| Revision as of 02:20, 6 May 2014 editNeuraxis (talk | contribs)2,086 edits →Disruptive editing by user QuackGuru: c← Previous edit |
Latest revision as of 03:31, 4 December 2024 edit undo2607:fea8:4a62:2f00:ac7b:e1d:4396:ebb (talk) →Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience: ReplyTag: Reply |
| Line 1: |
Line 1: |
|
|
|
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Skip to talk}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}} |
|
{{Talk header|search=no|noarchive=yes}} |
|
|
{{Controversial}} |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=cf|style=long}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Censor}} |
|
{{Calm talk}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}} |
|
|
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views |importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28 |comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject Citizendium Porting|date=2009-06-28|comment=The Citizendium article shows a strong POV and is mostly unverified, and its contents should be treated with caution as this violates core policies of Misplaced Pages. See ] and ].}} |
|
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
|
{{Copied|from1=Chiropractic|to1=Chiropractic treatment techniques |
|
|
|from2=Chiropractic|to2=Veterinary chiropractic |
|
|
|from3=Koren Specific Technique|to3=Chiropractic |
|
|
|from4=Chiropractic|to4=Baby colic |
|
|
|from5=Baby colic|to5=Chiropractic|from_oldid5=801357015|to_oldid5=801349349|to_diff5=801359943}} |
|
|
{{Trolling}} |
|
|
|
|
|
{{Contentious topics/talk notice|topic=acu|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
{{User:MiszaBot/config |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|maxarchivesize = 300K |
|
|counter = 37 |
|
|counter = 40 |
|
|
|minthreadsleft = 2 |
|
|algo = old(10d) |
|
|
|
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |
|
|
|algo = old(30d) |
|
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d |
|
|archive = Talk:Chiropractic/Archive %(counter)d |
|
}} |
|
}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn|target=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index|mask=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive <#>|leading_zeros=0|indexhere=yes}} |
|
{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=10|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}} |
|
{{Archives|search=yes|auto=short|bot=MiszaBot|age=30|index=Talk:Chiropractic/Archive index}} |
|
|
__TOC__ |
|
|
|
|
|
== The section "History" could use an update == |
|
== citations in the lead == |
|
|
|
|
|
Are generally deprecated as the lead is a ''summary'' of what is ''already in the article''. If the material is ''already in the article'', it makes no sense to require duplicating citations in the lead as well. The first sentence is, in fact, a summary of what is ''already in the article''. Cheers. ] (]) 21:15, 15 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Actually the lead is not exempt from ] in two circumstances (]): |
|
|
:# Claims which are particularly contentious or counter-intuitive may be challenged and should then be cited, rather than forcing a casual reader to go through the entire article to find where the claim is verified. It's just a matter of courtesy. |
|
|
:# The first part of a well-developed lead is not a summary of the rest of the article, but a definition and an introduction. Non-obvious claims made in that part should be cited inline as usual. |
|
|
: I expect that QG was asking for a reliable source that defines chiropractic in the way that we do in the first sentence. Hope that helps, --] (]) 00:15, 16 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Read the body: ''Chiropractic combines aspects from mainstream and alternative medicine, and there is no agreement about how to define the profession: although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry. It has been proposed that chiropractors specialize in nonsurgical spine care, instead of attempting to also treat other problems, but the more expansive view of chiropractic is still widespread. Mainstream health care and governmental organizations such as the World Health Organization consider chiropractic to be complementary and alternative medicine (CAM); and a 2008 study reported that 31% of surveyed chiropractors categorized chiropractic as CAM, 27% as integrated medicine, and 12% as mainstream medicine.'' |
|
|
:The first sentence does not summarise the body: Chiropractic is an alternative medicine based on diagnosis, treatment and prevention of problems of the neuro-musculoskeletal system. |
|
|
:This is because there is disagreement that chiropractic ''is'' an alternative medicine. The edit by Collect confirmed we should used references in the lede. This will cut down on original research. The . The current ] is poorly written and not a summary. ] (]) 05:01, 16 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The Wikilink defines "alternative medicine" and the term is ''widely used'' in academic sources. The article, in fact, clearly states: ''any practice that is put forward as having the healing effects of medicine but is not based on evidence gathered using the scientific method.'' Do you have a problem with this? As for insisting on citations in the lead -- they are rarely used for good reason - if the gist is already in the body of the article, it should be already cited there. And what term would you use other than "alternative medicine" as defined by that article? I note it is repeatedly called an "alternative medicine" in the body of the article - would you elide them even where the sources clearly call it such? Cheers. ] (]) 13:23, 16 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Rel POV tag on first sentence of intro, previously tagged as copyright violation== |
|
|
1. A quick search engine check, avoiding chiropractic sites, indicates this is a neutral way to introduce the subject:, , , , , just for examples. |
|
|
2. It would be helpful if the fellow editor has an alternative proposal, based on a neutral source as he requires, to produce it and its source. |
|
|
3. I am still reading and digesting the big arbitration decisions that happened some years ago about alternative medicine, but they would appear to possibly have some applicability here. Regards, ] (]) 22:31, 18 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Concerns of Bias in the Lede and within the Article== |
|
|
|
|
|
There is a heavy concern of bias in the lede and the article, one gives the minority a dominant voice and one that overstates certain points in terms of prejudicial spacing in the article (that does not follow MEDMOS) and heavy use of Edzard Ernst at key points in the article that have been usurped by existing studies or newer, secondary sources. |
|
|
|
|
|
Many studies of treatments used by chiropractors have been conducted, with conflicting results. |
|
|
:Many studies of treatments used by MDs have been demonstrated as well, with conflicting results. What specifically is the argument? Joint manipulation studies? Effectiveness, cost-effectiveness? Safety? |
|
|
|
|
|
Systematic reviews of this research have not demonstrated that spinal manipulation is effective, with the possible exception for the treatment of back pain. |
|
|
:Several studies has shown that manipulative therapy is has effectiveness in upper and lower extremity MSK conditions, including systematic reviews. There is an evidence-based resource that precisely looks at the evidence for what conditions DCs treat and what is the evidence for their interventions most commonly used in clinical practice? http://clinicalcompass.org/category_ccgpp/scientific-studies. How has this source been omitted the whole time? |
|
|
|
|
|
A critical evaluation found that collectively, spinal manipulation failed to show it was effective for any condition. |
|
|
:Why does an outdated study that has been usurped by new evidence on the same topic make it to the lede? |
|
|
|
|
|
The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown. |
|
|
:Untrue, manipulative therapy has proven effectiveness in chronic LBP in maintenance care conditions |
|
|
|
|
|
The evidence suggests that spinal manipulation therapy is safe but the rate of adverse events is unknown as there is under-reporting. |
|
|
:The sentence begins with the conclusion, the adverse rates are known in some instances and the citation does not state there is under-reporting it suggest that it may be under-reported. |
|
|
|
|
|
There is controversy surrounding the level of risk of stroke from cervical manipulation. It has been suggested that the relationship is causative, but this is disputed by many chiropractic proponents of this treatment modality, who believe the association between chiropractic therapy and vertebrobasilar artery stroke is unproven. |
|
|
:The arrangement of the paragraphs suggests that it safe, then the body is essentially about the risks of cervical manipulations which are very low according to the data, and the opposition to the conclusion that there is a causative link is already discussed in the literature which is to say, there is no conclusive evidence of that claim and this is maintained by the research that was done by chiropractic and other health scientists. |
|
|
|
|
|
It overlaps with other manual-therapy professions, including massage therapy, osteopathy, and physical therapy. |
|
|
:This point, which fails to appear in the MT, Osteopathy and PT articles, is not central to any significant degree, and chiropractic is considered the leader in manual methods in health care as demonstrated by this lay article demonstrating how the WHO and the WFC collaborated on this regard (http://www.canadianchiropractor.ca/content/view/1307/38/). |
|
|
|
|
|
D.D. Palmer founded chiropractic in the 1890s, and his son B.J. Palmer helped to expand it in the early 20th century. It has two main groups: "straights", now the minority, emphasize vitalism, innate intelligence and spinal adjustments, **and consider vertebral subluxations to be the cause of all disease;** |
|
|
:Please show citation to be cause of all disease |
|
|
|
|
|
For most of its existence it has been at odds with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence that are not based on solid science. |
|
|
:Ernst again prevails as the dominant 'voice' despite the fact there is no proof that he speaks for the medical profession or any scientific 'consensus' and is also critiquing the minority viewpoint of the profession and not the mainstream or dominant viewpoint of the majority of the profession. |
|
|
|
|
|
Despite the general consensus of public health professionals regarding the benefits of vaccination, among chiropractors there are significant disagreements over the subject, which has led to negative impacts on both public vaccination and mainstream acceptance of chiropractic. |
|
|
:Yet again, the minority viewpoint is being used as a means to discredit the majority position which, in fact is more complex and involves the argument of the freedom of choice when considering mandatory, blanket vaccinations. Also, there are other elements not described in the critique such as the effectiveness of certain vaccinations such as the Tamiflu Debacle (http://www.digitaljournal.com/life/health/tamiflu-research-questioned/article/382174). |
|
|
|
|
|
The American Medical Association called chiropractic an "unscientific cult" and boycotted it until losing an antitrust case in 1987. |
|
|
:What is the relevance of the statement that the AMA once called Chiropractic an unscientific cult and only giving the AMA viewpoint which was found guilty of conspiring to contain, eliminate and destroy the chiropractic profession as per Will et al 1976? Does this sentence belong in the lede as well, highlighting how the Journal of the AMA now recommends chiropractic care for LBP (http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1681414) |
|
|
|
|
|
Chiropractic remains at a crossroads, and that in order to progress it would need to embrace science and not ideological dogma. |
|
|
: This concluding sentence infers that the majority of chiropractors and/or their institutions do not embrace science, the dogma is perpetuated by a minority of practitioners. This is also a rather poor use of an source, merely an opinion piece rather than a preferred secondary or tertiary source. |
|
|
|
|
|
] (]) 23:42, 26 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
Good points, ] (])! There sure is a strong need for a revision of sources and |
|
|
reassessment of bias in the article. I think you made the point really clear. Currently there's a lot of opinionated views present. ] (]) 09:01, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
All the text in the lede is well sourced and on Misplaced Pages we ] the text according to what the source says. The text in the lede is a summary of the body. The text in the lede is sourced. For exmaple: ""Straights" tend to rely exclusively on spinal adjustments, to emphasize innate intelligence, and to subscribe to the notion that subluxation "is the leading cause of disease in the world today."42 The text in the body is also sourced. For example: "“Innate intelligence” evolved as a theological concept, the representative of Universal Intelligence (=God) within each person.36 D.D. Palmer was convinced he had discovered a natural law that pertained to human health in the most general terms. Originally, manipulation was not a technique for treating spinal or musculoskeletal problems, it was a cure for ''all'' human illness: “95% of all diseases are caused by displaced vertebrae, the remainder by luxations of other joints.”37" ] (]) 16:27, 27 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Precisely Quack, "originally" manipulation was done to cure 'disease' but this is no longer the case, as you alluded, its primarily for spinal or musculoskeletal problems. The source you are using from is from 1998 and has been usurped several times since then, most notably in Haldeman's 2005 text "Principles and Practice of Chiropractic"(http://www.amazon.com/Principles-Practices-Chiropractic-Scott-Haldeman/dp/0071375341) which is the current "modern" or contemporary practice of chiropractic by the mainstream of the profession. This is notable in 2 ways, first, First, Haldeman and the chiropractic profession pioneered World Spine Care (http://worldspinecare.com/) which is brings together a multidisciplinary group of doctors and therapists to help treat spinal disorders in 3rd world countries and has such notable sponsors as Elon Musk of ] and endorsements from the WHO, North American Spine Society, and other leading spine care organizations. This article severely minimizes the spinal MSK focus of chiropractors and puffs up the controversy which is management of non-msk which represents 10% of those who seek chiropractic care. Also, the "minority" group which represents the fringe of the profession totals at 19% according to the latest research on the topic as per this article " Less than 20% of chiropractors (18.8%) were aligned with a predefined unorthodox perspective of the conditions they treat. Prediction models suggest that unorthodox perceptions of health practice related to treatment choices, x-ray use and vaccinations were strongly associated with unorthodox group membership (X(2) =13.4, p = 0.0002).CONCLUSION: Chiropractors holding unorthodox views may be identified based on response to specific beliefs that appear to align with unorthodox health practices. Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. Understanding the profession's factions is important to the anticipation of care delivery when considering interprofessional referral. Less than 20% of chiropractors (18.8%) were aligned with a predefined unorthodox perspective of the conditions they treat. Prediction models suggest that unorthodox perceptions of health practice related to treatment choices, x-ray use and vaccinations were strongly associated with unorthodox group membership (X(2) =13.4, p = 0.0002).http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24512507. |
|
|
|
|
|
::To summarize: Outdated sources with heavy bias on Ernst, controversy, heavy emphasis on the "unorthodox" or fringe of the profession re: subluxation/joint dysfunction, professional identity, practice characteristics, etc.. and virtually no emphasis on modern practice such as emphasis on spinal and musculoskeletal conditions, advancements in research and professionalization over the last 25 years, no mention of Haldeman, Janse and other historical and notable chiropractors in contrast to the exclusive focus on DD and BJ at this article. In plain words, the weight of the article is drastically shifted to the past and focuses a lot of the founders, the fringe of the profession, gives Ernst and his collaborators undue weight based on the criticism of the unorthodoxy of the profession. There is no mention of chiropractors being permanent members of the medical staff at the Olympics as of London Games in 2012, and the fact that medical director at Team USA was a chiropractor. The article's tone, weight, emphasis is directed to the past and to the fringe, which destroys the credibility of the article in the first place. Even comparing the Wiki version to NCCAM (branch of NIH), WHO and other mainstream, reliable and credible sites demonstrates the dramatic differences in tone, language, emphasis, etc. http://nccam.nih.gov/health/chiropractic/introduction.htm ] (]) 01:07, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
I could go on, but there is agreement from Jaygaru from my earlier post, the majority of which was not addressed. |
|
|
:The book is currently used in the article. I updated the body with . The lede does explain that "mixers", are the majority, and are more open to mainstream views. There is an article for Sports chiropractic. ] (]) 18:27, 1 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:] (]), I'm impressed, you made pretty well the point in your last post. I think the time is ready to start fixing the strong bias in this article. Whatever recent changes user ] (] may have made recently, I can't really see how they'd have fixed the problem. Also dear QuackGuru, as much as you might love editing these articles non-stop (please see the new thread below), could you please keep your editing undisruptive? Thanks. ] (]) 11:02, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:: Thanks for your comment Jayaguru. I agree and will make some proposals soon, the most important is getting the article to follow proper MEDMOS. Quack, you have not addressed my key points again, despite my repeated attempts to get a meaningful dialogue established to improve the article. As you mentioned, there is a sports chiropractic article (which is not given it's proper diligence and weight in the main article) but I was using it as an example of how MSK-related chiropractic is given the short shrift at the expense of the non-msk 'controversies'. ] (]) 11:22, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Chiropractic overlaps with several other forms of manual therapy, including massage therapy, osteopathy, physical therapy, and sports medicine. |
|
|
:::The CON was only a brief mention. See ]. |
|
|
:::On Misplaced Pages, we summarise the mainstream research. The sources cited are being done appropriately and neutrally. For example, the author Ersnt is serious mainstream researcher. The results should not be rejected; editors were giving the weight it is due. There is nothing extremist or flawed about the research per WP:MEDRS. Ernst's work is critical of CAM, and he gets criticized back; there is nothing surprising about this. Obviously, the article represent serious research that should not be ignored by any neutral summary of chiropractic. It is irrelevant whether you personally disagree with Ernst or other researchers. Removing the summaries will not bring justice to a serious encyclopedia. What is being portrayed is according to WP:V. and WP:NPOV. ] (]) 17:00, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: With all due respect Quack, I am familiar with the rules and spirit of WP. There is another editor who shares the same concerns as I, and we're going to make proposals to improve the article. The most glaring aspect is WEIGHT given to mainstream or orthodox chiropractic (spine and MSK) which as you saw, represents 81% of the practicing DCs. Since we all agree that the mainstream view within chiropractic orthodoxy is spinal and MSK focused, that should play a large voice as this is why chiropractic is today. The article is dramatically geared towards the past. Ernst's view is actually the outlier, given his results haven't been independently replicated in studies that didn't directly involve him. Also, Ernst view, as you mentioned has been repudiated and his research questioned and is highly controversial himself. You also imply that Ernst's POV is synonymous with the "medical" POV or speaks for the medical profession. I challenge that inference and claim. I can present numerous instances of present-day MD-DC collaboration for spinal problems (https://d2oovpv43hgkeu.cloudfront.net/newsroom/Dr-Mike-Kates-story.pdf) international collaboration with the WHO Bone and Joint Decade, which affiliated with World Spine Care as I mentioned previously. The chiropractic profession is also behind the World Spine Day (http://www.worldspineday.org/world-spine-day/about-wsd/) a means to create awareness for spinal health. The readers of the article need to understand not only how it was back in the day (pre 1980s) but how it is today. This encyclopedia already has its fair share of problems with fleeing editors and questions of reliability and very apparent in articles like this that are a generation behind and where the 4/5 of MSK is obliterated by the 1/4 quackery. How about chiropractic scientists (DC PhDs) working in mainstream universities such as this initiative in Canada? http://www.canadianchiropracticresearchfoundation.com/research-chairs--professorships.html. ] (]) 23:48, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::{{cite journal|journal= ]|year=2008|volume=35|issue=5|pages=544–62|title= Chiropractic: a critical evaluation|author= Ernst E|doi=10.1016/j.jpainsymman.2007.07.004|pmid=18280103 }} |
|
|
::::::{{cite journal |author=Posadzki P |title=Is spinal manipulation effective for pain? An overview of systematic reviews |journal=Pain Med |volume=13 |issue=6 |pages=754–61 |year=2012 |pmid=22621391 |doi=10.1111/j.1526-4637.2012.01397.x}} |
|
|
::::::We are not going to add junk sources or replace high-quality sources. It's not about Ernst's POV. It's about the sources are reliable despite who the author is. ] (]) 04:18, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:::::::Why would you assume that 'we' are going to add junk sources? You didn't address my key point was that Ernst POV = medical profession mainstream POV. Also, the Posadzki source is exactly the type of source that is misused. There is no study that confirms his findings and they way it's being used at the article to present 'the other' POV is giving one study far more weight than the majority of others which contradicts the findings (i.e. manipulation for pain, as these new review suggests (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436697), (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23339721). I've raised a key point 3 times, and you seem to be ignoring it, so I'll as you directly: If we agree that the mainstream and majority of chiropractors practice in a manner that is spine/MSK based (81%) then why doesn't the weight or tone of the article reflect that? ] (]) 17:48, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::"Collectively, these data fail to demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for pain management." The source written by Posadzki is reliable and not misused. |
|
|
:::::::::The sources written by Ernst also are reliable. The sources (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/24436697) and (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23339721) are both in the article. ] (]) 20:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
===Cost effectiveness=== |
|
|
We have a great list of concerns here by DVMt. One being "The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown. Untrue, manipulative therapy has proven effectiveness in chronic LBP in maintenance care conditions". We have a 2008 review that supports this statement "Efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance care for various types of conditions are unknown."] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:13, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::The sentence in the lead however is not a great summary of this section ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:35, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::''The efficacy and cost-effectiveness of maintenance chiropractic care are unknown.'' |
|
|
:::This sentence in the lede is specifically about maintenance of ''chiropractic care''. Most of the other sources are about spinal manipulation in general. ] (]) 20:52, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Yes I am aware of that. I am just wondering if we should summary the overall cost effectiveness in the lead. Not sure why maintenance chiropractic care was single out. Maybe we could have "spinal manipulation may be effect for certain condition but not others" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:57, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Done. See . ] (]) 21:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Thanks looks good. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:00, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2014 == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{edit semi-protected|Chiropractic|answered=y}} |
|
|
<!-- Begin request --> |
|
|
|
|
|
<!-- End request --> |
|
|
] (]) 05:43, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
I just read your article on chiropractic and I must say, as a chiropractor that specializes in neurological disorders, I find it most disturbing. May I ask where you found your undocumented essay on chiropractic? I personally find it slanted and invite you to interview me as well as others, about the true work of chiropractors. Our main focus is on the care of the nervous system and we have many credits to date, most recently, working with autistic children and those diagnosed with ADD and AHDD. Which, by the way, are a direct result of drugs. No, we are not Mainstream, nor do we choose to be, when Mainstream is about drugging our society, and most of all, our children. We choose to keep our patients healthy and allow them to live their best life possible, instead of drugging them to the point that they forget what their life was all about. |
|
|
|
|
|
:] '''Not done:'''<!-- Template:ESp --> as you have not requested a change.<br />If you want to suggest a change, please request this in the form "Please replace XXX with YYY" or "Please add ZZZ between PPP and QQQ".<br />Please also cite ] to back up your request, without which no information should be added to any article.<br />We never "interview" anyone - only report what has already been published in '''reliable sources''' that are '''independent''' of the subject. - ] (]) 07:41, 29 April 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section "History" could use an update if sources are available. |
|
== Disruptive editing by user QuackGuru == |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago. |
|
I have been observing the editing style of a certain user, ] (]), for quite a while now. Out of the 500 last edits on this article's page, 244 has been carried out by the same user (which is 48,8% of all edits). The editing is really disruptive, as there might be even up to 10 different edits in a row from the same user with immature edit summaries, such as "nonsense", "total nonsense", etc. There is no question why the articles have so strong opinionated bias. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
Also the user is clearly more interested in pushing his own opinions rather than building a well-balanced, neutral point of view article. For example, in the narrow field of alternative medicine articles, ] is clearly switching between different wikitags according to whatever best might suit his personal views: |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. ] (]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
1. The user adds a <nowiki>{{copyright violation}}</nowiki> tag. |
|
|
|
:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
<br />2. The user changes it to a <nowiki>{{citation needed}}</nowiki> tag. |
|
|
|
:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are? |
|
<br />3. As this didn't work out with the other editors either, now he changes the tag into <nowiki>{{POV-statement}}</nowiki>. |
|
|
|
:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out? |
|
<br />4. Finally, user Paavo273 reverts the latest attempt of QuackGuru by stating: "...''Remove POV tag that replaced one or more other tags. See talk.''..." |
|
|
|
:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume? |
|
|
:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''') |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience == |
|
This applies to all the alternative medicine articles (Traditional Chinese Medicine, Chiropractic, etc.) Overall, the editing is aggressive in both terms of reverts and misuse of wikitags, as well as it is fragmented and hard to follow. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
Therefore, I'd like the user to stop the disruptive editing and respect the other contributors as well. Misplaced Pages isn't one man's project. Should there be any difficulties with the technical side of editing, please get familiar with WP:SANDBOX where he can practice editing without causing a nuisance to the other users. ] (]) 10:52, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
:They're not 'just opinion articles', and all Misplaced Pages requires is that sources meet ]. They do not have to include 'scientific evidence' to your personal standard. ] (]) 17:40, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
: Quack has been banned before from alt-med articles and chiropractic as well for the same editorial behaviour that you describe. These style of editors have driven away several health professionals who want to improve the article due to the drama and gerrymandering behind the scenes. There does seem to be an ownership issue and a lack of balance in the edits that would reflect true neutrality. ] (]) 11:10, 2 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
The content was word for word the same as that on page three of this WHO document . Thus yes there was a copyright concern and QG tagged it. He then fixed the concern by paraphrasing. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:22, 3 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:: There seems to be different interpretations of when copyvio is applied and to which research it is applied to at this article, another form of inherent bias that dominates the article. I disagreed with his edit and so does Jayguru. The main point was the fact that nearly 50% of the recent edits are by QG and they increase the fringe viewpoint which dominates at the expense of the spine and MSK. More of the same. Myself and other editors currently and in the past have had grave concerns with respect to what gets 'highlighted' at the article and it seem like the unorthodox fringe practices which constitute less than 20% gets the most weight. For instance, spinal joint dysfunction /subluxation section presents the fringe viewpoint but does not address any of the scientific research with respect to the biomechanical, histological, anatomical, physiological and neural (neuromuscular) that looks at the subluxation/joint dysfunction in a MSK context. Also, Ernst' viewpoint and critique of joint dysfunction/subluxation is arguably fringe since the ICD-10 recognizes the subluxation complex as a diagnosis. (http://www.icd10data.com/ICD10CM/Codes/M00-M99/M99-M99/M99-/M99.13). Note that it's under the MSK section of the 2014 ICD-10, which is a reliable and internationally accepted medical diagnostic compendium. The MSK viewpoint is under-represented again. ] (]) 18:17, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::The source you provided that recognizes the subluxation complex as a diagnosis is unreliable. |
|
|
|
:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::You originally added the ] to the on November 21, 2011. |
|
|
|
:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::Another account also added the copyvio to the on March 20, 2014. What a ]!? |
|
|
|
::::I want to point out that the articles cited after calling chiropractic "pseudoscientific" are from SBM which is a blog. While they do good work, they have an implicit bias against chiropractic. |
|
:::You claimed you and so does Jayguru. What recent change to the text you disagree with. Please provide a diff. ] (]) 18:34, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (). |
|
::::The source is perfectly reliable. Just the fact that you give your opinions here as facts does not change it. More facts, less opinions. ] (]) 11:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all. |
|
::::...and after the <nowiki>{{copyright violation}}</nowiki>? Then you went through two more wikitags, seeing if any of them might suit your own, opinionately driven purposes. ] (]) 11:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either. |
|
Using someones elses words regardless of attribution is a "copy and paste" concern. We must paraphrase. There is no if or buts about this. |
|
|
|
::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims. |
|
We have already had the APA send us a cease and desist notice for using the DSM criteria to closely. I have meet with WHO and they do not seem interested in releasing their content under a CC license at this point in time. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:20, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well. |
|
::We can deal with the issues you see one by one if you wish. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:21, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No. 244 edits out of the last 500 has been carried out by the one and same user, QuackGuru. This means that nobody will post '''244 different posts discussing every single edit''' at the Talk Page; the problem is the user himself. ] (]) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::The ICD-10 is just a classification system and is neither here nor there with respect to if Ernst is a reliable source or not.] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 20:42, 4 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
:::::The primary issue is the weight given to the fringe/unorthodox aspects of chiropractic vs. the mainstream/orthodox aspects. IOW, the non-MSK vs. the MSK emphasis. It's pretty clear there is a specialized focus in this particular domain of medicine, which is clearly cited. Regarding, Ernst, the dispute is not if it a reliable source, it's a) the weigh given to it, in that it is implied that Ernst's POV is the equivalent and synonymous of the medical profession. The relevance of the ICD-10, and by extension the WHO, is that is not only a reliable source, an organization and a credibility that trumps any individual researcher, especially one as controversial as Ernst. Despite the fact that evidence-based chiropractic (spine/MSK health) has been on the radar now for 10 years, with guidelines (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1839918/) and textbooks (http://www.amazon.com/Evidence-Based-Chiropractic-Practice-Michael-Haneline/dp/076373571X) and evidence-based resources (http://clinicalcompass.org) yet the attempts over the years to discuss and highlight the mainstream materials has been effectively censored. Ironically enough, Ernst is in complete denial about EB chiropractic, it seems like there is some serious cognitive dissonance. "http://edzardernst.com/2013/08/evidence-based-chiropractic-is-an-oxymoron. The collaboration between the medical and chiropractic professions have increased dramatically as well, with specialized focus on spine and musculoskeletal care. Hospital based chiropractic services are beginning to be offered (http://www.stmichaelshospital.com/programs/chiropractic/), (http://sunnybrook.ca/content/?page=sjr-patvis-prog-chiro), for spine, MSK conditions, which reflects also change in attitude and culture in recent times amongst the profession. Ernst' current POV is actually fringe, in that he is intolerant of the the chiropractic profession under any circumstances (including spine/MSK), which is essentially bigotry. He is also aiming his critiques traits that are specific to a faction (unorthodox) but the article fails address this and provide proper context. If we agree that the mainstream and majority of chiropractors practice in a manner that is spine/MSK based (81%) then why doesn't the tone and weight of the article reflect that? ] (]) 00:16, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
We look at the effectiveness section and 5 out of the 6 bullet points are about MSK issues. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:05, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand. |
|
:: Did not address my concern. Are you suggesting that 81% of the article is focused on the MSK aspects of chiropractic and the weight is representative to the majority group? Unfortunately it seems like there is more stonewalling going on, as I cannot get a straight answer. The pseudoscientific aspects dominate, so does their viewpoint despite representing less than 1/5 of practicing DCs. There was also no rebuttal of any other of my concerns and points I addressed in my previous comment addressed to you. Please address my concerns and the points that I have raised above, thank you. ] (]) 02:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred? |
|
::::::See ]. Ersnt is only one of many sources in the article. The section is current with lots of reliable sources. ] (]) 03:22, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction? |
|
::::::::Ernst is the only critical source being used, if he does represent the 'medical mainstream opinion' there must be other papers that replicate his findings and agree with his POV? The dominant voice of the article belongs to a skeptic MD whose obsessive critique of chiropractic (note the 64 article found, http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Ernst+E+%5BAU%5D+and+Chiropractic) undermines his credibility so much that his conclusions simply aren't be reproduced by other researchers that aren't affiliated with him. ] (]) 02:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" |
|
::::::I believe we can overcome the strong bias in this article. It's not really good if we give one critique dominate over the wider concensus in the field. ] (]) 11:31, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession. |
|
::::::::Yes, agreed. The article is a sham, and it's troublesome that politicking here trumps common sense. The is a gross misrepresentation of the facts, the factions, the identity, the research, the evidence, the contributions to health care (in the MSK arena and the research into joint and spinal manipulation). I'm going to create a new section for a neutral lede that doesn't trivialize and minimize the effectiveness of manipulation for MSK conditions and has far greater weight on the adverse events despite being considerably safer than the alternatives (opioids, acetaminophen, NSAIDs) whose side-effects are strangely missing from the article. ] (]) 02:20, 6 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good. |
|
Besides from being banned earlier for editwarring alternative medicine articles, user QuackGuru has also been warned by administrator EdJohnston from editwarring the very alternative medicine articles here: . |
|
|
|
::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before. |
|
He has been warned by another administrator, Tiptoety, as well here: . "...'''Hi QuackGuru. Please consider this your only warning for edit warring'''... //// ...'''I'll also note that if you continue to edit war on Pseudoscience related articles, I will impose a 1RR restriction your account per the discretionary sanctions'''..." |
|
|
|
::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors. |
|
It is clear that the user is still continuing the same disruptive way of behaviour. ] (]) 11:40, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience. |
|
:See ] and ]. If you have a problem with content, then go after the content. Article talk pages are not for you to whinge on about perceived ownership or any user behavior, or to quote "''' Keep the discussions focused upon the topic of the talk page, rather than on the personalities of the editors contributing to the talk page.'''". You do not have to comment on every single edit QuackGuru has made, you just have to discuss what in the article you disagree with and how it should be changed. ] (]) 12:33, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Yes agree with Cannolis. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 21:28, 5 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
::: QG is has a long hx of disruptive editing. Some feel that he deserves a barnstar. Others disagree. QG has made this article incredibly difficult to edit for 6 years now, driving away a plethora of talented editors in the process. There are 2 concerned editors here and it doesn't seem like our concerns are being taken seriously, at least by the admin. I'd prefer a neutral party admin to 'oversee' the the article and the behaviours of the editors. There's a COI there. |
|
|
|
:::::::::All pseudosciences of a certain minimum age have studies confirming them, but that is not enough for ], for ] or for Misplaced Pages to say they are not pseudoscience, since primary studies are only the first step of the science process. |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|On patient satisfaction}} LOL, that's a good one. If patients were never satisfied, a medical pseudoscience would not even get started. |
|
|
:::::::::{{tq|What is the limit at which something becomes "science?"}} See ]. --] (]) 06:16, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I hear your concern, Bonewizard, and I _do_ wish we could strike a slightly better middle-ground. Anyone who ever leaned back in a chair and felt the pleasant sensation of 'crack your bones' knows that there's ''something'' to Chiropractic, however minimal. But unfortunately, Chiropractors as a field are absolutely known for peddling pseudoscience bordering on snakeoil. For the time being, we do have to warn readers that their field is pseudoscientific. |
|
|
:::::::::I would, however, love to see, say, comparison between things like chiropractic and, say, opioids, which consensus now accepts were often overprescribed to the point of malfeasanced -- IF we could find GOOD mainstream RSes, not cherry picked research. ] (]) 08:26, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The physical manipulation part of chiropractic (sort of maybe) 'works' for pain, but then that's just ]. Chiropractic, to be distinctively chiropractic, is the whole medical system built on the idea that the spine is the root of all health and that dextrous manipulation can cure all ills. ] (]) 08:37, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Absolutely. But what fraction of practicing Chiropractors still preach that whole 'joint popping can cure all ills' nonsense? Enough that we still need to warn the reader, no doubt. But I do feel for the 'modern' practitioners who are, in essence, ], helping people reset a rib or crack their back or what not, and nothing more. But we DO need to err on the side of caution, Chiropractors will still totally take money to test your blood for fictitious 'toxins'. But I do wish there were better labelling between 'I'll help pop your back' vs 'I'll help cure all your ills' types. ] (]) 08:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::Do you have any evidence to support that? From any leadership in chiropractic? They don't teach that. |
|
|
:::::::::::The spine is central to the profession but no one of any consequence believes that. |
|
|
:::::::::::Primary evidence is showing immunological changes but the accepted body of work knows and understands there are limits - as there is in any profession. ] (]) 13:21, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::It's how it's sold. A quick search quickly finds this where chiropractic is being sold to treat allergies on the basis it addresses the 'root cause' of diseases. Reliable sources apparently see things for how they are, not some idealised form confected as a front. ] (]) 13:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Does this work? |
|
|
::::::::::https://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/910617?form=fpf ] (]) 13:18, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::You were pointed to ] above, you should read it thoroughly. ] (]) 14:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Pseudoscience is descriptive. You can make a chart of fields claiming to be science and easily determine which belong in which category because we all know what the word means even if we don't like it. Just because it's used dismissively doesn't mean it's inherently a pejorative. ] (]) 16:59, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:As far as I can tell {{u|Jjazz76}} was correct when they from the lead on account of not explicitly supporting "esoteric". I get that Simon seems to be hinting at it with "unconventional", but there's too much air between those wording choices. We're in an awkward position where "esoteric" is still present in the body with the same citation. |
|
|
:Regardless of the language choice, I'd support restoring something brief in the opening paragraph, paired with "pseudoscientific", that nods toward the origins of the practice. I can Google like the best of them, but I'm hoping someone more familiar with the body of sources can point us toward what the good ones say (or don't say) about this. ] (] / ]) 02:34, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::I'm sorry I didn't also see the mention of "esoteric" in the body, because it is also unsupported by a RS, and I'm going to delete it. |
|
|
::I'm not going to weight in (yet) on the pseudo-science part of the debate (it is late here), but esotericism has a pretty specific enough meaning, and I'm not seeing a strong enough connection here. If there are some good reliable sources, then that's fine, let's include it, but but the connection as it stands seems tangential at best. |
|
|
::One might claim that chiropractic is pseudo-scientific and esoteric, and unconventional but I think each claim needs a reliable source to support it, and they terms are different enough in that one can't use a claim of one as proof of a claim of one of the other. ] (]) 04:24, 27 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:I think it's important to mention the more comprehensive outlook on patient care that modern chiropractors have. In the UK, every chiropractor I have met and worked with, except for members of older generations, use techniques founded in physiotherapy, osteopathy and other fields of healthcare science; with many chiropractors working with osteopaths and sports therapists. Chiropractic has moved away from the idea of spine manipulation being the 'go-to' and instead tend to a patient's needs in much more versatile ways. I hate the way many people see chiropractic as only 'cracking backs' and I wish more would recognise what a chiropractor actually does. If someone would sit in for a chiropractor's average day at the clinic they would see nutritional advice, soft-tissue work, ultra-scans etc. and many other treatments you wouldn't expect. Healthcare professionals are vital for many people whom couldn't function without their help, many patients being turned away from general practitioners, their stories not being heard; drugs can't solve everything. ] (]) 00:21, 29 November 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::Thats all well and fine, but the costume that chiros put on is still that of a primary care provider, which they are not. There isn't controversy surrounding massusers for example because they don't claim to be doctors. ] (]) 03:31, 4 December 2024 (UTC) |
The links regarding its "esoteric" roots have nothing to do with esotericism. Also, the references that claim it is a pseudoscience are all just opinion articles. None of them have scientific evidence included. One of them even notes that while chiropractic started with unusual claims, it is now focused on physical therapy and has a scientific basis. If you want to claim it is a pseudoscience because of erroneous thinking in it's origins, then you need to make the same comments about psychology, psychiatry, and many other medical disciplines as well (which obviously are all legitimate by today's standards, as is chiropractic). 2603:8000:DC01:401:6161:C2A0:44A8:D60A (talk) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC)
level-4 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
