Talk:Chiropractic

Archives
Mar 2003 to Apr 2004 Sep 2004 to Oct 2004 Feb 2005 to Jul 2005 Aug 2005 to Oct 2005 Nov 2005 to Dec 2005 Jan 2006 to Mar 2006

American Scientist study

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 Hence, the study is not peer reviewed.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

Magnet therapy

The article on chiropractic notes that DD Palmer was a magnetic therapist. This according to all evidence is a valid assertion. However, the article has a link to magnetic therapy. Unfortunately while these sound the same they are vastly different. Palmer appears to have been a student of Paul Caster. Mr. Caster taught magnetic therapy in the later part of the 20th century in the Midwest. This type of magnetic therapy had nothing to do with magnets and appeared to be related to Franz Mesmer's animal magnetism. The practitioner attempted to force their own animal magnetism into the patient and thus affect a cure.

Thus the link would be more appropriate to go to Mesmer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mesmer Or animal magnetism http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_magnetism

Here is a link to an article on Caster

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11619056&dopt=Abstract

Caster called himself a magnetic and that is probably why chiropractic ends similarly.

Smperle 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions

202.129.51.103 has twice made unexplained deletions of material that has earlier been a part of the article. The last edit summary stated:

• (also falsified, read talk page on double-blind studies and chiropractic)

This User hadn't written anything on the Talk page that seemed to apply, nor could I find it anywhere else. I would like to have a link to the mentioned content.

The word "falsified" was used in two edit summaries, but I wonder if the User is using the word properly. Here is a whole article on falsification, a concept originated by Karl Popper. If the User would explain in what sense the word was being used, then it might make more sense. Without any context it's hard to know for sure if it was being used correctly, or if the User doesn't understand the concept.

I invite 202.129.51.103 to explain what is meant by these edit summaries, and also to justify such sudden removals of the work of other editors, without any discussion or proper explanation here on the Talk page. -- Fyslee 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review

Peer-reviewed journal articles should be referenced. Not all journals were created equal. The article states: "There is some objective clinical data and peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the efficacy of certain therapeutic techniques used by chiropractors."

I think it is important to note that evidence for the effectiveness of the practice is not the same as evidence for the underlying theory or philosophy.

Responding to RfC by Fred-Chess

Hi.

First of all, I'd consider myself neutral in this question as I have no previous experience in this, have not written about this topic or read about it.

My impression of the "Critique"-part is: no offense, but I find it comparatively poor, although not negligible. Specifics:

• "The Chiropractic community maintains that serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine are extremely rare, being 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. This figure, which is based on over 40 years of chiropractic research and millions of cervical adjustments, is echoed by extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation. However in one other study, Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000. [27]."
  • This is not much of a critique of the topic. It should be integrated into another section in the article. 1 / 400,000 sounds harmless to me.
• Many parts read like trivia. It would be better to reference from the NCAHF Position Paper on Chiropractic than to just mention it. To quote from every conducted study might well expand and become incomprehensible.

Ok that's my input. Take it or leave it. Fred-Chess 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

1/400 000 sounds rare, but if 400 000 are done per year then that is one serious adverse outcome per year - do we have an idea of what the total number per year, or per year per million population or whatever, is? Midgley 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I'll clarify my opinions:

I don't think the critique sounds like anything. Is there nothing more serious to complain about?

1. The Norwegian study ( I read the web page references ) showed "Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement." -- so chiropractice is only slightly better?
2. 1/400,000 gets serious complications from chripractice. -- Aren't maltreatement in traditional health care far more common than that?
3. I did find the NCAHF paper interesting but it was so long, and this article does not mention anything therein.

Fred-Chess 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

intro

You may not like to admit there is pol and sci controversy, but the fact remains that such controversy exists. WP guidelines say that in that case we should point it out to the reader. What we are doing here is creating an encyclopedia, not arguing one way or the other whether we like chiro or not. Pls discuss before making more intro changes. Mccready 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I think the controversy is apparent in the article but is not one of the major tennants of the page nor chiropractic. Therefore it doens't belong in the first sentence. It's bad enough that the article jumps back-and-forth and in-and-out of opposing POVs. Stating it in the first sentence (one which is now a very basic definition of what chiropractic is) seems argumentative and the result of soapboxing. TheDoctorIsIn 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I am helping to create an encyclopedia. That the issue has had such high level attention in the courts and elsewhere is obvious evidence of controversy which I reader should know about up front. If you are accusing me of soapboxing I hope you can apologise. I look forward to your cooperation in removing all POV.Mccready 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry for accusing so quicky, but my accusations are proving more true with your recent edits...

You added the following to the portion before the intro: Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer who claimed he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance.

That doesn't belong in the general intro to the page but rather in the history section (where it is repeated). Thus I removed it for this intro. What was your purpose in adding this sentence there if not to cast chiropractic into a bad light in the opening of this article. You are asking to help make the page NPOV when you are demonstrating just the opposite. Clearly, you are adding the seance bit to make chiropractic seem ludicrous. I'm not trying to sweep the seanace bit under the rug, but is it really such a big tenet of chiropractic that it needs to be in the opening sentences? Hardly. As it is now, the opening is a clear definition of what chiropractic is. No POV at all. I think it is complete. Leave it be. TheDoctorIsIn 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your cooperation. The logic you use is not impregnable (ie if it's POV it's POV wherever it occurs in the article). If it does make Chiro look ludicrous then we must face that fact. However, for the moment I am prepared to compromise. Let us put "politically and scientifically controversial" up top. Thanks for agreeing (and polishing) my attempts to have one scientific section. I will work on it some more to try to find a mutually agreeable formulation. Mccready 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I still don't think pol and sci controversary needs to be mentioned in the opener. Sorry. It is not part of the main tenet, broad overview, nor even the definition. The rest of the article does a fine job of showing the contraversy. But contraversy does not define chiropractic. I must strike it again. Sorry. Be taht as it may, I would like to work together. TheDoctorIsIn 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're both in danger of violating 3R here so I'll refrain from editing it for today and leave it to your good judgement to make that decision for yourself. The "main tenet" is an encylopedic article about chiro - not the main tenet of chiro. This is an important distinction and one I urge you to consider. We both agree that the controversy is fundamental. Therefore what words would you suggest to convey this fundamental point? You may like to review the discussion elsewhere on this page before formulating your response. My preference, given the discussion elsewhere on the page is "politically and scientifically controversial" which I think you will agree is NPOV. Yes good to work with you too and I look forward to more cooperation. Mccready 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't think I am breaching the 3R rule so I shall revert it. It is a significant part of the whole article to indicate that chiropractic is controversial. Thus, to take it out of the introduction fails to indicate to the reader that there are many POVs about it. I'm not sure if it is politically controversial so I shall simply say 'scientific'. Maustrauser 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spinal subluxations are controversial. Writing in the opening sentence that the belief is that they exist and cause disease and that those diseases can be treated by adjusting them is NPOV. The current state asserts that spinal subluxations exist. I recall a randomised trial of xray interpretation in which chiropractors were unable to distingusih those spinal films which had been been used to diagnose subluxations to adjust from the controls that had not. Someone will provide the reference I don't doubt...

Manipulation fixes back pain in many people and is good enough empiric treatment, but the system of belief that underpins a claim to be a complete system of medicine is based on a poorly supported assumption which is hard to demonstrate. Midgley 13:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

There is enough scientific evidence to say that subluxation exist (see Maigne). However, that is regardless to this point. For this is an article about Chiropractic... not subluxation. Yes, it is clear now that Chiropractic does cause so contraversy. Lots of things do. Israel, penecilin, Paris Hilton... however, the contraversy doesn't define this things (sorry to reduce Paris to a thing). The current chiro article already points to the contraversy to a degree that is sufficient to let the reader know that the contraversy exists. Please leave it out of the topic sentence. 68.3.136.145 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the following message on User:TheDoctorIsIn page: There is little doubt that part of chiropractic's 'fame' is that some believe it works and others don't. Therefore, an important aspect of defining chiropractic is that it is controversial. Hence it is part of its definition within the introductory paragraph. What is your problem with that? It is a 'fact' that it is controversial. As you are a chiropractor you do not believe that it is controversial. As a scientist I believe that it is controversial. We encapsulate the two sides of the debate. By your continual removal of 'controversial' you are claiming that the modality is generally accepted when it isn't. This is not a neutral POV. I look forward to further discussions. Maustrauser 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

NPOV

May I draw editors' attention to the following NPOV guideline: "neutral point of view NPOV means, among other things, that a reader should walk away from an article with a clear sense of what the controversy is all about." Given there is no disagreement that chiro is controversial politically and scientifically, a good introduction would point this out. An introduction would ideally cover what, who, when, why in 100 words or less. What we are doing here is writing a helpful encyclopedia, not defending a position on chiro. Mccready 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

So why create a position by calling it controversial in the first sentence? I think Israel is so more controversial and yet its first sentence doesn't mention contraversy. I feel you are trying hard to insert your own POV slanted against chiropractic by continuing to add "contraversy" here. Leave it out of the first sentence. This is not an article about contraversy. This is an article about chiropractic. TheDoctorIsIn 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

History section

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

I will refrain from revert wars. Please consider the following and discuss each point separately so we can come to agreement.

"==History== Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer in Davenport, Iowa, USA. He said he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance.[2] [3] Palmer’s son, B. J. Palmer initiated research, development and promotion of chiropractic.

DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say 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. (From: Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.) The term chiropractic originated when Palmer asked a patient - Rev. Samuel Weed - to come up with a name from the Greek language to describe his practice. Among other terms Weed suggested combining the words chiros and praktikos (meaning "done by hand") to describe the adjustment of a vertebra in the spinal column.

Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation

Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.

Palmer’s account

Palmer says that in 1895 he was investigating the medical history of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years prior, he felt a pop in his back and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this as it was accomplished with an object in view and the expected result was obtained. [4]

Lillard’s account

Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures.

Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960s, it’s popularity is decreasing. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002. Chiropractic patients numbers dropped 25% from 1997 to 2002.

Mccready 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Science section

I have refrained from revert war. Please discuss this proposal item by item here so we can come to an agreement.

"==Science and chiropractic== - There is scientific agreement that an evidence based medicine framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential. Organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier publish such reviews.

For the following conditions the Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

• Asthma
• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• [http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002119.html Painful menstrual periods

For the following conditions Bandolier found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

• Migraine
• Chronic low back pain
• Menopausal symptoms

Mccready 07:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

There is already far too much info in this science section and I believe this entire article already exceeds the recommended page size. I don't know how reliable Cochrane is considering they state quite plainly on their site: "We make no representations and give no warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information." They don't seem credible in that resepect. I am not trying to squelch anti-chiro info from being posted. It just seems that the science section already has it in there...and then some. Adding more seems to me as though there is a clear anti-chiro agenda at work here rather than an agenda of creating an encyclopaedic article. The anti-chiro agenda is furthered by repeated attempts to add "controversy" to the opening sentence on this page, as if "controversy" surround chiropractic and is a defining element. It is not. I tried to appease the anti-chiros by including "controversy" in the latter Introduction section - where it is more apropos than the topic sentence. However, my attempts at a compromise didn't seem to work. But I'm trying. I am a chiropactic. McCready, just curious, what are you qualifications on this subject? TheDoctorIsIn 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Another problem with Cochrane is that these reports are about spinal manipulation... not chiropractic. Spinal manipulation is performed by all sorts practitioners other that chiropractors. The same goes for the VBA and strokes as a result of neck manipulation. How many of these 1-out-of-4-million strokes were caused by chiropractic adjustments and how many by another practioner who was less skillful than chiropractors? The report dating back to 1965 and covering millions of chiropractic adjustments found no accounts of strokes. But the reports that only cover general neck manipulation show the 1-out-of-4-million figure. I think that if the reference or research is not specifically about chiropractic spinal adjustments (manipulation) than it is irrelevant to this article.

There is a clear agenda at work here trying to turn this article into a biased piece against chiropractic. It needs to stop. What is the motivation? Is there that much chiropractic hate out there that people feel it neccessary to spend their time bashing it on WP? I am postulating that these people feel threatened for one reason or antoher. Maybe they fear losing patients. Maybe the fear having to face that the knowledge that they accepted as fact for so long is incorrect. Maybe it is laziness. I don't know, but I am continually astounded by detractors and the way they spend their time and energy spreading hate rather than love; doubt instead of curiosity; and promoting illness instead of health. TheDoctorIsIn 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you willingness to talk about the science section. Do I take it you are happy to have an EMB statement. I rechecked the cochrane references and I am afraid you are mistaken, each one discusses chiro. I agree the section needs to be shorter but in the meantime we need to agree on how to shorten it. Removing well referenced scientific material on the basis that the website it is posted on has a disclaimer is not IMHO the way to go. I look forward to your further discussion here before I begin to edit the section again. Mccready 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane is very credible and reliable. Osteopathy and Chiropractic articles would benefit from a cladogram showing where they split off from each other and the subgroups formed. The things that cause me disquiet about this are the origin with a single chap who decided that all disease came from one cause, and then that he could cure it by making movements that in bones that are variously claimed to be out of place (but in no way that can be demonstrated in blind trials of xray images) or that are not actually physical displacements but something more mystical. At this point we hear there is already too much science in the article, and that all of conventional medicine is untrue and causing harm not benefit. Credibility was mentioned... Midgley 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

History manipulation

I have removed the following sentence from the history section. "Writings from China and Greece written in 2700 B.C. and 1500 B.C. mention spinal manipulation and the maneuvering of the lower extremities to ease lower back pain." The source quoted does not mention China and does not assign these dates. In fact the source says "Chiropractic is 105 years old."

TheDoctorIsIn says on this talk page that manipulation is not the same as chiro. His logic is flawed if he then wants to claim manipulation as essential to the history of chiro. I don't think we can change the definition as will.

I would also like to remove the reference to Hippocrates. If you check the context (part 44 on the referenced translation) you will see Hippocrates was discussing succussion. What do you think, DoctorIsIn. Mccready 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No logic flaws. Spinal and bone manipulation were predecessors to chiropractor and thus part of its history. TheDoctorIsIn 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The logical flaw is to claim, as you incorectly did, that the Cochrane material referred to spinal manipulation and not to chiropractic and that therefore it wasn't relevant. ie your claim was that if it didn't mention chiro then it wasn't relevant. Now however you claim that any reference to spinal manipulation is part of the history of chiro. You can't have it both ways. Chiro was invented by Palmer who, unless you have evidence to the contrary did not base his arguments on succussion mentioned by Hippocrates. You have not addressed the issue of succussion. H was refering to it, not to chiro. I will amened the article accordingly until you provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the souce referenced did not support the claim. Again you have failed to address this crucial point. If the reference cannot support the claim, it is unverifiable and therefore according to WP policy, does not belong. Mccready 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

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

By your logic witch doctor bloodletting of the head should be included in an article on nureosurgery. Can you demonstrate where Palmer saw his lineage including Hippocrates. Until you do there is no justification for including it in the article. You have failed to address each item in my above post. Mccready 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversy in the articles topic sentence

Chiropractic's fame is not founded in contraversy. Chiropractic's fame is founded in its continued success. That something so noninvasive and simple could be the answer to so many health problems that humankind have sought to cure with everything from drugs to leeches to ingesting chemicals is how chiropractic derived its fame. That the solution to much disease was founded in optimizing the body's nervous system so the body could heal itself is how chiropractic became famous. The contraversy is merely a side-effect of people clutching onto their old way of thinking about health and the body. TheDoctorIsIn 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Controversial or hatred?

Very well said Doc. There isn't so much controversy, as there IS a lot of chiropractic-hating extremists. If an ex-psychiatrist, a few MDs and a PT are filled with enough chiropractic hatred to carve out a career actively taking part in things like preventing chiropractic schools from opening, creating multiple websites attacking chiropractic and recruiting others to add statements to Wikipedia so it appears that chiropractic is controversial, this doesn't make chiropractic controversial.

Millions of people utilize chiropractic care, MDs go to chiropractors and send their families as well as refer to chiropractic doctors, US Congress, states, countries, insurance, laws, licensing bodies, Olympic teams, athletes, committees, etc., etc., recognize chiropractic. So if it is OK with all of them and, of course, 75,000 DC's, doesn't this make chiropractic mainstream? Why isn't it OK with Maus and the others? If they have a vendetta or something, that still doesn't make chiropractic controversial, just because they say it is.

Steth 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you the first sentence would usually be a simple defn. I'd like to put the controversy in the second sentenc of the top Mccready 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The article is filled with the legal contraversy (Wilk) and the differing scienitific opinions. The introduction already mentions the controversary in the medical community. Adding it anywhere else would be overkill and would tip the scales of this article even more towards and anti-chiro POV than it already is. TheDoctorIsIn 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks guys, it would help to remain unemotional and objective here. We have all agreed it is controversial, the only question is whether it should go at the top. Argument saying no relies on the idea that it is not part of the defintion. Argument against this is that WP is not a dictionary. We are writing an article ABOUT chiro, not merely providing a dictionary definition. Once again, I will refrain from reverting until we sort this out. Looking foward to your answer. Mccready 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

This is certainly not a dictionary. You are right. But the first sentence of an encyclopaedic article can provide a broad definition of the topic before the rest of the article dissects the topic. And in a broad definition of the word, chiropractic shouldn't be characterized as "controversial". Adding that word provides unneccessary POV. Do a search for chiropractic in a dictionary - here I did one for you. There is no mention of this controversy. Why? Because a good dictionary doesn't provide POV... just a definition. Beyind the topic sentence of this article is another matter. But the first sentence should not have the word "controversial" in it just as it should say "amazing". TheDoctorIsIn 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Introductory sentence

The introductory sentence states: "Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a system of health care that is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease." "A system of health care" in this context obviously means something different than what appears in the Health care system article. I would like to know if this sentence should be changed, or if a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Thoughts? -AED 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Is there a general term that means the same as a service provided by doctors to promote health? Also, the Healthcare System article treats "Healthcare" as one word. On Chiro, we treat it as two words. Is this grammatically incorrect or does this provide the disambiguity that you are seeking? TheDoctorIsIn 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

Science section

There would have to be very strong reasons why non RCTs should go in the science section. The study reported said "Chiropractic office costs were higher for both acute and chronic patients (P < .01). When referrals were included, there were no significant differences in either group between provider types (P > .20)." The .2 figure is crucial here. Mccready 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A 2002 investigation supports that spinal manipulation may benefit patients afflicted with asthma. This was not a RCT study, no references are given in the study to check the assertions made, it is not a scientific study in any sense of the word. Where are the confidence intevals? Where are the footnotes? How can we check its verifiablity? In any case the cohrane work of 2006 supercedes. Mccready 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have gone to the trouble of reviewing each link:

• glaucoma - single case study proves nothing - the link says MAY
• Bell’s palsy - single case study proves nothing - the link says it's possible
• Allergy and Crohn's Disease - not double or even single blinded, not RCT - the link says "the possibility may be considered"
• infantile colic - "suggest a possible association" - not good enough, not proven, 2 case studies
• duodenal ulcer - control group not the same as trial group - you've got to be joking; in any case the "pilot" concluded "under discussion as a possible mechanism for the treatment effect." this is dangerous stuff. How can people rely on this to treat ulcer???
• PARKINSON'S DISEASE - case study again, but at least the author has the decency to say "No firm conclusion can be obtained from the results of one case."

These links are not science and don't belong in the science section unless to say that they are unscientific. May and possible are words that anyone can use. It MAY be POSSIBLE that the moon is made of green cheese. Without double blind RCT we are pretty much wasting our time trying to argue these studies are scientific. Mccready 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Mccready, I must say that you've done a good job of cleaning up this mess. I've been over this ground before without success, since the one who placed all those links has little understanding of what consitutes good scientific research. Discussion was a waste of time. If you will look in the archives at my analysis of the links to so-called research, you'll see his remarks immediately before, where he considers it good research. He and his supporters have repeatedly claimed this junk was proof for many weird chiropractic claims, but have failed to realize that those links only place chiropractic in a very bad light, since better research regarding manipulation (not adjustments) is available from non-chiropractic sources, but certainly not for such wild claims. If that is the best that chiropractic can come up with, what a pity. Such claims and attempts to "document" (sarcasm!) them should be buried out of sight, and many enlightened chiropractors will thank you for your efforts. Those links were an embarrassment! -- Fyslee 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Question for Mcready

Hello Mccready. I read your CV. My homepage Very interesting background. Was wondering why you harbor what appears to be tremendous animosity towards the chiropractic profession. What's behind this? Have you had personal experience with chiropractic? I would be interested in knowing what's behind it all. Thanks Steth 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular animosity at all to chiropractic. You need to show me a meta-analysis reporting well controlled double blind RCTs. This is the standard usually required in science. Looking forward to futher discussion. Mccready 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mccready. Have you had any personal experiences with chiropractic? Steth 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I wonder if you are thinking about attacking the man and not the argument here Steth? The fact that those sceptical of chiropractic are interested in the scientific evidence doesn't mean that they have had some dark experience with chiropractic in the past. I personally was sceptical of the claims made well before a close friend's spine was broken by a long practising and highly qualified chiropractor. But I know that a simple case study of a smashed spine proves nothing. Only double-blind random controlled trials prove things. And given the claims made by chiropractic, this is hardly much to ask. Mirasmus 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Something to ponder Miasmus. Being skeptical and asking for RCT's is one thing, but actively engaging in full-time chiropractic-hating extremism is certainly something else.

As for smashing someone's spine, I think you are prone to hyperbole. Likely it didn't happen, especially from a "long practising and highly qualified chiropractor." So why you added that is questionable.

Mcready's silence answers the question. He is here on a mission to ensure that this article paints chiropractic in as bad a light as possible. This is radically different than asking for RCT's.

He was probably recruited by someone who is also on a mission to do everything possible to damage chiropractic. Steth 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

You see, this is the value of case studies - NONE AT ALL. You claim that my friend's spine was not smashed and he didn't die six weeks later. I cannot prove it to you and you choose not to believe it. I could provide evidence to you in the form of press material from 1993 but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has such a pro-chiropractic stance. I am not pro or anti-chiropractic. I simply ask for the same evidence that every other medical claimant must provide to claim that their professed miracle cure works - randomized controlled double-blind trials. Why is that so difficult? Mirasmus 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

i am reporting user:steth for vandalism to the chiropractic article: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy. Mccready 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked, in depth, at User:Steth's edits, so I can't comment on any charge that he is vandalising the article. However, I should be clear that there are serious issues with the version of the article seen on the left here. I can't find any dictionary which refers to the subject of this article as a religion, and the phrase crank has the distinct smell of non-WP:NPOV. Certainly, if it can be properly sourced, a section of this article, or perhaps a separate article, could investigate the concents of this subject as a religion, but I cannot find a WP:RS that would support such a direction in this article at this point. Justen Deal 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmer himself calls it a religion. Isn't this sufficient? The definition of crank fits Palmer. If this doesn't meet your concerns I'd be pleased to discuss further. May I urge you to look at this in depth. We could welcome more independent editors on this page. Mccready

Chiropractic's dismal future outlook

Rand Baird analyses 20 predictions that have come true, all pointing downward:

Back to the Futurism of Chiropractic - Revisited -- by Rand Baird, DC, MPH, FICA, FICC

-- Fyslee 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Outlook dismal for NPOV too

And you feel the need to gleefully point out the above why? It won't help to create accord, build bridges and improve communication and agreement between editors/contributors. It won't help stop the revert wars.

So why post it at all? Is it to demonstrate further your biased agenda here? To me, this example only serves as more proof why NPOV is difficult (more likely, impossible) for you when it comes to chiropractic (and other non-traditional medical approaches.)

Posts like the one above indicate that you are still using Wikipedia as your free blog, behaviour which is clearly not Wikipedian. I think this is also a case of 'sour grapes'-type behaviour more fitting for a five-year-old child. That's why Mccready's heavy-handed tactics has gotten him branded as a 'Bad Boy'.

Kindly stop the chiropractic attacks and we will all get along just fine. Steth 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Revert War – Attempt at Resolution

Dear Editors of this page. Please do not bulk revert without discussing the following items. I will not edit again on this page for 24 hours, so you will have plenty of time to put some consideration to your work. User:Leifern says the indiscriminate bulk reversion is vandalism. In my revert, I have taken pains to examine each edit by looking carefully at the history page. I have also compromised by taking the claims for religion out of the introduction section (I have left in the statement about nerve compression, but I’m not sure it applies to NACM adherents.

If you revert in bulk you will be undoing my work and that of many editors. The issues you need to consider before reverting are:

No, if you don't want your edits reverted in bulk, don't mix good edits with borderline vandalism ones. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 1. Is chiro a religion - Palmer said so, why is that not enough? Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987).

Calling chiro a a religion in the first sentence, without any qualifications is confusing and misleading the reader. A paragraph stating "Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987)" would be probably be fine. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 2. Is Palmer a crank - check crank and explain if you disagree

From your point of view (maybe even mine) Palmer is a crank. Again calling someone, without any qualifications or reliable sources to back it up, a crack is in gross violation of WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 3. Is the section on Australian training OK
• 4. Whether the comments about chiros having rooms in malls belongs in an encyclopedia
• 5. Whether chiropractors should be called doctors in the article. I understand this term is only allowed in the United States, so we have to be careful to distinguish
• 6. The copy edit I have done to the US Bureau of Labor Outlook section. If you want to revert to the old version please say why my version is not clearer to the reader (the information content is the same)
• 7. Whether the warning by 62 neurosurgeons should be deleted – if so, why – it is not good enough to allege conspiracies of chiro haters.
• 8. In the legal history section whether at that stage of history chiros could call themselves doctors (I could be wrong and I hope you check before any bulk reverting)

Further areas in the article which need improvement:

• 1. Intro is biased against chiro – let’s just get the beliefs down and address the science later
• 2. History – the “chiro primerall72.pdf “ though biased in favour of chiro seems the best history available on the internet – does anyone know of a better one and shouldn’t we link this?. At the moment the history section is biased because it doesn’t show the attempts by some chiros since the 1975 conference to adopt a scientific framework. It doesn’t discuss the Alberta pediatricians campaign or the Rand Baird analysis either.
• 3. Provision of scientific proof of chiro - not isolated case studies by believers.
• 4. Future of chiropractic – the diminution of the profession as outlined for example by
• 5. should we expand on the history to note the hundreds of California chiropractors incarcerated for unlicensed practice prior to passage of the Chiropractic Act in 1922. (if someone has a link to this Act pls provide)
• 6. links to the history of medicine would be useful
• 7. The Lon Morgon quote needs a reference – whoever deleted it before may know.

For your information, I’ve also found the William T. Jarvis article “Why Chiropractic Is Controversial (1990)” inaccurate in reporting Wilk, though worth a read.

Please remember we are all here to create the best possible article taking into account all views and representing them as fairly as possible. I aim to gain you agreement soon to remove the NPOV tag. Once again if my edits are incorrect please correct them, don’t revert wholesale and don’t respond with vitriol. I have avoided saying so until now but I fully support any chiropractic within an evidence based framework and I deplore any conventional medicine which operates outside such a framework. Happy editing. Mccready 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

I generally would have a difficult time defining any of the reverts made to this article's page as "indiscriminate[ly] bulk," as that is a fairly arbitrary and subjective description, at best. Also, I would hesitate to accept the opinion of one Wikipedian, or even two, as consensus. For all intents and purposes, none of the reverts I've seen to this page, by any editor, yet fall into the category of vandalism. I, personally, would hesitate to deem anyone's edits (or reverts) vandalism, as it seems to stem from a lack of WP:FAITH.

Crank. All of that being said, I will continue to keep the article on my watchlist, and unless there is a consensus on this page otherwise, I will continue to revert any inclusion of the word crank in the article (within the limits of WP:3RR). From that very article: "Crank" (or kook, crackpot, or quack) is a pejorative term... Wikipedia is not a place for editors to determine who is a crank, kook, crackpot, or quack. That is up for our readers to determine that on their own.

Religion. Further, to date, the only sources I have seen defining this article as a religion don't seem to pass muster as WP:RS. The one (unreliable, IMO) document linked from this article, which claims to be a letter from the gentleman who created (is that the right word?) this "system of care" is not accurate today, insofar as what this "system of care" is today. Every definition I can find defines it as just that, again, a "system of care" -- not a religion. Certainly it seems reasonable to note, in an appropriate section in the article, that historically, chiropractic may have had some (apparently economic) interest in being defined as a religion. That is, if it can be reliable sourced.

I don't really have anything to say about your other points right now. I agree that the article has quite a ways to go, and, thus, as do the editors. I think this revert business is a bit on the ridiculous side, but, again, it isn't Wikipedia's place to define people or things in pejorative terms. I think we'll do well to stick to the facts, and in doing so, I think this article could well become a model article citizen here on Wikipedia in the process. Justen Deal 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Skeptical about Mccready's contrition

Well, based on Mccready’s return bulk revert vandalism and another whack in the head by the Admin, it would appear that Mcready hasn’t really changed much since his 24 hours in the ‘naughty chair”.

After reviewing the bulk reverts he made and his plea for understanding, he has certainly convinced me – he really is intent on turning Wikipedia into his soapbox to ensure that the topic of Chiropractic is portrayed in as negative a light as possible.

His edits are largely unacceptable and should be removed to restore this to a neutral informative article, not a personal blog/soapbox for his anti-chiropractic agenda and a link repository so donations can increase for his like-minded friends.

Hopefully the more than fair and neutral Admin will begin to do this. Thank you very much Steth 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Chiropractic is a religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer. It is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease.

If it were a religion there would be churches. Christian Science is a religion. It is alternative medicine. If it is a religion then it has a prophet or teacher, not a "crank". Fred Bauder 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Misuse of a citation

I have eliminated the very misleading section:

"Many doctors warn against the dangers of chiropractic. Sixty-two clinical neurologists issued a warning about the dangers of neck manipulation. The signers include private neurologists as well as chiefs of neurology departments of major teaching hospitals. Calling their concerns significant,..."

The head neurologist of SPONTADS, John Norris in Canada whose report this 'warning' was based on confessed under oath that he had nothing to base his findings on and couldn't remember how he arrived at them. In other words he made the whole thing up. He has since left his position and this unfortunate episode is now a permanent black mark on his record. This was in 2002 and the neurologists were threatened with legal action for this 'warning.' They have since distanced themselves from this false decree when they found that they were long on hate and short on facts.

Also the 'website' listed as a reference is yet another site owned by an ex-psychiatrist who has a long history of chiropractic antagonism and should be suspect and viewed as unreliable. Why hasn't he changed his site to reflect the true accuracy?

Admins should note: Other misleading statements about stroke should also be viewed with skepticism and eliminated from this article as should be any other uses of biased websites owned by individuals who flagrantly solicit donations when you visit. Wikipedia should not be used to increase the donation flow to private individuals.

John Norris's apology for knowingly making false statements under oath.

I have noted this before in the Talk section but Mccready seems to have overlooked this. I am sure it was just an oversight on his part and would expect him to be more careful in the future about including this. Thanks Steth 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I find that this citation from an organization called "Chiropractic is Safe" could be just as suspect and unreliable as your claim that chirobase is. I will revert your removal of the anti-chiropractic material. It seems that you are intent to remove anything remotely indicating that chiro is unsafe from this article. I think you have an almighty large barrow to push yourself. If you wish to balance out the your claimed bias in the article then put it in the text without removing large slabs of the controversy. Maustrauser 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. But I AM intent on removing things that are being misused such as a statement that is really false and POV and should not be included. Dr. Norris recanted his findings which the 'warning' was based on. This was widely reported. Do you have any citations to the contrary I would be happy to reveiw them? If you post them here, I will leave the warning in. Otherwise, I believe the paragraph in question should be removed. Thanks. Steth 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I can find no shortage of citations relating to the Norris study, such as http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1914 but nothing (other than from chiropractic newsletters) saying that Norris has recanted. You show me a citation showing that he has recanted his research from something other than a chiropractic newsletter or supporter of chiropractic. Perhaps the Canadian Journal of Medicine where the Norris research was first published, or perhaps a newspaper? If you can do that then I am happy to admit I am wrong and will happily delete the reference to the Norris research. Maustrauser 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Maustrauser in this and will, meantime, reinsert controversial in the top, having accepted the majority view re religion (though I must say that if you check the definition is fits). Mccready

Adding "controversial" to the introduction of the article does not have even a plurality of the support of the editors on this page, let alone a consensus in support. Until that time comes, and I think it won't, adding it back will simply be reverted. The reality is, it's an adjective (the word, controversial, that is)... Once more, our job here is to state the facts, in the article. If the facts support the notion that the subject of this article is controversial, then so be it. But again, whether they do or don't, it isn't our job to whack Wikipedia readers over the head with any of our particular beliefs. Justen Deal 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Justen Deal above, and with Maustrauser on Norris - I have searched and not found independent evidence that he has recanted, or that any other signatories have done soGleng 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

Alright, I will try to find a neutral reference where Norris recants his findings as proof. Then, in the interest of fairness, websites that still have the Norris study posted should also be viewed as unreliable and should also not be allowed here and deleted. Is that OK Justen, Gleng and Maus?Steth 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree, I don't think that websites are a good source for anything much anyway, and should generally be treated as unreliable, as they are likely to be there to propogate a particular viewpoint rather than objectively display evidence. However, of course they might be helpful in tracking reliable sourcesGleng 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

I partly agree. I think websites that are set up to be pro-chiro or anti-chiro are unacceptable as they are pushing a POV. Neutral websites that exist for the exploration of science and human knowledge (eg Nature, Scientific American, Cochrane Collaboration, New Scientist) and that are peer reviewed from experts outside the area of professed expertise, should be considered acceptable. The reason I can't accept blanket 'banning' of websites is that much research is simply published electronically now and no longer on paper. Maustrauser 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng. So is that OK with Maustrauser and Justen?

Steth 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensible people don't see chiropractic as controversial or dangerous, just ineffective and more expensive than a placebo needs to be. Millions of people swear by it and for them it seems to work. Fred Bauder 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

The blanket argument that websites are not a good source is absurd. Sorry Gareth. If you hold this view, what do you think of WP? How do you expect readers to view WP? Pleeease! As to Fred's argument, millions of people used to say the world was flat. I kinda like the idea that most humans aspire to be more than dumb suckers. And there is plenty of evidence for the dangers of chiro, not to mention the utter waste of human resources devoted to it. Mccready 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS is very sound advice. Websites vary massively, and judging their reliability is not always easy, though many are fine; certainly they are fine to cite as sources of opinion rather than fact. The general problem in citing them for fact is a) content on a website can change and so any citation is insecure and b) the status of the material cited is uncertain - exactly what is peer reviewed etc. So I would recommend references to peer-reviewed archived secondary sources, published in very reputable journals as the ideal source for potentially controversial statements about science. Where the evidence is strong and the consensus is there, there will be such sources, and if they can't be found it is a cause of concern. Obviously I think WP is great, but it is not itself authoratative (not yet at least), although at its best it cites authoritative sources. If a website posts as facts things that are demonstrably false, knowing them to be false, then I would consider it discredited. Websites that expect to be taken seriously should respect truth, even when inconvenient. Gleng 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Neurologist Norris

Hi Gang, Had a busy weekend. Anyone see the film, "V"? Very powerful, very interesting and different. I recommend it.

Wow, Mccready really let his anti-chiro bias show with statements about "the dangers of chiro" (Where? Compared to what?) His chiro-hatred really comes shining through, and he obviously hasn't learned anything from 24 hours in the naughty corner.

Anyway, I agree with Maustrauser that sites that are used as references on WP shouldn't be pro or anti-anything. So after sifting through the morass of chiro-hate spin websites from angry shrinks, acne docs and a PT, I will reference the transcripts directly to answer the Norris issue so we can delete the so-called neurologists'warning' and put this thing to rest and move on. Websites that cite the neurologists 'warning' or the Norris study without noting that he publicly acknowledged that he had no basis to draw any conclusions, do not meet the WP standards and should be deleted.

From Inquest Transcripts

"(John) Norris states that the Stroke Consortium lacks the knowledge about chiropractic manipulation, chiropractic science. There is no evidence-based data, no concrete scientific conclusions, to show that what a chiropractor does stretches the artery in such a way to cause a dissection." Ted Danson, testimony of May 16, 2002 from transcript of Lana Lewis Inquest, pp. 72-75.

Norris: (regarding SPONTADS), “So I think that it is an essentially hypothesisgenerating, interesting case series, but no more than that ... It is just that. So I think, well, I agree with Mr. Danson, it's irrelevant to this inquest.'" -- pp.27-28.

In response to the total patient size of SPONTADS study being 180, Norris replies: “It is a drop in the ointment. You can’t do a study based on figures like that. You need a large study to do it.” Transcript May 16, 2002, pp 156-157.

Responding to the questions as to how many manipulations are done in Canada and how many of them lead to Stroke – Norris: “I think probably until we get a collaborative study going, we really can’t answer these questions, and they are really very critical, I think.” May 16, 2002, pp 113-114

Responding to the question as to why he knowingly made public statements for which there was no scientific substantiation, Norris: “I can’t explain that to the jury. I’m sorry.” May 16, 2002, pp. 113-114.

Steth 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that Steth has made a good case that the warning from Canadian neurosurgeons is not really a reliable source for strong evidence, though it would be nice to be able to see the transcripts to check the full context.Gleng 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Sure is a bias Steth and it's called science. You have yet to show me a single large RCT that supports your belief. Your snide comments about being banned apply to yourself when you were blocked by the same trigger happy admin. And no I do not agree the case has been made for deleting the canadian material. We need to see the whole transcript and even then that leaves 91 other signatories does it not. Mccready 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Let's keep cool here. As far as I can see, the SPONTADS study is ongoing ad hasn't reported properly yet, until it does the jury is out. Norris and others may have jumped the gun with early data, and it seems that they might not have taken account of referral bias which might have exaggerated the effect of chiropractic. A group of 62 (not 92) Canadian neurosurgeons signed up to the warning, but the case they make is based on a few isolated case reports, and doesn't amount to compelling evidence, and I haven't heard widespread concern from other quarters like the AMA. The citation to this statement was from a strongly opinionated website. If this is the evidence for lack of safety of chiropractic, then it's not strong in my view. If it is unsafe, let's see the authoratative secondary sources in peer-reviewed reputable journals.Gleng 12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, I am sure Mcready that you can find the transcripts and read them for yourself. I have given you the references. Then after reading them, I guess you won't hate chiropractic anymore and will post neutral information, right? Steth 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

I'm reverting to Steth's version; it seems to me that the EBM side is covered in detail later, and the statement from Canadian neurologists is not sufficiently authoritative evidence to put up front, and it's reasonable to hold it back, at least pending discussion. There are separate sections on safety and scientific validity, and no need for overkill. Gleng 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleng and Steth reverts

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

1) I would resist any attempt to remove EBM - but this is extensively covered later in the article and just doesn't need to be in the lead. In the lead it is simply a judgemental statement; later it is backed by fact. 2) On the safely issue, I have looked at inquest reports, and looked for outcomes of the Canadian work. It certainly seems likely that Norris said nothing at the inquest that was taken as evidence that chiropractic was unsafe - at least nothing mentioned in the summing up. It seems to me now that yes, clearly many neurosurgeons are concerned about possible health risks - but also many do not think that there are serious health risks, and work with chiroprracters; so where is the evidence - let's cite that; find a peer-reviewed analysis of health risks, not a press statement that may have been rash. As far as I can see, the statement was triggered by early data that showed a high risk in patients who had been treated by chiropracters - but this may have been misleading because early recruitment to the study was biased by preferential recruitment of such cases to the study cohort (referral bias). I'm not saying suppress the facts, I am saying let's get unarguable facts. 3) Lon Morgan and religion. I don't know enough here to comment. Is this really germane to chiropractic? Perhaps the historical origins are mystical and fraudulent (and I'm not saying that they are), but the same might be argued for much of modern medical practice, and the sins of the fathers etc. History is interesting and relevant, but needs to be handled carefully to avoid guilt by association. Gleng 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Science belongs in the lead because it's in the article. That's wikipedia policy -see WP:LEAD. "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Show me neurosurgeons who work with chiropracters - sounds like propaganda to me. Happy to move it to history section if you can show neurosurgeons don't still have such concerns. I can't see how you can rewrite history to exculpate fraud and guilt if it's already present. Mccready 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the AMA, [[5]] "Manipulation has been shown to have a reasonably good degree of efficacy in ameliorating back pain, headache, and similar musculoskeletal complaints" and "In a national survey of referral patterns by board-certified family physicians and internists ... 47% said they would refer for chiropractic" I haven't found a direct and serious health warning from the AMA. I'm open on this, I just don't see hard evidence of health risks. Where is the evidence? Studies, not opinions. OK on the lead. As for history - no I just don't go along with this at all. Mendel's data were fraudulent, this doesn't taint modern genetics.Gleng 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's Reverts (29 March 2006)

(Originally posted by User:Newsmare to User_talk:Justen.)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I was aware. Justen Deal 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)" I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V. An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed... I don't. I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced. Certainly User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified. These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Wikipedia requires the statements be verifiable and reliable. So far, you, nor User:Mccready, nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article. I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself. That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

3rd warning on lead

To Steth, Justen and others who are in violation. This is your third and final warning on reverting the lead to remove mention of science. You are in violation of Wikipedia policy and this is a serious matter, not a mere content dispute (you have not objected to the content in the body of the article).

[Steth revert of lead] [Justen revert of lead]

The information, contrary to Justen's illfounded claim IS in the science section.

NO ONE has yet provided a souce (other than a chiro site) that says Norris retracted. I make the point again, even if he did, that leaves 60 signatories.

The puff on the olympic games needs to be encylopedic. Words preferred by early editors are do not fit that category

Finally, in order to remove the tag, which FACTS are disputed. Mccready 08:57, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Please do not remove the disputed tag until there is consensus on this page supporting its removal. Asking your fellow editors what their specific concerns are is a great first step, but it doesn't constitute consensus for removal (yet). Please add the tag back. Justen Deal 09:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I have searched Norris' articles on PubMed; he stresses the need for studies and evidence,(see PMID: 12195462), but does not clearly establish a link between chiropractic and stroke, and the citations in the statement do not clearly demonstrate a link. The warning is a warning - take care because there might be a link. Is there any evidence that it was taken seriously by authorities and acted on? Again, it looks to me as though the warning may have been premature, it arose from retrospective analysis, which is flawed by referral bias and other problems, and the prospective studies are not out yet. In any case, the statement does not constitute evidence of a health risk, only evidence of opinion by some that there might be a risk. Now lots of people see risks in lots of things, let's just stick to established links (the claims on health risks don't satisfy EBM standards). Gleng 10:12, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

No edits allowed by Mccready?

It seems that Mccready is not allowing any edits of any kind to take place here. Have others found this to be the case? Maybe he could explain why he has assumed a role of an administrator. ThanksSteth 14:36, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractors as "doctors"

I probably share some of Mcready's opinions on chiropractic, but when he states that chiropractors are only called "doctors" in the US, this is slightly misleading. See section 20 of the British Columbia Chiropractors Act. I believe most Canadian jurisdictions have similar laws (but I haven't checked).

Agreed, especially since many foreign doctors graduate in the U.S. (and Canada) with the Doctor of Chiropractic degree. Drdr1989 23:47, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Practice styles and schools of thought...

In reviewing all the articles and links in this extensive work, it occurs to me that the discussions relating to each section are being edited and re-edited by parties that must belong to either the so-called "straight" or "reform" POV's. Unfortunately, they aren't described until nearly the end of the piece. Perhaps if you were to move the information from the "Practice Styles and schools of thought" section that describes straight,mixer and reform to somewhere in the beginning (mabe even the intro), then instead of saying "chiropractors believe X", you can say "straight chiropractors believe X" or "reform chiropractors believe Y". That way, each of the POV's are described, and you don't have to keep deleting each other's hard work. The viewers can decide for themselves what they choose to believe. Believe it or not, some people will only choose scientifically based methods and some people will only choose faith based methods. You can't change that, just show each POV and let it stand. Can't wait to see the finished work. Who knows, maybe these discussions will eventually lead to a scientfically proven definition of the vertebral subluxation someday? Then we can work on proving whether or not there is a God? -- 69.132.57.10 03:31, 1 April 2006

Unfortunately, your assumption that there are two groups of chiropractors doing the editing is incorrect. There ARE two groups editing and re-editing here: One group is made up of chiropractors and those who are OK about chiropractic. The other group are those who are not chiropractors or doctors of any kind, but are very much anti-chiropractic and seem to be obsessed with a hatred of chiropractic.

So I believe it is best to leave the ‘Style of Practice’ just the way it is. Right now it is neat and organized in one area. Your suggestion would, I believe, only make this article more confusing for the reader. Steth 05:15, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic Doctors and Mccready's behaviour

Mccready, you slapped my wrist with the notation that chiropractors are only doctors in the US. Apparently, you were stating your opinion as fact since it has been pointed out to you by two other editors, that chiropractors are recognized as doctors in other countries as well, Canada for example. Also most chiropractors are trained in the US where they receive the D.C. degree and then go to other countries. This still doesn't seem to satisfy you.

You seem intent on A) only allowing edits that portray chiropractic negatively -- my opinion and B) monitoring my edits very closely and reverting them. Is there such a thing as a WikiStalker? In my opinion, this is very unWikipedian behaviour.

Has anyone else experienced this or have any thoughts on the subject? I would appreciate the feedback. Thanks Steth 12:05, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment regarding Mccready

I am seeking community input regarding the behaviour of Mccready and his attitude towards editors and their contributions to the Chiropractic article.

Discussions have been attempted in order to resolve disputes, but this has yielded no progress.

If other Wikipedians feel that Mccready has engaged in violations of Wikipedia's policies and guidelines, or has been unreasonable in his edits and reverts of your contributions despite presenting your rationale to him, kindly go to this page and record your comments:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Steth/RfC

Thank you Steth 15:29, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

RfC against User:Steth

I am beginning an RfC against this user for violation of WP:LEAD. This user's constant reverts removing mention of science from the introduction are in violation of policy. If you are concerned by Steth's behaviour and wish to contribute to this RfC please leave a message on his/her page trying to get him/her to desist from violating policy. The RfC page states in part:

"For disputes over user conduct, before requesting community comment, at least two people should have contacted the user on their talk page, or the talk pages involved in the dispute, and tried but failed to resolve the problem. Any RfC not accompanied by evidence showing that two users tried and failed to resolve the same dispute may be deleted after 48 hours. The evidence, preferably in the form of diffs, should not simply show the dispute itself, but should show attempts to find a resolution or compromise. The users certifying the dispute must be the same users who were involved in the attempt to resolve it.” Mccready 12:08, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

His/her reverts can be seen here:

• The most recent revert despite warnings and requests [6]
• This edit shows he/she is confused. This time he/she thinks chiro has same scientific basis as psychiatry and that both do not satisfy evidence based medicine. Blatant attempt to introduce POV. [7]
• This edit deleted the part of the lead he/she didn't like and asked for a source when it was already in the article as a complete section [8]
• This was another attempt to introduce POV re psychiatry. Confused again. [9]
• He/she deletes science entirely this time and asks for refs even though they are in the article [10]
• More POV claims about ALL non-allopathic medicine [11]

These six edits by [User:Steth] prove the point. He/she has violated WP:LEAD and should give an undertaking not to do so again. Mccready 12:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng's Suggested Changes

Well, it’s a start, Gleng. However, I don’t see the necessity of having the last sentence in the introductory paragraph. Not only is it a POV, but this is not what chiropractic is The first paragraph is a simple, clean statement of what chiropractic is, not what standards some people think it has or has not met. This POV statement should be deleted.

Also, the last sentence in the second paragraph should be removed as well. That chiropractic is controversial is certainly a biased, POV, who thinks that? Those who don’t like chiropractic? Duh. Chiropractic is recognized by the US Federal government, all states, Medicare, medical/car/work insurance, Olympic Committee, pro/amateur atheletes and teams, countries, courts, WHO, etc., etc. So it doesn’t seem to be controversial with them or the millions of people who use it. Today chiropractic is mainstream.

You see, adding statements like that, insinuate that something is controversial, making it seem that there is controversy. It may fly on hate-blogs and self-serving websites asking for donations to those who come across it, but it is certainly not worthy of and encyclopedic endeavour.

Science/evidence statements should be restricted to the ‘Science’ section. Steth 16:57, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng, that is an improvement. However, the last sentence in the very first paragraph still is a wide-sweeping POV that sets the tone of the whole article. I believe it should be removed per my suggestions previously. Steth 19:37, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Mccready has an honest and honourable point, that the Lead statement should serve as a summary of the article, and should observe that the article discusses the evidence for the efficacy of chiropractic. Equally, you have a point in that the opening paragraph should not appear to define an opinion, either pro ar anti. Mccready's statement is objective, but in context it appears to be judgemental, so this appearance needs to be modified, so that the factual content remains but without appearing to declare a conclusion. In any case it's not our job to draw conclusions, but to present the evidence and facts as honestly clearly and objectively as we can, and we are all trying to do that - I'm not preaching here, I know how tough it is. There are some articles in WP that I find sickening and think are appallingly biased and nasty, but I keep away from them because I don't trust my own NPOV when I feel too strongly. I don't think this article is bad, far from it. I would like to see the account of chiropractic expanded to explain the spectrum more fully, and then it would probably be apparent also that within the spectrum there is common ground with conventional medicine, even though there may be bitter controversy at the extreme. However, what do I know? Maybe I'm wrong. I'd suggest Steth that you develop the account of chiropractic in an objective way, (avoiding claims for efficacy and equally avoiding challenges to efficacy). Leave the science aside for a while, and maybe some of the steam will just evaporate when the article is fuller and richer in history and explanation of the practice. Certainly the wording of the lead should be considered, but omitting mention of the controversies isn't going to work. And there are controversies - but personally I don't regard the word controversial as perjorative, if you do then find a synonym without the overtone. In my area controversial = interesting. For what it's worth, I think that sanitising chiropractic will lead to an uniteresting article of zero credibility, equally damning it without appearing to allow a fair account will be counter productive. There is dissent and criticism about chiropractic within chiropractic - as there should be, which shows it isn't dogmatic and is evolving. Anyway, I hope you both stay with this and try to work together, it will be a more lively and interesting article for it. I've done too much here and so would like to leave, but good luckGleng 20:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

On lead; re Mccready. Strictly I don't think you can say that chiropractic doesn't meet EBM criteria, only that claims for its efficacy haven't been validated to these standards. On referrals, the AMA say that 47% in USA were willing to - this is many, not some, but I don't know how many actually do, so the wording is precise here. I know that in the UK some NHS doctors refer patients to trusted chiropractors for specific conditions.Gleng 08:59, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'm happy; many are willing (reference is AMA report cited later), how many actually do is not verified by me, if there is a source quantifying referrals it would be better to be precise somewhere in the text and reconsider many or someGleng 10:23, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, the last sentence, IMO, marginalizes chiropractic right from the start. Is it a logical conclusion that ONLY in the US do the medical folks refer to the chiropractic folks? Does this sound like an encyclopedic fact? Does this sound logical? Why would it be in anyway? You know, well-intentioned people might actually work together with others that they know and have confidence in. This is not a US thing, it is a human thing. It can happen in other countries, you know. Where there are chiropractic practitioners and medical practitioners, they might actually work together for the benefit of the patient. Are there studies? I don't know. Are there studies that show it doesn't happen? I don't know. So leave it out.

Why would you want to marginalize chiropractic? Steth 12:12, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't want to marginalise chiropractic, far from it, I know it's a very widely used and deserves to be treated with respect. I honestly do not know whether referral is common or rare. I know it happens, and I know that lots of medics are open to this. The statement is meant to reflect the fact that there is a spectrum of opinion within the medical profession, that some are very skeptical but others believe that chiropractic is useful. I suspect that it would be true to say that many are skeptical and that many are open or supportive of chiropractic for particular conditions. However I don't know. At present the article says what can be verified. Where there is dispute about what constitutes NPOV I think it's not a bad idea to proceed cautiously with verified information. I know there's a danger that a POV is implied even when it's not intended, let's work on the basis that we try to avoid thisGleng 13:19, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Still there seems to be a prepoderance of negative, anti-chiropractic spin running through this article. I believe this is very unencyclopedic and very unWikipedic. Statements that appear to be pro-chiropratic seem to have been added in response to the negative/spin statements. So now we have something not resembling neutral anymore, which is what Wikipedia is supposed to be about. Steth 15:25, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

OK, I don't like spin, if you mean dishonest indirect insinuation. However I'm happy with direct open statements where they can be verified. I really am open here; I think it is possible that chiropractic is an honeorable profession pursued mainly by honest intelligent people working sincerely in the best interests of their patients and with in some cases good results. I think it is also possible that chiropractic has a spectrum ranging at one end to venal and fraudulent quackery exploiting vulnerable patients sometimes at risk to their health, (there is a rogue fringe in any profession and there are some disgraceful doctors, but medicine is probably more closely regulated and tightly accountable than most professions). I think it is possible that most medical doctors think that chiropractic is at worst harmless and at best efficacious sometimes by suggestion and sometimes by real clinical benefit. I think it is also possible that many medical doctors are profoundly skeptical and have been badly influenced by the excesses of some. I think it is possible that this is an overreaction, and not informed by a real understanding of what most chiropractors do. What I think and what you think and what Mccready thinks is not the point though. For an interesting and useful encyclopedia article we need to state the facts as truthfully and honestly as we can, avoiding spin but also avoiding distortion. If facts make chiropractic look bad, they go in, so long as they are verified, authoratative and reasonably representative. If they are favorable, then similarly, they go in. But we try to give the facts, not select them to tell the story we want, nor spin them one way or the other. The reader has a right to know the facts and make up their own mind. To be honest, I think you are worrying too much; telling the whole truth sometimes means showing the skeletons as well as the trophies, and if you show the skeletons honestly then the trophies will have more credibility too. This topic is controversial, you can't escape it, but controversial does not mean dishonest and does not mean wrong. There's no need to lead the reader particularly, just explain.

Identify any bits of particular concern on Talk, but it might be even better to add text with verifiable sources, the article has plenty of scope. For instance, the worst thing I find about the article is that vertebral subluxation isn't explained in a credible way, so if anything is anti-chirpractic it is this. I know there is a controversy within chiropractic with some pressing for internal reform and accepting some of the criticisms about the science base - knowing about this would help to understand chiropractic as an evolving disciplineGleng 15:56, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

In the Chiropractic model of disease ...

Which are the diseases which are not caused by misalignment of the spine? My understanding was that the assertion was that these were the cause of all diseases. Midgley 13:05, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

From the article as it stands, the assertion ascribed to Chiropractic still appears to be that no causes for disease exist other than misaligned joints "DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say A subluxated vertebra . . . 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." 1910. Is that incorrect, as to the assertion on which it is based? If it is not incorrect, then it should be represented in the wording of the first paragraph of the article. "... cause of all diseases ..." or similar. If it is not a claim made by Chiropractic in general, now, then indicating when it changed is in order.Midgley 15:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The claim is a historical one, and still forms the foundation of chiropractic. Some chiropractors still hold this view, but such dinosaurs are extremely rare, mostly being represented by the F.A.C.E. group, and among members of the ICA and WCA (who have about the same number of members as the NACM - 2%. Even the ACA only has 15%.). Even among members of the ICA and WCA one would be hard pressed to find many that would make such a claim. They reluctantly must admit that there are other causes of disease, but they will still ridicule the germ theory, even now in 2006, and they still use "adjustments" as if the claim was 100% true. The NACM is the only group that has officially distanced itself from this claim.

Chiropractors have gradually been willing to openly admit doubts about the claim, but since it was heresy, it has only been in recent years that more and more have been able to do so without being sanctioned, either officially or privately. I doubt one could place a date on it. It has happened gradually, in tact with the fact that fundamentalists have been losing their absolute control. In 1963, when Samuel Homola wrote his classic - Bonesetting, Chiropractic, and Cultism - it cost him his membership in the ACA. They refused to accept his membership renewal. He finally was invited to join again in the 1990's. They were forced to acknowledge that his dire predictions had proven to be true, and that critics were needed.

Reform efforts do exist, but reformers must struggle hard because of the entrenchment of still-living dinosaurs of the Palmer type. Reformers still get criticized. We've seen a bit of this from some editors of this article. EBM gets lip service, while straight schools still exist, with Life in Marietta, Georgia refusing to teach differential diagnosis or allowing any diagnosis other than subluxations until quite recently (this century). Many chiros consider Sid Williams, the founder of Life, to be one of the biggest disasters the profession has ever had. He has single-handedly prevented chiropractic from progressing, and has educated more subluxation-based chiropractors that most of the other schools combined. It's incredible that at this late date in history so many chiropractors have received so defective an education. -- Fyslee 20:59, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting notions, but your opinions present more like conspiracy theories than facts. Fundamentalists, reformers? Religion may have played a part in 1895, but these terms aren't used today. I recall you posting things like this before.

From your links to yourself you provided on WP, it appears you are not a member of the profession or any other kind of doctor, and don't live in the US. So what credibility do you have in the area of the history of chiropractic in the US? Any particular motives to follow this so intently, as you have exhibited, and present your so-called view of the history of chiropratic? I would be curious to know, as I am sure others would also. ThanksSteth 12:07, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

So what else is new?! Yet another ad hominem attack from User:Steth, whose ignorance of the history of chiropractic is becoming more evident. Who I am (which I don't hide, unlike Steth), my profession, and where I live, have nothing to do with the credibility of information. If you have evidence showing that what I've written is wrong, please present it. Show us that you know something more about chiropractic. So far your repeated and consistent use of ad hominem attacks seems to be a poor covering of the less you have been offering. I'd like to see you start dealing with the issues, instead of attacking other editors:

WP:NPA:

Do not make personal attacks anywhere in Wikipedia. Comment on content, not on the contributor. Personal attacks will never help you make a point; they hurt the Wikipedia community and deter users from helping create a good encyclopedia.

-- Fyslee 12:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Alright, now no need to get defensive. I apologize if it came across as an 'attack'. I was merely trying to point out that when someone states things with such certainty, the source of the information should be considered. In your case you have stated elsewhere in Talk that you despise chiropractic, and you have added links to your grossly anti-chiropractic sites to articles, which I felt were self-serving and edited out in the spirit of neutrality. If you had just made public that you were a PT, well, no problem. But it was you who use Wikipedia to send visitors to your personal 'why I despise (your word) chiropractic' websites/blogs. So I take issue with you that your background/history has nothing to do with the credibility of your information.

In my opinion, these "issues" you mentioned have only become issues because several editors have, for some reason, a strong dislike for chiropractic, so their contributions are extremely colored by their anti-chiropractic beliefs. What happens then is that pro-chiropratic editors feel the need to balance the anti's and the whole thing becomes a revert war as has happened many times. Those who are neutral about the subject try to act as diplomats and appease both sides, but soon find it is impossible to do so and gracefully bow out, leaving us back to square one.

See what I mean? Your 'thots. Steth 14:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

EBM

Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the standards of evidence-based medicine (EBM), but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors. EBM is a relatively new and untried set of tenets touted by some medical authorities as a potential gold standard, either to bolster their own credibility or to further monopolize the field of medicine. Tried to npov the preceding intro passage. The intro is supposed to be about chiropractic, not about dubious initiatives by mainstream practitioners to prop up the sagging credibility of their orthodoxy while trying to cast aspersions upon alternative practitioners. The issue of scientific verifiability seems to belong, but not the dubious EBM verbiage that was previously in the intro. Ombudsman 03:12, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The article really ought to indicate when chiropractic was invented - it is relatively recent. One of the points of EBM is that the tenets are not new and untried, they derive from around 1600 and the Royal Society - empiricism rather than seances and religious leaders. Applying EBM as a deliberate and specific set of techniques and a movement dates from Cochrane et al. Midgley 15:04, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

The passage Ombudsman took out was this:-

"Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine, but many medical doctors are willing to refer their patients to properly qualified chiropractors."

I'm unconvinced that it asssists us to have it transmuted into the passage Om describes as his attempt to NPOV that, above here. In fact the result is nothing like neutral, even with a unique slant on it. I am sure it is more helpful to other editors to present removed material in its original state, along with proposals to discuss on how it should be changed. WP:SUG is worth looking at. Midgley 15:13, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

Why the need for a 'Warning' in the first paragraph

Sorry Fyslee, I should have consulted you before making the changes. Placing a 'warning' in the opening paragraph seems to be important to some editors here. I was wondering if Fyslee or others feel that since enough 'warnings' have been added in further paragraphs, perhaps it isn't needed in the opening paragraph. Considering, that this isn't found in other articles regarding health, I would like to see it removed. It just sounds too much like it is trying to cast aspersions on Chiropractic. Too much like a warning, see what I mean? Is it really necessary?

I was wondering if others felt the same way, before it is changed again. Thanks Steth 11:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I think that Steth has a fair point. If the lead was longer, and summarised the whole content of the article, then the disputed material would be properly in the lead. As it is, selection of this point to highlight in the lead implies that this is what the article is "about", when the article is not just about this but also explains the safety and practice and history of chropractic. In other words, the choice of the lead is strongly "editorialising" the content. So I would suggest either lengthening the lead, or else removing the sentence and simply inserting the word "controversial" appropriately. If the lead mentions no claims about efficacy, then criticisms of these claims is jumping the gun. Steth is not objecting to the Science section content, where there are verifiable sources in abundance, but only to the sort of insidious insertion of POV that makes it seem from the outset that the article is written from a particular POV. Nobody should want that. Gleng 12:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I basically agree with Gleng. I don't see any "warning" in the first paragraph, but the last sentence could be deleted and replaced with a very short sentence mentioning that chiropractic has a controversial history, without going into detail. The article could go into more detail, explaining the different ways it is controversial (both past and present) and presenting both sides of the controversies. I'm all for the inclusion of verifiable and factual information, both pro and con.

Let's try to formulate a sentence we can agree on. -- Fyslee 14:30, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested lead section

Original lead section::

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is a system of alternative medicine, founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using adjustments of the spine and sometimes other joints to correct "subluxations", which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of all disease. Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.

Proposed new lead section:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine, founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer. It was originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using "adjustments" of the spine and other joints to correct "subluxations," which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of many diseases. Chiropractic has been the subject of controversy and legal disputes since its inception.

Suggestions appreciated. -- Fyslee 20:12, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

The last sentence looks less POV to me, however, I wonder if supporters of chiropractic will take issue with the quotation marks around "adjustments" and "subluxations". -AED 22:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with AED. Not bad, but the the ending is still not very neutral. I agree that no warning is necessary. The only way to have a NPOV is not by adding a new warning, but by having NO warning. Why have a STOP-LIGHT when you first get started?? How about this:

Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

This is from The World Federation of Chiropractic. What do you think Gleng, Ombudsman? Steth 23:13, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't like it all. It sounds like it is a non-controversial, perfectly scientifically based health system. Which it isn't. I prefer Fyslee's earlier version. Maustrauser 12:27, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Now that's an incredible coincidence! Returning from holiday just when I made the change. What good luck! Almost like an alert was issued or something.

Maus, I think you are reading too much into it. It says in a factual, neutral way that chiropractic is 'concerned', which it is, and what the empahsis is on. Nothing about perfection. The rest of the article covers your 'concerns'

Unfortunately, the other version, IMO, sets too much of a POV tone.

I believe it should be changed back. Steth 15:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Steth my friend, a look at my editing history will show I haven't edited a thing for a whole week! No need to cast stones. Maustrauser 21:58, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

OK guys keep cool. For what it's worth, I'm tending to back Steth on this. My reasons are these; the article does not "set out" to discredit chiropractic, this is not its purpose in any sense, and if the lead implies that this is the purpose of the article then it should be corrected. Nobody wants a reader coming to this article to think that this is just an anti-chiropractic diatribe, that wouldn't be true, and it wouldn't be fair on the contributors who all of us in our own ways have tried to keep this NPOV. On the other hand, and for the same reason, the word controversial should appear in the lead; again this is not a 2bland2 article or an article endorsing chiropractic, but an honest account of it and of the differing views about it.

Look, I think we are surely close to getting rid of the POV tag, and we should really all want this; while the tag is there, it's an open licence to come and disrupt the careful work that has been done to build consensus. Try this:

"Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial."

-- Gleng 16:18, 8 April 2006

I understand your reasoning, Gleng. But, I still think that 'controversial' doesn't need to be in the lead. This is a POV. After reading the article a reader can draw their own conclusions. It has already been inserted many times in the article. We shouldn't be coloring their perception from the start.

Millions of people don't think it is controversial, and neither do the laws of US/Canada/Australia, fifty state governments/provinces/countries, Medicare, Car/work/auto insurance Olympic/pro/amateur sports teams/atheletes, not to mention MD's who go to chiropractors and send their families. So doesn't that make it more non-controversial than controversial? BTW, what health method has no controversy? Is that mentioned in the lead paragraphs of psychiatry, physical therapy, medicine, etc., etc.?

Steth 17:14, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

By this reasoning homeopathy isn't controversial. Millions of people don't think it is controversial, and the laws of the US protect it so much that it isn't required to even prove efficacy. (That it is the subject of much controversy is apparently irrelevant.....) Apparently being the subject of controversy is not the same as being controversial. -- Fyslee 20:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Again you're equating controversial with unsound, and I don't read that meaning at all. Controversial just means that there are strong opinions on both sides held by substantial numbers of people, and the article does explain these differences of opinion, as it has to to be credible; leave the controversy out and who would want to read the article or believe anything in it? If an article on psycho surgery has an important section discussing opposing views, then it would properly mention the controversy; I haven't looked at these articles but I would expect them to state that the treatments are controversial, and it doesn't mean that they aren't effective - ECT does seem to be very effective. In fact the article at present does not hammer the "controversial" line - the word only appears once outside the lead. I think you can relax Steth, but see what others think.Gleng 18:22, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

For a little confirmation of the controversial nature of chiropractic, especially on the inside, read this insightful article.[12] -- Fyslee 19:19, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Lead section: Synthesis

I think we need to take another look at the Wikipedia guidelines for lead sections:

"The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text be accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article."

In keeping with these guidelines, I basically support Gleng's proposal of adding the last sentence to the WFC version:

"Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial."

The sentence stimulates interest. If anything in it could be moderated, it could be the removal of the next to the last word - "very." (Even "very" is putting it mildly!) "Controversial" is an undeniable fact, not just a POV, and makes the lead interesting, and not bland (which it would be in the extreme without it). A removal of the mention of "controversial" would be like suppressing the fact that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. No other healthcare profession has such a controversial history. Small controversies happen in all professions, but chiropractic has always been characterized by internal and external controversy, both past, present, and future. That's not just a POV, but also a fact. The controversies surrounding this article and the tags on this talk page are ample proof of this fact.

As Gleng mentioned, "controversial" has nothing to do with the soundness of chiropractic. It has to do with the history of chiropractic. No reader of the article should be surprised to find mention of controversies in the article. The lead should prepare them for that fact. Following the Wikipedia guidelines above should ensure that that won't happen.

Above I wrote "basically" for a reason. The WFC version includes a very strong and manipulative POV: it deliberately avoids using the word "subluxation" (for the first time in history), yet retains the scientifically disputed assumptions of their supposed effects - "effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health."

Without the mention of subluxations, the description is actually more similar to a description of the Physical Therapy profession than of chiropractic. Since everything else about chiropractic is predicated on treatment of subluxations, this concept should be included in the lead section.

I propose a synthesis of the (1) existing lead, with the (2) WFC version, and the (3) last sentence proposed by Gleng:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

This synthesis retains the identifying and unique features that characterize chiropractic (philosophy, methods, and goals of treatment), while eliminating some of the more specific aspects in the current version, that can be left for the contents to explain. It contains no negative or judgmental POV, and is entirely factual. -- Fyslee 19:48, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

I am quite happy with your suggestion Fyslee. Maustrauser 21:59, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Recent proposals for lead section

1) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

• Overall, I like this suggestion but think it might be more accurate if "alternative" (not in quotes) preceded "health profession". With that adjective, I think I would be fine leaving out mention of controversy in the lead (because alternative medicine will be interpreted as controversial by some anyway) as long as the controversial aspects of chiropractic are addressed in the body of the article. -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

2) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment. Some aspects of chiropractic are very controversial.

• Would striking the last sentence and adding "alternative" (not in quotes) in front of "health profession" be acceptable to Steth? -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

3) Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial.

• I like the incorporation of "alternative medicince", but like the two above a little better. "System of alternative medicine" is unclear to me, and chiropractic is a health profession. -AED 21:08, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all the input. I would go with AED's suggestion as it seems to make the most sense.

1) Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

Adding 'alternative' is not necessary, since it is not really an alternative to medicine, but distinctly different. Just stating it is a health profession is neutral and adequate without coloring the reader's perception. So AED's suggestion above seems fair, accurate and neutral and would work for me. Steth 21:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

This version is unsatisfactory, as it is the unchanged WFC version. It is a deceptive spin-doctored POV definition, which hides the real character of chiropractic in order to make it seem mainstream. (The WFC is just doing its job....) The only part that is uniquely chiropractic mentions the scientifically disputed effects always attributed to subluxations, which are claimed to affect "the function of the nervous system and general health." Such a statement, being disputed, cannot stand alone without a disclaimer or qualifiers to help maintain NPOV, which I feel should be reserved for the body of the article. It should be possible to keep the lead section free of disclaimers and qualifiers. Statements of fact should be enough.

The lead should include several facts:

Scope of practice: primarily diagnosis, prevention, and treatment of the musculoskeletal system

Place in the healthcare spectrum: not just "alternative," but more precisely "CAM" (all classifications list chiropractic in this way, including chiropractic and governmental sources)

Methods of treatment: emphasis on manipulation / adjustments

Reasons for treatment: correction of subluxations

Historical development, as well as relation to law, science, and other professions: controversial, both internally and externally

The expression "manipulation of the spine to correct a subluxation" (with emphasis on "to correct a subluxation") is uniquely chiropractic. It is the legal and philosophical foundation upon which the chiropractic profession has always been built.

No subluxations, no chiropractic. Without subluxations chiropractic has no foundation or uniqueness and thus no right to exist. To give up subluxations would be professional and intellectual suicide. Chiropractic has not dropped its belief in subluxations. It only downplays them in public statements for public relations purposes.

My original version:

Chiropractic is a system of alternative medicine primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Modified version, taking into account some of AED's suggestions:

Chiropractic is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health profession primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Here are a few comments on this proposed wording:

1. Chiropractic claims that subluxations have "effects ... on the function of the nervous system and general health." Since this claim is disputed by anatomists and physiologists, it would best be left out of the lead section, but can be dealt with in the article. False or disputed claims shouldn't be allowed to stand unopposed in the lead section. The part that is included is accurate enough (although incomplete): "...primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system." The inclusion of the word "primarily" indicates to the observant reader that there is more to the picture than meets the eye.....;-)

2. Chiropractic also claims that subluxations affect other conditions than the musculoskeletal system, including diseases in the inner organs, and many other conditions. These are likewise undocumented and disputed, and can be dealt with in the article.

3. The use of the word "emphasizes" (the use of manipulation....) is a signal to the observant reader that manipulation is the method of choice which is always used, in addition to other methods. Those methods can also be mentioned in the article.

4. CAM is better than "alternative." Either word can work as a red flag or a positive endorsement, depending on one's POV. They are basically neutral, the interpretation depending on the POV of the eyes of the beholder.

5. I have deleted the word "very" from the last sentence. "Some" is accurate and neutral enough.

Proposed:

Chiropractic is a Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) health profession primarily concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system. It emphasizes the use of manipulation - termed "adjustments" - of the spine and other joints to correct subluxations. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial."

Fyslee 23:20, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

RE: "Adding 'alternative' is not necessary, since it is not really an alternative to medicine, but distinctly different. Just stating it is a health profession is neutral and adequate without coloring the reader's perception. So AED's suggestion above seems fair, accurate and neutral and would work for me." I just wanted to clarify that version #1 with the mention of "alternative" is my suggestion. If "alternative" is left out of version #1, then I agree that "Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial" should be added per Gleng's suggestion. -AED 23:52, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fyslee for your exhaustive analysis on the controversy of chiropractic. Of course I take issue that, as you state: “No other healthcare profession has such a controversial history.” “That's not just a POV, but also a fact.” Well there you go again, passing off your opinion as fact.

A few that come to mind of course that beat chiropractic hands-down is psychiatry: frontal lobotomies, Electro-convulsive therapy, giving the big thumbs-up to Hitler's ideas to help the Holocaust be such a big hit. How about medicine: HRT, The Tuskegee Syphilis Experiment, endorsement of smoking, 700,000 deaths each year from errors Death by Medicine, etc., etc., etc., Anyway, you get the picture.

Compared to medicine, I believe that chiropractic is one of the least controversial professions.

You write "I believe...." Yes, that sentence is interesting. It reveals a simple fact of human nature that affects all of us, myself included. We do not consider something controversial if we agree with that viewpoint. Very natural. Now, since this article must not be written exclusively from the chiropractic POV, we must step back and look at the big picture, which includes viewpoints outside of chiropractic. That larger picture reveals much controversy about chiropractic (and to those who know it from the inside, there is much controversy on the inside as well). So chiropractic is controversial, even if one doesn't personally think so. That fact needs to be represented in the article, since it must represent all POV. -- Fyslee 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

It seems that the more anti-chiropractic sites and blogs one participates in, the more one believes that chiropractic is controversial. All spin-doctoring, doncha know. Say it enough times....

Contrary to Fyslee's assertion that adding controversy would stimulate interest, stimulating interest through POV is not how it is done at Wikipedia. Chiropractic is a health profession, so just stating it is a health profession is a simple matter of fact (and courtesy). This is what it is concerned with, plain and simple. What's the issue? Manual treatments, etc. are the methods. It doesn't get any easier than that. You guys are reading WAY too much into this and spending WAY too much time on one paragraph.

So this is nice and neutral. It doesn't assault the senses:

Chiropractic is a health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system, and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health. There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulation or adjustment.

Is it possible to have a paragraph in this article not sprayed with the smell of anti-chiropractic POV by so-called experts in despising chiropractic?? Steth 05:16, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

More personal attacks by Steth. -- Fyslee 21:13, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm willing to bend a little. I will accept that lead provided that the article addresses what the skeptics believe to be the more controversial aspects of the profession and underlying theory. -AED 05:37, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Well OK then. I believe the article certainly already addresses what skeptics believe is controversial. Steth 05:50, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fyslee, Gleng: I would encourage you to accept Steth's lead. The section entitled "Introduction" can be used to touch on some of the other points (i.e. that some aspects of chiropractic are controversial, etc.). What say you, Steth? -AED 06:00, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Fine with me. You know I'm easy. Steth 13:01, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

My objections still stand. Nothing has changed, except that Steth's repeated proposal for an unchanged WFC lead has been met by adopting it without any change.

That lead is too generic and unspecific. It contains little if anything to distinguish it from Physical Therapy, and leaves out many uniquely distinguishing features that define chiropractic. I listed a number of points above that should be included, and which are not included. Anyone finding this article will not learn anything uniquely chiropractic from that lead, and the lead violates the Wikipedia policy for lead statements, as quoted above. It does not cover the subject matter of the article. It cannot stand alone as a mini-representation of the article. It should. Chiropractic's place in the spectrum of healthcare professions is not identified (CAM), it is not indicated it's unique

Now that the uniquely identifying features are moved to the article, you can bet that Steth and other editors will begin working to eliminate those with which they disagree (using accusations of POV, and forgetting that they are exercising their own POV). That process which he and others have been engaged in is continuing with the "recommendation" (demand) below. If one expresses even a bit of doubt, Steth will just delete Morgan's excellent quote himself. Steth apparently believes in Innate Intelligence and wishes to make sure that no one discovers that there are more and more chiropractors who don't believe this metaphysical nonsense.

The religious section has already been removed [13] by Gleng. It surprises me that this user would help the efforts of chiropractic revisionism.

It was also surprising to see that the tag was removed without discussion. Removal should have been discussed before doing it. As long as the antagonism and removals of factual material that Steth doesn't like goes on, it should remain in place. When he and other subluxationist editors start allowing both sides of the story to be told, without deleting factual material (even removing solid scientific references), then we can begin discussing removal of the tag. We need to see some evidence of good faith from these editors. I have allowed plenty of pro-chiropractic stuff that was documented and verifiable, only editing (and usually only commenting) outright undocumented nonsense. I have no problem with pro-chiro stuff that isn't soapboxing and unscientific. I would like to see that same attitude from the other side. He claims to be "easy." Yes, as long as he's getting his way, and he's even getting help from unexpected quarters! Very disappointing. Without watchdogs this article will become another chiropractic "education" piece, representing only one side of the story. -- Fyslee 20:02, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry that my contributions and ideas to better this article are not always in agreement with yours. -AED 21:24, 11 April 2006 (UTC)edited 22:41, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't expect them to be. Actually your ideas and edits are often excellent. I was just voicing my frustration about the whole situation, not with your edits in general. Sorry about that. The article will be better if more editors have their input, so I appreciate that you are here. Now if this article was about eyesight....;-) (Maybe it is, because you may see more clearly right now!) -- Fyslee 22:57, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Dear AED: My deepest apologies for offending you. I have the utmost respect for your editorship here at Wikipedia, and was just frustrated. I had been away for awhile and came back to find a number of changes had been made. It surprised me that the discussions and attempts at reaching consensus hadn't continued and was disappointed, and I let my frustration go out over you. Please forgive me. (I have expunged my offending remark above.) -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Well said and seconded, AED.

Wow, Fyslee, attack me why don’t you! "Intense struggle" "warning of what's going on" "Innatist, subluxationist, revisionist", oh my! Are you nuts? You are the only one who uses these terms.

I didn’t bring up changing the ‘Religion’ section, I only seconded the idea, since chiropractic is not a religion, except in your view. I asked for opinions regarding Lon Morgan, yet didn’t remove it although I believe it should be removed. I had nothing to do with removal of a tag.

Strawman attack .... -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

So might as well attack the messenger, why don’t you!? These sort of attacks are unnecessary here. I am trying to maintain some semblance of NPOV. You seem to be getting quite emotional about this.

What is your agenda here? Surely it can’t be to maintain a neutral article. I am of course basing this on your history, past additions and deletions, your “internet responsibilities” of severely anti-chiropractic attitudes. I don’t see how you can claim to have a NPOV and expect us to believe you with this background!

Strawman attack .... -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Clearly you are the one who is having trouble with neutrality. It seems that you have created attacks and animosity with several other Wikipedians already. Have you noticed that you don’t play well with others? Are we just more targets for you to add to your “list”.

How many links to sites owned by a certain anti-everything that is not drugs, ex-psychiatrist that you work closely with and webmaster for, have you peppered Wikipedia with lately?

Strawman attack again. Ad hominem attack too. I haven't posted any links to my knowledge lately. Even if I had, so what! Accurate information is hard to find on some of these subjects. Instead of resorting to ad hominem attacks, how about proving your accusations of inaccuracy. You haven't even attempted doing that yet. What you do is find and delete every single link to anything by Dr. Barrett, only because it's Barrett. That is not legitimate. Links with well-referenced and good information from highly respected websites should be used. His websites are only disrepected by quacks and their supporters. Governments, organizations, universities, professors, medical schools, and professionals in all walks of life who deal with the subjects of quackery and healthfraud use and commend his sites. They have received numerous awards. If you can find anything inaccurate, I would like to see it and I'll try to get him to revise it. I know his email address and can, just as easily as you can, write to him. Let's see what you've got of real problems, instead of repeatedly hearing your ad hominem attacks. -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

I am sorry if my views/edits don’t agree with yours. Fyslee, have you considered that you are too involved in chiropractic? Considering your very active participation and public despising” of chiropractic through your blogs and websites (you provided the links at WP), I think it would be appropriate that you recuse yourself from this article due to your severe anti-chiropractic bias. You are just hindering progress, IMO. Steth 03:17, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

BTW, if anyone would like to start a RfC on Fsylee, let me know. I would be happy to sign-on. Steth 03:21, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Hey calm down chaps. Your last line sounds like a threat Steth:

From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment#User-conduct_RfC: RfCs which are brought solely to harass or subdue an adversary are highly frowned upon by the community...Filing an RfC is therefore not a step to be taken lightly or in haste. Maustrauser 04:43, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

This isn't the first time Steth has done this. See: User:Steth/RfC. Here's my comment:

Comment: User:Steth is being very hypocritical here. Of all people, his personal attacks and comments have been very unpleasant and aggressive. A quick look at his edit summaries reveals a very POV agenda. The rest of us (who aren't perfect either) have simply tried to deal with things, while he/she pretends to be some kind of angel and runs for help. He seems to be unable to recognize that he himself has a POV that needs balancing. One shouldn't cast stones when one lives in a glass house. This kind of thing (Rfc) is necessary, but should not be initiated by someone so guilty of doing the same things he accuses others of doing. -- Fyslee 20:01, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

His hypocrisy is quite amazing. Somehow his POV is "neutral," but other POV are violations of NPOV....! He's no angel when it comes to personal attacks and shouldn't be pointing fingers. The rest of us just try to work things out right here, while he attempts to get outside help. -- Fyslee 20:47, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Chiropractic education, licensing, and regulation

Currently states: In the United States of America chiropractors receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and are referred to as "doctor" and are licensed in all jurisdictions.

Suggested change: In the United States, graduates of chiropractic school receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.), are referred to as "doctor", and are eligible to seek licensure in all jurisdictions.

Reasoning: 1) "United States" should be sufficient. 2) A student of chiropractic isn't a chiropractor until he or she graduates and receives his or her degree. 3) A chiropractor isn't automatically licensed in any jurisdiction - examination and licensure is needed first, I believe. Objections to this change? -AED 22:33, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Having received no objections, I'm going to make this change. -AED 05:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

trouble with a link..

Fyslee - I'm having trouble with the new citation link for Lillard's account (James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America)[8]? I get the 23 pages but page 7 is missing and no mention of Lillard. It could be me, but if not, maybe you can fix it. Otherwise I'll look elsewhere for the source. Thanks!

I don't know what's happened to that link, so I've found another one that is verifiable. -- Fyslee 19:39, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Section entitled "Introduction"

It seems that we may be coming close to an agreement on the lead section. Are there suggestions for the section entitled "Introduction"? I would like to see some version of the following sentences included in that section:

1. Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by Daniel David Palmer, originally based on the belief that all health problems can be prevented and treated using adjustments of the spine and sometimes other joints to correct "subluxations", which a small proportion of chiropractors still say are the cause of all disease.Moved to "Introduction".-AED 18:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
2. Some aspects of chiropractic are controversial.
3. Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine.

I am very much open to changes in wording. -AED 06:12, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm happy to leave it to you; I've said my piece, I think controversial is an honest and factual statement without prejudgement, but if it's not in I won't think the alead is POV necessarily. On the issue of whether it is controversial - I did a bit of searching for surveys of medical attitudes to chiropractic. There are plenty of doctors who say that they are willing to refer patients to chiropractors - not a majority, but a lot. However there are also surveys out there that indicate that slightly more doctors think that chiropractic is more likely to do harm than good than think the reverse. So it seems to me that there is no consensus in the medical professsion- there are some who think it is beneficial, some who think it is harmful, and probably the jury is out for most. In my book this makes it controversial; the verdict could go one way or the other in time. Now it's not our job to arbitrate about who is right here, we're not the judges. We just give the facts and information as best we can. We can do that, I think, the lead shouldn't express an opinion - I don't think "controversial" is really opinion, but if its a word with negative connotations then maybe it's better avoided, it doesn't have those connotations for meGleng 12:09, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Section entitled "Claims for chiropractic religious status"

Innate intelligence is mentioned in the article prior to this section. I cannot see how this section adds anything to the article or is necessary. Can we have some more discussion on whether this should stay or go? -AED 07:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It needs expanding to say that Palmer also used the claim of religious status to avoid prosecution and jail - he was jailed in the 1920's from memory for violations of medical legislation. Mccready 08:13, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The section on religious status detracts from the article. Its length elevates its importance, while it is only a footnote in history. It can be mentioned in a sentence elsewhere, but serves no basis since chiropractic is not a religion.

The entire section on religious status should go. The article is already too long. Steth 14:43, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but the first quote should stay and be put in the History section; my main problem with the other quotes is that I have no idea what they are saying, and a quote that needs extensive explanation probably isn't the best quote to choose. The origins of chiropractic are clearly mystical, and properly part of history; having a separate section for religious claims suggests that this is a current rather than a historical issueGleng 15:08, 9 April 2006 (UTC) 14:55, 9 April 2006 (UTC) OK, understand a bit better now, I see the point of the quotes but if they are kept they should be integrated with the rest of the text better, in context.Gleng 17:11, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree that an entire section is not warranted. If innate intelligence is no longer part of the chiropractic mainstream, should that be mentioned in the "Chiropractic subluxation" section? - AED 17:56, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

About 80% of chiropractors ("mainstream," "majority," call it what you will....) are not members of any national organization. The ACA only has about 15,000 members, and the ICA, WCA, and NACM make up the other 5%.) The WCA and ICA are openly subluxationist and innatist, and many of the 80% are as well. Some ACA members are as well. Innate Intelligence and subluxationism are very much alive and well in the mainstream. Many of the best selling CED seminars are subluxationist propaganda, marketing machines, while ACA seminars have few participants. Please do not aid revisionist efforts here. This side of the story needs to be told, not only from a historical perspective, but as a warning of what's going on now. There is an intense struggle going on between an enlightened few and the masses. Steth and his cohorts here seem to represent the masses, and would love to see this side of the story buried. They thus attempt to use Wikipedia to give support to the "old" viewpoints. -- Fyslee 20:25, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Tag gone, please justify its replacement

OK, I've kept the two key quotes but moved them to relevant places in the text. Hope this is OK. I've removed the tag - if anyone wants to replace the tag, please do so with very specific statement on the talk page about exactly what is seriously POV, or factually inaccurate, and needs specific attentionGleng 17:40, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

It surprises me to see that the tag was removed without discussion. Removal should have been discussed before doing it. It should also remain in place as long as the unsatisfactory lead section is in place.

It should also remain in place as long as the antagonism and removals of factual material that Steth doesn't like goes on. When he and other subluxationist editors start allowing both sides of the story to be told, without deleting factual material (even removing solid scientific references), then we can begin discussing removal of the tag. (see my comments above. [14]) -- Fyslee 20:06, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Current opening section does not reflect the underlying basis of the disciplines

I write disciplines, since it is clear that the article now asserts there are at least two varieties of people practicing as chiropractors - the old school ones (a minority, no need to worry aboutt hem, nobody believes their view ...?) who hold that all disease comes from "misalignments" in joints, and all disease can be cured by manipulating these invisible subluxations... and a second and new lot who say that they just bend bones to have an effect on the musculoskeletal system and whatever is connected to it.

It won't do.

Midgley 22:16, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggested deletion

I would like to propose the deletion of the "opinion" of a Lon Morgan, D.C. under the section entitled 'Chiropractic subluxation'. It is just that, an opinion. His article is an opinion piece, expressing his thoughts. Wikipedia is not an appropriate place to showcase opinions. There are opinions to the opposite, so who is right? Wikipedia articles are not the place for philosophical debates. Thanks. Steth 23:07, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, I feel that an "Opinion" is not appropriate for the encyclopedic nature of Wikipedia, so I recommend deleting it and will do so, unless there are convincing reasons not to. Thanks, Steth 11:39, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

Describing it as an opinion isn't really helpful (to me in working out whether it should be in tehre or not). More useful would be an indication of why it was put in there - and of whether the publication in which (it is a verifiable fact that) he wrote that is a reliable source. As an opinion of one fraction of the group of people doing Chiropractic, it looks like an illustration that they are divided into those who harbour the original fantasy and those who have pragmatically and empirically added a collection of idas that allow them to actually diagnoses and treat some condtions - and to avoid "treating" the untreatable and send it to someone who can do soemthing for the patient. The extent to which that debate is being resolved,and the basis of the people's practice established as sound and on reproducible findings linked to a real model of the universe is the extent to which a profession of chiropractic is on th way to being established. I suspect you'll find when and if it is that there already is one in that space, but reinventing wheels has never been prevented. Midgley 12:09, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

:: This quote should stay. It was published by a chiropractor in a chiropractic journal! Why is it unacceptable? I hazard to suggest that most of the case studies quoted in the chiro journals are simply opinion and yet they seem to be acceptable. If we are only going to include RCT scientific trials then I would agree with you, but we don't and therefore his opinion is perfectly valid and demonstrates the range of views on chiro even within the chiropractic community. I believe it should stay. Maustrauser 12:14, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I saw the quote as illustrating that chiropractic had moved on from its mystical origins to engage in a thoughtful and critical self-evaluating debate. Gleng 18:45, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Again, my thoughts on this mirror Gleng's. The idea in the quote should stay, but I think it's a lazy way to build an article or to make a point by simply quoting what someone else has said. I would rather see the sentence paraphrased and referenced rather than appear in its current form. -AED 20:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Gratuitous Link

OK, at the risk of being accused of another ad hominem attack, tell me if I am wrong about this.

It appears that Fyslee has added another link to a Stephen Barrett website. I personally think that none should qualify due to their severely biased anti-chiropractic nature and are filled with opinions and unprofessional editorial comments by an ex-psychiatrist who has declared war on chiropractic decades ago.

The new link is a plug for a book by a disgruntled chiropractor whose 43 year career didn't quite live up to his expectations. Was this supposed to bolster the NPOV standard of Wikipedia?

This raises some serious questions. Fyslee has a close relationship with Stephen Barrett. He is, among other appointments, assistant webmaster and listmaster to various Stephen Barrett enterprises. Doesn't that sort of taint his POV, making these links a bit self-serving? Should visitors to Wikipedia be sent to sites and then be solicited for donations?

Also, why plug a book by a disillusioned retired chiropractor? Can we now start listing books? Is that encyclopedic? There are many other books out there claiming the opposite. I think this sets a bad precedent.

I am not picking on Fyslee despite his attacks and emotional rantings about my alleged behaviour. I just feel that this sort of thing (perhaps inadvertantly) uses the Chiropractic article as a soapbox to drive traffic to sites that he has a vested interest in, which, IMO, just isn't a good thing.

This is also especially curious because Fyslee just got finished protesting above that he hasn't posted any links lately to Stephen Barrett's websites. I would be curious to know exactly how many links there are now throughout Wikipedia that Fyslee has placed that send readers to a site owned by Stephen Barrett.

I am not going to delete these links until we discuss this and see what other views there are on this. As my history on the talk page proves, despite what some may think, I talk and discuss before I edit. Thanks Steth 04:16, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

A quick remark before I leave to paint our clinic. The link is to the only source of an out-of-print classic - in its entirety. The URL itself is not the point (which Steth is attempting to claim, which is an ad hominem attack against a URL!), but the material it links to is of great importance to the "Critiques" section. The book is to chiropractic what Luther's 95 Theses was to Christianity. If Luther's 95 Theses were only available on one particular website, then that URL would be legitimate as a source, being the only source. The book was the first significant exposé of problems in the profession written by a chiropractor (second generation).

Dr. Homola has had a successful career, and the ACA finally admitted that his dire predictions had proved to be true and offered to readmit him, long after they booted him for writing the book. Their actions revealed just how significant the book really was, and is to this day, since much of what was written then still applies. He has since written many other books. The latest is also excellent - Inside Chiropractic. I can recommend both of them as very informative and well-docuemnted sources of information. They deal with the problems, but also with the positive aspects, of chiropractic practice and history.

Regardless of Steth's POV, the Critiques section is expected to contain POV sources, not NPOV sources, just as editors may have POV, as long as they don't editorialize their POV in the articles. (The alternative would be to only allow editors who have no knowledge of a subject do the writing of articles, and preventing anyone with knowledge from participating, which would be foolhardy. Experts are welcomed at Wikipedia.)

The Critiques section should be protected from the deletionist work of pro-chiropractic editors. If Steth's objections were to be applied to all the links in the pro-chiro sections of links, then a number of them should be deleted, since they are filled with advertising for dubious products, the writings of chiropractors who proposed unscientific ideas, soapboxing, salesmanship, and outright quackery. While those sections have grown larger and larger, the pro-chiro editors have deleted links in the Critiques section, simply because they were not in harmony with their POV, or were linked to sources they didn't like, regardless of the importance of the content. This process needs to be reversed, and the pro-chiro links need to be reexamined. -- Fyslee 09:34, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I think "classic" is a very subjective term, as are book reviews. I do agree with you, (surprise!) that links, both pro and con should be examined and possibly eliminated.

I would be interested in others views on this, should anyone like to respond. Thanks Steth 11:55, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Examining the links, I think the inclusion of Chirobase is warranted; Barrett and the other authors involved have done a good job of presenting the skeptic's POV. I also think mention of chiropractors who reject mainstream chiropractic beliefs is warranted because an insider's critique of the profession has some value to the article. -AED 20:54, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Can Dr. Homola or his book really be compared to Luther and his 95 theses? I wonder how Dr. Homola would respond to that comparison by Fyslee.

Then following this logic, and that of AED's, it is OK to also start listing links to books written by other chiropractors, about what they believe about the profession? Steth 04:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

That might be your logic, but this is mine: Per WP:WWIN, Wikipedia is not a repository of links or an indiscriminate collection of information. Per WP:NPOV, majority and significant minority views should be represented, but not necessarily tiny minority views. (Yes, the distinction is somewhat subjective, as alluded to in WP:N.) Listing links to books written by other chiropractors might be considered indiscriminate if it is simply duplicating material in the article or in other links, or not representing either a majority or significant minority POV. -AED 05:08, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

My "comparison" of Homola to Luther was of course not a direct comparison in terms of historical importance to the world, but limited to the chiropractic situation. Chiropractic also has reformers. I know of no other chiropractic reformer that holds the position of Homola, both regarding pioneering reform efforts, the resulting impact on the profession, and regarding publication of his views and his "excommunication" by the ACA for expressing his heretical views. (If you know of earlier reformers who are eligible for such a comparison and position, I'd love to know about it.)

He became a chiropractor against his own father's wishes (his father was a chiropractor), practiced successfully, wrote the book and was promptly denied membership in the ACA. He continued to practice until his retirement. During this time he remained a chiropractor, practicing in an ethical and scientifically valid manner (no subluxationist nonsense, practice building, patient "education"/brainwashing), and participated in public discussions with colleagues by writing books and publishing articles in chiropractic journals and publications. His views are widely known and have been promoted and defended by other reformers. While he has received some support, he has also been treated in the most abominable manner by other chiropractors and the leadership, including personal threats and villification. This type of response is typical cult behavior. Cults don't take kindly to reformers.

What Sam would think of my comparison? He is a gracious gentleman and would likely provide a humble "thanks for the appreciation" in response.

I provided the link to the (one) book because it is the only source for the whole book. I have not posted links to "books" - as in a "list of books." The book's contents are extremely significant for the Critiques section and for the article. The Homola story actually deserves mention in the article, but don't expect that to happen, considering the repeated deletions and denials of the legitimacy of the NACM and reform viewpoints. (The interpretation of NPOV in these deletionist efforts clearly reveals that to Steth and other pro-chiro editors here, NPOV is limited only to viewpoints that sell chiropractic and paint it in a positive light, not other sides of the question, as required by Wikipedia guidelines.)

I would encourage all to read his book, especially Steth, since - without an understanding of the history and issues covered in the book - Steth speaks and edits from a position of ignorance. One cannot really understand chiropractic without the knowledge found there. There is also an update (one of the last links on the URL) regarding the current situation. -- Fyslee 08:27, 14 April 2006 (UTC)

Why would a physical therapist act so unprofessionally?

Steth's edit summary: "Fyslee's uncivil behaviour" -- Fyslee 12:09, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Fyslee. Your response has given me new insight into how much you really do despise (your word) the chiropractic profession.

You know, I have asked a legitimate guestion in a proper and civil way in order to gain understanding and get feedback. So what does Fyslee do? Never misses an opportunity to attack and insult (or add another link to his friend's website). This is very un-Wikipedian behaviour, which he has demonstrated many times in his heavy-handed way to force his hatred of chiropractic onto a neutral article. I don't need to provide the numerous Wiki-links about uncivil attitudes. You would think I insulted his mother or something. This is very unbecoming and unsavory behaviour from a "so-called" professional. I am certain this does not represent all physical therapists. That would be a very sad commentary on the profession.

If Fyslee can place his friends links and books (that he ranks up there with the bible) as he wishes, then others can do likewise, should they decide to do so, IMO. Steth 10:58, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

There is no hatred of chiropractic. The fact is, some people have strange beliefs (like Earth sucks and there is no gravity, sun is asleep behind the mountain during the night, having my left ankle massaged in some special way could fix my prostate cancer). All we are doing is, that we are trying to prevent people from presenting their strange beliefs here as "facts". FYI: There is no country other than USA and Australia that would provide any higher education in chiropractic, and there is a reason: the effectiveness of the treatment couldn't be proved. Why do all the creepy losers who made up some fabulous theory believe that their theory is not accepted just because they are too smart for the rest of the scientific community? I don't know. But I know the reason for the existence of chiropractic schools in America: profit, money, kohle whatever you'd like to call it. ackoz 11:10, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

All "we" are doing? Have you been recruited to edit here? Steth 11:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

No.. I havent, have you??? - ackoz 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for clearing that up. So let me see if I understand you: You don't like chiropractic either? Steth 11:18, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Come on, you know that this is not about liking or disliking something. This is about accepting that some things can't be proven, and even if I would like to believe them, I shouldn't present them anywhere as facts. If 99% of the non-chiropractic doctors of medicine all over the world believe that this thing doesn't work, don't you think that saying "Hell yeah, it DOES work coz I KNOW." and writing stuff like this is unacceptable? Do you really think that you are so much smarter than all of the MDs around? You might have some good experience with chiropractic, but you are actually noone to decide if the thing that helped you was chiropractic or something else. But believe me - if it worked, it would be widely accepted. And it's not. Sorry ackoz 11:34, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Please read http://www.hon.ch/HONcode/Conduct.html HONcode rules, and then check than http://www.pathguy.com/index1.htm the page of Ed Friedlander MD is certified by HONCode. After that, you can proceed to his lecture on Alternative medicine: http://www.pathguy.com/lectures/alternat.txt listing chiropractics. After you read the article written by full qualified, board certified MD, please return here with your arguments. ackoz 11:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Now, now Steth, who pissed in your coffee? You come on pretty strong with your accusations of "unprofessional," "uncivil behaviour," etc.

You say that you "asked a legitimate guestion in a proper and civil way in order to gain understanding and get feedback." That could certainly be disputed in light of your earlier statements in this thread.

Now precisely what about my reply was "unprofessional," "uncivil behaviour"? Are you again trying to divert attention from all the good information in my reply, by attempting to insinuate that some little thing I wrote has hurt your feelings? You seem to have very thin skin. You can dish it out, but you can't tolerate a civil reply that rebuts your false assumptions and accusations (in what you claim to have been a "legitimate question in a proper and civil way." You got plenty of information in my feedback, but you conveniently ignore that I successfully rebutted and answered your questions.

My very civil and informative reply gets used by you for another attack, where you spew out the follow epithets:

• unprofessional
• uncivil behaviour
• attack
• insult
• un-Wikipedian behaviour
• heavy-handed
• force
• hatred of chiropractic
• uncivil attitudes
• unbecoming
• unsavory behaviour
• "so-called" professional

Look who's talking! Don't throw stones when you live in a glass house. -- Fyslee 12:27, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Just to let people know what Steth is up to, he promptly followed me and attacked me again, using his typical ingratiating way of approaching other editors, to get them onto his side and against me and other chiroskeptics. I have replied to him there.

My other comments there might be worth reading. The editor in question had apparently forgotten it was the vertebral subluxation (VS) article, and not this Chiropractic article, and had written a lot of stuff about chiropractic, not VS, and added a lot of links about general chiropractic, but not about VS. It's an easy mistake to make, and I'm sure he did it in good faith. I simply explained the situation to him, and then Steth followed me and used the opportunity to attempt to poison the well against me. This is malicious behaviour worthy of a Wikispanking, if not outright banishment to Wikipurgatory....;-). If I wasn't so used to his behaviour, I'd get upset and complain to the higher powers here, but I'll let others do that if they see fit. -- Fyslee 12:57, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I would complain about him if he destroyed the intro again and replaced it with his personal beliefs once again. I hope he will not do it. And I hope he will stick to ad rem arguments rather than to ad personam. Still I don't really know how to complain about him :-) ackoz 13:13, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Here are the tidbits (chiropractic sources) I provided on the vertebral subluxation talk page. You all might find them interesting:

• Subluxation: dogma or science?

• A comment on the article above

• Some interesting observations

• Chiropractic as spine care: a model for the profession

• The Specter of Dogma

• It Works, It Works, It Works!

Other significant articles on the subject:

• Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation

• How Chiropractic Subluxation Theory Threatens Public Health

• Analysis of a Misleading Chiropractic Article in a Major Medical Journal

• Serious pseudoscience

• Subluxations not backed up by proof

Good reading! -- Fyslee 13:24, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Colleges in external links

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

Science in the lead

"Evidence for the clinical efficacy of chiropractic does not meet the scientific standards of evidence-based medicine."

No one has given proper justification for removing this from the lead. There is nothing in the science section which contradicts the claim. If anyone has evidence of systematic reviews with strict protocols which contradict the claim, then these need to be provided. Mccready 08:23, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Facts not myths

I changed the article to contain the facts not myths about chiropractics. If somebody was creating an article that would claim the gravity doesn't exist and the Earth sucks, I would change it too. Sorry for your loss. Your arguments of editism vandalism revisionism anti-chiropractism and all the -isms are only funny. ackoz 09:37, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

What are we trying to do here. I've looked at WP policy on NPOV. "The policy is simply that we should characterize disputes rather than engage in them. ... so that all the major participants will be able to look at the resulting text, agreeing that their views are presented sympathetically and as completely as possible (within the context of the discussion)." This is what we're aiming at, and I believe it's in all parties' best interests that the introduction should studiously avoid implying any judgements. The judgements are not for us to make, but for the reader to make, informed by the facts and details that are presented fairly in the body of the article. I'm not even going to get into a discussion about whether Ackoz is right or not, because it isn't the point. What is certainly and obviously true is that his views whether right or not are disputed. This is not an issue of censorship - the body of the text gives the relevant facts, and if Ackoz feels that these should be added to then propse these additions to the text. So I'm reverting to Steth's summary, with addition of the CAM label which is a separate issue. Gleng 15:49, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Gleng, this is not a matter of MY judgement. If I dispute the reality of the Holocaus, and bring a substantial group of supporters (perhapst people who make BIG money by performing anti-holocaustic manipulations on someones ears), will you really think it is a good idea to include the dispute in the first few lines of the article? This is actually a WP:NOT situation, where chiropractors are able to advertise their "healing techniques" as if the efficacy of them was somehow proved - even if there is no single controlled study that would provide us with some evidence that this actually works. One of the users vandalizing the article (i.e. deleting anti-chiropracic link) even used a nickname "chiropractor". Do a search on a PubMed (as I have read your Userpage, I suppose you know what it is) and then post the randomized study that would prove the efficacy of chiropractic treatment here.

As you said, it is not the point to push the things I think are correct to the intro, but what I push there is what the majority of on-the-matter educated people think - it doesn't mean that if we have a bunch of chiropractors here advertising their thing that we should try to reach consensus with them. Revert as violation of WP:NOT.

I'm obviously happy with this version, as it is virtually the same as the version I proposed a while ago. As I said then, although this was my preferred version, I did not think that the alternatives were necessarily POV given the article as a whole. I don't object to facts, only to opinions masquerading as facts, even when I happen to share the opinions. Yes I do know how to use PubMed, and if you want to find out who I am and what I think, you will find it on PubMed, and you won't find any vested interests here, except maybe in science and rigor.Gleng 22:48, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry. Already searched for your name on PubMed. Greetings. ackoz 23:28, 15 April 2006 (UTC)

I'm still wondering who the "bunch of chiropractors" are who are advertising their thing. -AED 00:31, 16 April 2006 (UTC)

I am a qualified chiropractor and the MAJORITY of chiropractors have to believe in subluxions. If they don't then they can't be real chiropractors. Thats why I have changed the introduction. Chiropractor 09:46, 16 April 2006 (UTC)