| Revision as of 00:09, 3 April 2003 edit150.135.162.89 (talk)No edit summary← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024 edit undo2607:fea8:4a62:2f00:ac7b:e1d:4396:ebb (talk) →Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
RK, as I said on your talk page, I have no viewpoint on this subject. But I am '''''not''''' going to let you get away with such terms as "mysterious" and "unidentifiable". That is hardly NPOV. -- ] |
|
|
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
|
{{Censor}} |
|
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}} |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from1=Chiropractic|to1=Chiropractic treatment techniques |
|
|
|from2=Chiropractic|to2=Veterinary chiropractic |
|
|
|from3=Koren Specific Technique|to3=Chiropractic |
|
|
|from4=Chiropractic|to4=Baby colic |
|
|
|from5=Baby colic|to5=Chiropractic|from_oldid5=801357015|to_oldid5=801349349|to_diff5=801359943}} |
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}} |
|
:Do not lie. The subluxation is very mysterious, as it is a scientific fact that it is unidentifiable. No scientist or medical doctor has ever seen such chirpractic subluxations, ever. There is a difference between having differents points of view on a phenomenon, and lying about facts that you are uncomfortable with. Sadly, you have crossed that line. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
Zoe, I am still willing to work with you. But what you are doing now verges on vandalism. Stop pushing this pseudoscientific religious belief as some sort of scientific fact. Your continued refusal to discuss the issue, your huge deletions, and the way you hide facts that make you uncomfortable identify you as a vandal. Is this what you want? If you think that particular facts need some context, or needs to be rewritten in a different way, then fine. Let's work together. But I won't let people push pseudoscientific and religious beliefs as facts. That is a violation of Misplaced Pages NPOV policy. ] |
|
|
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|
|counter = 40 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|
}} |
|
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
|
{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
== The section "History" could use an update == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section "History" could use an update if sources are available. |
|
Wow. This is the first time I've had any particular dealings with you, RK, and I don't see why we can't work together on this. I have no intention of leaving the Misplaced Pages, but the use of the terminology that you use is hardly NPOV. Please tell me what is NPOV about "mysterious and unidentifiable." As I keep telling you, I have NO POV on this subject, but you obviously do, and it isn't letting you remain neutral. A disagreement is not vandalism, and you know it. -- ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago. |
|
:"Unidentifiable" is fine, I think, but "mysterious" is definitely not. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::Whoever claimed that disagreements are vandalism? Not I. But wiping out 75% of an article at first looked a bit like vandalism! I just don't think you have yet responded to my specific points, nor to the points in the material which I added. (Material, by the way, which is agreed upon by the vast majority of medical doctors and scientists!) This subject is a scientific, historic and religious issue, but you seem to be overlooking the science, and even Palmer's own 18th century religious views. What is left? A discussion of ''your'' own theory of chiropractice. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
I've taken it to the mailing list, where others with less of an axe to grind can see if you or I is more NPOV. -- ] |
|
|
|
:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are? |
|
|
:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out? |
|
|
:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume? |
|
|
:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''') |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience == |
|
::Subluxation is a simple term... if you guys actually looked it up in a dictionary.. its meaning is given... no doubt its used in pseudo-science variants of chiropractive medicine as well as the legitimate ones. For the rest of the article, deal with chiropractic medicine as a science and as a healing art, and leave all extra-ordinary claims for a subheader of 'pseudoscience' or non-scientific healing arts, etc...-SV |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Should your changes be ported to the ] article, too? ] |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet ]. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. ] (]) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
The article as it stands is ''way'' out of line. As it stands, it's a disgrace to Misplaced Pages. It reads like chiropody is some kind of weirdo cult. We are talking about a branch of medicine that had thousands of practioners in dozens, maybe hundreds of countries around the world, that is regulated by governments to ensure profesional standards (just like dentistry, to name only one), that is taught as a five year course in outstanding universities like RMIT and the University of Sydney, that health care insuracnce funds and government medical subsidies pay out for as a matter of routine, that general practictioners refer paitents to as routine. Better to nuke the page and start afresh. ] 15:12 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Sorry, but what you call "way out of line" is called by the rest of us mainstream science. You obviously have littlke knowlesdge of the field or of the scientific method. Please underatand: These are not just about Palmer's bizarre religious claims (which I will amplify, because no one here seems to know ''anything'' about them) but rather, about the physical and medical claims that are being made by chiropracters. We cannot allow people to push pseudo-scientific claims and religious claims as facts. That violates our NPOV policy. I do note that your response to me ignores every one of the facts I mentioned; your argument is only that it "must" be reliable because thousands of people are involved in it. That is nonsense. If that were true, then we'd still be using leeches to treat the flu, because "thousands of doctors" do it! ] |
|
|
|
:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
And the original article (some paragraphs of which we still have) appears to have been take from http://www.straightchiropractic.com/language_of_straight_chiropracti.htm. |
|
|
|
:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Tannin is right; we have no article now. |
|
|
|
::::I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic. |
|
-- ] 19:25 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (). |
|
|
|
|
|
::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all. |
|
:Uh, permission was explicitly given to use this information! Please don't falsely accuse me of copyright infringement. ] |
|
|
|
::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims. |
|
:: Glad to hear it. It's good practice to document that fact on the talk page. Of course, I never actually accused anybody of copyright infringement, since I didn't know for sure. And I certainly didn't accuse ''you'', unless you're 213.65.123.104. -- ] 05:56 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
---- |
|
|
|
:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
I don't have a problem with including a bibliography on the dangers of chiropractic, but this bibliography is almost 20 years out of date! The newest article is from 1984. Since the bibliography is found in the link to the 1985 article, I'm removing the bibliography but would not object to listing more recent literature (e.g. after 1990). ] 19:23 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand. |
|
:I am reverting this deletion. This is science and medicine, not politics. Real scientific papers always quote previous works as well as current ones. Have you ever written and published a scientific paper? I have. Have you read over a hundred such papers? I have. This is how it is done. Old food goes stale; that is not necesarily true for scientific studies. ] |
|
|
|
::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred? |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction? |
|
::Actually, I'm in the process of preparing an article for submission to a peer-reviewed biological journal, and, of the hundreds of peer-reviewed articles I've read for my research, for the life of me, I cannot recall a single article whose most recent reference is 19 years old. Perhaps, you could help matters by citing a peer-reviewed article in medicine or biology that did '''not''' cite a single reference that was published within 10 years of its publication date? ] |
|
|
|
::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession. |
|
::Please do not criticise ridiculous distortions of my actual statements. I ''never'' claimed that many new research papers had references that were always at least 10 or 20 years old. Your mockery does not further the discussion of this article. The point is this: the bibliography I submitted was partial, like everything on ''all'' Misplaced Pages articles. Like all our articles, this entry could use a more updated bibliography, and as time goes by, it will get one. If one wants to help, then one should contribute more up-to-date references. There is no need to delete everything old. Think of what that would do to the bibliography on organ transplants, or special relativity, none of which make any sense without references to decades old articles. ] |
|
|
|
::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before. |
|
::Thanks for updating the bibliography to make it more current. As for "ridiculous distortions," please take a bit more care in reading my words because no such distortions were intended or reasonably inferred. In fact, I would suggest that fewer edit wars would break out if we all were to read and interpret each other's remarks in a more collegial manner. ] |
|
|
|
::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors. |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience. |
|
: RK: Maybe you should stick to writing scientific papers and leave WP to other, more cooperative people. (By the way, if you remove, alter, or misinterpret this comment, I'll email Jimbo and have you banned.) ] |
|
|
|
::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
Indeed I do know very little about chiropractic, but I can tell a POV hatchet job when I see one. We are talking about a branch of medical treatment that may or may not have an interesting past, but is, in the modern world, unquestionably both reputable and common. Alas, I have no more knowledge of chiropractic than I have of dentistry, so I cannot be the one to replace this ridiculously biased entry with a better one, but I certainly hope that someone steps forward to do it. ] 22:33 Mar 16, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for ], for ] or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|On patient satisfaction}} LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started. |
|
:Don't expect any help from me. Chiropractic medicine is in my mind as scientific as ]. Here's another external link for you guys to look up: http://www.chirowatch.com/ -- ] 02:09 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"}} See ]. --] (]) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's ''something'' to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific. |
|
Please RK, set forth under References at the bottom of the page the sources of each assertion. If there is significantly useful material a user could find on the subject please put it in a section called Further Reading. At the bottom of the page along with Further Reading and Reference please make a 3rd section called External Links. ] 01:44 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just ]. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. ] (]) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:Alright, I'm stopping by here from the mailing list. Here's my outlook. Chiropractic medicine has some scientific elements as well as some holistic elements to it. However, to say that it is mysterious, cultlike, or that it has no scientific backing is very NPOV. An overwhelming percentage of the population respects chiropractic medicine as being medically useful, and they believe in its efficacy. Being that there are a lot of these people, they are not in conspiracy, and are not total kooks, that opinion should be represented to counter-balance what seems to be an also widely-held belief that Chiropractic medicine is largely holistic and non-scientific. ] 04:55 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::::Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, ], helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. ] (]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that. |
|
:Cprompt, it is a '''scientific fact''' that chiropractic theory has no basis , and no proof. That is not debateable. In fact, multiple Nobel prize winners in science have pointed this out. Please don't accuse me of NPOV violations for mentioning scientific facts. I agree with you that millions of people claim that this method helps them. So what? Millions of people also claim that praying to angels or to God gives them miracle cures. The same amount of evidence exists for these claims as well. Perhaps you are confusing medical spinal maipulation with chiropractice; they are ''not'' the same thing. Chiropracters are free to make all the claims they like, but medical scientists have never found any support for them. ] |
|
|
|
:::::::::::The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that. |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. ] (]) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:You may cite your scientific facts, and proofs. However, the article as I last read it was definately asserting that your opinion (even if it is the opinion of educated doctors and members of the medical community) is correct, and only quacks and kooks believe in it. Personally, I believe that angels and gods do not exist. However, I'll agree that the articles ] and ] is definately ]. The recent edits by Fred Bauder (Mar 16-17) seem to be closer to ]. |
|
|
|
::::::::::::It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. ] (]) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::::::::::Does this work? |
|
::That's fine by me. I have no problem with you or him changing what I wrote. I state my case, you state yours, and over time the article evolves towards something better. Your points are well taken. However, I did not mean to say that only quacks and kooks believe in it. I agree that millions of people have been led to believe that there is serious scientific basis for chiropractic theory. However, mainstream scientists hold that its adherents are mistaken; many people accuse the industry of promoting quackery. This is especially critical to note when we are dealing with a field which - up until recently - denied that germs cause disease! However, if you want to change what I wrote, please do so. I recognize this is a cooperative effort. ] |
|
|
|
::::::::::https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf ] (]) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::::::You were pointed to ] above, you should read it thoroughly. ] (]) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:From the article NPOV: |
|
|
|
:::::::::Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. ] (]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:<i>1. An encyclopedic article should not argue that corporations are criminals, even if the author believes it to be so. It should instead present the fact that some people believe it, and what their reasons are, and then as well it should present what the other side says.</i> |
|
|
|
:As far as I can tell {{u|Jjazz76}} was correct when they from the lead on account of not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation. |
|
:] |
|
|
|
:Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. ] (] / ]) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
::I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it. |
|
---- |
|
|
|
::I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best. |
|
'''How come there's nothing in here about ]?''' |
|
|
|
::One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. ] (]) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. ] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
My impression is that both osteopathy and chiropractic are organized around spine manipulation, both started from the same roots in Andrew Still and that chiropractic went down one path (advertising: "If your spine's in line everything's fine") while osteopathy went the other (the only alternative medicine ever to get into the big tent). Crude typology to be sure, but there should be some compare and contrast in both these articles, and maybe a better article on the ] too. ] 22:26 Mar 17, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. ] (]) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
There is a link to osteopathy through the link to ], next time I do a revert I'll try to put a link to osteopathy in. I found a phrase that seemed to link all the hands on therapies together while researching this, but have forgotten it. The idea of a better article on the spine is good. ] 15:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
It is a '''fact''' that merely manipulating the spine, or other bones, is not chiropractice. In fact, I've met some medical doctors who would feel that they would be victims of slander if it was said that they were chiropractors. So why is it being labeled a "POV violation" when I try to point out this common mistake? They aren't the same thing, no matter who chiropractic-apologists would like people to believe. Also, take a look at the material at the beginning which keeps getting deleted: Doctors write medical reports saying that there is some evidence that non-chiropractic spinal manipulation had medical benefits, but they are angry that chiropractors dishonestly claim that these reports support chiropractice. Yet this disclaimer keeps getting erased...and someone keeps proving this point by taking a quote out-of-context in precisely the same way! ''That'' is not intellectually honest. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Fred, stop your reverts right now. ou are doing something intellectually dishonest. You are linking to an article which attacks chiropractice as fradulent, you take one sentence of it out of context, and then present this article as ''support'' for chiropractice. Did you even read what you are linking to? That entire article says that there is '''no support''' for chiropractic at all, and that the only support is for non-chiropractic spinal manipulation. Your reverts and edits imply that the article says the exact opposite. It doesn't. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
It is my intention (admittedly an impossibility) to write an article with both points out the benefits of chiropractic medicine and fully incorporates criticisms of it. The article cannot say there is "no support" for chiropractic, but that there is sphere within which it is useful. ] 15:15 Mar 20, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:Fred, your latest actions have crossed the line. You are now committing academic fraud. You keep citing a paper that attacks chiropractice as frauduent and falsely claim that this article offers ''support'' for chiropractice. My previous comments to you noted this error, but your continued reversions of the article, and your repetition of this falsehood, now leaves us little choice but to assume that you are deliberately lying. If someone wants to cite a peer-reviewed medical report that supports chiropractic theory, fine. But no one has the right to lie about the views of people who are against chiropractice, and who explicitly and repeatedly write that it has no medical support. That is grossly dishonest. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
---- |
|
|
As long as this discussion is confined to only chiropractic and only this article, it can never end. |
|
|
|
|
|
What we need: |
|
|
#A good article on the spine and its possible contribution to health problems. |
|
|
#A good article on back problems, their prevalence, degree to which they are psychosomatic. |
|
|
#A good historical article on the 19th century history of Still and Palmer and the diverging paths of osteopathy and chiropractic, relationship to orthpedic surgery, other medical disciplines |
|
|
#Then, good articles on osteopathy and chiropractic. |
|
|
|
|
|
I don't have a horse in this race. I wouldn't go to either osteopath or chiropractor, but I am sure there is some fascinating social history behind the divergence of these disciplines, and the earlier acceptance of osteopaths and the recent acceptance of chiropractic. So, mark me down as curious, and disappointed at the lack of progress despite all the energy expended on this single article. ] |
|
|
---- |
|
|
RK, once again I request that you stop labeling editing desputes "vandalism". Both you and Fred have particular points of view that are clashing. This is not vandalism; it's simply a problem achieving NPOV. So please, stop sounding the VANDALISM ALERT. -- ] 17:01 Mar 21, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Tannin, I appreciate your reworking of this article into a more NPOV form, and I hope my additions don't bother you too much. In fact, if you want to change or edit my newest additions, that is fine by me, but I ask to you to understand why I am trying to make these clarifications. I agree that the American public at large views chiropractice as valid medicine, just like the Chinese public at large believes in Chi; however, that doesn't mean that some or all of these beliefs are considered valid by the medical stream. I removed one sentence, because the definition of chiropractic subluxations offered was incorrect. You used the ''medical'' definition of a subluxation, which the majority of chiropracters ''disagree'' with. I thus just kept the link to the Misplaced Pages article on ], where it is described in more detail. I do not want to inadvertently ascribe beliefs to chiropracters that they reject. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Thankyou, RK. I didn't write that medical bit. I know nothing about the details of chiropractic (and while it would be interesting to learn a bit about it, I have a million other thgings I'd rather learn first). However I ''do'' know that it is very much a mainstream alternative health care method here in Australia, in NZ, and (I gather from my reading) in Canada too. Doubtless other places as well. By "mainstream alternative" I mean "not traditional medicine, but generally accepted". I am '''not''' talking about public opinion here - I've never seen a poll on this. I'm talking about ''governments'' - bodies which are notoriously loath to spend a penny that they can't justify, especially when it comes to health budgets. |
|
|
|
|
|
I can walk into a chiropractor's office on Monday morning with a back problem, show my medicaire card, and the ''government'' pays for it. Well, some of it - they are stingy and our "free" medicine means "we will pay about half or two-thirds of the bill, you have to put your hand in your pocket for the rest". (This applies, of course, to all forms of treatment - the chiropractor, the opthalmologist, the GP, the brain surgeon, whatever. Except dentists: you have to pay 100% of the dentist's bill. Dentistry, it seems, is considered less vital to health than chiropractic. I have no idea why.) ] 16:02 Mar 22, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
In the provinces of British Columbia, Alberta, Saskawtuen (sp!) Ontario and ... er ... where is "MB?" ... chairopractic care is paid for. In the other provinces, it's not funded. |
|
|
|
|
|
And ''of course'' doctors oppose it. Ford opposes General Motors, doesn't it? |
|
|
|
|
|
Now undoubtedly some of that opposition is genine and motivated by care for patients. But it's stretching credulity to breaking point to believe that all of it is. Asking MDs to judge chiropractic is like asking your wife to comment on your mistress. |
|
|
|
|
|
For example, in Australia, the ACCC (government consumer watchdog & fair trading authority - watches out for corporate fraud and consumer rip-offs) ruled that the Australian Medical Association was in breach of the law. Although the AMA had removed written policies against chiropractic, it was still stopping its members from cooperating with chiropractors by acting as if ethical restraints existed. The ACCC required the AMA to publicly remove opposition to chiropractic within six months or face legal action, and put aside $2,000,000 to prosecute the case. Eventually, the AMA backed down. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
The new disclaimer is an appropriate thing to have. The old one was way over the top. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:I can't take credit for it, it is simply the standard medical disclaimer. -] |
|
|
|
|
|
I am extremely unhappy with Fred Bauder's constant changes. Its not his point of view which bothers me; it is his disreagrd for facts. I am especially disturbed by his misleading and inaccurate definitions of ]s, and his false claim that chiropractice is about spinal health. The latter claim bears no resemblance to reality. We are forced to keep re-editing everything he writes, because he is not only wrong, he is misrepresenting the beliefs of chiropracters themselves. I find it ironic that an apparently pro-chiropractic advocate ends up distorting their beliefs to make them appear more mainstream, while an advocate of science is forced to state the chiropractic theory accurately and in its historical context. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
Stephen C. Carlson, please take the time to read this talk page, and please stop your reversions. This article needs to develop through adding more text that is accurate, and through discussions to insure our NPOV policy. I am more than willing to work with you, or most other people, to do this. I fear that you totally misunderstand what is going on here: The current dispute isn't about POV (point of view). Some people are pro-chiropractic, some are not. That's fine. The problem here is that Fred Bauder is deliberately misrepresenting the beliefs of chiropracters to such a large degree that he effectively is lying. He is stating falsehoods about what chiropracters believe in, what they term subluxations, and what they intend to do, and is deliberately pretending that non-chiropractic medical spinal manipulation is the same thing as chiropractic medicine. It isn't, and even chiropracters themselves say so. Fred is a zealous pro-chiropractic missionary, but he is ignorant of the subject, and thus misrepresents ''their own'' point of view! If you think there is something that needs to be added, then please do so...but stop the revisions, which end up pushing Fred Bauder's demonstratably false claims. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
:All very interesting, but upon examination of the article you reverted, I don't see much of any representation of what chiropracters (I assume D.C.'s) believe, much less the alleged misrepresentations you are talking about. The article has changed considerably, and I hope you read the current text of the article more closely and bring up specific issues in the current text of the article rather than rehashing issues that may be more relevant to some older version of the aricle. I did add much material, and you reverted it, despite my attempt to accommodate some of your views. A lot of work has gone into producing an NPOV article and your reversions to a what looks like a much older version are not helping. ] |
|
|
|
|
|
''MB'' is, I believe, Manitoba -- right there between Ontario and Saskatchewan. ] 03:57 Mar 24, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
---- |
|
|
I haven't waded through all the above, but I'll just say two things before I study it: |
|
|
* be nice to each other, and |
|
|
* remember the magic words ''premise'' and ''viewpoint'' |
|
|
|
|
|
--] 21:36 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC) |
|
|
----- |
|
|
|
|
|
First and third paragraphs are too similar, needs rewritting. |
|
The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). 2603:8000:DC01:401:6161:C2A0:44A8:D60A (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
![[REDACTED]](https://u3vuiephb.global.ssl.fastly.net/File:Aristarchos_logo_small.png){kind=link}
