Talk:Chiropractic

Ordering of sections

User:Jmh649 reverted a change made regarding the ordering of the sections here [1] stating 'Not sure why the change in ordering of sections'. This is tendentious. I clearly stated 'Re-organize per MEDMOS [2] in the diff [3]. I had discussed this earlier today at the talk page [4] but I guess Doc James isn't listening. Why, specifically did you revert the changes when the summary was clearly listed as indicated in the diff? Please extend good faith and let other editors than QuackGuru and other skeptics edit this article. Thank you. DVMt (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Your change did not reorganize per WP:MEDMOS. Thus I reverted. I see no consensus for the edit here. You placed your comment under the heading "Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Okay have created a proper section for this discussion as it of course has nothing to do with the previous heading. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Ah so chiropractor is a medical specialty. Chiropractic is a treatment IMO. Doc James (talk ·

The problem here is that Jmh649 is not a skeptic. He is a cynic operating under the grand delusion that he is a skeptic. Skeptics are open to evidence which completely belie what they already hold to be true. A cynic makes up their mind and just says "no" to everything else. Editors like this are truly as bad for WP as all the woo pushers. What's worse is that they cast all of the true skeptics down with all of the woo pushers, because they don't like anything positive ... Nay ... Neutral written about a subject which they have prejudged to be entirely woo. This article doesn't have any woo pushers AFAICT, just moderate editors who want to write a neutral article, and cynical editors who want only to present the subject in the most negative light as possible. I challenge these cynics to disengage from this article for three months to see if their worst fears come true – that the article would be completely overhauled into a complete marketing, puff piece or (and I'm betting this is more likely) a fact-based, truly NPOV article finally emerges. I encourage Doc James and the likes to accept this challenge. If I lose my bet, well good on you. Your cynical POV pushing is needed here after all. But if I win my bet, just think of all the time you will save knowing that you don't have to patrol this article anymore. Challenge accepted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.9.178.2 (talk) 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

WP isn't about asserting opinions, it's about asserting facts. Chiropractic is a health care profession. It is not a treatment. This is a fundamental mistake. we've been over this. Also, according to this [5] source, it states "Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation. The same article also states that "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, it is distinctly mainstream. Furthermore, it is stated in the lede "and although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry." [6]. The evidence is compelling. The onus is on you to prove that it is not a profession, or medical specialty, since you're making the claim. DVMt (talk) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

It is also used to mean a form of alt med as per our first sentence of our article. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Your interpretation is rather bizarre and you're conflating things. Please address the literature above, with literature to rebut. You seem not to like it, but that doesn't change the fact chiropractic is a profession and not a treatment. Please use peer-reviewed literature to support your claim, your personal opinon [7] isn't relevant in this matter. DVMt (talk) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic is definitely a profession and not a technique. I have presented the evidence here before, but it is good to review it whenever the discussion arises: There is legislation to recognize and regulate chiropractic as a profession in 48 countries [8] and in some of those countries the profession/technique debate has even been settled in court. For example, in Brazil a Federal Judge ruled that: "chiropractic is a profession and not a technique". The WHO defines chiropractic as "A health care profession concerned with..." and, in the US where chiropractic is most prominent, the NIH/NCCAM describes chiropractic as "a health care profession that focuses on...". Most importantly, the bulk of mainstream secondary sources discuss chiropractic as a profession. For example: 1)"Chiropractic, the medical profession that specializes in..." and 2)"Chiropractic is the best established of the alternative health care professions.... Moreover, according to our article and published analyses of the profession, the 'techniques' are joint manipulation, soft-tissue manipulation, therapeutic exercise, ergonomics, etc.Puhlaa (talk) 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for chipping in User:Puhlaa. The evidence is rather overwhelming, but not surprising. What I am surprised about is such a fundamental error (technique vs. profession) can be perpetuated. DVMt (talk) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Now that we've established, yet again, that chiropractic is a profession and not a technique, does anyone have any specific objections to re-ordering the sections per MEDMOS The lede clearly states that the profession shares more of attributes of a medical specialty, like dentistry or podiatry and we have multiple sources that confirm this. Regards, DVMt (talk) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I think the current ordering of the sections per MEDMOS is okay. The previous drastic re-ordering of the sections was confusing. QuackGuru (talk) 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The article is not ordered per MEDMOS [9]. That's the purpose of the discussion to make it compliant with MEDMOS. Also, please don't fall into the the same old habits of of not listening. It's tendentious. Lastly, please provide evidence to support your position. These discussions need to be based on facts, evidence and not asserting opinions. Thanks, DVMt (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

In my opinion, the re-arrangement per MEDMOS improved the article. Why can't we just follow what MEDMOS says? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 11:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. Will re-arrange per MEDMOS. Chiropractic is not a treatment, it is a profession, a specialty. DVMt (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't see consensus for this change. This was previously explained by User:Jmh649 before. QuackGuru (talk) 20:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

You're being tendentious again, QuackGuru. You're also not not listening again. You need to bring evidence to support your claim. Your opinion alone is irrelevant. Are you asserting that chiropractic is a treatment and not a profession? If not, please stop trying to own every aspect of this article. You're only 1 day back from your block and it seems as though you've learned nothing. Relying on Doc James unconditional support isn't doing him any favours. DVMt (talk) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Chiropractic is both a treatment and a profession. I agree that chiropractor should be arranged as per the profession but IMO this should be arrange as per a treatment. This is an editorial decision. We could have a RfC to bring in greater input if you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC)

Doc, I presented evidence that said chiropractic was a medical specialty. You have yet to rebut this with any evidence, and your opinion isn't a substitute for facts. It is clearly a profession and thus the article should be MEDMOS compliant. We've come to a stalemate here, so we can go to dispute resolution. DVMt (talk) 06:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

"Chiropractic care is a way to diagnose and treat health problems" "Chiropractic is most effective for treating" and "Who Should Not Be Treated with Chiropractic" [10]. These are all uses of the term to mean a method of care or a method of treatment. It is also used to mean a profession use. And members of that profession are chiropractors and that article should be organized as per a profession. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

That logic is rather faulty. You do realize that SMT isn't the only service provided by chiropractors, no? We can take this to DR; you're still equating the profession with a treatment, and despite the plethora of evidence and a previous dispute resolution, you want to impose your interpretation. So, we will have to agree to disagree and get outside analysis. Neuraxis (talk) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

Scientific Chiropractic: Advice from Quackwatch

http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirochoose.html

Steve's tips (2000)

Positive Signs

1. Try to find a chiropractor whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of back pain and other musculoskeletal problems.
2. In addition to manual manipulation or stretching of tight muscles or joints, science-based chiropractors commonly use heat or ice packs, ultrasound treatment
3. They may also recommend a home exercise program.

Negative Signs

• Avoid chiropractors make claims about curing diseases, try to get patients to sign contracts for lengthy treatment,
• Use scare tactics (scare care) , or disparage scientific medical treatment or
• Disparage preventive measures such as immunization or fluoridation.
• Who have waiting room literature promoting "nerve interference" as the underlying cause of disease,

Conclusions

1. Barett acknowledges there is a scientific-based chiropractor.
2. Scientific chiropractic is confined to practicing manipulative therapy for treating back pain
3. Manipulative therapy may relieve other other musculoskeletal conditions
4. Scientific chiropractors are multi-modal and use adjunctive therapies such as heat, ice, ultrasound, and exercise
5. Non-scientific chiropractors will make bogus claims that joint dysfunction/subluxation is the underlying cause of disease
6. Non scientific chiropractors will disparage proven health measures such as immunization and fluoridation.
7. Non scientific chiropractors will tend to use scare tactics and require patients to sign long term contracts, for 'subluxation correction'
8. Non scientific chiropractors disparage all medical treatments there are skeptical or the medical community

“ Remember that although manipulative therapy has value in treating back pain and may relieve other musculoskeletal conditions, chiropractors are not the only source of manipulative therapy. Physical therapists, many osteopathic physicians, and a small number of medical doctors do it also. ”

Neuraxis (talk) 19:57, June 6, 2014‎ (UTC)

Comments

Since QW considered reliable, this should be part of the main article. As well, because Barrett acknowledges a scientific chiropractic, this [11] discussion is germane to this topic. This is also relevant to the discussions regarding ordering the sections here [12]. Neuraxis (talk) 15:44, June 7, 2014‎ (UTC)

Okay so you want to use this ref to says what? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Those are two different subjects. I'm not sure which part of the QW source (last updated in 2000) you'd like to include, but he made it plain that "the number of chiropractors who belong to this group [CAMT, which has changed its name to CAMPT, a group of physiotherapists] is small. CAMT's "orthopractic guidelines" describe a science-based approach to manipulative therapy."

He was unequivocally discouraging readers from visiting chiropractors, but allowed for the remote possibility that a few science-based ones existed in 2000, and only recommended them for those who insisted on going to a DC. Personally, I agree that there are many more of them now, but there is still far too much woo practiced, which is a shame for the sensible ones.

If you want to include something from the source, write your proposed wording here and let's see if it flies. It might. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

I do find your constant insistence on the theme of a "scientific chiropractic" to be disquietingly close to the theme of the indef blocked User talk:CorticoSpinal. I suggest you study his history and see if you can avoid the same mistakes. You'll need to find different and better arguments if you're going to fare any better at improving these articles. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

No mention of reform chiropractic

While reviewing some of the diffs and comments from the various board postings (Arb clarification, ani) I did some google searches to evaluate some of the various statements being made by the parties involved.

I came across http://www.chiropractors.org/resources/chiropractic-specializations/what-reform-chiropractic-care.htm which says the three types of Chiropractic are straight, mix, and reform. We do not seem to mention reform anywhere. I am not claiming this site as a RS so we would need some sources, but is there a reason we do not mention reform Chiropractic in the article? It seems to be the least fringy of the types but also unfortunately the smallest group of practice too. Since it is the smallest, per WP:WEIGHT we shouldn't spend too much time on them, but it seems like they should at least be discussed? Gaijin42 (talk) 20:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

In this section (Chiropractic#Straights and mixers), we previously had three groups. IIRC, chiropractic editors managed to prevent and remove mention of reform chiropractors, which certainly made a lie of all their claims that the profession was reforming and becoming science-based.

We still have an article about them: National Association for Chiropractic Medicine. Reform efforts never gained any traction. They met constant opposition, other chiropractors would not associate with them, they and their families got threatened, and their ability to participate in chiropractic was seriously hampered. Membership was so risky that many of them kept their membership a secret. Their organization simply lost steam as reform seemed impossible, and many of them left the profession. Some are now MDs. You can read about their demise here: Talk:National_Association_for_Chiropractic_Medicine#Does_this_organization_still_exist.3F.

Obviously they should get short mention. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Off-topic rant and misuse of talk page
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This article is very unbalanced (see archive 37 where I describe the biases) and the only editor who can freely edit the page is QG. Anyone who is not a cynic/skeptic will be reverted for presenting any information that challenges the status quo. Heck, I made 14 edits (minor ones at that too) over a 6 week period and they're looking to topic ban me. So, anyone with any expertise on manipulative therapies, which obviously will involve chiropractic to a larger extent that osteopathic medicine or physical therapy, will be shunned, called a fringe-pov pusher, an edit warrior and an ongoing smear campaign that slowly but surely is done to discredit you. Take it from me, I've been here for about a month and have been treated like an absolute heretic, an extremist, for merely suggesting that things have evolved or changed over the last 20 years or so regarding the research and acceptance or manual therapies for MSK. Feel free to take a look at my page and talk page for my experience thus far. The xenophonic fear-mongering of attempting to silence or white-wash all criticism is beyong bogus, but despite me repeatedly telling them this is not the case, they will gang up on you and continue to the character assassination. Some are more inconspicuous than others, and there is a bad cop/good cop dynamic at play. Read the archives and learn the issues and learn the editors. You will notice there is a constant, and a constant theme of ownership. You will be exposed to tendentious editing, not listening to points you raised and wiki-lawyering. It has driven away any middle ground editor, for good reason. The emotional toll and the time sink that this becomes is too much for most, and it seems like the criticism WP gets for being unbalanced and not reliable (especially when it comes to CAM, as the skeptic cabal has managed to insert their own definitions of CAM (which is 100% not based on science, according to their biased sources) has led to a dysfunctional part of the encyclopedia. They will call you a lunatic charlatan for questioning the status quo and CAM articles. In essence, you will be relegated as a second class WP and treated like shit. Depending on my fate, I may not even be able to comment here anymore, but time will show that I am very knowledgeable, can write very well and will be able to increase the depth and breadth of articles relating to the manual sciences. Take care. Neuraxis (talk) 23:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

National Association for Chiropractic Medicine no longer exists. The previous discussion resulted in the Objective Straight and the Reform chiropractors being deleted from this article. I don't see any recent RS that Reforms (or Objective Straights) exist. If we did include it I think we would need a review that describes it.

The text was moved to Chiropractic history#Straights versus mixers: Objective Straight chiropractors, who are an off-shoot of straights, only focus on the correction of chiropractic vertebral subluxations while traditional straights claim that chiropractic adjustments are a plausible treatment for a wide range of diseases.[38] Reform chiropractors are an evidence-based off-shoot of mixers who rejected traditional Palmer philosophy and tend not to use alternative medicine methods.[39]

A 2008 review stated that "Currently, there are two types of chiropractors: those religiously adhering to the gospel of its founding fathers and those open to change."[13] QuackGuru (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

Removal of sources

@Smk65536:, you reasoned your recent removal of sources[14] by stating that:

the Meeker-Haldeman source links to the book "Chiropractic. History and Evolution of a New Profession", which is authored by a chiropractic, the neutrality of information here is questionable

Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that a chiropractic author isn't a reliable source on chiropractic? How about an economist then, is an economist a reliable source on economics? Or a physician on medicine? Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

A long time chiropractor is definitely a reliable source on chiropractic, but the wikipedia summary is about chiropractic in a broader professional context by comparing alternative medicine to other science-based medicines. Therefore I'm doubting the neutrality of this. Smk65536 (talk) 17:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

The edit summary appears to be misleading. This text was from this [15] source, Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):216-27.. It was also removed from the lede, no discussion. Neuraxis (talk) 17:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Considering that there was no discussion for the removal in the lede, neither any clear WP policy why it was removed but only personal speculation, I think the source is better to be restored. If there is a clear WP policy though, please let me know. Perhaps you could find a secondary source that is doubting the very same source you removed? Then it would be alright. Jayaguru-Shishya (talk) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

I have restored that content. It's good enough. -- Brangifer (talk) 00:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The policy is clearly WP:NPOV, the source is also a secondary source, the book is instead a primary source, the edit summary summarizes the edit well and attempts to be clear as possible. The secondary source also considers the book's view to be a point of view, but the wikipedia summary appears to state it as fact. Smk65536 (talk) 09:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

talk, you have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. This article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what LeadSongDog mentioned on the Talk:Homeopathy page which I'm linking to here (and tell me also about it, on my discussion/talk page). I'm probably the only sympathiser you'll find here, so please follow my advice or else you will get blocked, banned or topic banned (from this article).—Khabboos (talk) 16:53, 29 June 2014 (UTC)