Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:22, 11 November 2016

Text and/or other creative content from Chiropractic was copied or moved into Chiropractic treatment techniques. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Chiropractic was copied or moved into Veterinary chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Text and/or other creative content from Koren Specific Technique was copied or moved into Chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists.

Template:Vital article

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.

Misplaced Pages is not censored. Images or details contained within this article may be graphic or otherwise objectionable to some readers, to ensure a quality article and complete coverage of its subject matter. For more information, please refer to Misplaced Pages's content disclaimer regarding potentially objectionable content and options for not seeing an image.

Do not feed the trolls! This article or its talk page has experienced trolling. The subject may be controversial or otherwise objectionable, but it is important to keep discussion on a high level. Do not get bogged down in endless debates that don't lead anywhere. Know when to deny recognition and refer to WP:PSCI, WP:FALSEBALANCE, WP:WIKIVOICE, or relevant notice-boards. Legal threats and trolling are never allowed!

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.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine 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.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Skepticism 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 High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. [REDACTED] Alternative views Mid‑importance [REDACTED] This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. Citizendium Porting (inactive) This article is within the scope of WikiProject Citizendium Porting, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Citizendium PortingWikipedia:WikiProject Citizendium PortingTemplate:WikiProject Citizendium PortingCitizendium Porting

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to pseudoscience and fringe science, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40

This page has archives. Sections older than 20 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

Toward Resolving Bias

I stopped by this page hoping to get a useful overview of chiropractic. Instead, what I found was a hit piece by advocates of mainstream medicine. This is a problem I have seen with other controversial topics, such as Creationism. "Unbiased" in such cases is defined as "what most people believe." rather than the philosophy we claim to adopt in research, that of evidence and efficacy. People should be allowed to present their viewpoints and evidence on Misplaced Pages, and not be shouted down by what my Grandma called the "boozhie-wazzie."

The problem with this kind of "neutrality" is that it is not itself open to any criticism. This is why Socrates drank poison. Mainstream medicine, for example, has a lot of research backing, but it is one of the best advertisements for alternative medicine there is, because it produces almost as much ill health as health. It relies on chemical treatments, is insensitive to important areas of health, and it is indistinguishable from the class power structure. One reason for the popularity of chiropractic (and I have never been to a chiropractor myself, so I am somewhat objective) is that anecdotally, it produces some good results. And anecdotally, medicine produces some very negative results, or at least "we can't do anything for you." We have all the research, all the methodology, all the technology, all the facilities and equipment, but in many cases, the one thing we can't do is heal. But instead of admitting that, we choose to blind people to it, as is being done on this page.

I suggest restructuring this article (and similar articles) following a strict forensic style. Allow the side which represents the topic of the page to present their explanation, or describe the history, claims, and characteristics of chiropractic in neutral terms. Then present the rebuttal by the other side, and give an opportunity for discussion or cross-examination. That is true objectivity. Admit that there is a dispute, and you are not automatically right, just because educated people agree with you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Alfarero (talk • contribs) 15:03, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

See Help:Using talk pages: "Place new discussions at the bottom of the page." WP:NPOV and WP:FRINGE might also be worth checking out. --tronvillain (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

""Unbiased" in such cases is defined as "what most people believe."" What a load of bullshit. How would you even determine that? Polls? In which countries? And the truth changes depending on what people believe? But polls are facts - maybe we should just write what most WP users believe that most people believe. Your definition is unviable. As Tronvillain writes: inform yourself how things are done here, instead of inventing new guidelines. Read the guidelines he linked. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Guidelines and policies keep evolving, and are in fact collaboratively devised, so yes, above user has all the right to propose changes to mentioned guidelines. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 15:31, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, of course - but in the talk pages of the guidelines. Not here. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:39, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead should have some sort of reference about the demand for chiropractic in numbers

I think that the lead should have some sort of refernce in regards to the demand for chiropractic. "Such as in the united states in 20XX Americans spent xxx million dollars on chiropractic or something like that"? I really don't know much about chiropractic and i cant say if its quackery or not. However I feel the Lead is biased against chiropractors.

(Certainly i dont feel that chiropractors should be physicians and any pseudo scientific ideas should be called out)

"Chiropractic has had a strong political base and sustained demand for services; in recent decades, it has gained more legitimacy and greater acceptance among conventional physicians and health plans in the U.S., and evidence-based medicine has been used to review research studies and generate practice guidelines."

This is in the lead that is true ...... is there any numbers? Numbers speak louder than words Sassmouth (talk) 04:25, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

It's difficult to do in line with policy, since it's essentially a marketing claim and chiropractors appear to invest more time in "practice building" than any other single element in their canon. Guy (Help!) 06:57, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, such claims need to be put into that exact context that Guy mentioned. Delta13C (talk) 09:05, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Guy i get it you dont like chiropractors That's not a good reason not to include factual data in this article Sassmouth (talk) 11:25, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Your parser is broken. That's not what he said. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:03, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I neither like nor dislike chiropractors. I dislike fraudulent claims. I don't think Misplaced Pages has a problem with that. Some chiros do not make fraudulent claims, many others do. The ones spending most on "practice building" and using the argument from popularity, are also the ones most likely to be making fraudulent claims. I don't think that's an especially controversial view - other than among the chiropractors who make fraudulent claims, of course, and we are fully entitled to ignore them. Guy (Help!) 21:08, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Why not include factual information in the lead? Such as what the actual demand for chiropractic is in numbers? you still have not given a good reason? If the numbers exist from a reliable source ?? Sassmouth (talk) 02:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC) "The percentage of the population that utilizes chiropractic care at any given time generally falls into a range from 6% to 12% in the U.S. and Canada" as per the article some sort of information like this thats all im asking... as per whether or not chiropractors are quacks i don't know i don't care. Give the reader objective factual information. and that would be factual information if a reliable source can be found Sassmouth (talk) 02:59, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Chiropractic#Reception is the place to put the undisputed details. QuackGuru (talk) 15:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Obviously i dont have consensus here for my proposal thanks guys have fun editingSassmouth (talk) 02:46, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

The numbers can be still added to the body. QuackGuru (talk) 02:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

adverse effects

Some people here claim it to be dangerous and pseudoscience due to occasional adverse effects. Why is Chemotherapy#Adverse_effects not being labeled as such as well? It seems to have way more adverse effects, and yet is considered mainstream, effective, science, whatever? Is it because it is being applied by M.D.s and not Chiropractors? Me being a layman, I would appreciate layman explanation. Thanks. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 15:36, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chemotherapy is dangerous, but it isn't pseudoscience. (Read the article on pseudoscience). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:50, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Chemo has a solid evidence base showing effect and a balance of positive over negative. Chemo is also much less bad than the alt-medders claim. Chiropractic, on the other hand, has zero evidence of effect over and above reality-based care. So chemo saves lives, at the cost of adverse events which are actively studied and explained to the patient. Chiro does nothing, at the expense of adverse events which are denied outright and certainly never explained. Guy (Help!) 16:02, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

I remembered a joke now: one guy was teaching a mull how not to eat, and just when the mull learned, it died! Chemo to me looks a bit like that, if it doesn't kill you, it worked. Not too scientific if you ask me, but I am just a layman. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 16:11, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not so much a layman as ignorant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:16, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Not really, you WP:DICK, I know you are aware of WP:NPA. I am not ignorant as my close one died after chemo, but I am a layman as I don't have M.D.. On the other hand, I don't have DC either, and yet I was helped quite a bit by it.. So wondering how wrong a science must be, and assholes like yourself to be so arrogant and claim you help people, while libeling others who actually may do some help. 178.222.66.130 (talk) 16:21, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, chemotherapy is dangerous, but it isn't given unless the underlying disease is worse. The same is true for all medicines, but it is exceedingly unlikely that the chemotherapy killed your loved one. Chemotherapy may weaken someone suffering from cancer more, but it is given in accordance to science and known best practices. Chiropractic on the other hand cannot help against cancer, and it is illegal in many countries to claim that it does. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 16:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, they did only say "after" rather than "because of", though that seems to have been the implication. --tronvillain (talk) 16:43, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Up to 98% of cases of childhood hodgkin's lymphoma are now cured with chemotherapy. Your argument is invalid. Guy (Help!) 17:00, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

To make statistics valid, you need to have a baseline, which in this case was not easy to find: (...untreated Hodgkin lymphoma from 1910–1962. ... 5 year survival of less than 6%...) 178.222.109.211 (talk) 17:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

One can also find science behind spinal manipulations, if only searched for: . 178.222.109.211 (talk) 17:55, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Just like you can find evidence of me receiving a Nobel Prize, "if only searched for": . --RexxS (talk) 02:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

POV dispute

Describing chiropractic as "pesudoscience" in the first sentence of this article is unnecessary at best and at worst highly POV. Per Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view/FAQ It falls under "Questionable Science" as the AMA and other prestigious organizations and state governments (per requiring health insurance companies to cover it) recognize the practice as being a legitimate field of medicine — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.203.88.210 (talk) 18:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Is questionable science any different from pseudoscience? We have a myriad of sources claiming it is a pseudoscience, none that it is legitimate. You are aware that the AMA is legally hindered from giving a science-based opinion. It's in the lede if you wish to read the last paragraph. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 19:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they are.

What you do is plain negative labelling contrary to WP:NPOV but also against the ruling in the ArbCom-case that you used to hammer people earlier. The Banner talk 20:07, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it is entirely in line with point 8 in that case. That should be abundantly clear, and here we have strong sources in favor of calling it pseudoscience, none which are against it. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 20:13, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

But not with point 1: neutrality. The Banner talk 20:59, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:PSCI, yes it is. We do not seek false balance between science and woo. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:08, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

See: Misplaced Pages:Administrators' noticeboard/Something fishy?? Negative labelling on Chiropractic. A request for clarification. The Banner talk 21:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

NPOV does not prohibit negative labelling where the negative label is the both factually accurate and the general consensus opinion of the subject. Chiropractic's basic principles have long been held to be pseudoscience, and the only chiropractic practitioners who dispute this are ones who also do not believe/follow its basic principles. Its still pseudoscience. Much like homeopaths who try to distance themselves from the like-cures-like and dilution nonsense. Only in death does duty end (talk) 00:36, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

@50.203.88.210: The lead opens with "Chiropractic is a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine" with two references to support that. I find it hard to believe that anybody reading all of the sources would not conclude that the nonsense about "subluxation" is anything but pseudoscience. It is true that chiropractic has been shown to have some effect – and cost-effectiveness – on chronic lower back pain, so it's fair to apply the epithet "alternative medicine". In fact, if all that chiropractic concerned itself with was the treatment of lower back pain, it might even be considered medicine! But it doesn't, so we find all manner of sources enumerating the areas where it has no measurable effect and more explaining why vertebral subluxation is considered woo-woo. I suggest three things:

1. the lead summarises the article quite well;
2. the article reflects the sources quite well;
3. the sources represent a good cross-section of the available information and comply with WP:MEDRS.

If there are any reliable secondary sources that present a view different from those used in the article, why not list them here and let's try to improve the article, rather than whine that it doesn't treat chiropractic as if it were on a par with genuine evidence-based medicine? --RexxS (talk) 01:59, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree: it's reasonable for our article to be up-front about the pseudoscience aspect. Alexbrn (talk) 16:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

High quality evidence suggests that there is no clinically relevant difference between SMT and other interventions for reducing pain and improving function in patients with chronic low-back pain. Determining cost-effectiveness of care has high priority. so if there is no difference in effect from established scientific interventions, i would say it's just as scientific as science. :) 212.200.65.110 (talk) 17:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

"I would say ..." ? We go by reliable sources, not by fallacious arguments from drive-by anonymous editors. Alexbrn (talk) 18:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) That some manner of science or evidence-based practice is present in the midst of a sea of mumbo-jumbo doesn't make the field any less pseudoscientific. How is that not obvious? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 18:18, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It needs to be verifiable, not just 'obvious'. In addition, using your argument, one could say physics is pseudoscientific because there is lot of pseudoscience and fringe in the world of physics. If some apples are rotten, not all apples are rotten, some are just apples. 212.200.65.113 (talk) 23:30, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

No, you could say "physics is pseudoscientific" but because no reliable source agrees with you, Misplaced Pages can't say that. However, multiple reliable sources used in the article characterise the claimed mechanism of chiropractic ("subluxations") as complete bollocks pseudoscience, so our article says that. It also reflects that some sources identify chiropractic as alternate medicine, and even notes that there is some evidence of efficacy in treating sub-acute and chronic LBP. What more do you want? --RexxS (talk) 23:45, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I see that the vanity press publication "spin doctors" is being used to support the idea that 'chiropractic' is itself a 'pseudoscience'. However, high-quality sources, such as this review from Kaptchuk (full text here ), suggest chiropractic is not itself a pseudoescience, but rather a profession where a proportion of members espouse ideas that may be labelled as pseudoscientific. It thus seems incorrect to call the chiropractic profession a pseudoscience en mass, especially since a significant portion of the profession has been documented to not espouse the pseudoscientific ideas (see the Kaptchuk source). Rather, those ideas that are pseudoscientific should be labelled as such. Is there any high-quality source that actually labels the entire profession as pseudoscience, as opposed to just the ideas espoused by some of it's members? 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 01:08, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The usual POV-pusher's empty rhetoric: big on unsupported claims and thin on actual evidence. So Ted Kaptchuk, Doctor of Oriental Medicine, thinks chiropractic is alternate medicine in his op-ed piece? Sure, why shouldn't he? What you don't say is that other reliable sources tell us it's pseudoscience. If "a significant portion of the profession has been documented to not espouse the pseudoscientific idea" how come the Association of Chiropractic Colleges and the World Federation of Chiropractic still affirm their belief in a definition of subluxation that has no basis in evidence? If a belief in the mechanism of a disorder that has no evidence of its existence along with a treatment technique that has no demonstrable effectiveness isn't pseudoscience, I'd like to know what you think the word means. --RexxS (talk) 03:10, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

RexxS; please focus on sources and text and try to avoid name-calling and generalizations about other editors (POV-pusher?). Interestingly, you say that the 'POV-pusher' is big on claims but thin on evidence, yet I presented a source published in a respected medical journal to support my claim and you have brought no source to back your extensive commentary. Please provide the "other reliable sources that tell us it is pseudscience". I certainly agree that plenty of sources say the ideas of subluxation and innate intelligence are pseudoscientific, but I do not see any high-quality sources saying the profession is pseudoscience en mass. Your dislike of Kaptchuk has no policy-basis, his work linked above was published in a well-respected medical journal (Archives of Internal Medicine) and meets MEDRS requirements as high-quality. You attempt to use 2 examples of chiropractic organizations that have definitions of subluxation as evidence that chiropractic is pseudoscience, but this is original research unless you have a source that makes this same connection. There are sources that suggest that it is only a subgroup of the profession that espouse the pseudoscientific ideas, EG: . 2001:56A:75B7:9B00:1984:4122:5040:4657 (talk) 03:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

You're a POV-pusher and you need to stop wasting everybody's time here. I've seen this debate many times before and I've seen your ilk more times than I care to recount. Take a good look at WP:CPUSH. The sources I have referred to are already in this article and in Vertebral subluxation. If you have a problem with any of the sources, let's hear them. You're the one who's proposing fundamentally altering a mature, well balanced article and the onus is on you to explain why the present sources' judgement of chiropractic should be subordinate to yours. If you bothered to read our articles, you'd see Cooperstein and Gleberzon (2004) and Peterson (2001) showing a dozen members of ACC and the 77 members of WCF adopting the evidence-free mumbo-jumbo that the ACC and WCF call "subluxations". Does anyone really need to list all 613 results on Google Scholar for "+chiropractic +pseudoscience"? If you don't see those sources, you need to spend more time at the opticians, not at the chiropractors. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a misleading interpretation. The truth is, nothing works well for chronic back pain. You could equally say that SMT is as effective as magic pixie dust. Guy (Help!) 08:25, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Guy: Our article says:

• "A 2011 Cochrane review found strong evidence that suggests there is no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments for reducing pain and improving function for chronic low back pain." - PMID 21593658
• "A 2011 systematic review found evidence supporting the cost-effectiveness of using spinal manipulation for the treatment of sub-acute or chronic low back pain; the results for acute low back pain were insufficient." - PM C3176706

I don't think I misinterpreted either our article or the sources. It's a mistake to think that chiropractic has no effect at all, especially when used as an adjunct to other treatments, but I accept that you may genuinely hold a different view. --RexxS (talk) 15:00, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Both SMT and standard therapy work about as well as magic pixie dust. And the problem with SMT is that most chiropractors never discharge a patient as cured, they sell indefinite courses of worthless "wellness adjustments" and "spine health", so the cost benefit calculation during a short course of treatment does not apply to the real world. Guy (Help!) 15:55, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I would imagine that anyone who believes in pixies might find some benefit from the magic dust (and could be sold quite a lot of it). So it is with many "treatments". I take your point about real world charging practices. Cheers --RexxS (talk) 17:59, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I've been reading through this, which is merely the latest installment of the usual argument. Here's a few thoughts I had:

• Q: Is questionable science any different from pseudoscience? A: Yes. Bad science is not necessarily pretend science, just like saying something that's false isn't necessarily the same thing as lying.
• Vertebral subluxation isn't "nonsense". The way that many chiropractors have engaged with the concept might be nonsensical, but real scientists believe that it's possible to dislocate vertebrae (usually with severe nerve damage as a result).
• There seems to be a whole lot of "it doesn't work, so it's pseudoscience", but even QuackWatch says that it (sometimes) works – only they'd rather that you got the same treatment from some other person: "although manipulative therapy has value in treating back pain and may relieve other musculoskeletal conditions, chiropractors are not the only source of manipulative therapy."
• "If there are any reliable secondary sources that present a view different"... but please keep in mind that any source with a different POV will be discredited as unreliable, unable to speak The Truth™ for legal reasons, etc. There is a long history on Misplaced Pages of cherry-picking sources based on whether the conclusion matches our personal POV.
• "it's reasonable for our article to be up-front about the pseudoscience aspect" ...but does "being up-front" require giving that aspect as the first and main definition of the subject? Not even the article Time Cube, which is the canonical example of an article about pseudoscientific nonsense on Misplaced Pages, says something like "Time Cube is pseudoscience" before saying what the subject of the article actually is (a website explaining someone's personal pseudoscientific theory).

The main purpose of the first sentence in an article is to define the subject (e.g., not to pass judgment on it). So I think it'd be helpful to look at definitions, i.e., from medical dictionaries. Some are rather long, but here's a few examples:

• a nonpharmaceutical, nonsurgical system of health care based on the self-healing capcity of the body and the primary importance of the proper function of the nervous system in the maintenance of health; therapy is aimed at removing irritants to the nervous system and restoring proper function. The most common method of treatment is by spinal manipulation and is primaryil done for musculoskeletal complaints; other methds include lifestyle modification, nutritional therapy, and physiotherapy.
• A specialty focusing on the non-surgical diagnosis, treatment, and management of neuromuscular skeletal conditions by means of manipulation of the spine and related structures.
• The treatment and correction of bodily ills by mechanical means.
• a profession that specializes in the diagnosis, treatment, and overall management of conditions that are due to mechanical dysfunction
• A system of diagnosis and treatment based on the concept that the nervous system coordinates all of the body's functions, and that disease results from a lack of normal nerve function.
• chiropractor: Someone who treats disease by manipulation and adjustment of body structures, often the spine.
• A system that, in theory, uses the recuperative powers of the body and the relationship between the musculoskeletal structures and functions of the body, particularly of the spinal column and the nervous system, in the restoration and maintenance of health.
• A system that, in theory, uses the recuperative powers of the body and the relationship between the musculoskeletal structures and functions of the body, particularly of the spinal column and the nervous system, in the restoration and maintenance of health.
• a system of therapy which holds that disease results from a lack of normal nerve function and which employs manipulation and specific adjustment of body structures (as the spinal column)

I find nothing in there that suggests that mainstream medical dictionaries consider the pseudoscientific aspects of the profession to be the very first thing that readers need to know. That may be the most interesting aspect for certain anti-woo warriors, but the mainstream POV seems to be a little different – more concerned about the specifics of what it is, rather than "it's just one of a thousand kinds of pseudoscientific altmed things".

We can do better. Jytdog's edit to move the word pseudoscientific out of the first sentence was a step in the right direction. Let's see more of that kind of sensible, middle-ground editing. WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:55, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

What you are doing there is looking for a WP:False balance. Dictionaries need to sell, and the Chiropratic lobby is strong (as evident by the case against AMA), but the fact remains that all sources looking at the scientific underpinnings of chiropractic call it a pseudoscience. We have clear policies for this at WP:PSCI, and we should call a spade a spade and tell readers what it is in the definition (the first sentence). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:59, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

I think a better approach is needed here ....in no way do "all sources" say this ...best to not overstate things ...as when we can all see the current sources in the article. Need to explain more when using words of this nature. The word it should be used !!!! but only in a section that explains the facts. In the lead we should just state the fact is controversial. This article also has the problem that it looks like a listing of studies - rather then an well written summary of facts. That said "History" section reads great--Moxy (talk) 22:50, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

1. DUE doesn't say that we know better than our sources. It says that the proper balance for a Misplaced Pages article is the balance that exists in reliable sources, not the balance we find when we only look at certain types of sources.
2. PSCI says "the mainstream views of the scientific community", not "the views of those parts of the scientific community that care about this particular detail". "The scientific community" includes more than advocates whose careers focus on pseudoscience. The "mainstream views" of "the scientific community" are not found in advocacy works. They're found in (non-chiropractic) medical school textbooks, medical dictionaries, government agencies (NIH, CDC, NICE), position statements from major medical bodies, and similar sources. And I'm not finding any such sources that emphasize the pseudoscientific label. It's not that they necessarily say that it's scientific; it's that they don't care about this detail. Not mentioned in 99% of mainstream sources about the subject == not DUE for the very first words of the article. NB that PSCI never says that the pseudoscientific nature needs to be mention in the very first words. I wouldn't object to an entire article on pseudoscience in this field. I'd welcome a solidly sourced section on it. But not the very first words, because almost no mainstream sources about this subject (NB: "the subject", not "the scientific underpinnings of the subject") mention it at all.
3. If you think that old and highly respected medical dictionaries such as Dorlands and Stedman's are going to bow to the wishes of some "lobby", or even sell worse if they mention the word pseudoscientific, then I firmly disagree. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:48, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

The problem here is that 90% plus of reality-based medicine simply ignores quacks altogether. Based on your argument, we would make the same change to homeopathy because only the small minority of doctors who give a damn actually write anything about it at all, most ignore it for the fatuous nonsense it undoubtedly is. Same with innate and subluxation. They are self-evidently bullshit, so no reality-based sources look at them. Now, you can say that chiropractic is really spinal manipulation therapy, the small part which is ethically and evidentially defensible, and that is what advocates have been trying to do here for a long time, but the problem is that the defining characteristic of chiropractic, what sets it apart from reality-based physiotherapy, is exactly that bullshit paring. I doubt you will find more than a handful of chiros who discharge curd patients, do not sell maintenance adjustments, and do not use the chiropractic neck twist. Feel free to show otherwise, but the evidence I have seen indicates very strongly that however much mixers might try to be legit, most of them still promote enough of the bullshit to get caught up in the same problem.

On the substantive matter, I am fine with saying that chiropractic is historically defined by the pseudoscientific concepts of innate and subluxation, rather than that chiropractic itself is pseudoscience. Some chiropractors almost certainly make less than half their living from happily promoting bogus therapies (© Simon Singh). Guy (Help!) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Guy correctly points out that "the proper balance for a Misplaced Pages article is the balance that exists in reliable sources", so why does this article not rely more heavily on the mainstream, peer-reviewed, medical sources that have covered chiropractic, such as this review in Archives of Internal Medicine (full text here ) and this article published in the Journal of the American Board of Family Practice and this article published in Vaccine? 75.152.109.249 (talk) 02:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Ok, we'll open up the field to look at the sort of sources you adduce like the one from the Center for Alternative Medicine Research, a single study collected from by CAM practitioners and a study on vaccination, none of which mention pseudoscience (the Chewbacca defence). So let's look next at an article on chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory, a study of federal funding advancing chiropractic, a book on scientific research and an editorial in The Medical Journal of Australia. So there's four of my mainstream, peer-reviewed medical sources that lambaste chiropractic theory as pseudoscience against three of yours that don't mention it. I've got dozens more just from one Google Scholar search, so we can play this game a lot longer if you insist. Similarly you could argue to get the word "pseudoscience" out of the Flat Earth article because 99% of reliable sources about the Earth don't bother to mention that Flat Earth theory is pseudoscience. It's exactly the same false balance. Chiropractic really is partly alt med and partly pseudoscience, and our article is obliged to make that clear per WP:FRINGE/PS. --RexxS (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

• Just to point out that Chiropractors overwhelmingly believe in Vertebral subluxation not Subluxation which is what medical practitioners treat. There is a distinct difference. One is pseudoscience, the other is a recognised condition. Whatamidoing linked to the second rather than the first despite the disambiguation note at the top of Subluxation. Vertebral subluxation as defined by Chiropractic use *is* complete and utter nonsense. Subluxation in its actual medical application is not. Using a related legitimate condition to justify/imply some legitimacy in the pseudoscience area is a classic fringe/psudoscience editing technique on wikipedia, its something seen time and time again on medical articles. As almost everyone here is aware of. Only in death does duty end (talk) 09:05, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

This was written by an person that is completely biased against chiropractic. They have no business writing such an article for wikipedia. There references are out dated and are skewed by the same presuppositions as the author. Please have this written by a chiropractor or with the help of a chiropractor. The leading sentence begins with "pseudoscience", this automatically skews the readers perception of chiropractic. 2605:6001:E389:B100:CC7D:897D:6B3A:9A7E (talk) 15:34, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Science is biased against chiropractic, working as intended. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 15:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@2605:* - "Please have this written by a chiropractor or with the help of a chiropractor." Yeah, right. That's like expecting us to let Donald Trump write his own article here. Absolutely not. Have you ever come across the concept of WP:Conflict of interest? --RexxS (talk) 17:53, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with RexxS, CFCF and Guy. Best regards. --BallenaBlanca (Talk) 18:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the commentor is right. This article is clearly written with the purpose of defaming and harassing a profession. Highly biased. Voicewing (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. WP:DUCK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:18, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Article is definitely biased. Medical doctors from 20+ years ago have an inherent distrust of chiropractors for past political and scientific reasons. Thus, you can't claim objectivity when a source cites an MD. That isn't to say all pseudoscience sources are bad, just to say that there is a gigantic dichotomy about this topic and you'll find sources to say anything you want about chiropractic. Be critical. More on point, the sources for "pseudoscience" are indeed biased and POV in this article - cherry-picked by the editor to make their point. Obviously it's alternative medicine but calling it pseudoscience is not applicable to most of the chiropractic profession. In the page itself it cites "straights" as the minority, yes the pseudoscience sentiment stems from the "straight" view of chiropractic through a vitalistic philosophy. I agree, that is pseudoscience, but mixers incorporate scientifically vetted procedures into practice and focus more on the scientific model when attempting to help their patients. Thus, the claim for pseudoscience is only applicable to a minority of chiropractors and shouldn't be included in the first sentence. Semmendinger (talk) 22:38, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources say that it's the entire field—please see WP:PSCI. So far I haven't seen a single source that actually states that chiropractic is scientific, just a few editorials saying it should be evidence based (but isn't). Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 22:58, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Then the sources are biased. I don't claim chiropractic to be pureply scientific, but there are thousands of scientific studies on chiropractic care from VBA dissection risk to gait analysis to low back pain (in every possible demographic) to respiratory rate, etc etc.. It doesn't fall 100% into science, and it doesn't fall 100% into pseudoscience. Surely some of chiropractic is pseudoscience but how can a field with so much research (I know, it pales in the light of medicine, but still it's a lot of research) be categorized by just one word? The minority is pseudoscience, not the majority. The entirety is alternative medicine though, so that's the appropriate description. I see you're a medical student, which is a field that fundamentally opposes chiropractic. Surely your opinion isn't objective just as mine isn't. But we can't let POV impact what should be neutrality. Semmendinger (talk) 23:06, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

There is quite a lot of research into religion, that doesn't make it science, it's still religion. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 23:23, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Good point. Not well thought out though. Is it peer reviewed and does it follow the scientific method like the ones I'm talking about do? Semmendinger (talk) 00:50, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@Semmendinger: "Then the sources are biased" - says who? You think your judgement is better than published reliable sources? There is indeed a massive amount of research in chiropractic and the vast majority of it concludes that the conceptual basis is without foundation and the evidence of effectiveness is virtually non-existent - read Ernst E (May 2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". Journal of pain and symptom management. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. PMID 18280103. for a full narrative review. Our article categorises chiropractic as "a form of pseudoscience and alternative medicine". Considering that the majority of chiropractic organisations affirm a belief in the pseudoscience of subluxations, along with 88% of American chiropractors and only a minority of chiropractors (such as the GCC in the UK) reject it, I think that's a more than fair summary of the position. How about you roll out some sources to support your flawed contention that "The minority is pseudoscience, not the majority"? --RexxS (talk) 01:29, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@RexxS: Nope, I do not think my judgement is better, we can agree on that. I didn't even insinuate I know more. My whole point of being here is to say that editors need to stay objective as there is a long storied history of angst between MDs and DCs. This angst leads to a lot of the problems we see between the two groups when one claims to be better than the other. Unfortunately some of the sources on this page might be biased for that reason, which is all that I brought up. No need to start inciting and claim things I never said. There's also a reason I'm only commenting on the talk page and not making edits on the main page - I know of the sources but I don't know them well enough to cite them. I leave that to a professional or at least someone with more knowledge on the subject matter than myself. I'm just bringing light to these scientific articles when others are claiming chiropractic functions in the theoretical and unknown and lacks true studies. Lastly, my claim to your quote on my behalf is based on the rest of the Misplaced Pages entry alone which claims mixers to be of a more scientific background and also claims them to have more credited scientific backing. If that's the case, then isn't their practice more deeply rooted in science and less on subluxtaional theory (since they don't necessarily believe in it?) I'm not a DC, the entire point I was trying to make was to be objective, because from an outsider the page reads very anti-chiropractic and seems to source from entities the same philosophies as its authors. Semmendinger (talk) 02:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"there is a long storied history of angst between MDs and DCs" - that is because one group cares about whether what they are doing actually works, and checks whether it does, and stops doing it if it doesn't, and the other group doesn't do these things. That is why one of those groups tends to succeed in publishing in reliable sources, and the other one tends to fail. And that is why what one of those groups says ends up in this article more than what the other group says. Anybody who wants to change the last fact has to change reality, not its Misplaced Pages image. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:21, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason it reads anti-chiropractic is that reality is anti-chiropractic. And when it comes to "mixers" the content in this article is unfortunately lacking. Mixers use a variety of unscientific nonsense such as nervoscopes, activators, and whole-spine X-rays. The X-rays are especially dangerous because they expose individuals to unnecessary and harmful radiation, which ultimately causes cancer (proven correlation, unlike chiropractic benefits). Normal medical X-rays often require young subjects to use gonadal or ovarian protection, while that is something I've never seen in chiropractic, just blasting away as if Xrays were entirely safe. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 09:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

But sir, you are wrong. My reality is that few doctors couldn't help me a bit and didn't know why I had pain, reality also is that few chiropractors didn't help me a bit, but a reality also is that one chiropractor helped me immensely. So if most of them don't know how to do their job, doesn't mean the profession is bad. 178.222.81.112 (talk) 13:31, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Not to be rude, but your reality doesn't matter. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 13:49, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

The plural of 'anecdote' is not 'data'. --RexxS (talk) 14:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, and I thought all those meta-analysis relied on patients reports about their pain! Wow, you are so smart! 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Smart enough to know that a meta-analysis relies on a lot more than a single patient. Unlike you. --RexxS (talk) 00:00, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Horrible

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

It is glaringly obvious to anyone who reads this article that it's whole purpose is to harass and defame. There is no objectivity whatsoever. It's this kind of article that gives Misplaced Pages a bad name. Voicewing (talk) 20:46, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOCK. WP:DUCK. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 21:14, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

It is also obvious that WP:OWN and WP:GANG is happening here. 178.222.81.112 (talk) 13:32, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Instead of just crying "horrible" or "harass" or "defame" or OWN or GANG, it would help us improve the article if it was pointed out exactly what is wrong, and illustrate why with WP:RS so that the article can be improved. Carping and complaining without any suggestions as to how the article can be improved is just wasting your time, and more importantly ours. -Roxy the dog™ bark 13:41, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

This 'crying' accusation is your own projection.. You've been crying all kinds of stuff, fringe, dangerous, pseudo, evidence... Very specific suggestions for article improvement were provided multiple times above and before, and yet each one was ignored.. 212.200.65.107 (talk) 19:43, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

"Very specific suggestions for article improvement were provided multiple times above and before" - utter codswallop. Apart from the comical suggestion that a chiropractor should write the article, all we've heard is whining from you and your pals about the reliable sources that reflect chiropractic as a pseudoscience. Where is anyone to find these sources for "article improvement", apart from in your imagination? --RexxS (talk) 20:51, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Alternative hypothesis: a 19th Century quack did not, in fact, discover the root cause and one true cure of all disease. Truth is not defamatory. Chiropractic is founded on delusion and has made, to date, little if any progress away from it. Guy (Help!) 21:25, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

delusion is in the mind of the beholder 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:03, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Quick inspection of last 1000 edits of this talk page shows that following ten editors: Alexbrn, CFCF, JzG, QuackGuru, Ravensfire, Razr_Nation, Razzzic, RexxS, Roxy_the_dog, Tronvillain, have almost as many edits as remaining ~90 editors. This speaks for itself and who WP:OWNs this article.. (speaking of WP:DUCKs) 212.200.65.114 (talk) 23:16, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Wow, I made the top ten? Neat. WP:STEWARDSHIP --tronvillain (talk) 23:23, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

@212.200.65.114: And yet of the 179 edits I've made so far this month, only 10 are to this talk page: that's 5.5%. Whereas 4 out of your 5 contributions this month are here: that's 80%. Now go away and read WP:SPA, then find something useful to do. --RexxS (talk) 23:59, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep, it's a quack.

You go away! I stay here. DHCP switches addresses.. so I have edits elsewhere as well. Read about that a bit. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:06, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

You've got edits elsewhere? Prove it. --RexxS (talk) 00:22, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes sir! I will send you ISP logs with FEDEX priority mail. Or simply ask NSA, they will confirm. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:24, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

It's time to put up or shut up, then get back under your bridge. --RexxS (talk) 00:28, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

not everyone lives under the bridge homie. 212.200.65.114 (talk) 00:47, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2016

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Someone is clearly trolling the definition of chiropractic. Beginning the definition of an entire profession by stating that it a "pseudoscience" is unfounded and clearly demonstrates a political agenda from the person editing. I am requesting that the definition is reverted to the state it was in prior to this last edit. If you need me to I will rewrite the entire definition but for the sake of time and effort I would just like it reverted to the original untrolled definition. Thank you for your help and for keeping[REDACTED] unbiased.

Acohndc (talk) 14:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done This is essentially a duplicate of a request made a couple of sections above. Alexbrn (talk) 14:46, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Quite an examplary consensus building going on here.. 195.113.243.86 (talk) 16:32, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Please keep the integrity of Misplaced Pages an unbiased source of information

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The definition in question is of Chiropractic as a profession. The person who made the most recent changes to this definition is a 24 year old med student who is clearly biased against Chiropractic. Which honestly is completely fine for him to have those views and even post them publicly. However it is not at all okay for somebody who is writing the definition of any profession in an open encyclopedia source like this one to have or at least express biased views. Letting a person with such opposing views define Chiropractic is as wrong as letting a creationist write the Misplaced Pages definition of evolution or even allowing a chiropractor who happens to be biased against medicine be allowed to write the definition for medicine. This is supposed to be an unbiased source of information and these changes that he made are clearly biased. Please keep the Integrity of Misplaced Pages and allow the definition of a profession to just be just that, a definition and not a political slander. Acohndc (talk) 13:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)Acohndc

Please read WP:MEDRS. The opinions of any individual editor seem quite irrelevant, we are trying to follow reliable third party sources. The sources we use are "biased" against pseudoscience and quackery. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 14:35, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please apply the same criteria to sources in the lead. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 15:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you saying that one of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be? If so, which one and why? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

exactly. this one looks better. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 15:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It isn't "better" though. Please read WP:MEDRS, it explains why. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

... literature reviews or systematic reviews in reliable, third-party, published secondary sources (such as reputable medical journals), recognised standard textbooks by experts in a field, or medical guidelines and position statements from national or international expert bodies.

Benedetti, Paul and MacPhail, Wayne do not fit in any of those cats. NCCIH on the other hand is reliable medical resource and international expert body. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 16:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Have you read WP:MEDRS? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I quoted it above. It appears you have not read it. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 16:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I have, and I knew you quoted from it. But I still asked you if you've read it (you know, the entire thing, not just the "nutshell"). I'll try again: have you read WP:MEDRS? (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 16:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

And I will answer again, as I see you are a bit slow, yeeesss, I diiiiid. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the text above. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:02, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please respond to argument. Stop acting like a lousy teacher. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

All potatoes are lousy teachers imho. I asked "Are you saying that one of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be? If so, which one and why?". Your response contained the word "exactly", but it didn't specify which of the sources that is used for the WP:LEAD is not a WP:MEDRS even though it should be, and why you feel that that is the case. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:11, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

But I did, you just didn't pay attentions. Benedetti, Paul and MacPhail, Wayne. This section was started by someone discussine pseudoscience claim in the LEAD and I found only one source about that in the lead. So not that hard to figure out. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We potatoes are not just lousy teachers, we suck at mindreading. Life is difficult for us. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You suck at reading as well, and comprehending. But that's ok, we make mush potatoes out of you. 185.62.108.2 (talk) 17:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

You don't know what its like to be a Shetland Black! Anyway, if you wanna talk about MEDRS then you need to be a bit more polite, and if you want to talk about potatoes then I would recommend using another talkpage. And you still haven't found a source that is "better". (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:21, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Red herring. I talk about RS, you switch to potatoes, then you blame me. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Please re-read the text above. In my comment at 17:11 the words "Your response" refer back to the comment left at 15:48. (((The Quixotic Potato))) (talk) 17:52, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Ironically, that is precisely what we are doing. We are documenting the facts without deference to the vested interests of the trade. Guy (Help!) 15:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Albeit too often from the mainstream medical point of view, due to WP:MEDRS. The Banner talk 17:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Albeit too often from the POV of the anti-woo warrior, which is not quite the same thing as the mainstream medical POV. We're supposed to document the facts in WP:DUE proportion, without deference to any vested interests. But the problem we continually have here is the over-emphasis of certain bits of verifiable information. MEDRS is about verifying that some reliable source said something. Just because something's verifiable (and WP:The Truth) doesn't mean that it needs to be presented in the very first sentence of an article (or included in an article at all, according to WP:V). WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Though the fringe nature of fringe things needs to be prominently mentioned, according to WP:PSCI. Alexbrn (talk) 17:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I strongly support inclusion of pseudoscience in the first sentence of this article.Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:44, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Neither is neutral your selection of lousy sources. Why is citation currently in article better than the one provided above? 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Because what you quoted does not at all concern the underlying scientific basis. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

So NIH.gov can get science lessons from you? 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What? Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:51, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Exactly my question to you! How your blah blah relates to nih websites claims about chiropractic. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

They don't make any claims either which way as to whether it is based in science. Your link is frankly entirely irrelevant. Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 17:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Frankly, your opinion is irrelevant, and I wouldn't even bother with it if I had account, I would simply remove the non-notable reference and statement. 46.13.136.230 (talk) 17:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Request

I request reference Benedetti, Paul; MacPhail, Wayne (2002-01-01). Spin Doctors: The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination. Dundurn. p. 18. ISBN 9781550024067. be accompanied by another one telling the other side of the story, from a way more reputable source 46.13.136.230 (talk) 19:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

We shall avoid WP:GEVAL. Alexbrn (talk) 19:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the source is nothing new. Our article already states:

• Low back pain. A 2013 Cochrane review found very low to moderate evidence that SMT was no more effective than inert interventions, sham SMT or as an adjunct therapy for acute low back pain. The same review found that SMT appears to be no better than other recommended therapies. A 2012 overview of systematic reviews found that collectively, SM failed to show it is an effective intervention for pain. A 2011 Cochrane review found strong evidence that suggests there is no clinically meaningful difference between SMT and other treatments for reducing pain and improving function for chronic low back pain. A 2010 Cochrane review found no current evidence to support or refute a clinically significant difference between the effects of combined chiropractic interventions and other interventions for chronic or mixed duration low back pain. A 2010 systematic review found that most studies suggest SMT achieves equivalent or superior improvement in pain and function when compared with other commonly used interventions for short, intermediate, and long-term follow-up. Specific guidelines concerning the treatment of nonspecific (i.e. unknown cause) low back pain are inconsistent between countries.

I wonder what the troll thinks is in that old (2002) NCCIH op-ed piece that isn't already covered by better sources? --RexxS (talk) 19:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. ^ Rubinstein SM, Terwee CB, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW (February 2013). "Spinal manipulative therapy for acute low back pain: an update of the cochrane review". Spine (Systematic Review). 38 (3): E158–77. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e31827dd89d. PMID 23169072.
2. Posadzki P (2012). "Is spinal manipulation effective for pain? An overview of systematic reviews". Pain Med. 13 (6): 754–61. doi:10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01397.x. PMID 22621391.
3. Rubinstein SM, van Middelkoop M, Assendelft WJ, de Boer MR, van Tulder MW (June 2011). "Spinal manipulative therapy for chronic low-back pain: an update of a Cochrane review". Spine (Systematic review). 36 (13): E825–46. doi:10.1097/BRS.0b013e3182197fe1. PMID 21593658.
4. Walker BF, French SD, Grant W, Green S (2010). Walker, Bruce F (ed.). "Combined chiropractic interventions for low-back pain". Cochrane Database Syst Rev (4): CD005427. doi:10.1002/14651858.CD005427.pub2. PMID 20393942.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
5. Dagenais S, Gay RE, Tricco AC, Freeman MD, Mayer JM (October 2010). "NASS Contemporary Concepts in Spine Care: spinal manipulation therapy for acute low back pain". Spine J. 10 (10): 918–40. doi:10.1016/j.spinee.2010.07.389. PMID 20869008.
6. Murphy AY, van Teijlingen ER, Gobbi MO (September 2006). "Inconsistent grading of evidence across countries: a review of low back pain guidelines". J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 29 (7): 576–81, 581.e1–2. doi:10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.07.005. PMID 16949948.

Clarify the position

Lets's just get past these trolls and make the position clear. The background is already well documented in this article and in Vertebral subluxation:

1. The majority of chiropractors and their associations believe that chiropractic works through a pseudoscientific mechanism called "vertebral subluxation complex".
   • "... in a 2003 survey of 1100 North American chiropractors, which found that 88% wanted to retain the term "vertebral subluxation complex", and that when asked to estimate the percent of disorders of internal organs (such as the heart, the lungs, or the stomach) that subluxation significantly contributes to, the mean response was 62%."
   • "In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation."
2. Vertebral subluxations are not the same as what medical sources refer to as subluxations (where the dislocation is detectable on X-rays). Vertebral subluxations have no basis in evidence and fit perfectly the definition of pseudoscience: "a claim, belief, or practice presented as scientific, but which does not adhere to the scientific method".
   • "Traditionally, the "specific focus of chiropractic practice" is the chiropractic subluxation and historical chiropractic practice assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence,
3. The only evidence of possible effectiveness of chiropractic that is documented in reliable, secondary sources is related to the area of chronic lower back pain:

   "There is no good evidence that chiropractic is effective for the treatment of any medical condition, except perhaps for certain kinds of back pain."

4. Within Misplaced Pages, chiropractic is included in: Category:Pseudoscience, {{Pseudoscience}} and List of topics characterized as pseudoscience, so there's very little doubt how the topic is viewed in the context of our encyclopedia.

So, we have a subject where most of its adherents rely on a theory that has no basis in evidence, and which has virtually no demonstrable effectiveness reported in independent, reliable, secondary sources. If that isn't pseudoscience, then nothing is. It is already clearly accepted as pseudoscience in other areas of Misplaced Pages. Nevertheless, it is reasonable to characterise the field as a whole as alternative medicine because of the sources that label it as such. But it is by no means reasonable to ignore the many sources that also refer to it – particularly as regards to its underlying theory – as pseudoscience. Our introduction must mention both of those elements per WP:FRINGE/PS:

• "To determine whether something is pseudoscientific or merely an alternative theoretical formulation, consider this: Alternative theoretical formulations generally tweak things on the frontiers of science, or deal with strong, puzzling evidence—which is difficult to explain away—in an effort to create a model that better explains reality. Pseudoscience generally proposes changes in the basic laws of nature to allow some phenomenon which the supporters want to believe occurs, but lack the strong scientific evidence or rigour that would justify such major changes. Pseudoscience usually ... relies on weak evidence such as anecdotal evidence or weak statistical evidence ... , or indulges a suspect theoretical premise."

I'll be interested to see what counter-evidence the POV-pushers will bring forward to deny the above. --RexxS (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

A very good summary of why it is paramount to include "pseudoscience" somewhere in the first sentence—which is included in Google search results and in their "snippets". And contrary to what some people here seem to be suggesting "Spin Doctors - The Chiropractic Industry Under Examination" is a very thorough analysis, extensively referenced, and written by two Canadian neurologists. Yes it strongly favors a certain POV, but there is plenty of science and sources to back that up. Few independent sources exist which discuss the nature of chiropractic, and it is one of the best.

Another good book is "Chiropractic: Science and Antiscience" written by historian Joseph Keating Jr and quoted in Benedetti who says:

many chiropractors, perhaps a majority, rely on “ways of knowing” that are not scientific. They believe chiropractic works because the Palmers said so, because it “just makes sense,” because they see it in their practice everyday and hear anecdotes, read testimonials, and see non-experimental data such as clinical case studies. All this, Keating says, has been:
... bolstered by the proliferation of pseudoscience journals of chiropractic wherein poor quality research and exuberant overinter- pretation of results masquerade as science and provide false confidence about the value of various chiropractic techniques.

This lack of critical-thinking skills combined with a non-scientific and often anti-scientific attitude results in chiropractors adopting other unproven modalities in their practices.

Keating sees skepticism and a scientific attitude among a small group of chiropractors and schools, but he is far from optimistic. For one thing, to challenge the notion that “chiropractic works” is considered heresy in most of the profession, so instead of teaching skepticism and critical thinking to students, most chiropractic colleges instill strong belief in chiropractic, strengthening an already prevalent anti-intellectual tradition in the profession.

I have a hard time finding a clearer case of pseudoscience, and the urge for WP:False balance and resisting clear labelling of it as such is frankly damaging.

Carl Fredrik 💌 📧 21:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

References

1. McDonald WP, Durkin KF, Pfefer M, et al. (2003). How Chiropractors Think and Practice: The Survey of North American Chiropractors. Ada, OH: Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University. ISBN 0-9728055-5-9.
2. Donald M. Petersen Jr. WFC Lays Foundation for Worldwide Chiropractic Unity. Dynamic Chiropractic, July 2, 2001, Vol. 19, Issue 14.
3. NBCE (2014), About Chiropractic, National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, retrieved February 1, 2015
4. Keating JC Jr (2005). "A brief history of the chiropractic profession". In Haldeman S; Dagenais S; Budgell B; et al. (eds.). Principles and Practice of Chiropractic (3rd ed.). McGraw-Hill. pp. 23–64. ISBN 0-07-137534-1. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |editor3= (help)
5. Ernst E (May 2008). "Chiropractic: a critical evaluation". Journal of pain and symptom management. 35 (5): 544–62. doi:10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004. ISSN 0885-3924. PMID 18280103.

• Misplaced Pages controversial topics
• Misplaced Pages objectionable content
• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Alternative medicine articles
• B-Class Skepticism articles
• High-importance Skepticism articles
• WikiProject Skepticism articles
• B-Class Alternative views articles
• Mid-importance Alternative views articles
• WikiProject Alternative views articles