Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 03:56, 11 June 2007

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

Template:Cleanup taskforce closed

Skepticism A‑class High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism A This article has been rated as A-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

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 Mar 2006 to Apr 2006 Apr 2006 to May 2006 May 2006 to Jun 2006 July 2006 & Aug 2006 Sept 2006 & Oct 2006 Nov 2006 to Mar 2007

Pseudoscience redux

For a brief history of this, please see . Basically, the argument is that unless there is evidence to show that chiropractic is pseudoscience, it should not be in that category. However, what the argument fails to comprehend is that pseudoscience consists of concepts and practices purported to be science but have no scientific basis for claims. Not all of chiropractic can be included in that category, but many of the notable aspects of it ("subluxations", "holistic health") have no scientific basis at this time. Chiropractic cannot yet be separated from its non-scientific roots, and thus, it belongs in this category, as much as that would offend honest, well-meaning practitioners. Note, this category would not belong to Chiropractors. --Otheus 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source which supports this assertion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levine2112 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

These are already within the article. Nonetheless, here you go:

William Jarvis, PhD: "Chiropractic is the most significant nonscientific health-care delivery system in the United States."

Letter from Dr. Saul Green to The Scientist "When rigorous scientific trials on laetrile, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, chelation therapy, chiropractic, and homeopathy proved them worthless, did the alternativists accept the results and quit foisting them on medical consumers? No way! They are still prompting them today." This blog is a reposting of Saul Green's letters and other writings. This one quotes from:http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1996/feb/let3_960219.html, which required premium subscription

John Jackson "Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific approach to health care. The thinking behind it has no basis in fact, and even after more than a century, its core belief, the subluxation, cannot be shown to exist; even though it is a scientifically testable theory."

I hope that clarifies. Thanks. --Otheus 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC) And as I said in my prior posting, no matter if 20 years from now, all of Chiropractic disavows the pseudoscientific concepts, because of reasons of notability, it would still be appropriate to place it in the pseudoscientific category. (Or fork into "Modern chiropractic".) --Otheus 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

These all seems to be highly critical sources, and rather old. Many scientific advances have been made in chiropractic. Don't forget, medical science was practicing leeching two hundred years ago. Are we to include medicine in pseudoscience as well?

It would be better stated that some criticis think chiropractic contains elements that are pseudoscientific, but I don't think it is fair the label the proverbial baby with the bath-water from 100 years ago, so to speak.

I would like to see others comment here and find out what everyone thinks is the best way to handle this. In the meantime, let's keep the label off until wwe can come to some agreement. -- Levine2112 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Funny enough, I just came across this article.It appears that leeching is back! -- Levine2112 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine,

1. Inclusion in a category does not indicate that the category applies to the whole of the topic.
   • If this article were about "modern chiropractic" AND
   • If "modern chiropractic" no longer taught the unscientific concepts whatsoever, AND
   • If the pseudo-scientific concepts of chiropractic were in a sub-article

   Then we could go ahead and leave the topic out.

2. "These sources are highly critical" (paraphr.). Yes, and? They are critical of it being called 'science'.
3. "These sources are rather old". 10 years at most.
   1. Most chiropractors out there are practising what they were taught more than 10 years ago.
   2. This reference is the same age as or newer than more than half of the existing references.
4. Since you asked me for sources, and I provided some, maybe it's your turn: "many scientific advances have been made in chiropractic". Anything concerning subluxations?
5. "It would be better stated that some critics think"... This is already in the article, in so many words. See "scientific investigation".
6. "Let's see what others think" (edit summary). It was already in the article when I came along and someone removed it. But I'll tell you what. I'll give you until Tuesday to provide some convincing argument why this category shouldn't be applied here. --Otheus 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is all on you to show why it should. SO far I don't see an overwhelming reason to include it. However, let's wait until Tuesday, as you suggest, to hear from others on this topic. -- Levine2112 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I showed why it belongs, above. You haven't refuted anything! The first time you asked for some sources. I produced them. Then you said "well, those sources seem awfully critical" and asked for more reasons. I produced them. Will anything convince you? If so, what? --Otheus 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus - you said that even in 20 years if all of Chiropractic disavows the pseudoscientific concepts it would still be appropriate to place it in the pseudoscientific category. For this reason alone I am not sure whether it belongs in that category now. Subluxations are pseudoscientific, but many chiropractors are not subluxation-based. Please refer to the discussion under Chiropractic (USA). If in other places, Chiropractors are not being taught subluxation-based Chiropractic, and are in fact practicing evidence-based Chiropractic, how is that Pseudoscience? It is certainly fair to consider the subluxation a pseudoscientific construct (depending on its definition - it can also be a hypothetical scientific construct if it was actually studied), but I don't think it is reasonable to consider Chiropractic a pseudoscience, when Chiropractic is not based on the subluxation. DigitalC 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This goes along the lines of notability. If someone was notable 20 years ago for something they did 20 years prior, even if the impact has long since died out, they are notable. If Chiropractic in the USA is pseudoscience, and the article includes Chiropractic in the USA, the whole article should be tagged. Now, if we were to fork off this part of the article (following Misplaced Pages guidelines on Misplaced Pages:Content forking), we could limit the forked article to the category. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not the best person qualified to properly and accurately split the article.

Further, as the discussion we're having below, and as I point out, even as recently as 5 years ago, one of the major producers of chiropractic -- Life University -- was emphatically "preaching" subluxation theory. --Otheus 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on a number of reasons. First, I don't think it is within a NPOV to say that Chiropractic is a pseudoscience. Secondly, even if you were to argue that Chiropractic in the USA is a Pseudoscience, then I don't think it would be a worldwide view to categorize this article as Pseudoscience. I think based on the length of discussion that this has generated, and the number of reverts that have occured with the Pseudoscience categorization, I would say that it is controversial. From Misplaced Pages:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines guideline number 8, it should not be put into the category. DigitalC 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DigitalC, you make some very good points. Let me see what solutions the pseudoscience "gatekeepers" suggest. Splitting up this article would seem like a dramatic step just to have a catg. There might be a better way. --Otheus 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Amendment in the Header

I have patiently been waiting for a reply regarding my concern that the POV presented here is not a universal one, but rather an American one. The biggest issue being the teachings and adherence to DD's prinicples of subluxation theory and innate intelligence.

Canada, Denmark and the UK does not teach this model in their chiropractic schools, hence the amendment was made. Not all chiropractic institutions teach subluxation theory, in fact, no instituion in Canada, Denmark and the UK teaches it. So, when entire countries teach an entirely different model, it deserves to be made reference to. Especially when Canada's chiropractic institutions are among the best ranked in the world for research and education.

Marcbronson 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to cite to support this information and include it in the article? -- Levine2112 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I can bring up the CMCC and UQTR curriculums as well as the Canadian Chiropractic Association position. Will do. Marcbronson 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Just as long as it supports everything which you added:

It should be noted, however, that the teachings of the vertebral subluxation is controversial, and that it's use has been abandoned in certain chiropractic programs, notably in Canada, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

The grammar of this sentence could be cleaned up, but let's wait on that. Make sure your sources state that teaching VS is controversial, that it has been abandoned in certain chiro programs, and specifically in Canada, Denmark, and the UK. -- Levine2112 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

--Otheus 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I would really like to see this "evidence" cited by Marcbronson as well. There are many claims being made here that I would like to see "unbiased" evidence verifying. I have yet to see anything within Chiropractic educational establishments that show absolute controversy regarding VS. Sure it is debating within the Chiropractic community, but with in educational institutions?...I have never seen an official position to this claim. Jokerst44 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joker, Levine: Your wish is my command. Here is the CMCC Doctor of Chiropractic Curriculum. Not one word of subluxations, no mission of correcting subluxations. Also, here is a link to the UQTR DC programme. It's in French, but regardless, there is no mention of vertebral subluxations (or its French equivalent) in the programme. Canada's chiropractic educational programs are subluxation free.

References

http://www.cmcc.ca/PDF/2006/CMCC_Calendar06to07.pdf

https://oraprdnt.uqtr.uquebec.ca/pls/public/gscw030?owa_no_site=679 (In French)

Will get the Denmark an UK references soon.

Marcbronson 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marcbronson. I do appreciate your position here and welcome your input. Here is the dilemma. When I first arrived here, it was my impression that we chiropractors here in the US had not practiced subluxation based chiropractic for years and that our schooling had changed. It was this report that basically settled the argument among those involved that chiropractors still believed that subluxations played a significant role in health. So the irony in your argument that Canadian chiropractic is different is that a study from Canada was hard to refute. If you can find something that shows that these attitudes have changed, it would be helpful, but I would disagree that it is much different in the US. I have great respect for the strides that CMCC is making in science along with LACC, National, and Logan as well as others. By the same token, I have to respect the straight position that not all effects of chiropractic may be able to be reduced into a nice theory of cause and effect, much the same way a lot of medicine cannot either. No disrespect in that. So your statement that this article is only one POV is correct, but that POV is NPOV. If it doesn't sound like your POV that is good because it includes other POVs. The question is, does it include your POV? I would suggest that your approach to chiropractic still fits into one of the chiropractic approaches to healthcare, maybe we can expand on that approach and then make a statement to the effect that some in Canada are working in that direction. We could even include the Chiropractic Canada article in the text. What do you think? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"it was my impression that we chiropractors here in the US had not practiced subluxation based chiropractic for years". Five years ago, Life College (Life University) in Marietta, Georgia, lost its accredidation for various reasons, resulting in the ouster of its founder and president. Before that, I had many friends who were studying there, and I ran into quite a few students in restaurants (I was a bartender and bar-hopper back then). One student told me about the Journal of Subluxations (or something like that) and that he was essentially a subluxation apologist. The other students I knew (we're talking 5) all held the subluxation theory to be foundational. So that was 2001/2002. I submit, therefore, just as a minor point, that perhaps the prevailing and official viewpoints have changed, but it's far from obsolete.--Otheus 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That has been my interpretation of the research to date. The problem is that we can't make the mistake of assuming that, just because they don't use the word subluxation, it does not mean that they don't still believe that there is a relationship between the spine and general health. I submit that a thorough look at the research would suggest that if we replace the word subluxation with the known physiology of the nervous system and its relationship to the immune system and endochrine systems and autonomic nervous system, we would have to conclude that there is a relationship there. Now some may lump this into a word, "subluxation", and others may just call it reflex dysarthopathy (or whatever else they want) but most are talking about the same thing - (except those few who are treating only low back pain because that is the only thing that spinal manipulation has been considered efficacious for). The rest of the question is where does Canada, Norway, etc fit in. If they don't call it subluxation, what do they call it? How do they describe what they do? Are they only treating mechanical low back pain? Do they not consider mechanical low back pain a type of subluxation? Or are we just talking about semantics? We would have to dig that out with verifiable and reliable sources. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dematt

I hear where you are coming from. Like I said, CMCC and UQTR don't teach subluxation theory. In 2002 there was a major change in the curriculum at CMCC, new educational directors, etc. The school has adopted an evidence-based framework (as did UQTR) and we are primarily limiting ourselves to NMSK. There was recently a survey last week regarding the current practice habits of DC's in Canada. When the results are released, I will be sure to post them, but there is an undeniable trend occuring; every new grad are less and less inclined to "believe" in chiropractic the way DD and BJ said it was (subluxations and health). What persists is a natural, holistic approach to health care via conservative measures. One can still be a chiropractor, and go to a chiropractic school that does not follow BJ/DD. Myself and thousands of other DC's in Canada and world-wide are proof of this.

VSC was not allowed to be a diagnosis in clinic. Also, mechanical low back pain is so non-specific, joint dysfunction is merely but one sign. It's never been proven that the "cause" of the LBP was a joint issue, it can merely be an effect. In fact, Australian physiotherapists and Stu McGill, PhD have presented compelling evidence that motor control and neuromuscular imbalances may be the "cause".

I respect the straights interpretation that not everything can be reduced to cause and effect, but I would argue that they grossly de-emphasize proper differential diagnosis and assessment and their position is more grounded in dogma than science. And for anyone seeking health care services, that's a little disconcerning that your DC may completely ignore the evidence (if they're even aware of it to begin with) to continue to practice a certain way that is financially lucrative.

A vertebral joint dysfunction, fixation, restriction, hypo/permobility, aberrant arthokinematics, altered vertebral dynamics, are all terms that have been used in peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary literature to describe aberrant vertebral motion. Those are the terms that are currently used in CMCC. The bottom line is, the Canadian schools are restricting their practice to primarily NSMK issues.

Dematt, when there are only 2 chiropractic schools in Canada, both evidence-based, both rejecting Pamer philosophy, both having 90% of their incoming classes with Bachelor degrees, both with tougher admission standards, accreditation standards and clinic standards, focus their scope of practice to primarily NMSK and actively encourage research its very different CULTURE of chiropractic compared to the US.

How many schools down there have outright rejected subluxation theory? How many require at least 3 completed years of university? How many require an admissions essay/package and an interview prior to entrance? How many schools there have formal affiliations with non-chiropractic universities? How many there have clinical requirements of 35 new patients, 350 patient visits and 250 SMT's prior to graduating? How many there require all students complete an investigative research project as part of their curriculum? How many there have teaching clinics WITHIN a hospital setting?

I can go on and on how chiropractic culture in Canada is fundamentally different. There have been some major advances for the profession here in the 21st century and its directly related to high educational and research standards our schools espouse. Are there still some chiropractic dinosaurs in practice here? Definitely. And, they're currently in control of many of the provincial associations. But, it's inevitable that a generation shift will occur, and that the practicing standards will be increased, not decreased. Again, I will provide you with all the references when they come out (2007).

In terms of your suggestion of linking to chiropractic Canada, I'm all in for a consensus approach and segway for that. But, I felt compelled to point out that not all chiropractors and chiropractic institutions believe in or teach the VSC (as DD and BJ described it) and if this wiki is to have a NPOV it has to take into account the various chiropractic CULTURES of other countries including your Northern neighbour.

Best, 209.90.150.114 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Marcbronson (I assume:)

• How many schools down there have outright rejected subluxation theory? How many require at least 3 completed years of university? How many require an admissions essay/package and an interview prior to entrance? How many schools there have formal affiliations with non-chiropractic universities? How many there have clinical requirements of 35 new patients, 350 patient visits and 250 SMT's prior to graduating? How many there require all students complete an investigative research project as part of their curriculum? How many there have teaching clinics WITHIN a hospital setting?

The answer to this may well be all of them, with the exception of "within a hospital setting" for most. I believe you may well have just described the CCE requirements for chiropractic education in the USA (start on page 31). That is my point. The trends in Canada are not that much different than in the USA. The USA is making those same changes. My state requires a batchelors degree (4 years) as a prerequisite to chiropractic scholl. Sure there are those dinosaurs (and I assume their offspring) in the USA, but I would suggest that the percentages are still similar to Canada, but I can't claim that as verifiable or reliable so I won't put it in the article. You're new 2002 report will be very much appreciated if it shows a trend, but Marc, I would suggest that, since the Canada report from 1998(?) is the one we used to get the line "most chiropractors still consider subluxation to be a significant part of healthcare(similar)", if your new report suggests a difference, lets correct the statement that we make about all chiropractors, not just Canada. That is all that I am saying. I agree with you. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW,

• A vertebral joint dysfunction, fixation, restriction, hypo/permobility, aberrant arthokinematics, altered vertebral dynamics, are all terms that have been used in peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary literature to describe aberrant vertebral motion. Those are the terms that are currently used in CMCC. The bottom line is, the Canadian schools are restricting their practice to primarily NSMK issues.

Same in the USA... but is this really any different than the physical properties of a subluxation? Are there any neurological consequences of your lesion? Any health issues? We can't confuse semantic change with real change. Unless you think that manipulation only fixes low back pain (which is also included in subluxation), then you are invoking some form of greater subluxation concept. Is that what Canadian chiropractic schools are teaching (just low back pain), because that would be a change. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dematt

This is my POV, but of course there are neurological complications of joint dysfunction; clearly the mechanism responsible for immediately relieving pain, improving mobility and decreasing spasticity is neurological in nature. What is not known, conclusively, is the extent of the neurological implication for non NMSK conditions. There is a growing body of evidence in terms of case reports showing that SMT has had positive somato-visceral effects. In terms of identifiable, reproduceable health effects, there's no good studies indicating that vertebral joint dysfunction is a primary or cause of this. There would be many confounding factors to overcome, but IMO, I think this can be done.

I think that we're at the tip of the iceberg in terms of seeing the full spectrum of neurophysiological effects of SMT; but until that evidence comes out we have to stick to what is known: SMT and CMT is good for NMSK issues. In terms of the chiro edu in the USA, my understanding came from the Wyatt et al. paper (2005) on the educational requirements and currents reforms occuring at chiropractic schools down there, but let me know if I was out to lunch on the graduation requirements (15/150) which is significant lower than Canada (35/350).

On a separate note, it's good to know that we can have a productive dialogue like this, better understand each other's POV, provide sources and come to a mutual understanding of a given topic. My biggest complaint about the profession, personally, is how a certain subset of straight chiropractors are so entrenched in dogma is that no amount of evidence, studies, common sense would ever change their opinions and they will always rigidly stick to the philosophies of DD and BJ. This type of attitude is more akin to cult-like, religious behaviour which completely damages the professions credibility because no regulatory board has the wherewithal to punish this and limit this type of practice.

Marcbronson 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dematt,

Of course Canadian Chiropractic schools are not teaching SMT just for low back pain. They are teaching Chiropractic care for NMSK issues. Soft tissue therapy, exercise prescription, ergonomic advice, electrial modalities are also taught. SMT is used when there are specific joint findings (not just a joint restriction/fixation alone).

As for the culture of Chiropractic in Canada, and trends emerging -

From main page - In 2003, 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases.

From the Biggs et al. article you linked, which surveyed Canadian Chiropractors in 1994 - only 30% on Canadian Chiropractors agreed with the statement 'The subluxation is cause of many diseases'. Strangely enough, 68.1% believed that most diseases were caused by spinal misalignment. I see two huge limitations of this study being used to assess the culture of chiropractic in Canada. Firstly, it was done over ten years ago, and secondly, it doesn't appear to have internal validity. How can 68% believe that most disease are caused by spinal misalignment, but only 30% believe that subluxation is cause of many diseases? Also within that study, even in 1994 Canadian Chiropractors who attended an American Chiropractic college had higher scores on the philosophy index than if they attended a Canadian school.

DigitalC 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Marc and DigitalC,

I agree 100% with everything that both of you have stated and it is a pleasure to work with you. Keep in mind that this is not "my article", but a collaboration of many. The link you notice does not accurately make that statement and that shoul dbe fixed. We can do that when we settle the way we want to handle your concerns.

Now, with your definitions above (each are different in the same sort of way) can you tell me if either of the your definitions are not entailed in the WP:verifiable ACC definition of subluxation as stated by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (which is the ONLY document recognized and signed by ALL chiropractic colleges in the USA and Canada):

• "Chiropractic is Concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation.
• A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.
• A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."

Also, can we say that there is a difference between Joe Flesia's 5 components of subluxation, who I think we can all agree was an ultimate straight chiropractor.

My point here is that yes, these are old concepts, but they are also meant to be metaphors to explain what we do. I agree with you that we are on the tip of the iceberg and that, the more we learn about the nervous system, the more we will find that DD's original theory that the nervous system plays an important role in health, not just pain. Does this make the straights wrong? Well first we need to find out what straights are saying and why. I submit to you that, if they are saying the same thing you are (only using the term 'Innate Intelligence' to be used as a vitalistic metaphor to explain an emergent process that we can't reduce to the molecular (or smaller) level because it is too complicated) then it is just a matter of semantics. But if they think that there is a Higher Power that uses the nervous system, then that is a different story that is now in the philosophical realm of Vitalism vs Mechanism then that is different. That is not something that we are going to solve with this article. It won't be answered till we either prove that there is no Higher Power, or there is. I suggest to you that the only difference between what all chiropractors are saying has more to do with whether "Innate Intelligence" is a metaphor to use to describe the emergent functions of the nervous system, or whether it is a Godly power that has nothing to do with physical phenomenon. When phrased like that, I am sure that 95% of chiropractors are on the same page. The question is, how do we put that in the article. I think we need to work to bring "how we explain what we do" from the word "subluxation" to "(whatever other name you guys decide is the sate of the science)", but we need to make clear that we are all still talking about the same thing, only some continue to hold to old "definitions"(not to be confused with failed concepts). Anything else would not include the entire field of chiropractic. I have no problem with explaining that this is happening in a effort to bring the theories of chiropractic more inline with current scientific and medical thinking, but it needs to be verified with reliable sources. There is plenty out there. What do you guys think? Also, I know I haven't addressed all your thoughts above, but if I did, we would all get lost;) Please feel free to bring them up again if you think we need to address them better, as will I. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I fear we may be heading towards just general discussion on the topic, and not maintaining discussion on how to improve the Chiropractic wiki, but I am new to wikipedia so I will let someone else decide that later. The ACC paradigm does not fit the model of Chiropractic that I was taught. Although we we learned of the ACC paradigm, and the President of CMCC was the President of the ACC at the time (I believe), Chiropractic does NOT focus particular attention on the subluxation. I focus on the patient, and the patient's chief complaint. I would agree with Keating when he says that even a stubbed toe seems to meet the ACC's definition of subluxation. Further, a subluxation CANNOT be diagnosed, because a subluxation (joint restriction) is a finding, not a diagnosis.

I am not sure what you wanted to differentiate Joe Flesia's 5 components of subluxation from.

DigitalC 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead

DigitalC is correct. I could go on forever but that would not accomplish much. Let's see what you do not like about the lead? I don't think we say that chiropractors diagnose subluxations specifically. Can you think of a better way of saying that?

Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative health care profession with the purpose of diagnosing and treating mechanical disorders of the spine and musculoskeletal system with the intention of affecting the nervous system and improving health. It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health. Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well. In contrast, the term subluxation as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves. It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory; notably schools in Canada , Denmark and the United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of an evidence-based framework

Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by DD Palmer, and it is now practiced in more than 100 countries. Chiropractic's history includes conflicts within the profession and attacks from those outside the profession.

There are four main groups of chiropractors: "traditional straights", "objective straights", "mixers", and "reform". All groups, except reform, treat patients using a subluxation-based system. Differences are based on the philosophy for adjusting, claims made about the effects of those adjustments, and various additional treatments provided along with the adjustment.

My concern is the comment that Canada, Denmark and United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of evidence based framework.

• It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory; notably schools in Canada , Denmark and the United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of an evidence-based framework

I think this is better:

• It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory and have altered their curriculums in favour of an evidence-based framework.

--Dēmatt (chat) 01:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My only comment about your idea on the change of chiropractic institutions subscribing to subluxation theory is it then doesn't give the impression that there are geographic differences.

Geographical differences for school curriculm should be easy to find, but we have to watch out for creating WP:OR. We need to find something that says it specifically. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As for what I don't like about the lead, here it is:

It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health. Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well.

1) Would everyone be satisfied with "spinal joint dysfunction" instead of spinal "joint misalignment"? I do not believe that a joint can be misaligned, without it being orthopedically subluxated.

I prefer spinal joint dysfunction, but I am concerned that the average person won't know what we mean by it. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I don't believe in "interference" with the nervous system, or that a joint dysfunction leads to different conditions of diminished health.

You must believe that a joint dysfunction always results in altered mechanoreceptor "chatter" that fascilitates nerves at the very least at that particular level of the spine. By design, altering mechanoreceptor function results in altered muscle tone in the region. This is less than optimal function. Granted it is not much, but it is a measure of diminshed health. However, I don't have any problem with "diminished function" either. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Treatments often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well. I don't aim to correct vertebral subluxation, and some of my interventions may not be holistic. There is only such thing as a typical treatment if you are treating a typical patient. Tennis elbow? Ankle sprain? Subacromial impingement? Treatment for these conditions is not "typically include spinal adjustments".

Good point. I agree, how would you word it? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DigitalC 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would word it as above, "Treatments often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well."

DigitalC 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Do you have any problem with us including:

• "Chiropractic treatments vary depending on the patient's condition and the type of approach taken by the particular chiropractor. They often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well."

Then, further down in the "approach to care" section, we can expound on the types of treatment that are given... ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any input from others? DigitalC 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to catch up on this article while "fighting other battles". Please give me another day to review this. --Otheus 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Otheus and all. I had a good look at the chiropractic page and I'd say it could be a lot more positive in outlook. There's a lot more I could say about it for starters. And I think folk have let things slide too much on those negative comments. Mostly I'd say they are really unfair. Chiropractors have helped a lot of people through a large manner of strife over the years. That doesn't seem to be in the article at all. Sincerely, Arlen

Hi Arlen, I appreciate your input. Anything in particular you would like to see addressed? (don't forget to sign you name with the four tildes (~~~~) so that it puts in your name and time). -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also went ahead and put the sentence in about treatment so we don't get too many tangents going. If anyone has a problem, we can revisit it. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dematt. Well the article seems to be quite limited in scope for starters. Theres a lot more that chiropractic can do for folks. My own experience as an assistant and recent training has shown me that chiropractic is good for all manner of problems. From skin problems to breathing, to general composure. And practitioners have been helping people for so many decades. The track record speaks for itself. I'd like to see a lot more positive said about the subject. I don't mind criticisms. But there are answers to a lot of it that don't seem to be quite there yet. Arlen Wilps 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Arlen, you do make the counterpoint that I was describing to Marc above. You might well know that there are so many types of chiropractors out there, it is hard to fit them all into one article (it is already over the size limit). I would like to see this article branch out into the concepts that you are describing, that would be considered "subluxation based" chiropractic and the type that Marc is talking about. The question is whether his article covers all the concepts, then you can create new articles that link to this one - maybe from the Chiropractic approach to care section. I agree that chiropractors as a whole treat basically everything, yet one individual chiropractor may treat only musculoskeletal problems while another treats "general health issues". I also agree that it could probably all be improved, but we need to take it slow and we need to be abel to back up what we say with WP:ATT sourcing. Do you have something specific you can think to change? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"My own experience as an assistant and recent training has shown me that chiropractic is good for all manner of problems." Wow. I get blown away every time I see this kind of claim. I've seen chiropractic advocates claim that it will cure diabetes, help with epilepsy, and now helps with skin problems. This is so completely different from the chiropractic that is taught in Canada it isn't funny. In fact, its disgusting from my point of view. We need to be evidence based to move into the future. DigitalC 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the evidence based. But I do hope you see that they are both chiropractor POVs, and this article has to include all of you. Does it? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an addtion to the lead made by User:65.102.152.234. There was certainly a point there, but it probably didn't belong in the lead, nor was it very well written. Who's Alan Korn? -- Levine2112 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the children I assume ;) He made a good point, but I think it is all in the article already. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DigitalC. I myself have had witness to a diabetic patient being made virtually normal through chiropractic. The research also shows some real good results http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=62500. Chiropractic is a great stablizer. But thats just the tip of the iceberg. There's cold hard evidence for a lot of chiropractic treatments. And that translates to hope for so many sufferers. Of course they should be listed. Right now they're not there at all. I really don't think chiropractic is being given the credance it deserves in the article. Its been a great help to so many for so long. Its only fair to show all the benefits as noted by so many good chiropractors. Arlen Wilps 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC.

The article you linked to states that "the patient also received nutritional and exercise guidance". Thus, no effects can be attributed to the adjustments. This is likely why the author of that study stated that "it is unclear how much impact chiropractic care might have" on patients with diabetes. This is a poorly conducted study, and as such, the evidence is still lacking for treatment of non-muskuloskeletal disorders. The patient may have gotten the same results if you had simply tapped his forehead. In addition, this is what we call anecdotal evidence. It should NOT be used to guide or defend practice behaviour. That applies to the patient who you allege was made normal through chiropractic. We don't know what other confounding variables may have been responsible. It is only fair to show all the benefits that quality research has been able to attribute to SMT.

The only way to include all viewpoints in this article is to be deliberately vague. As it is, I still do not agree with the article because it states that " is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health." This is exclusionary, as well as historically inaccurate.

DigitalC 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DigitalC. I don't think people are getting the article deliberately vague. Its more likely a problem of conflicting views. I see there have been plenty here. But I accept that there may be some views excluded and that may want fixing. For my part I only want to make the article clearer on what is believed to be possible through chiropractic according to a lot of practitioners (eg, plenty of help for clients with various problems). I don't think I need to present science evidence for it, though evidence does show up on a lot of studies. I just need to show that some chiropractic sectors have that view. I'm sure all you need to do is show evidence for anything you feel is excluded also. Arlen Wilps 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS, here's a link on at least one good source for psychology and chiropractic http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=14354. Arlen Wilps 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making the "article clearer on what is believed to be possible through chiropractic according to a lot of practitioners", is that it makes the article exclusionary to those who don't believe that is possible. Although, I guess if stated that only some chiropractors support those beliefs, it would be ok - but certainly not in the lead. DigitalC 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you both have some good things to say that can improve the article. I agree with DigitalC that probably the lead is not the place to start. Find an appropriate section to add to (without taking anything out yet) then see if it can be copy edited to flow nicely. After that, we change the lead accordingly. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead isn't the best place for this material. Also, please note that the resource above is coverage of a single case study. If we are going to cite studies, it would be better to find research that draws upon a pool of subjects. These studies are given more weight in the scientific community than case studies. -- Levine2112 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point Levine, as usual. Remember, any claims that are introduced will be scrutinized with a microscope and justly critiqued for sure. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I perhaps should post my comments in other sections. I didn't intend the detailed info for the lead bit. I don't think it would exclude anyone else's view though even if it was in the lead. My point is the article should really show what a lot of chiropractors know about chiropractic - they view chiropractic from their own experience as being beneficial in some really great ways. Its that view that chiropractic has been helping people for so many decades in so many ways that really does need proper airtime by Misplaced Pages guidelines. That shouldn't exclude any other views of course. Arlen Wilps 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I still take issue with this line in the lead - "It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health."

Chiropractic is not based on subluxation, as many chiropractors do not believe in subluxations/joint misalignment, and the concept of subluxation came after the first "Chiropractic" adjustment by D. D. Palmer. However, as stated above, I would be happy enough with it if 'spinal joint misalignment' was changed to 'spinal joint dysfunction'.

DigitalC 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the term change. A lot of folk do call it subluxation though, no matter the term, so the rest of the line should stay I think. Arlen Wilps 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that. I am not sure if the general public will know what dysfunction means, but I'm all for that change. Do you think we should go on to define dysfunction? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made my change. What do you think? Does that pretty much cover everybodies concerns? Feel free to take it back out if it doesn't work. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Dematt. Please excuse the tardy reply. Arlen Wilps 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref problem

Refs 13 and 14 are blank, rather than take the time to look and see where tey are repeated from I thought I'd just notify. Quadzilla99 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadzilla, fixed it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NACM

The ICA has this to say of the group:

...an all but non-existent group for chiropractic services since this supposed organization does not publish its membership lists and is reported to consist of only a tiny handful, perhaps less than 100, of the more than 50,000 doctors of chiropractic active in the United States alone...

The WCA says:

...the NACM is extremely small...

I will look for more, but it would be nice to get an independent third-party source to confirm the weight/notability of this group. -- Levine2112 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, good to see you use it. The sources above are usually (since they're already in the article presumably due to consensus) reliable regarding chiro orgs so I personally wouldn't need other sources. The NACM info in the quoted WCA articles looks reliable and neutral to me. From the sources I conclude that (1) the existence of the group is verifiable (which means these sources found it notable enough to discuss) (2) there is enough background to place this group in context - maybe add something from the ICA quote above? AvB ÷ talk 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is not notable and the group is obviously in a minority we leave it out. If they are representative of that minority viewpoint that is in the article, then it is relevant (for that minority viewpoint) and hence it makes sense for it to be included. However without a V and RS, it probably is mute. Shot info 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an established minority viewpoint of some chiros. Let them have their voice. Some chiros don't like the significant minority. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for proof of what the beliefs of NACM's members were as claimed by those like fyslee who seem hell bent on it's inclusion. All I ever got back was blank stares. It was removed long ago and just recently put in, so the edit war is on the part of those who are submitting original research. The burden is on them to back up their statement.

If you can give us something like names of members, the financials, when are meetings, what seminars have they conducted, what research have they carried out, when are elections, and minor things like that which are easily found out for legitimate organizatioins, then we would have something to go on.

The big red flag for me is that three of the four links at the end of the one-page website, leads one to websites that are privately owned and operated by Stephen Barrett <once again removed per WP:BLP, this is not a reliable source and you're quoting it out of context. It's also nonsense copied from Bolen et al.>

So I question the legitimacy of this 'organization' and his connection with this group due to the presence of his links on their webpage as his links solicit donations for his personal use.Steth 03:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They are a legitimate group. No reason not to include. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. :)--Hughgr 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's verifiable. AvB ÷ talk 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added what we know from a reliable secondary source (on chiropractic): it's small. Feel free to replace with something like "extremely small according to x in 1992" AvB ÷ talk 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AvB, just pointing out that you say that this content is verifiable using a two WCA articles as secondary sources. I also want to point out that NACM is a chiropractic adversary of the WCA, much like Barrett is a chiropractic adversary of the WCA. So let me get this straight. According to you, even though WCA is adversarial with NACM, it can still function as a reliable secondary source (for content where there is no primary source ). But also according to you, since WCA is adversarial with Barrett, it can't function as a secondary source (for content where there indeed is several primary sources all verifying the content). Common sense? -- Levine2112 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking out if I missed something. AvB ÷ talk 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Explanation: I'm considering these sources on a page per page basis (just like I consider Quackwatch pages). These two articles come out quite OK as RS in my opinion. WCA is used as a source elsewhere in the article so I figured the WCA site has other reliable source pages on chiropractic, according to consensus among the regulars here. Your comparison, by the way, does not work for me. NACM claims to be a chiro org. That means other chiro sources are potential RS. Barrett does not claim to be a chiro (org). AvB ÷ talk 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NACM is chiro org fueled directly by Barrett. Why do you think the one page website for NACM link externally only to several Barrett websites? NACM is in the back pocket of Barrett's "chirobase.org", Barrett's chiropractic org. So yes, Barrett is essentially a chiro org. ChiroBase represents the same exact views as the NACM - that chiropractors are just glorified physical therapists and that anything beyond that is bunk. -- Levine2112 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what you and I think. But we need reliable sources saying so. AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Common sense plays a vital role here. I think most people will agree that the NACM info in the WCA articles I quoted is neutral and balanced, if only because it gives both sides in the form x says, we respond ... AvB ÷ talk 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 2 - Before you ask, please note that this information is presented in the article in the same context as in the sources. 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in defensive context with Slaughter defending the size of membership. About the same context as the Board Certification is presented by Barrett. The difference is: people doubt whether NACM even exists, but no one doubts that Barrett is not Board Certified. Common sense would say to include only verified content in an encyclopedia. -- Levine2112 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Old argument, already refuted on Barrett talk page. AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 3 - This might be different if there were a response from the NACM somewhere which contradicted the info that it's a tiny organization. Is there? I didn't check. At any rate, I thought that those editors on the chiro side of the debate would want to emphasize the small size of this minority of chiropractors, which actually follows from the small size of NACM - a reason to include this group, not to exclude. The less important the more weight. AvB ÷ talk 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there isn't a response from Barrett contradicting that he isn't Board Certified. In fact, his response is one of confirmation. The last compromise was to even include Barrett's contextual explanation - that it didn't effect his career as a psychiatrist. Why you claim that we don't have the proper sources to say that - verified content (but we do have proper sources to say that a possible non-existant organization "tends" to represent the Reform chiropractors) is beyond me at this point. I see you bending the policies to suit your views rather then applying neutrally without passion or prejudice. (BTW, where does it say in any source that the Reformers "tend" to be members of NACM?) -- Levine2112 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified my concern regarding the legitimacy of NACM and my concern about the three of four links on NACM's only webpage are for websites owned and operated by Stephen Barrett, the retired psychiatrist who failed his psychiatric boards. See above.

IMO any group that holds no meetings, has no elections, holds no seminars, conducts no research, doesn't reveal membership is suspect. There is no way to verify what it's members adhere to since we have absolutely no proof that there even are ANY members. It's tiny membership is based on nothing but pure speculation by someone who has no idea about the actual numbers and are only guessing themselves. Steth 12:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion of an editor. Interesting to inform discussion here, but in the article we need to base ourselves on sources. There are sufficient secondary sources to see that NACM is notable in this context (including the comments and suspicions of certain others as also apparent in secondary sources, see the NACM article). AvB ÷ talk 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, will you ever realize that the board certification thing is only interesting in the eyes of Barrett's most rabid detractors? More than anything else, your insistence to copy Bolen's signature attack (a very specific string of personal put-downs of Barrett) whenever you write the name Barrett shows how blind you are to the fact that it gives you away as an extremely biased editor who is trying to infuse the encyclopedia with extremely biased ideas because he thinks they're neutral. That string of put-downs is not neutral. It's an attack due to its contextomy and emphasis. I'm leaving the one above in since it's offset by my explanation. (It's sort of unexpected to see how you have replaced "delicensed" of Bolen's original misguided put-downs with "retired". But you're still managing to make it sound negative.) AvB ÷ talk 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but it works both ways. IMO, Barrett apologists come across with a wierd sort of 'true-believer' protector of the emporer and his NO CLOTHES type of mentality. SB is OK with the notion that he was unable to pass his boards, even getting off the throne to appear here to say so. But for some reason, a sort of protectionist cabal scurries about to hide this fact (board failure = no clothes = rear-end exposed)afraid of anything that they feel sounds negative about the boss-man. Oh, well. There are two sides to every coin, eh, Avb? Steth 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about my opinion of Barrett if I were you, Steth. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS If you feel I want to keep the BC information out of the encyclopedia, think again (and read the compromise I posted on the Barrett talk page). I'll want to include it when convinced (based on common sense arguments or secondary sources) that it has sufficient weight (or notability if you will). Lacking that, I'm still willing to discuss my compromise. It illustrates my general stance in such cases, firmly rooted in Misplaced Pages's mandatory NPOV: if we say something, it must be in the context of the source we use. In this case our only reliable sources are Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide such information for WP articles). Obviously, that's exactly what editors debating on the side of Barrett's detractors are trying to prevent here. They want to say he isn't/wasn't board certified, but they don;t want to tell the readers what this means. After all, responses and background info make Bolen's BC criticism look pretty empty. Just like his (now retired?) de-licensed mantra. AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 2:I've copied some of the above which looks somewhat off-topic here to Talk:Stephen Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reform Chiro Tidbit

They tend to be represented by the small National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM).

If it is not to your satisfactory we can reword it. It seems odd to leave this out of the article. Are there chiros editing this article? This could be a conflict of interest because they are eager to delete information on a minority of reform chiros. Are there mainstream in the majority chiros who are against the minority of reform "scientific" chiros? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these references are up-to-date and none declare or even hint that reformers "tend" to be members of NACM. You might be able to say that the NACM represents the views of reformers, but you'd have to show that they even still exist. Have they done anything of note in the past 5 years? Has anyone written about anything they've done in the past five years? (I am being arbitrary with five years, but it seems reasonable.)

Side note: It is interested that a Barrett source and WCA sources are being used by QuackGuru to support a statement about an adversary of chiropractic. -- Levine2112 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this carefully. As I said, you can word it however way you want. As noted, this article is not about a person, thus BLP does not apply here. It seems Levine2112 is still confuses, policy-wise. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this can be carefully written to satisfy all parties. This should be simply. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Where does it say that they tend to be members of NACM? Please quote for me. I understand BLP all too well. You are looking for a reliable secondary source and have said that the WCA doesn't qualify as one; yet when it suits your needs the WCA does qualify as a reliable source? To say something that the source doesn't even say? To say something that even the primary source doesn't even say? Yet, when we have the WCA saying exactly what Barrett is saying - that he is not Board Certified - then you say that the WCA isn't a reliable source? Hypocritical? -- Levine2112 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still confuses. BLP does not apply to this article. You can reword it anyway you like. Do you understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The references (to verify the text) are referring to a group and not a person. This article is about the subject chiro and not a person. Do you get it? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Same reference source, same reliable source policy, smae subject matter. If WCA can be considered a reliable source of chiropractic adversary NACM, then is can be considered a reliable source for chiropractic adversary Stephen Barrett. Get it? -- Levine2112 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP policy does not apply to the small National Association for Chiropractic Medicine reform statement. The confusion by Levine2112 confirms he is still misunderstanding BLP policy. Again, you can write the reform chiro tidbit anyway you like using the sources provided. Good luck. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No confusion on my part, but nice try to make it seem that there is. I am not discussing BLP. I am discussing reliable sources. -- Levine2112 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three references of your choice. You can write it up whatever way you want using the refs. Again, do you understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to your standards for reliable sources, you have yet to show us reason why any mention of NACM should be included in this article. -- Levine2112 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what standards are those. I never mentioned standards or questioned the reliability of the sources here. You are not making sense. "Levine." Try to focus. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have stated clearly that WCA is not a reliable so for an adversary of chiropractic. This was in regards to Barrett (an adversary to chiropractic). So how can it be that you consider the WCA a reliable source for NACM (another adversary of chiropractic). It seems you like to bend the rules to suit your POV. I can't spell this out any clearer, so if you feel that I am not making sense, perhaps it is you who needs to try and focus. :-P -- Levine2112 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This confirms you are confused and do not under policy. In regards to Barrett, it falls under the umbrella of BLP policy. As uses in this article, BLP does not apply to an organization in this context. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep trying to turn this into a BLP debate. It isn't. It is a matter of reliable sources. BLP depends on reliable sources. If WCA is a reliable source for NACM, then it is a reliable source for Stephen Barrett. So which is it? Is WCA a reliable source for NACM and Barrett, or isn't it? You can't have it both ways. Sorry. Have a nice day too! -- Levine2112 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the policy. Articles on a person does fall under BLP. It is a BLP debate. Thus, BLP is for Barrett. This chiropractic article does not fall under BLP when referring to the reform bit. You seem to be confused to what policy falls under which articles. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You know it shouldn't be this difficult. Let me help Quru/Guru to focus:

If I told you about an organization that holds no meetings, elects no officers, gives no seminars, does no research, and I won't/can't tell you who the members are or if there are any, and I then tried to use this as a reliable source, well then, what would you do with that? Well I am sure you would grind it up and spit it out if I tried to use it here at WP as a reliable source and it would last two seconds, right? Oh yes, and then I told you at the end of the one -page website are links to someone who solicits donations at his privately-owned website, then what would you think of me and this 'organization'? See what I mean? There you have it. It doesn't pass the smell test as I have said numerous times in the past year or so. Thanks Steth 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And your sources are? AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Steth? Pending question above. Please answer at your earliest convenience. You may want to distinguish between (1) information on NACM provided by sources you seem to view as reliable in all of their secondary source publications (sources that I view as reliable in some of their secondary source publications, i.e. on an article-by-article basis and mainly when writing about anything that claims to be chiro-related), and (2) information sourced in an NACM publication (which is what your argument above opposes, if I understand it correctly). Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Do your "smell test" edit summary and text above represent your personal opinion, or are you quoting a reliable source? If the former, this does not make it seem like you're about to collaborate in order to "write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically." (From WP:NPOV). A "bad fish" attitude usually makes me very hesitant to view an editor's activities here as intended to help us build an encyclopedia. (AvB visualizing users pushing barrowloads of fish they believe is fresh.) AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you guys have reverted my edit without a consensus on the talk page. You're most welcome to pushing your barrow. I have no time for this. Leaving this article in disgust. It's sort of rewarding to see a chiro article, no, the main chiro article, owned by the likes of you. I have no opinion on chiropractic but I'm not impressed at all by those who are defending it. AvB ÷ talk 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that without consensus, you leave things out? Am I mistaken? -- Levine2112 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not mistaken about this when dealing with (possible) BLP violations due to unsourced or poorly sourced BLP material. The problem here is quite different: you removed sourced non-BLP material which is not allowed without refuting the reasons given by the adding editor and/or reaching a consensus on the talk page. <irritated remark removed by Avb> AvB ÷ talk 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just asking a question. Your incivility continues. You fail to assume good faith and frankly you are rude. Now then, we have no consensus to add this material. We have no references that support the content as written. Now I am all for the WCA being a reliable source for the NACM, but that also means then that the WCA is a reliable source for Stephen Barrett. Regardless, the content under dispute here is that Reformers tend to be members of the NACM. What source do you have to support this claim? -- Levine2112 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Already answered before you asked. As usual. On AGF: Once again, I will assume good faith with you again when you have earned it. Also note that I have never found a reason to think you have ever assumed good faith with me. On being rude for once: this was due to your behavior. Any reasonable person would be irritated. You even managed to upset Crohnie. Anyway, I've removed my irritated remark. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More incivility. This is getting old. -- Levine2112 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You were acting as if you did not understand my anger, so I explained, still irritated. I've removed the irritated words but kept the explanation. AvB ÷ talk 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. According to Levine the sources are reliable. If you, Levine, (or anyone) is not satisfied with the wording then reword it instead of being a you know what on the talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you'd want it to say. The sources certainly don't support anything about the membership tendencies of reformers in relation to NACM. But if you want to draw something else from the WCA sources, then you have to be willing to conceed that the WCA is a reliable secondary source for chiro detractors such as the NACM and Barrett. -- Levine2112 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WCA is suited for this article and not BLP against Barrett. Levine, you still have problems understanding policy. You seem to know a lot about chiros. I assume you are a chiro. Read the refs and write how you think it should read. After all, you have conceeded the refs are reliable. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I don't know what you want to say using those refs. Sorry. Barrett's ChiroBase and NACM are equivilent (they are basically the same voice from the same machine). If WCA is good enough for you here then it has to be good enough for you for Stephen Barrett. The WCA article says nothing untrue about Barrett (and what it says about his lack of Board Certification has been verified by Barrett himself). So you have three courses to choose from now: 1) Drop this. Move on. Continuing is only weakening your arguments at Stephen Barrett. 2) Continue pushing the issue here hypocritically in contract to your position at Stephen Barrett. 3) Conceed that the WCA source is reliable for Barrett and continue with your position here free from hypocrasy. Your choice. -- Levine2112 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Already answered before you asked. As usual. The quoted articles on the WCA site are reliable secondary sources regarding the NACM. Expanding that to (1) the entire WCA site and (2) to all chiro detractors? Certainly not. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your chose option #2. Pity. -- Levine2112 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I ignored your options for QG, if only because they contained a full-blown personal attack on QG ("hypocritically", "hypocrisy"). Instead, I repeated an earlier explanation you might have missed. Only to find you extending the same personal attack to me as well. AvB ÷ talk 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Levine is not interested in helping to improve this article. It is best for Levine to help or leave this article. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 07:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am improving this article by keeping completely unsourced statements out. You are making it worse by engaging in edit wars, being uncivil, and pushing for content with absolutely no sources to back it up. It's not like you even have a primary or an unreliable secondary source saying that Reformers tend to be members of NACM. You have nothing. Find something or move on. In either case, more civility from you would be a good start to improving the Misplaced Pages community as a whole. -- Levine2112 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You can improve this article by reading the sources which are reliable according to you and write a sourced statement. This tidbit is verifiable. You can discuss and reword it as you see fit if it is not to your liking. You can help or leave this article. Its that simple. :) - Mr.Gurü (/_contribs) 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can help or leave this article. Its that simple. applies to Mr.G too.--Hughgr 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Reform" into "Mixer"

Yoo hoo, I'm down here, AvB!! I'll answer AvB here even though I was responding to Quru, it is curious as to why you feel challenged. Never the less, I don't understand why I need sources to use a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. I said "if" an organization exists without elections, dues, seminars, meetings, etc. and I won't reveal it's members or if there are any and then asked you to use it as a reliable source, what would you say? Yes? Not likely. Yet that is exactly what we are being asked to do by the NACMers. They hold no meetings, elections, collect dues, have seminars, write nothing, contribute nothing, won't reveal the members. They do however have a one page website that seems as if it hasn't been changed since Windows 3.1 was 'new' with an address that is likely (just my guess) the home of someone named Murray Slaughter.

And, oh yes, it has the seal of approval of retired psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, long-time avowed anti-chiropractic extremist. Now one doesn't have to be an Einstein to recognize that if three of the four of the only links at the bottom of the page go straight to his anti-chiropractic websites where he solicits donations where his history shows that he has create new attacks to besmirch chiropractic and inflict as much damage as a retired psychiatrist could whip-up from his home made laboratory in his Pennsylvania basement, well that's a problem with this whole kettle of fish called NACM. See what I mean? So the whole thing just smells so, so, bad. Barret you may recall failed his psychiatric boards, which to me, sends up a big red flag, too, but that's just my opinion and it's been discussed at length at the SB talk page.

Now why would ANY chiropractor support a so-called "organization" with no meetings, seminars (chiropractors love seminars, you know) publications, elections, etc. etc.? Now here is the question: Why would any chiropractor support a group, connected/affiliated with/influenced by a retired psychiatrist with a mental-case like insane hatred of chiropractic who envisions a world without chiropractic in his lifetime when his goal is to have every chiropractor seeking another occupation? Who in their right mind would support a group that is trying to put them out of business??!!!?? See what I mean?

Another thing. This "reformer" thing. When did it become an official category? It seems to me that it is a made-up term by the radical anti-chiropractic fringe. If chiropractors don't reinvent themselves to the image created by the anti-chiropractic cabal/fringe/extremists, then they are not "reformers" and are now classified as a sub-species since they are the embodiment of evil in their eyes, and must be destroyed, yes? What kind of crap is that!? See what I mean?

So AvB/Quru/Guru/flysee/Ronz/KV if you really would like to impove the chiropractic article, and I am assuming good faith that you would like to do this, and I don't think you would appreciate the suggestion to go hang out at other articles, then the article will be much improved by leaving out an "organization" that no one can put their finger on. See what I mean?

I propose that "reform" be merged into mixer, since I am sure there are more who don't subscribe to the subluxation theory and focus on musculoskeletal problems only who are NOT NACMers and who DO belong to the ACA, an organization with thousands and thousands of members whose names are available on the internet (can the NACM claim that?), hold seminars, elections, collect dues, supports research, publications and many other characteristics of a legitimate organization. See what I mean? Steth 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

1. Council on Chiropractic Education pdf see page 15
2. Association of Chiropractic Colleges, Chiropractic Paradigm
5. Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards, Questions and Answers about Professional Regulation and the Chiropractic Profession, Where are chiropractors regulated?, January 9, 2006.available online
6. Michel Tetrault, DC, Country Chiropractic Support, Chiropractic Diplomatic Corps. available online
9. "The Skeptical Inquirer magazine blasts chiropractic as unscientific 'societal problem'". The Chiropractic Journal. January 1988. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
10. "Berkeley newsletter says: 'Be wary of chiropractors'". The Chiropractic Journal. October 1992. Retrieved 2007-06-07.
11. William, Jarvis T (April 28, 2000). "Chiropractic: A Skeptical View". Retrieved 2007-06-07.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• A-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles