my wiki membership on the line to call him/her on it. If this is an unfounded personal attack, then may my account be deleted for violation of terms. I would normally pursue this from a more neutral, PC point of view, but given things like RK's "Requests for comment" page, it seems obvious that this user is knowingly or unknowingly a chronic troublemaker in the Wiki community, and in this instance, the case is pretty clear-cut against them, as the majority of other contributors is arguing against, and attempting to repair edits by, RK. To RK, I apologise for getting personal, but you will find that this is not an ad hominem attack, as I have specifically cited issues taken against both your arguments, and you by others, and now most recently, myself. If your point is valid, surely you could not only sit back a bit, and let someone else who sees your POV comment on it, or at the very least, follow your own advice and post more sources for your claims.

Finally, I would like to say that while I have personally enjoyed the benefits of chiropractic care on a regular basis, and owe my ability to move my upper body to said practice, this article would be incomplete without the point of view of skeptics, and a frank discussion of the risks involved. Personally, I believe that chiropractic is far too open to interpretation and thus succeptible to unqualified practicioners, however I've found it is not hard to find a skilled, rational practicioner even in small towns. I wholeheartedly support such a section, and in fact I came here to read such, but as it stands, the entire article on chiropractic care has been skewed to make it sound like an ineffective dangerous hoax, or even a form of faith healing/alchemy. This is no more accurate than if you were to look up modern medicine and find information regarding the "four humours" and bleeding techniques. I am now addressing what I consider the root of this bias based on thorough study of the article and discussion regarding it.

Recent Alterations

There is no place in an encyclopedic reference for opinions, whether they are from the authors on this page or from, "some doctors", and "mainsteam medicine" or "Dr Barrett" or "quackery webpages". If you want to air those views, it should be under their heading, not under what they are for or against. This site should list the history or chiropractic, a description and educational standards, no opinions. thats why this page is disputed. Take out all the opinions, list the facts, and leave it alone. Drop the bias you are trying to hide by referencing it.

And who decides what the facts are? The abovr proposal violates NPOV policy.Geni 17:47, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Who decides what the facts are? Only opinions can be disputed. Is anyone trying to get this page acceptable to everyone and drop the pov dispute tag? The last 100 edits to this page have been opinions that chiropractic is ineffective or quackery or dangerous. Before those edits there were no assertions that chiropractic does anything, good or bad. The article simply stated the facts about chiropractic. This encyclopedia is worthless if the people who police it cannot figure out what an opinion is. Should I go to the MD page and state that iatrogenic deaths are in the top five killers of middle aged americans? I will go put that and im sure it will be edited out. So why do you persist on leaving in this article statementrs like, "most physicians agree chiropractic is useless" or whatever. Use common sense, look inside yourself at your motives in allowing these opinions to remain. Bias.

Go read the pade entitled medicine for an example of how a page such as this should look. It gives facts about the history of the profession, not opinions on its efficacy. Please do not just revert my erasures without doing this first.

---

The following sentences in the Usage section are about CAM in general, so I am removing them: Consistent with previous studies, this study found that a majority of individuals (i.e., 54.9%) used CAM in conjunction with conventional medicine (page 6). "The fact that only 14.8% of adults sought care from a licensed or certified CAM practitioner suggests that most individuals who use CAM self-prescribe and/or self-medicate" (page 6). Please merge with CAM if you feel mention of those details is warranted. - Edwardian 15:45, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractors in Australia are legally able to use the title Dr. The three chiropractic courses offered in australia are all government funded and accredited. (RMIT, Maquarie and Murdoch Universities.)

Americocentrism

Last time I checked, the rest of the world was not part of the United States. Please stop assuming otherwise.

Thankyou for bringing some perspective to the page(Go to 'medicine' page)! But you are not entirely accurate about iatrogeic death being in the top five leading causes of death. "Death by medicine" is a report completed in October 2003 by By Gary Null PhD, Carolyn Dean MD ND, Martin Feldman MD, Debora Rasio MD, and Dorothy Smith PhD, which shows medicine as it really is - the number 1 leading cause of death in the US. And why wouldn't this be true, the US spends more head on healthcare than anyone else! Here in Australia, medicine is lagging as the 3rd leading cause of death. Medicine really has the market sewn up doesn't it!! DJR. 7 mar 2005

NPOV flag?

The 'Chiropractic medicine' article seems to mostly ignore the many criticisms about chiropactic medicine as science.

For example, the state of Florida in the United States had a debate about allowing a school of chiropractic medicine on its campus: "Hundreds -- including about 70 medical professors -- have reportedly signed petitions against the school, and eight part-time medical professors have threatened to quit if it opens." - The Chronical of Higher Education (http://chronicle.com/free/v51/i21/21a01001.htm (sorry for the sloppy data, this was one of the first links I grabbed off of google)).

The skeptic's dictionary has a quite detailed and biased article (http://www.skepdic.com/chiro.html) on why chiropractic medicine may not meet the standards normally required for medicine: specifically, the lack of empirical studies.

A longer, more detailed explanation of complaints can be found at: http://www.chirobase.org/01General/controversy.html

The Florida incident seems to indicate that some mainstream medical professionals and doctors are skeptical of modern chiropractic medicine. The skepdic's article and chirobase site lays out the details of the criticisms. Yet the tone of this article seems to mostly ignore criticisms of chiropractic medicine.

To use other examples from wikipedia: The cell phone page mentions the health controversy, the evolution page mentions the conflict with creationism and links to the appropriate article, and the medicine article mentions criticisms.

Why should the chiropractic article be immune?

Unless someone can tell me why criticisms of chiropractic medicine should be ignored, I don't see why I shouldn't add the NPOV tag to this article. (unsigned contribution by 209.173.47.1)

Go ahead. This article is clearly not NPOV. But that's not the main problem with it. The main problem is that it is NOINFO (if such a tag existed). By comparison, the cell phone page explains what a cell phone is, and the evolution page explains what evolution is. Likewise, this article needs to explain what chiropractic treatment is. Currently, it doesn't. It just gives a confused and highly biased overview of Controversy about chiropractic medicine. While that may be a nice article to have, I (as an interested reader) would much rather find here some information about Chiropractic medicine (For example, 1. what it is, and how it is supposed to work, 2. its history and organisation). Then we can have an edit war about how Wikipedia should present the cases pro & contra its effectiveness, its relationship to alternative medicine, how health insurance agencies view it, etc. Arbor 07:38, 19 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I completely agree. The History section is the only useful/well-written/NPOV piece in the article. Other than that, defensive overtones buried in minutia permeate the rest. Edwardian 05:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I don't completely agree on that, but the article does need an explanation of how chiropractice is actually practiced, how it supposedly works, how much of that is attributable to placebo effect, etc. (see for example Acupuncture). The long litigation section should be abbreviated and/or moved elsewhere, and maybe the whole thing should be put in a more internatinal perspective, though it seems that the whole issue is on the US. --Pablo D. Flores 15:37, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Moved the litigation thing to Wilk v. American Medical Association, and just reverted a change in the first paragraph. Stating that "some" in the medical community "feel" that subluxations are not the cause of all diseases turns the whole NPOV issue into a joke. Note that the paragraph as it reads now does not say that the medical community rejects chiropractice as a whole, only that the claim about subluxations is not backed by scientific evidence. --Pablo D. Flores 14:35, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Call for votes (informal)

Quotes section

• Delete. Is there any reason a listing of quotes should appear in this article? Edwardian 06:22, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. Arbor 07:15, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Delete. The section is completely uncalled for. Pablo D. Flores 15:29, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup taskforce

As part of the Cleanup Taskforce, I've been asked to take a look at this article. While I can definitely help with copyediting and reorganization, my knowledge of chiropractic is quite limited. I am a medical student, and so come from a science- and evidence-based background. In reading through the article and the talk page, I see a few issues.

• The NPOV tag. If I understand correctly, this is because the article does not address the lack of evidence of efficacy for chiropractic practices. Is this correct?
• The lack of information. What do chiropractors do; what conditions do they treat? How many believe that subluxations cause diabetes or aneurysms and that their treatments can cure them? How many accept standard medical explanations for illnesses such as these, but believe that joint problems contribute to pain and headaches more than the medical community recognizes? If there are any chiropractors reading this, I would appreciate any perspective on your practices. We had a couple chiropractors speak to us in medical school. According to them, they believe in standard medical models of disease, but see themselves as useful adjuncts in health care. They believe they are better at treating things like back pain, but if they find someone with a large aortic aneurysm, they'll call an ambulance, quick. I don't know if this is typical of chiropractors in general, due to the self-selecting bias of chiropractors who'd speak at a medical school.
• Some reorganization. Not really sure how to tackle this one yet.
• The list of quotes. This clearly doesn't belong; given the consensus above I am going to move them to Wikiquotes.

Anything else I'm missing? Any comments? — Knowledge Seeker দ 22:05, 26 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I would like to see the "Requirements for chiropractors" section fact-checked and referenced. I find many websites referencing the numbers comparing the education of chiropractors to that of MDs, but I cannot find where it originated. Prior to moving information around, I would like to see a revised outline (see below) to guide us. -- Edwardian 04:26, 27 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I would suggest the requirements secton be scrapped altogether, or at least summarised and generalised. That looks to me like only American "requirements" (and I sceptical as to whether every institution is mandated by law to have those requirements). Unless we are willing to put in 200+ countries' requirements, which is a bad idea anyway, I don't see how that technicality helps anyhow. Just say something like "There are general general requirements in the areas of foo because of bar" or something like that. --Dmcdevit 04:34, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I'm glad someone else suggested it first. I don't think listing the specific requirements for any particular nation is necessary for this particular article. I wouldn't be against keeping something like: "In the United States, The Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) has set minimum guidelines for chiropractic colleges." That particular link could be developed if someone want to address particular US requirements. I would be interested in knowing which countries chiropractic is most practiced or popular. Edwardian 05:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

And, just wondering, is chiropractic a noun too? Seems weird... --Dmcdevit 04:44, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Yes, it is... and does. There is no chiropracty. Edwardian 05:00, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Let's find somewhere to put in "Note: chiropractic may be used as an adjective or as a noun synonymous with chiropractic medicine." End of lead? Also, if it is a noun, why isn't this article just titled "Chiropractic"? It's les common or just unwieldy or what? This is kind of an interesting convention... --Dmcdevit 05:05, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• My dictionary (Concise Oxford) lists chiropractic as a noun and only that. I believe that that would be a better title, also because it avoids a potential (and ongoing) edit war about chiropratic medicine versus chiropractic treatment versus chiropractic care etc. I also agree to scrap the requirements section. Arbor 08:30, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Chiropractic is the more accurate term. I would vote to merge and redirect chiropractic medicine to chiropractic. Edwardian 15:21, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
• Agree to merge into chiropractic. (That's a disambiguation page that doesn't actually disambiguate between existing articles anyway.) Arbor 18:32, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I agree with the move as well. The page at Chiropractic has a significant history, although as Arbor said, it's not really disambiguating. What little is there could go here. I placed a comment there advising of the proposal. If there are no objections, I suggest deleting that page (or merging anything useful here?) and then moving this (Chiropractic medicine) to Chiropractic. According to my dictionary, chiropractic is a noun, not an adective; however, as I don't know what the adjective form would be I use it as an adjective as well. Anyway, anyone have any information on current chiropractic philosophies or beliefs about physiology and disorders? or on current practices? — Knowledge Seeker দ 19:36, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Hmm, adjective form, that's a good one. How about chiropraticic, or chiropractickey, or chiropractically? --Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• I concur as well. And I hope that "edit war" didn't include me, as I only chnged what I thought was an inconsistency between the name of the article and it's words. No controversy intended. --Dmcdevit 03:21, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Is there anything to merge from Chiropractic? How should we go about doing this move? I can't just delete Chiropractic outright (well, I can, but it would be improper). Normally I'd suggest moving it to Chiropractic (disambiguation) but it seems to be rather unhelpful as a disambiguation page—it'd be silly to add an {{otheruses}} tag to Chiropractic medicine when the disambig tells you to come back here for more info. Maybe I should list it on VfD? — Knowledge Seeker দ 09:07, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Although it's rough around the edges, I tried to take every point from chiropractic and rephrase it in the introduction of chiropractic medicine. I think you should be able to make the move now. Edwardian 06:11, 1 May 2005 (UTC)

What's next (as of May 2 2005)?

(Continuing above conversation after the page move to chiropractic:)

• Thank you, Edwardian, I have done so. What are our priorities now? I'd like to see the NPOV tag removed—what do we need to do to make the article neutral? — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:07, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

As to priorities, I believe we need to start the difficult task of finding out what chiropractic is. That was my original reason to come here. I have tried to use other sources on the internet, but to very little effect. (I remain immensely curious about the subject.) I do understand that there is controversy about what chiropractic should mean in the first place, which seems to be a continuum of ideas about what the effect of spinal manipulations are. I am confident that we can give a good description of those viewpoints. But I hope that this can be separated from describing the treatment itself. Maybe that is naïve, but I imagine that this article could treat the origin and chiropractic treatment of subluxation separately from the holistic body of theories about whether or not these subluxations are causes of disease. If I understand the controversy, then the latter part is very much debated, also among chiropractors. But if there is consensus about the former part (and I honestly don't know) than the article would benefit from focussing on that. It's what I want to read about. But I also fear that it will be much harder for us to find information about this. What is the consensus (among scientists) about the effect of chiropractic to treat subluxation? (I want to know. On the other hand I guess I have made up my mind about the issue whether these subluxations causes diseases...)

The gist of this is that I think there are two major issues/sections/things to do about this article. One about chiropractic as treatment of subluxation (which needs us to collect a lot of information). And one about the controversies about subluxation as the cause of disease (which may just be an exercise in rewriting what is already on this page). I guess the NPOV tag is concerned with the latter. Arbor 08:50, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

• And as to the grammaticality (I love making up new words!), the article has, I think, been pretty thoroughly copyedited, so perhaps we can take that tag off this page now... --Dmcdevit 01:19, 7 May 2005 (UTC)

• • I'm afraid I've put all I can find into the article. I'm a physician, so not only is this out of my field but also I approach health (and the universe) from a scientific, evidence-based view. I regret that I haven't been able to find a good understanding of current chiropractic thinking. I'm probably going to take this off my desk. I don't know anyone else who can help out this article but I'll see if I can find someone. — Knowledge Seeker দ 04:51, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
    • I agree, I basically finished with this article days ago. I'm removing the copyedit tag now. --Dmcdevit 05:19, 12 May 2005 (UTC)
      • Per Wikipedia "Tasks" page I have edited this page for spelling and grammar and found quite a few mistakes. I did not edit anything content-wise as this is definitely not my area of expertise! — Jacob Buerk 04:47, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Suggested outline

(Feel free to edit)

Introduction

I. History

II. Theory of disease/illness

III. Methods of treating disease/illness

I suggest a section on "research" or "studies done" somewhere in here. --Dmcdevit 04:50, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

IV. Different schools of thought on chiropractic

IV. Usage/popularity

A. Number of chiropractors worldwide, US, UK, etc.

B. Number of people using chiropractors worldwide, US, UK, etc.

V. Licensing/Education

A. Education

B. Licensing

C. Legal battles to obtain or discredit legitimacy

VI. Criticism

A. Theory of disease

B. Methods of treating disease/illness

1. Safety

2. Efficacy

C. "Questionable practicing building techniques" (Title lifted from Chirobase).

VII. References

A. Pro

B. Con

C. Other

VIII. External links

A. Pro

B. Con

C. Other

---

Dmcdevit, the current References section currently lists various studies that are pro- and con-. What would a separate Research section discuss? Edwardian 20:22, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

• Maybe I'm not understanding your question, but I don't see why we would leave that to references. We could make every article just point to links that have the info, but that would defeat the purpose of WP, to make a single accessible repository of this info; references are supposed to *refer* to the text. Plus that seems to be one of the major points of contention (the scientific evidence or lack thereof), so it needs expanding on, especially for the NPOV dispute. Make sense? --Dmcdevit 03:15, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Although chiropractors themselves have heated discussions about what makes up a subluxation complex, most agree that there are physiological actions that take place when motion is applied to the spine and extremities where there is abnormal movement (biokinetic diskinesis). Just as 100 years ago, science did not understand a lot of germ therory and sanitation necessity, it may take some time for science to describe exactly ALL that happens when a chiropractic adjustment (treatment, manipulation) is performed. Simply because it cannot all be measured or described with today's scientific method does not mean that it has no benefit. The proof is in the relief given to hundreds of thousands of chiropractic patients. This is not sham care, just difficult to prove with today's measuring devices.

• "Simply because it cannot all be measured or described with today's scientific method does not mean that it has no benefit." Yes, but it does mean it's not science, and since it can't be explained, chiropractors can't know for sure whether what they're doing is correct every time, or what parts of the body may actually be able to be relieved in this way. Anything they do now is not science and has no foundation. -- BRIAN0918  21:03, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

Page move

As per the discussion above, I moved this page from Chiropractic medicine to Chiropractic (after moving Chiropractic to Chiropractic (disambiguation). Our discussion can continue above; I only made this a separate section to aid later readers in finding mention of the page move. — Knowledge Seeker দ 07:03, 2 May 2005 (UTC)

Dr. Stephen Barrett is not anti-chiropractic

From simply skimming articles written by him it's very easy to misunderstand his conclusion. Keep in mind that his focus is on quackery and medical fields that are disproportionately prone to quackery. He has explicitly acknowledged that chiropractic and several other fields of alternative medicine he writes about have legitimate uses. His issue is that the practitioners tend to make very grandiose fradulent claims, often don't know what they're doing and that this is common place for fields such as chiropractic.

He even reprinted an article (written by a chiropractic) that he agreed with. This is the conclusion at the end of article: A good chiropractor can do a lot to help you when you have mechanical-type back pain and other musculoskeletal problems. But until the chiropractic profession cleans up its act, and its colleges uniformly graduate properly limited chiropractors who specialize in neuromusculoskeletal problems, you'll have to exercise caution and informed judgment when seeking chiropractic care. http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chiroeval.html

He has specific guidelines for identifying good chirpractors from the bad: http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirochoose.html

He has a directory of what he considers legitimate chiropractors: http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/directory.html

Here are guidelines to get into the above directory: http://www.chirobase.org/13RD/chiroguidelines.html

I think it's pretty clear he recognizes it as having legitimate uses, he just thinks it's crawling with quackery and bad practices that go unchecked due to poor regulation and low standards for certification.

Also see these websites with more articles he's written or reprinted: http://www.chirobase.org/ http://www.quackwatch.org/#products (scroll down to chiropractic) -Nathan J. Yoder 10:55, 20 May 2005 (UTC)

• Well no one seems better suited to fix this than you! And if you actually know anything about this topic, please help out, because we at the Cleanup Taskforce were confused by its complexities. --Dmcdevit 20:35, 20 May 2005 (UTC)
  • Please note that the individual currently has an arbitration request against him: Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Njyoder --brian0918™ 00:13, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)
    • Please note that that's entirely irrelevent. Why you would mention that out of the blue, for no apparent reason, is a bit surprising and an act of assuming bad faith (which is against wikipedia policy). I really have no interest in editing this article, as the subject doesn't interest me. I just thought I'd point out that, Dr. Barrett, who often speaks out against bad Chiropractors, is not anti-chiropractic. Thusly, I think his views should be taken very seriously, especially considering the amount of fraud in the profession. Nathan J. Yoder 00:46, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Small percentage of chiropractors

The sentence:

A small percent of chiropractors have rejected the metaphysical beliefs of mainstream chiropractors.

Seems to me in accurate. I would suspect more than a small percent are not superstitious. I'm no expert but my impression of chiropractors is that they are trained in technique and science (though it may be bad science) and are not mystics. I would consider reevaluating this claim.JesseHogan 00:48, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

On what are you basing your desire for a change in this statement? Please find an actual source, rather than speculating. --brian0918™ 01:53, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'm not basing what I said on a source but the article should. I submited this for the consideration of the experts editing this page. It doesn't seem accurate from my experience but since I am not an expert I have not altered the article. JesseHogan 02:18, 11 Jun 2005 (UTC)

brian, when a portion of an article is challenged, it's up to the person who originally put it in there to provides sources for their claim (the burden of proof is on the "information inserter"). I'm not terribly fond of chiropractic myself, but this claim seems a bit dubious, not to mention POV (see NPOV). For the most part, the bad parts of chiropractic would qualify as pseudo-science, not mysticism, so I think it's necessary for whoever inserted that POV claim to substantiate it. Nathan J. Yoder 21:58, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contrary to your comments, Steven Barrett IS a poor source of information. It is a known fact that much of the AMA's Committee on Quackery information is currently in his possession. This occurred following the AMA loss of the Anti-trust suit. Since the AMA has been halted from performing their "contain and elimination of chiropractic" they have just transferred the trail of misinformation and exaggerated negative literature to Mr. Barrett. He continues to spew his version of what chiropractic is to the public in a "scare tactic" approach, without any balance to the good that chiropractic can do. His list of "approved" chiropractors is a group that he formed (orthopractors), and they are but an extremely small percentage of practicing chiropractors, not representative of the profession. Ken Martin DC, California

NPOV

I was the one to put the NPOV warning on it. I imagine, like most controversial subjects, the NPOV warning will get edited right back out, but as a newcomer to this article, I was substantially unimpressed by the latter three or four sections, which to me demonstrated a concerted bias against chiropractic medicine. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 03:09, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what exactly is meant by "concerted bias" - I don't think there is a conspiracy to make chiropractic look bad! - but I agree that parts of this article stand out as though there was no attempt by the author to even try to present a balanced view. I think 1) there should be a single section entitled "Criticism" or "Skepticism" that summarizes that particular view and 2) the length quote in the section entitled "Reformers who reject classical chiropractic theory" needs to go. Thoughts? Edwardian 07:15, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

First, yes, I didn't mean 'concerted.' Sorry.

Second, after briefly skimming things, this is what seemed to me to be biased:

* History:

** The history and first paragraph of the subluxation section seemed to cast Palmer as a quack. I don't know as he is. Was he indeed as nutty as this history makes him sound?

• • • The article is specific enough that you should be able to easily check to see if it is valid. Simply claiming that the sections aren't accurate isn't enough; you have to cite sources. --brian0918™ 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

* Medical Risks of Spinal Manipulation:

** What is the value and gravitas of the Harrison's text cited? Is it a valid source for all the various medical risks of spinal manipulation? The common reader (in this case, I feel I'm representative) probably doesn't know what that source is.

** Has rotary neck movement led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients? I looked on the Internet prior to going to a my first chiropractic session in May 2005. I saw no such evidence of trauma or paralysis. I did find one instance of stroke, in Canada, but that woman seemed to have a lot of other complicating risk factors.

• • • I read or saw a story about an individual who had neck manipulations which later created blood clots that broke free, traveled to the brain, and paralyzed the individual (permanently). --brian0918™ 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

** The responsive paragraphs directly following that really seems to be a sort of mini-argument, making it a "people die from chiropractic"; "oh, yeah? one in five million! and how many get sick in the hospital?"; "well, you guys fry your patients with X-rays" sort of argument.

• • • Doubtless the result of anons. --brian0918™ 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

* Criticisms of Chiropractic Claims:

** What is the legitimacy of the organizations initially listed, especially the National Council Against Health Fraud? I ask because organizations often have very convincing names which don't tell you much about who they are, or their overall policy bias. I could have a nonprofit named the Very Swell Guys Corporation which carries out hits on people, y'know?

• • • You can look them up, rather than make accusations. --brian0918™ 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

*** I'd like to know more about this report.

** The psuedoscience line seems very NPOV.

*** For what reasons do docs and scientists think chiropractic is fraud or psuedoscience?

• • • Do some research. Note: research isn't just asking your chiropractic teacher. --brian0918™ 13:19, 13 July 2005 (UTC)

*** The "AMA anti-chiropractic prejudice" response seems, again, argumentative ("A? Well, B!!") and I think needs to be expanded into actual history. What supposed prejudice did they exhibit?/s>

That's just from a somewhat sleepy early-morning examination of things. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 11:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Comment restored from earlier deletion by Brian0918: Brian0918 seems to have taken strong offense to my comments. These weren't "accusations," and you need not take it so damn friggin' personally. — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 11:56, July 13, 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and by the way, thanks for banning the IP I was using and calling me an imposter because I forgot to login. Drunk with power much? — WCityMike ^{(T | C)} 03:11, July 14, 2005 (UTC)

Sorry, I didn't realize it was you. The IP was different from the one listed on your user page as being your edits, and the signature was simply copied from a previous post of yours. That IP has been unblocked. Also, please don't delete discussions. If you would like to retract your own comments, you can cross them out with <s> ... </s>. --brian0918&#153; 03:27, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Criticism of chiropractic claims"

Regarding "However, at least some of this criticism may stem from anti-chiropractic prejudice encouraged by the American Medical Association during the 1970's and early 1980's.": I think the phrase "anti-chiropractic prejudice" is a prejudicial statement and should be changed, but a link to Wilk v. American Medical Association is probably warranted. Thoughts? Edwardian 05:47, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

-

Regarding "The National Council Against Health Fraud, non-profit healthcare organization, issued a report in 1985 critical of chiropractic medicine.": I looked up NCAHF and found that one of their founders, and current webmaster, is Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch, so it should come as no surprise that they are critical of chiropractic. Although I agree with nearly everything I've read in Quackwatch, I would hate to see this become a mirror site of it. In my opinion, the article should focus on the specific criticism of chiropractic rather than who issued critical reports of chiropractic. Can someone support why they think this statement should stay? Edwardian 06:10, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Section entitled "Medical risks of spinal manipulation"

This article is primarily about chiropractic, and not the medical risks of spinal manipulation, therefore, the majority of this section would be better suited in the latter. I believe the main reason it is cited here is to indicate criticism of chiropractic, but it doesn't state that explicitly. I may have a go at it. Edwardian 06:41, 14 July 2005 (UTC)

Since chiropractic neck manipulation is known to cause stroke, and has no documented benefit, the risk (however small) vastly exceeds the benefit. This should be made clear. JM

Excuse me... there is ONE documented stroke triggered, but not neccesarily caused by chiropractic. To claim there is no documented benefit implies to me that no matter how many patients relate the fact that chiropractic has worked for them, you toss this evidence out due to some unknown personal bias. So don't say there is no evidence; there is overwhelming, if anecdotal, evidence that chiropractic works, not the least of which is the widespread success and recognition of the profession.

Lots of Vitriol, no Science

Scientists love to bash chiropractics. They regularly dredge up stories of Palmer's attachment to Mesmerism.

Personally, I consider "alignment" a hoax, but the release of nitrogen bubbles from joints may have some positive effect. I crack my knuckles all the time, because it feels good.

Like almost all of medicine, the debate here centers around personal anecdotes. Have there been clinical trials that try to guage the efficacy of chiropractics?

High quality clinical trials are lacking. Those that exist show no value for chiropractic except: There is reason to think that low-back pain of short (3 day to 4 week) duration can benefit from one (at most two) chiropractic "adjustments." The benefit is comparable to that obtained from a massage. Note that a masseur does not charge as much or expect to be called doctor. JM

Section entitled "Rejection of the classical chiropractic theory"

This section is a LONG quote from NACM [[1]]. Although I think NACM is important to mention as they do enjoy some mainstream acceptance, I think the insertion of long quotes is a lazy way to develop a Wiki article. I wanted to give a "heads up" that I may make some larger changes to this section. Edwardian 06:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

If you wrote an article on the Cardiff Giant, it would focus on the hoax. If you study anatomy and physiology, you will be able to understand that "classical chiropractic theory" has been thoroughly debunked. This is a fact (like the Earth circles the Sun), not an opinion.

The only reason this absurd practice continues is that, when it was demonstrated that the classic subluxation (a dislocated spinal joint) does not occurr, the chiropractors re-defined it rather than folding their tents or becoming real doctors. The current, vague description of subluxation could be shortened to "whatever we charge people for fixing." JM

Please cite some sources. Your previous charge that a masseuse does the same thing but charges less is arbitrary and unfounded. I have recently visited a chiropractor who charges $10 per visit ($5 with Alberta Health Care coverage) and will provide free x-rays and analysis. What is "classical chiropractic theory" and how was it debunked? Show me how subluxations do not occur, please. I have had more than my fair share of them, and they're not exactly hard to spot. Even a layman can feel the misalignment most of the time (often as an awkward protrusion,) and quite recently, I saw my own x-ray showing two vertebrae in my neck touching each other, causing a painful grinding that disabled me for over a week. After a single chiropractic visit, this was corrected. Can you explain this? Was it some form of faith healing? Did the chiropractor manipulate the photos to make it appear that I had an ailment exactly corresponding to what I felt? JM, I think you have a personal hatred of chiropractors, no doubt caused by a run-in with one of the many quacks in the field. (I can certainly agree that there is inadequate regulation of the practice, but there are also many good practicioners, who rely only on sound theory, and in my experience, charge from $5 to $15 Cdn per visit.) All I can say is that having a bad experience does not qualify you as an expert on the subject. - Fuchikoma

Title references in opening

In the opening of the article, it is stated that "They receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic, (D.C.) and are commonly called doctor in the same way that a dentist is called a doctor." When an individual, like myself, is attempting to get basic introductory information on the topic, the above statement is almost information-free. In what way IS a dentist called a doctor? At bare minimum, the word dentist should be wikified, if that article includes an explanation of this, but I really think that, whatever point is struggling to be made in that sentence, it could be made better. I'll add this page to my watchlist as I continue to educate myself, as I get the feeling that this article is one of those "battleground" articles where quality is taking a back seat to combativeness. Fox1 20:32, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

Yes, it is. I can't answer your specific question, but I have watchlisted this because anon POV gets inserted in this just about every day. I don't know much about the subject, but most of the POV is pretty obvious. (ie, deleting the entire criticisms section, etc.) Dmcdevit·t 22:36, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

My experiences with chiropractors, naprapaths and osteopaths

When I was 15 years old my back and neck was in such a bad condition that the total amount of movement I could do was to "turn" my nose about 2 cm / 1 inch in each direction relative to my hips. That is, my back and neck was more or less locked. I could not look down on my own stomach etc. And I was in constant pain.

The medical doctors at our local hospital considered my back so bad that they offered me a full "surgical stiffening" of my back and neck. That is, to surgically attach/implant a metal rod to my spine and neck to stop it from moving and thus at least stop it from getting worse. However since that would not make me well, just prevent me from getting worse I declined the offer and decided to try the alternatives.

After about 15 treatments by a naprapath (similar to a chiropractor) my back was more or less fully healthy. Since then I have lived a normal life and one of my hobbies is actually to dance the jitterbug! (I am now 36 years old.) Occasionally I do get some "lockups" in my back so about once every 1-2 years I visit my naprapth for some "maintenance". (Usually takes 1-2 treatments to get my back in order again.)

Almost every time I get a new medical doctor (well, I have some other problems too) they read my medical history and then wonder how my back and neck is nowadays? When I tell them I nowadays am ok and dance the jitterbug they usually are stunned.

Anyway, here's what I know about chiropractors, naprapaths and osteopaths:

Occasionally when it has been time for my "back maintenance" my naprapath has been on vacation. So then I have tried other naprapaths, chiropractors and osteopaths. It seems to me they all use the same or similar techniques when doing spinal adjustments. (Basically they pull, twist, turn, bend and press to make your vertebras pop into place again.) What differ are the techniques they use to treat the muscles and other tissues on the back and neck. The chiropractors seem to mainly use massage (using their hands) to treat the muscles. The osteopaths use massage and something that at least to me resembles acupressure, that is they press special points on the body. The naprapaths use massage, ultrasound massage devices and electrical massage/training. (They strap electrodes on you and stimulate your muscles. Rather nice actually, a tingling feeling.) Personally I find the naprapaths best at treating muscles. Ultrasound and electrical stimulation does wonders at least on me. Note that I live in Sweden, Europe, and I have read that osteopath training differs a lot in different countries. But naprapaths and chiropractors are supposed to be more "standardised".

If/when you go to a chiropractor the first time you might be shocked that your back might actually hurt more after the treatment then before. But if you "listen" to the pain you will notice it is another kind of pain. Instead of pain from the spine you just have muscle pain like when you have done over stretching of a muscle. And that is exactly what it is. There are several reasons for this. First reason is that since you were in bad shape before, your muscles might have been a bit stiff and during the spinal adjustment (the pull, twist and turn etc) your muscles might get a little damage. The other reason is that suddenly your back is straight again, and your muscles are not used to that. (The muscles on one side might be to short and on the other too long since the spine has been crooked for so long.) That kind of muscle pain usually disappears in a day or two as the muscles heal and adjust to your "new" spine. Usually on the second or third treatment your chiropractor will instead mainly treat your muscles (since now your spine should be pretty ok). And that is nice! After that treatment you feel soooo good!

Note that chiropractic, naprapathy and osteopathy are more or less art forms. It is done by hand. Which means some practitioners are good but some are pretty bad. Personally I prefer naprapaths since the ultrasound massage and the electrical treatment works so well on my muscles. But a good chiropractor is much better then a bad naprapath, so mostly it is down to the individual skill of the practitioner.

--David Göthberg 09:15, 18 September 2005 (UTC)

Excellent. Although it's anecdotal evidence, I'd say we don't even have much of that on the Wiki, and could do with some more as it provides SOME information. To wit, I'll chip in my own. It's written a bit defensively, but it was originally part of an argument against RK's unsubstantiated attacks. Overall, David, I've found your expeience with naprapathy matches my own experience with chiropractic.

I have personally gone for treatment at five local chiropractors, and admittedly, one of them was into new age pseudoscientific cures such as colored lens therapy, and measuring the body's reaction to proximity to different tinctures... I will keep this as unlibelous as possible and say that in my own limited experience, he was a quack. The other four were quite competent, with varying degrees of success in my particular case, and have the following things in common: - All of them warn upfront about the possible risk of harm from adjustments in no uncertain terms, and require a waiver on the first visit. In fact, in the face of statistics about chiropractic injury, they make it sound worse than it is, and are certainly not glossing over the risks. - Any would perform adjustments on children, but sparingly, and with caution. Quite simply though, there are times when chiropractic care is NEEDED, regardless of age. - They all believe that subluxations CAN CAUSE other symptoms, and I speak from personal experience that they certainly can. If you pinch a nerve in your back, you may feel pain through any part of your body. (Personally, I find my lungs, arms, head, and legs are most common. Having a lung nerve pinched by a wayward rib is NOT fun.) NONE OF THEM claim that all disease of the body is caused by subluxations. - None of them will adjust with great frequency, allowing usually at least a week or two between sessions with the exception of emergencies. They simply will not take the money for additional sessions, as they believe the body should not be too rigorously adjusted in a short time frame.

I started seeing chiropractors as an adolescent, when a subluxation in my neck caused crippling headaches, and pain and stiffness in my arms to the point where I could not use them. I paid (or would have paid if not for Canadian health care,) about $10, and ten minutes later, a painless adjustment had cured me. It is rare now, but periodically I suffer from lesser painful spinal subluxations, and it is rare that one or two visits cannot return me to health. I have no qualms about visiting the chiropractor when this happens, as it is fast, cheap, painless, and very effective. I think you'll find anyone else who has been in a similar situation will tell you the same. But then again, until they have chiropractic MDs in hospitals (wait, don't they?) it will just be anecdotal, despite being obvious to anyone who's been to one for similar treatments. This isn't a "power of the mind" effect; it is an obvious displacement of the vertebrae, causing very tangible and real dysfunction. For this, a skilled chiropractor can reverse the misalignment, remove pain, and restore proper function with very little time or effort, provided the problem has not been left to worsen. (My father was in a car accident as a young man, and the severity of the subluxation, along with lack of care, has permanently damaged his spine, grinding through the cushioning tissues. It has since been straightened, but while the damage has stopped, it has gone too far to reverse.)

While this is worth little, I will at least cite sources for the chiropractors I know, unlike RK. One doctor, Lyle Whitney has retired. One is a quack and gets no specific mention. The others are doctors Wilf Foord, Donald Pedersen, and Lyle Smith of Red Deer, Alberta, Canada. If you dig a little, you'll find they are all real people, and my statements regarding them are factual. Please do not call them to pester for article information though, as they are busy people. On the other hand, while I don't check this page often, I can ask specific questions for a restored version of the main article.

--User:fuchikoma Nov. 26, 2005

My whole family has used chiropractic for many years. I, myself, remember seeing chiropractic techniques being applied to someone as early as 5 years old (I am currently 30).

My first personal experiences were when I was in elementary school, grade 5 if I remember correctly. I had jumped from the top of a snowbank and had expected there to be a soft landing under my feet and unfortunately, it was powder snow on pavement. I was taken to a chiropractor for lower back problems for a year with little improvement. At this point, my parents decided to try a different chiropractor and she was much better as results seemed to be more appearent.

As time went on, she decided to do some x-rays of my pelvis and lower back and discovered that when standing straight, my pelvis was out of level by a few millimeters. About a year of 3 to 6 week spaced treatments, the alignment issue was fixed. To date, I have had VERY few lower back issues.

I used to be very sports active and I managed to do serious damage to my right knee. By the time this damage was realized, we were now in a new city and had to find a new chiropractor. The one we tried, was convinced that her skills could fix my knee. Long story short, not so. I ended up at a sports injury specialist in 1994 and had arthroscopic surgery to repair the meniscus.

In 2000, I threw my back out lifting a 21" monitor. So badly, that I could not even stand up to walk up or down a set of stairs. It happened on a Thursday and became fully inflaimed by Sunday. I went to a chiropractor (A new one again that I was already experienced with that I liked) and 3 days later I was driving myself to work. 2 months later and I was running a chainsaw and clearing 50-100 year old forest off my newly bought land. Then later that summer I built my house.

Now, my wife has always been skeptical of chiropractic as she was trained to be a mainstream medical professional. After 3 years of headaches, I was able to convince her to go. After that one visit, it was months before she had another headache and they came back right after a nasty ride on a rollercoaster at Canada's Wonderland. Another visit when we got back home and all was well for many many months. As time has gone on, it has basically worked out to one visit every 3-4 months and she hardly ever gets the same kinds of headaches that she did before seeing a chiropractor.

In short, it just goes to show that there is anecdotal evidence from people and examples of non-addressable issues from the same people. Not to mention endorsements from once skeptical people that have tried it out.

--User:Jokerofdeath Nov. 29, 2005

The problem is the lack of peer reviewed evidence supporting chiropractic

As soon as the the supporters of chiropractic want to cite peer-reviewed studies supporting their claims--studies in reputable journals that meet the same criteria for validity that the sciences require in their studies--the sooner this mess can be resolved. Until then, the claims made by the supporters of chiropractic are no better than those made by supporters of magnetic healing or Scientology.

Osteoarthritis

I reverted the entry regarding the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine that states "they are essentially advocating the more liberal mixer style of treatment where manipulation is purported to be an effective treatment for osteoarthritis when there is actually no scientific evidence which supports this belief." I found a couple articles on the Arthritis Foundation website that states that manipulation may help osteoarthritis pain [2] [3], so I don't think there is enough here to show that the NACM is actually advocating a mixer style of treatment. Edwardian 04:44, 6 October 2005 (UTC)

POV stuff

This page is quite notorious for it. Just keep a look-out. The ext links at present are neutral. But the ones that I had to delete twice recently are not. Drdr1989 03:22, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

I agree, particularly the blogs. Edwardian 03:34, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Great! Just one thing: Don't be too shy to rv edits yourself next time - remember Wikipedia doesn't mind us being bold :). Drdr1989 05:03, 7 October 2005 (UTC)

Money Money Money

Why if I open my local yellow pages do I see that chiropractors are apparently the 3rd most numerous profession in the phone book, after lawyers and dentists. They take out huge ads that out claim to treat back pain (possibly reasonable), headaches (hmmmmm.), ear infections (?), carpel tunnel syndrome (??), allergies (???), ADHD (??????), provide "holistic healthcare", "nutrition", etc. Somehow, none of them fail to mention that they take insurance, auto accident injuries, and workman's comp claims. I think I see now. --Kvuo 01:40, 19 November 2005 (UTC) edited --Kvuo 00:59, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

Neck 911.com

I wouldn't say this is a bad site, however not only is neck911.com biased but it has nothing to do with the subject matter of this chiropractic article. Therefore I believe it has no place in the links section here. -- Drdr1989 04:00, 20 November 2005 (UTC)

I think I agree. Chiropractic involves many different things, but this website seems to address criticisms of spinal manipulation. I wouldn't object to it being put in that article. Edwardian 22:22, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Subluxion Claims

Proponents for subluxions should quote the scientific literature supporting their existence, rather than modifying the statement saying that their is 'no' scientific eviden ce for this existence. Maustrauser 03:37, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Chirobase, Skeptic's Dictionary

External links removal: These sites only serve one opinion, have an obvious agenda, and are not peer reviewed.

Although there are some peer-reviewed sources in the latter, I suppose that upon reviewing them a second time they are biased like you say. Drdr1989 04:16, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Chiromed and Chirobase both serve one opinion, have an obvious agenda, and are not peer reviewed. Also, citing sources that cite the original source is not acceptable, nor is allowing a link to that source. It apprears that Chirobase and Chiromed are attempting to acquire backlinks to build there rankings.

Lack of neutrality is not a criterion for deleting an external link. If the external site can give the reader an insight to the topic that the Wikipedia article can not, that's all it needs. We can include links to biased or even blatantly factually incorrect sites if they offer an insight (e.g. while you might not learn about Chiropractic from a biased or incorrect site you can learn about the controversy surrounding it), and we can even add notes to the external links section warning the reader that the external site approaches the subject from a certain angle. See for example the Creationism or Iraq War articles. Joe D (t) 08:59, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

In this case, this will not be acceptable. I can see that Chirobase and Chirotalk are really trying hard to keep their advantage, but Wikipedia is not a spring board for these particular individually owned sites to gain advantage in the search engines.

Removal of external links is not vandalism, especially when they fraught with agenda. I like the concept of organizing the links, but the article is already too heavily weighted with negative anti-Chiropractic bias, so the addition of your so called skeptic links will not be allowed. Also, I am not saying that Chirotalk, Chiromed, and Chirobase have used all "10" of their supporters to attempt to keep these links going (for all I know you could all be the same person using different log in and I.P. addresses); however, what I am saying is that they all support the same negative agenda and viewpoint. For example, the fact that they keep choosing Chiromed as a source, when there are much more reliable organizations that have more than a few supporters and actually have peer reviewed articles and studies, clearly demonstrates an agenda that does not fit with Wikipedia's mission. Therefore, these external links will continue to be removed.

It is not appropriate to include biased links without denoting it as such (i.e., like how it is listed now in the article). Without such denotation it is inappropriate to include "insight" that would lead the reader from an otherwise neutral article to a link that sways either way from the middle. In other words, the way that our OH friend has organized it as of now appears OK, even though he didn't quite succeed to substantiate such in prior attempts. Drdr1989 23:29, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Anon, please demonstrate why the links do not add to the article than whining about POV, which as explained is not applicable here (and incidently is grounds to removal all the other links which present only the opposite POV). If you demonstrate for example that the sites are not notable, or that there are more extensive and useful skeptical sites we could link we should go right ahead and update the article. But your complaints of POV and selective targeting of skeptical sites is why I jumped to the conclusion that you are simply trying to push POV by omission.

Please also familiarise yourself with how Wikipedia operates before telling us what "won't be allowed". Joe D (t) 04:20, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Here are the links anon above has been deleting. The first two are notable, relevant and useful:

www.Chirobase.com] — Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices

(24,500 results for "chirobase" on Google)

skepdic.com/chiro.html Skeptic's Dictionary: chiropractic]

(Published on dead trees)

chirotalk.proboards3.com/ Chirotalk: A Skeptical Discussion Forum About Chiropractic]

OK, the anon now know as "Wikismart" is now in the realm of the 3rr and continues to hypocritically delete links "with an agenda", without further attempts to justify the actions within the terms of Wikipedia. In my book this is vandalism. Joe D (t) 04:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

No More External Links to Gain Personal Advantage: There is a difference between citing a source and inclusion of an external link. This external link is not necessary and obviously a part of the agenda to gain site popularity. The section of "skeptical" Chiropractic links is also unnecessary considering the already negative tone of this article. Finally, here is the most important issue: If these so called "skeptical Chiropractic" sites are allowed to use Wikipedia to gain advantage in the rankings through an increase of back links and direct Wikipedia traffic, we will sending a message that Wikipedia can be used to further a site's rankings. This could spawn further individuals to do the same and thereby not allow Wikipedia to remain a credible source of information (how do you think that chirobase gets so many results on Google). While it may be good Search Engine Optimization techniques on the part of these sites, it is not good for Wikipedia's credibility. I have taken out the external link so these sites will not receive that advantage. However, I left the URLs so that a person could choose to take a look at these sites. If Chirobase, Chirotalk, Quckwatch and Chiromed really believe in their cause, they will be happy to just make their statements known to the world, without the external link advantage.--Wikismart 05:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I added my User for the last paragarph because I forgot to log on that time.--Wikismart 05:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I could say exactly the same about the links to chiropractic organisations. It really is hard to resist WP:POINT right now. And the external link in the sources section is there so readers (and editors) can check it's correct. Deleting that link makes you look like somebody who is only here to remove links to sites you don't like to reduce google results. I have been using Wikipedia for two and half years, made probably less than a dozen edits to the Chiropractic page (all vandalism reverts), all in the last few months. Accusing me of being here to promote these websites is laughable. Looking at the contributions of your account and IPs however backs up my suspicion that you care a lot more about reducing the google rankings of a few websites than the quality of Wikipedia. Joe D (t) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

P.S., I have returned the external links to this page, they are here so other editors can evaluate the sites. Do not edit other people's comments. Joe D (t) 05:21, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with my I.P. addresses, I just have more than one location and have done nothing to hide this. Can you say the same for everyone else? Your accusations are as thin as your attempts to hide your affiliation with these sites. As far as the external links go, any editor can copy and paste, so I will delete them once again. Besides, I have nothing to gain from removing these links, but some individuals obviously stand to gain from it being remaining there. p.s., previously I never said you have an agenda, but as they say: "If the shoe fits, feel free to wear it."--Wikismart 07:19, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Although the sites removed are, once again, biased I still don't understand Wikismart's rationale for removing them. Although the sites should be denoted like I've mentioned above, keeping them on just provides an option for users to gain easy access to these "con" sites more than it does to promote the site. Besides, thousands of links, not one, are required to boost a ranking in Google. On the other hand, leaving these links out doesn't hurt the article; I'm really on middle ground here. I just don't think the rationale provided for removing them makes any sense.Drdr1989 19:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I think maybe you underestimate the power of links from a source like Wikipedia. The real problem is that if we allow external links to be used by individuals to gain this advantage in the search engines, Wikipedia become a target for this type of behavior. For example, a search engine marketer may reference his or her site on every talk page that is relevant just to gain advancement in the search engines, as well as the extra traffic it garners. I wouldn't mind seeing Wikipedia get rid of external links all together, but if this does not happen, then at least we can monitor against the kind of self promoting we are seeing with Chirobase, Quackwatch, chiromed and chirotalk.--70.32.198.143 05:18, 29 November 2005 (UTC)--Wikismart 05:21, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't disagree with your philosophy regarding external links, and I certainly know how popular wikipedia is to have an influence (Alexa ranking, Pagerank) on sites having links to them - not to boost rankings really, but to increase traffic somewhat. I do agree that if we don't do something now then wikipedia will be the source of excessive linkspam. And I sort of side in your opinion regarding getting rid of external links due to the linkspam potential, although there should be some "further info" section similiar to that provided in books, etc. I just didn't see what your reason had to do with removing "con" sites when there was a seperate heading for them, especially since someone else other than the promoter possibly put them there, and also since that rationale for removal is not much different if one applies that to the other two sections there. Drdr1989 20:51, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

In general you may have a good point, but if you really evaluate this situation you will find that the article itself has very little cited references, and the ones that it does have mostly reference the same view points that these so called "skeptic Chiropractic" sites share. Combine this with the fact that there are a few very passionate users who are working very hard to keep a these "skeptical chiropractic" sites linked from this article and talk page and you can easily draw the conclusion that there is a vested interest in promoting an agenda outside of Wikipedia. --Wikismart 04:34, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

There are a few users working hard to keep these sites in because you are unilaterally deleting them, are working passionately to delete things from the Chiropractic page alone (that's what the IP comment above was about, please don't pretend you have Wikipedia's interests at heart), and have so far only provided a few irrelevant conspiracy theories as the reason for doing so. Perhaps if you showed a commitment to anything other than deleting Chiropractic skeptical links from Wikipedia we could believe it wasn't simple vandalism with "an agenda". Joe D (t) 12:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Nice try Joe, but you forgot one thing; there can be no such thing as an "irrelevant conspiracy," as no conspiracy could possibly be irrelevant. Secondly, I have only just begun, so don't get too concerned that I won't be contributing anything further. Although, for you to think that link monitoring isn't important, perhaps you place too low of a priority on the reputation of Wikipedia.--Wikismart 07:42, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Way too many qualifiers

The intro on this is way to loaded with qualifiers: "claims", "asserts", "some", "commonly refer to themselves". I'd fix it but I have little time to delve into the reasons of the NPOV tag, read the history, and figure it all out for myself. I presume there are people that care about this article more than I — a casual reader of it. In essence: the intro reads as someone slapped in qualifiers because they didn't agree with what it said and the intro ended up being so NPOV-ish that it's distracting. FWIW to whom cares. Cburnett 15:19, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Chiropractic philosophy

I added this section because I believe it needed to be stated plainly what exactly is at the heart of chiropractic philosophy. It's nothing magical. It nothing spiritual. It's nothing cult-ish. It's basic biology. However, as there is controversy over this issue, I was sure to add to my text qualifiers such as "chiropractors believe" and "chiropractic claims" and such - to let anyone coming here for research know that this philosophy may not be an absolute fact. I am certainly in no way dismissing that there are chiropractors who adopt more New Age practices that can be viewed by Western eyes as quackery. I am simply stating the basic science at the heart of chiropractic. It wasn't mentioned on this page and I think it is important to get to the core, defining characteristics in a Wiki article.

Levine2112 18:36, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

Mention of B.J. Palmer in History section

The short mention is important to the history of chiropractic. -- Fyslee 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

Religious views of DD Palmer

I believe they should stay in the history section, especially since they deal with origins. .. Fyslee 22:52, 2 January 2006 (UTC)

NCAHF

Can we be honest about what this organization is? The way it is presented, it makes it seem like they have no conviction either way on Chiropractic on the onset and that they are a nationally recognized legitimate organization. Clearly, they are tied into so many anti-chiropractic organizations such as chirobase and quackwatch. I feel like all of this chiropractic dissent is essentially coming from one antichiropractic organization hiding behind many names (NCAHF, chirobase, quackwatch, et cetera) in hopes that the more organizations that they have, the more legitimacy their arguements will have. I, for one, see through this ploy and I hope others do too.Levine2112 21:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Chirobase and Quackwatch are websites run by Stephen Barrett. From the NCAHF website, we find that "NCAHF is a private nonprofit, voluntary health agency that focuses upon health misinformation, fraud, and quackery as public health problems." The NCAHF website is also run by Stephen Barrett. I don't see how this is a ploy, given that Barrett makes it obvious that he runs the websites. You may also want to check out James Randi's website, run by James Randi, who offers a one million dollar prize to anyone who can demonstrate a paranormal phenomenon under controlled conditions. --CDN99 22:55, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I am familiar with Randi. But chiropractic is hardly a paranormal phenomenon. Although sometimes the miraculous results do seem magical, yes. But alas it is science.

So whether it is chirobase, quackwatch, or ncahf - it will all be the same anti-chiropractic opinion coming from Stephen Barrett (an MD) or the members of his organizations. Why not just have one site then? Or one orgainzation? Why cite each one as though they are independent voices? As it is, it does seem like a ploy using something official sounding such as "National Council" which makes it seem as though it was federally recognized as an authority rather than just another chiropractic hate group. Levine2112 23:09, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Why does it matter how many sites the man has, and why does it matter that he is a medical doctor? He gave it the name "National Council..." likely because it's a council with members throughout the nation. You criticise his group because it "claims" to be federally recognized, but at the same time you criticise the many dubious "alternative medicine" groups with loaded words in their titles (ex. National Health Federation). This is the end of this discussion. --CDN99 02:23, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic revisionism at its most primitive level

DD Palmer claimed that subluxations were the cause of 100% of all diseases. Period. To my knowledge, no chiropractic historian has ever dared to question that fact.

There have been several attempts here by chiropractic supporters, most notably Levine2112, to get around this historical fact. He keeps editing it back to 95% (which would be bad enough!), but DD Palmer was a well-known megalomaniac who made large claims. He did claim to have reached his goal.

A very superficial reading of the following quote by a chiropractic novice might result in such a mistake, but for Wikipedian chiropractors themselves to do so takes a superhuman effort to (deliberately?) misread it! Do they have blinders on?

Here it's explained, using his actual words:

Chiropractic theory is rooted in the notions of Daniel David Palmer, a grocer and "magnetic healer" who postulated that the basic cause of disease was interference with the body's nerve supply. Approximately a hundred years ago, he concluded that "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column." [1] He claimed that subluxations interfered with the body's expression of "Innate Intelligence"-- the "Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life" that controlled the healing process. He proposed to remedy the gamut of disease by manipulating or "adjusting" the problem areas. [4]

1. Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.

Read it again!

Let's parse the key words of that quote carefully:

• Subluxated vertebrae (that's the spine.....;-) account for 95% of all diseases.

• Other displaced joints account for the other 5% of all diseases.

Let's see now, a little second grade math:

• 95 + 5 = 100.

Wow! It actually works! DD Palmer could do his math. He didn't make a mathematical error when he claimed to have found the cure for ALL diseases. He did make such claims, as ALL serious chiropractic historians have known all along.

I hope this settles the editing wars on this point. A NPOV is based on accurate figures and quotes. The 100% figure stands. Please leave it alone! -- Fyslee 23:40, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. But if you are really relying on what the founder of chiropractic said over 120 years ago to support your antichiropractic arguments, that's pretty sad. Look what MD's were doing 120 years ago. Can I cite that to discredit their profession? I suppose I could, but that would be pretty weak and I don't think I would sink that low.

"Antichiropractic arguments"??? This is history, and thus conforms to NPOV. You keep interjecting POV and revisionism. Why deny the history of chiropractic?

What do MDs have to do with it? Quit trying to change the subject. That's too old a chiropractic ploy. Come on with your life. -- Fyslee 00:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and yes 95 plus 5 does equal 100. But the article read's "subluxations are the cause of 100% of all diseases". Subluxation. Not "displaced joints". There's a difference. So it would seem that the correct number is "95" and not 100. That's a little second grade English for you. Levine2112 23:51, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

That's an interesting twist! Palmer was obviously using the generally accepted definition of the word, which is (partially) displaced joints. That the "chiropractic subluxation" has also been (and still is by some chiros) imbued with metaphysical qualities, is another matter. Palmer was using the normal definition of subluxation. English is my mother tongue, so I don't need a lesson on this particular point. As a PT, PA, and long time student of chiropractic, I can easily get Keating to back me up on this one, but I'll let you check with him. If you can get him to state that I'm wrong, then I'll have to dig up some of his own research on the subject.

Here are the key revision attempts:

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=34541932&oldid=34503778

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34541932

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34545717

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34549361

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34592883

current version, with corrections: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=next&oldid=34653974

-- Fyslee 23:54, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

and he dares to change it back again!: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Chiropractic&diff=34681334&oldid=34680025

If this keeps up, we have to get administration to block his IP address.

Levine, grow up. -- Fyslee 00:10, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Why all the Anti-Chiropractic Hate?

I am curious. Why do you hate chiropractic? Please be specific. I seriously want to know your grievances. Please list them here. Levine2112 23:57, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

No hate at all. Only skepticism of the quackery aspects of chiropractic. If you'll just stay honest and civil, we can have some interesting discussions here. If you continue getting nasty, you'll get nowhere, other than revealing the nasty side of your motives. -- Fyslee 00:13, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

The same goes for you. I fight fire with fire. Just my nature. You seem highly motivated to hurting the profession. There must be a reason. I just want to know why. Levine2112 00:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Where is the fire? You repeatedly attempted to improperly revise accurate information. I simply exposed your attempts and corrected them. You can stop anytime. -- Fyslee 00:18, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I say your information is not accurate and I show exactly why. Here's some fire: "Levine, grow up". Or "If this keeps up, we have to get administration to block his IP address." And "Come on with your life". And "a little second grade math". Now to be fair, I never got this personal until you did. I understand that Wiki has strict guideline against this and I will refrain from make furthere juvenile comments as it doesn't help what we are trying to do, which is create and honest non-biased article. Now please, answer my question... Why do you hate chiropractic? Levine2112 00:27, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I have answered it. I don't hate chiropractic. I oppose the quackery found in chiropractic. If you don't identify yourself with it, then you need not be defensive. That's all. I'm interested in accurate information, just as many chiropractors are. I get my information from them, and they agree with me. -- Fyslee 00:33, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

It has been settled on the "quackery" page that chiropractic is not considered "quackery". If you want to address the certain aspects of chiropractic that you deem to be quackery then please do it on a more specific page and not the general chiropractic article. The agreement is that "quackery" is a pejorative term. Using it incites anger. Using it to blindly label a profession is hateful and typically inaccurate. Levine2112 00:36, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

When I get some more time I'll have to take a look at it. I wrote about the quackery "in" chiropractic. That's not the same as labeling the whole profession quackery. There are very divided opinions on that subject.

The use of the word "quackery" certainly can be pejorative, but it also has legitimacy in many situations, and there will naturally be controversy in each case. That's life, and it doesn't detract from the legitimacy of the word, in fact the controversy just shows that it really does have legitimacy. Only the quacks will keep quacking.....;-) -- Fyslee 00:44, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm pretty happy with the "Chiropractic" article as it is. As long as the core scientific belief of the profession is there and most prominent - Removal of subluxations allows for better communication between the brain and all of the body's systems, thus promoting health. Levine2112 00:51, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

WP:3RR

Can you keep the argument on the talk page, please. Ta, Joe D (t) 00:52, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

95 or 100

You (Fyslee) are saying that there is no way of telling that Palmer made the distinction between subluxations and joint displacement in the quote. You are referring to this quote that you added to the article, right? - "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column". Clearly, he made a distinction, otherwise he would have said 100%, no? Levine2112 01:56, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine, you may be needlessly confusing the information; DD Palmer said that the cause of every disease (100%) is disrupted nerve supply, and this disrupted nerve supply is due 95% to spinal subluxations and 5% to other joints. I don't know how much clearer that could be. --CDN99 02:11, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then please reword this "the original chiropractic hypothesis that subluxations are the cause of 100% of all diseases". Because, as you said DD said that 100% of disease is caused by disrupted nerve supply...not subluxation. Is that clear? Levine2112 02:20, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Look up subluxation in a dictionary. From dictionary.com, the first definition is "Incomplete or partial dislocation of a bone in a joint." In other words, DD claimed that disease is due 95% to spinal dislocations (or subluxations), and due 5% to other dislocations (or subluxations), and that subluxations disrupted nerve supply, no matter where the subluxations were; thus DD did claim that disease was due 100% to subluxations (95% spinal, 5% other), and this is what Fyslee is saying in the section "During this time he tried to find a single cause for 100% of all diseases. He reached a point ....." --CDN99 02:34, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Then why the distinction the quote? "A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column".Levine2112 03:01, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

You know what? It doesn't even bother me that much. Leave it. NACM doesn't hold much water with anyone anyhow. Just yet another face of Stephen Barrett. Levine2112 03:04, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Levine, even though you've been here only two months, you must understand Wikipedia policy and guidelines, specifically those related to disruption, vandalism and good faith. In 2004/2005 a user highjacked the alternative medicine section of Wikipedia to promote his own website and ideas, and started countless edit wars with numerous users, including me. He was banned from editing for a year in spring 2005 (his third banishment), and we're still cleaning up his mess. I'm not saying that you're like him, just that you may be heading in the direction of arbitration, considering your edit history. --CDN99 04:15, 11 January 2006 (UTC)