| Revision as of 14:55, 24 June 2014 editKhabboos (talk | contribs)1,384 edits →Note for new users← 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}} |
|
{{Vital article|level=4|topic=Science|class=B|subpage=Biology}} |
|
|
{{controversial}} |
|
{{Censor}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
{{Calm}} |
|
|
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|vital=yes|1= |
|
{{WikiProjectBannerShell|1= |
|
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine|class=B|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Chiropractic|importance=Top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|class=B|importance=High}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative medicine}} |
|
{{WikiProject Alternative Views|class=B|importance=mid}} |
|
{{WikiProject Skepticism|importance=top}} |
|
{{WikiProject Medicine|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 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 |
|
{{Discretionary sanctions|topic=cf|style=long}} |
|
|
|
|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 == |
|
== Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category == |
|
|
|
|
|
This is the preferred categorization https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Pseudoscience#Alternative_theoretical_formulations. The time has come. Chiropractic management is primarily for MSK disorders and back and neck pain specifically. The fringe faction or specific traits of those practitioners are clearly delineated now, and there is no doubt that chiropractic care for MSK is not fringe. ] (]) 15:59, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Really? because it looks to me that the crazy is in the chiropractic world.--] (]) 22:19, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: This would be considered fringe. You seem to be conflating what constitutes 'mainstream chiropractic practice' (MSK) and fringe chiropractic practice (non-MSK). Regards, ] (]) 22:21, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: The questionable source in the article supports "minority", not "fringe". 15% is a bit large for "fringe". — ] ] 22:29, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: If someone were to write a ''separate'' article on MSK chiropractic, that might not be ]. Any article including the history should note that it ''was'' pseudoscience when it started, putting it convincingly into the category. — ] ] 22:32, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::Chiropractic is full blooded Pseudoscience. No question about it, and fringe pushers cannot change that. -] (]) 22:40, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Interesting proposal, Arthur. MSK chiropractic is essentially evidence-based chiropractic since that's where the majority of the research lies. Unorthodox, or fringe constitutes 19%. Dissidents is another word. What I do know is we can't label the whole profession 'pseudoscientific'. What about my proposal about alternative theoretical formulations? Roxy, spoken like a true extremist. ] (]) 22:48, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::]s (or ''nonallopathic lesions''; you can't eliminate non-science just by renaming the terms) are still pseudoscience, although some ]s do exist. I wouldn't go as far as Roxy, but there are enough "mainstream" (as generally observed) chiropractors who use the "subluxation" lingo that the field still fits into pseudoscience. If the governing boards and most schools completely rejected "subluxations", I might agree it might no longer be pseudoscience, although it's still not entirely evidence-based. Mainstream medicine isn't ''entirely'' evidence-based, so I wouldn't reject chiropractic solely on that basis. — ] ] 23:04, 16 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::This is the elephant in the room. Mainstream chiropractic views subluxation as a synonym for joint dysfunction or a mechanical problem with the spine segments. Fringe chiropractic views it as interference with the life force and is a cause for disease. The current subluxation article doesn't reflect both views. Regardless of who provides the manipulation, be it a DC, DO, PT they are all attempting to restore mobility and reduce pain at a specific part of the spine, hence the term 'manipulable lesion' or IOW that site that you're applying the manipulation. The difference between a chiropractic subluxation (aka joint dysfunction) is that there is no structural damage to the corresponding joints and soft and connective tissues. It's a functional problem. Orthopedic subluxations are literally unstable joints that are hyper mobile with structural damage and an absolute contraindication to manipulative techniques. I should point out that the ICD-10 recognizes the subluxation complex as a diagnosis under the musculoskeletal section under biomechanical lesions . This, again, reinforces the MSK aspect that is considered 'mainstream' unless we don't consider the ICD-10 and the WHO credible sources. ] (]) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::{{User|Arthur Rubin}}, do you have anything to add? ] (]) 15:56, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::If it could be established by ''mainstream'' (and I mean generally recognized as mainstream, without assuming that Chiropractic is mainstream) ] that spinal joint disfunction, not amounting to orthopedic subluxations, can cause damage to the body, and (even from Chiropractic sources), that "straight" chiropractic are no longer accepted by the profession, then there would be some justification for removing the pseudoscience characterization. You have provided plausible evidence for the first, but there's still none for the second. At best you have provided evidence that "straight" chiropractic forms a small minority, but that doesn't show they aren't accepted within the profession. A profession which accepts pseudoscientists is still pseudoscientific, even if their numbers are few. — ] ] 19:18, 18 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::::{{User|Arthur Rubin}}, take a peek in my sandbox to see spinal joint dysfunction research --biomechanics, theory, etc. As a scientist you know well that there is continuum in science --pseudoscience -> junk science ->fringe science, etc. It's not really fair to 4/5 practitioners that practice "mainstream" (defined as primarily spinal/MSK based) to be labelled pseudoscientific bc of a rogue faction that has no support within or outside the profession. Hence, the proposal for alternative theoretical formulations. Or, even having two categories, but so long as we clearly delineate '''what specific aspects of clinical practice are considered fringe'''. I'm open to suggestions. ] (]) 15:06, 19 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::::::Based on Arthur Rubin's comments, there seems to be the initiative to further the discussion. Where would be the best place to have such a discussion? Here, WP:FRINGE talk, etc. ] (]) 20:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{OD}}. The article as is does not follow MEDMOS for specialties . I'm going to reorganize the headings so they are consistent with this. ] (]) 14:55, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: This discussion is relevant here. Here . |
|
|
I began thinking this whole pseudoscience issue from a completely new perspective. So far, we know that there are critics out there who have called chiropractic as ''pseudoscience'', and I don't doubt that this wasn't the case in the early history of chiropractic. However, what it might have been over 100 years ago, it does not define what chiropractic is today. Just like any science, chiropractic has developed over the course of years, and many believes have been dropped out later that has turned out to be total nonsense. Here, chiropractic is not alone. |
|
|
<br />However, this is my point. There sure is easy to find sources that classify chiropractic as ''pseudoscience''. However, as we very well know, there is education given on chiropractic at '''public universities'''. Public universities '''do not''' qualify other than sciences, not even pseudosciences, no matter what some critic might say. Now, it is much easier to find a source where some critic is disputing the status of chiropractic rather than find a source where some advocate is making a plea for chiropractic. After all, the burden of proof is on the one who is making the criticism. |
|
|
<br />'''Mere accusations cannot undo the fact that chiropractic is accepted and educated among public universities across the countries'''. Therefore, accepting one critic's authority over the authority of Universities is highly ... let say, questionable. ] (]) 11:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== The text is sourced == |
|
|
|
|
|
The tag is . See ]. |
|
|
|
|
|
""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" |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cite book|author= Palmer DD|title= The Chiropractor's Adjuster: Text-book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic for Students and Practitioners|url=http://www.scribd.com/doc/45233534/s-Adjuster-1910|location=Portland, OR|publisher= Portland Printing House Co|year=1910|oclc=17205743|quote=A subluxated vertebra ... is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases ... The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.}} |
|
|
|
|
|
This is a commonly known fact and there are many sources that can verify the same text. ] (]) 17:42, 22 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, '''subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race'''. |
|
|
: The source does not state this. This is a misrepresentation of the research. What else did you take liberties with paraphrasing? This is very concerning indeed. ] (]) 23:09, 22 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::''"The “straights” religiously adhere to D.D. Palmer's notions of the “innate intelligence” and view subluxation as the sole cause and manipulation as the sole cure of all human disease"'' Straight out of the first source under the 'Internal Conflict' section. ] (]) 08:27, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::I forgot about that part. The text is sourced and it is accurate. I think the tag can be removed now. ] (]) 17:22, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::To remain IMHO. Who are you ''mystery ip-man''? I think <nowiki>{{pp-sock|small=yes}}</nowiki> might do the case. What do the other editors think? ] (]) 18:39, 23 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{OD}} |
|
|
The low level details about the date 1910 is and is original research. ] (]) 18:48, 24 May 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: If we don't provide the date (1910) then there is no context. Considering that leaving at is suggests there's been no change in 104 years, that seems misleading. ] (]) 16:31, 2 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: The article is also misleading in the sense that it suggest the profession has not changed/evolved from its origins, namely that subluxation is the cause of diseases which is given tremendous weight here. This tertiary source Bergmann, T.F., Perterson D.H (2011). Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures. Elsevier. ISBN 9780323049696. clearly states that " This monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession" and this 2012 systematic review states that "preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in a "web of causation" along with other determinants of health. Henderson, C.N.R (October 2012). Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology 22 (5): 632–642.. '''These sources changes everything''' because it refutes the myth that QuackGuru is trying to perpetuate in 2014: that the profession still thinks that '''subluxation is the sole cause of disease for the human race'''. The more I dig into the sources of the articles, the more I am seeing critical errors in QG's interpretation, which was also noted by other editors at the ]. ] (]) 16:57, June 2, 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Those sources do not change what Daniel D. Palmer said. The text () makes it clear it is according to the founder not the whole profession. ] (]) 21:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::No one is disputing what was published in 1910. It's the fact that you're not providing context by not including when it was published. WP generally prefers sources within 3-5 year range and we are still using a text from 1910, out of context. I don't have a problem with using this in a historical context, and ] is technically wrong that a textbook is primary source, as it is a ''tertiary'' source. So, let's try to find a compromise here and work together on this minor detail. ] (]) 22:26, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::We are using a 2008 review. The 1910 source was not needed to backup the content. Where in the 2008 source or the 1910 source did it say when Daniel D. Palmer made the claim. I don't know the actual date when he made the claim. Please provide a direct quote from the source. What is your specific proposal or compromise? ] (]) 22:39, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
The use of a 1910 originating source sounds highly trivial to me but it might be justified though in the history section. If it's still included to the lede, the positive stances on chiropractic should be summarized in the lede as well. These things comprehend things such as: current recognition among mainstream medicine, acceptance in the ''current care guidelines'' on different regional levels (e.g. Finland and the European Union), and the education given in public universities (public universities do not qualify other than sciences (not even pseudo-sciences, no matter what some critic might say). ] (]) 11:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: The article covers all aspects, including the past and origins. That's the relevance here. I don't see why including the date for the publication of the quote should be problematic. Just do it. It's always good to give context, and the date is important for that purpose. This was the historical position advocated by DD Palmer and taught to his students, with some straights still believing it. It was the basis for pretty much the whole profession up until the 1970s, when some DCs started pushing for a more sensible stance. Otherwise nearly all chiro education taught this, and some of the largest schools still push it in modified forms. -- ] (]) 15:19, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Current text: ''"According to Daniel D. Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, subluxation is the sole cause of disease and manipulation is the cure for all diseases of the human race."'' |
|
|
::I could not verify the claim using the source from 1910. I removed the 1910 source because I could not verify the claim but we already have a 2008 source that does clearly verify the claim. Verification for the whole sentence still has not been provided using the 1910 and it has not been verified when DD Palmer made the claim. I think context is good but verification should be provided. If editors want to keep the source for historical context that is fine with me. ] (]) 16:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: I agree that the date should be provided for context, Brangifer. You made a false claim. ''It was the basis for pretty much the whole profession up until the 1970s'' That isn't accurate at all. The profession since the beginning was divided into straights/focused scope, and mixers/broad scope per this tertiary source, and it's been a long time since the straights were a minority as per Kapchuk and Eisenberg, as used in this article. As I already mentioned at QG talk page, you are skewing the facts . In fact, the research shows that '''''currently'' less than 20% of practice according to Palmer doctrine.''' Despite continued concerns by mainstream medicine, only a minority of the profession has retained a perspective in contrast to current scientific paradigms. " . Don't make the same mistakes as QG and misrepresent the literature. You are more moderate than he, but seem to be prone to making the same fundamental errors of citing your opinion as fact. ] (]) 16:13, June 6, 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::: ], you mention a "false claim". I think we have a rather simple misunderstanding here. The straight/mixer thing has to do with treatment modalities, not belief structure. Straights use ONLY joint adjusting (the really pure ones only use "manual" adjusting, never tools). Mixers use various modalities, in addition to manipulation. Members of both groups can believe in the "one cause, one cure" idea, but it is more prevalent among straights. Those members have the same goal (to find and remove subluxations), but use different methods. That's all. Until relatively recently Medicare only covered "manual manipulation" for the purpose of correcting subluxations visible on x-ray. That has changed. -- ] (]) 00:33, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::], I respectfully disagree. You have made additional claims (Straights use ONLY joint adjusting (the really pure ones only use "manual" adjusting, never tools) which is refuted by this paper . It states ''Regardless of how they label themselves philosophically, chiropractors tend to practice in similar ways: 98% recommend exercise to their patients; 94% offer periodic maintenance or wellness care; 93% make a differential diagnosis; 93% offer ergonomic recommendations; 88% provide general nutrition advice; 86% give stress-reduction recommendations''. Next you claim "Members of both groups can believe in the "one cause, one cure" idea, but it is more prevalent among straights.". This not the case. Evidence shows clearly shows this belief in one cause one cure is retained exclusively by the unorthodox/fringe faction '''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.''' . Lastly, the monocausal view has been rejected by the profession ''this monocausal view of disease has been abandoned by the profession <ref>{{cite book|last=Bergmann, T.F.|first=Perterson D.H|title=Chiropractic Technique: Principles and Procedures|year=2011|publisher=Elsevier|isbn=9780323049696}}</ref> preferring a holistic view of subluxation that is viewed as theoretical construct in web of causation along with other determinants of health.<ref name="Henderson 2012 632–642"/>. |
|
|
::::I previously requested verification for the specific date DD Palmer made the claim. So far no verification was provided. I don't have a problem with adding context but I think the context should be verified. ] (]) 19:35, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
==Ordering of sections== |
|
|
] reverted a change made regarding the ordering of the sections here stating 'Not sure why the change in ordering of sections'. This is tendentious. I clearly stated 'Re-organize per MEDMOS in the diff . I had discussed this earlier today at the talk page but I guess Doc James ]. Why, specifically '''did you revert the changes when the summary was clearly listed as indicated in the diff?''' Please extend ] and let other editors than QuackGuru and other skeptics edit this article. Thank you. ] (]) 23:18, 4 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Your change did not reorganize per ]. Thus I reverted. I see no consensus for the edit here. You placed your comment under the heading "Removal of chiropractic from pseudoscience category" ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Okay have created a proper section for this discussion as it of course has nothing to do with the previous heading. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:32, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::Ah so ] is a medical specialty. ] is a treatment IMO. ] (] · |
|
|
:::: The problem here is that Jmh649 is not a skeptic. He is a cynic operating under the grand delusion that he is a skeptic. Skeptics are open to evidence which completely belie what they already hold to be true. A cynic makes up their mind and just says "no" to everything else. Editors like this are truly as bad for WP as all the woo pushers. What's worse is that they cast all of the true skeptics down with all of the woo pushers, because they don't like anything positive ... Nay ... Neutral written about a subject which they have prejudged to be entirely woo. This article doesn't have any woo pushers AFAICT, just moderate editors who want to write a neutral article, and cynical editors who want only to present the subject in the most negative light as possible. I challenge these cynics to disengage from this article for three months to see if their worst fears come true – that the article would be completely overhauled into a complete marketing, puff piece or (and I'm betting this is more likely) a fact-based, truly NPOV article finally emerges. I encourage Doc James and the likes to accept this challenge. If I lose my bet, well good on you. Your cynical POV pushing is needed here after all. But if I win my bet, just think of all the time you will save knowing that you don't have to patrol this article anymore. Challenge accepted? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
|
|
:::WP isn't about asserting opinions, it's about asserting facts. Chiropractic '''is a health care profession'''. It is not a treatment. This is a fundamental mistake. . Also, according to this source, it states "Chiropractic, the '''medical profession that specializes in manual therapy and especially spinal manipulation.''' The same article also states that "Even to call chiropractic "alternative" is problematic; in many ways, '''it is distinctly mainstream.''' Furthermore, it is stated in the lede "and although chiropractors have many similarities to primary care providers, they are more similar to a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry." . The evidence is compelling. The onus is on you to prove that it is not a profession, or medical specialty, since you're making the claim. ] (]) 01:11, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::It is also used to mean a form of alt med as per our first sentence of our article. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:20, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::Your interpretation is rather bizarre and you're ] things. Please address the literature above, with literature to rebut. You seem ], but that doesn't change the fact chiropractic is a profession and not a treatment. Please use peer-reviewed literature to support your claim, your personal opinon isn't relevant in this matter. ] (]) 01:36, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Chiropractic is definitely a profession and not a technique. I have presented the evidence here before, but it is good to review it whenever the discussion arises: There is legislation to recognize and regulate chiropractic as a profession in 48 countries and in some of those countries the profession/technique debate has even been settled in court. For example, in Brazil a Federal Judge ruled that: . The WHO defines chiropractic as and, in the US where chiropractic is most prominent, the NIH/NCCAM describes chiropractic as . Most importantly, the bulk of mainstream secondary sources discuss chiropractic as a profession. For example: 1) and 2). Moreover, according to our article and , the 'techniques' are joint manipulation, soft-tissue manipulation, therapeutic exercise, ergonomics, etc.] (]) 04:03, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::Thanks for chipping in ]. The evidence is rather overwhelming, but not surprising. What I am surprised about is such a fundamental error (technique vs. profession) can be perpetuated. ] (]) 16:17, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::Now that we've established, yet again, that chiropractic is a profession and not a technique, does anyone have any specific objections to re-ordering the sections per MEDMOS The lede clearly states that the profession shares more of attributes of a medical specialty, like dentistry or podiatry and we have multiple sources that confirm this. Regards, ] (]) 22:45, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::I think the current ordering of the sections per MEDMOS is okay. The previous drastic re-ordering of the sections was confusing. ] (]) 22:49, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::The article is '''not ordered per MEDMOS''' . That's the purpose of the discussion to make it compliant with MEDMOS. Also, please don't fall into the the same old habits of ]. It's tendentious. Lastly, '''please provide evidence to support your position'''. These discussions need to be based on facts, evidence and not asserting opinions. Thanks, ] (]) 23:02, 5 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::In my opinion, the re-arrangement per MEDMOS improved the article. Why can't we just follow what MEDMOS says? ] (]) 11:06, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::Agreed. Will re-arrange per MEDMOS. Chiropractic is not a treatment, it is a profession, a specialty. ] (]) 19:58, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::::I don't see consensus for this change. This was previously explained by ] before. ] (]) 20:02, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::::::You're being ] again, QuackGuru. You're also not ] again. You need to bring evidence to support your claim. Your opinion alone is irrelevant. Are you asserting that chiropractic is a treatment and not a profession? If not, please stop trying to own every aspect of this article. You're only 1 day back from your block and it seems as though you've learned nothing. Relying on Doc James unconditional support isn't doing him any favours. ] (]) 20:45, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
Chiropractic is both a treatment and a profession. I agree that chiropractor should be arranged as per the profession but IMO this should be arrange as per a treatment. This is an editorial decision. We could have a RfC to bring in greater input if you wish. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 23:18, 6 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
: Doc, I presented evidence that said chiropractic was a medical specialty. You have yet to rebut this with any evidence, and your opinion isn't a substitute for facts. It is clearly a profession and thus the article should be MEDMOS compliant. We've come to a stalemate here, so we can go to dispute resolution. ] (]) 06:55, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::"Chiropractic care is a way to diagnose and treat health problems" "Chiropractic is most effective for treating" and "Who Should Not Be Treated with Chiropractic" . These are all uses of the term to mean a method of care or a method of treatment. It is also used to mean a profession use. And members of that profession are chiropractors and that article should be organized as per a profession. ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:52, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
::: That logic is rather faulty. You do realize that SMT isn't the only service provided by chiropractors, no? We can take this to DR; you're still equating the profession with a treatment, and despite the plethora of evidence and a previous dispute resolution, you want to impose your interpretation. So, we will have to agree to disagree and get outside analysis. ] (]) 15:00, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Scientific Chiropractic: Advice from Quackwatch == |
|
|
|
|
|
http://www.quackwatch.com/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/chirochoose.html |
|
|
|
|
|
Steve's tips (2000) |
|
|
|
|
|
Positive Signs |
|
|
|
|
|
# Try to find a chiropractor whose practice is limited to conservative treatment of back pain and other musculoskeletal problems. |
|
|
# In addition to manual manipulation or stretching of tight muscles or joints, '''science-based chiropractors''' commonly use heat or ice packs, ultrasound treatment |
|
|
# They may also recommend a home exercise program. |
|
|
|
|
|
Negative Signs |
|
|
|
|
|
* Avoid chiropractors make claims about curing diseases, try to get patients to sign contracts for lengthy treatment, |
|
|
* Use scare tactics (scare care) , or disparage scientific medical treatment or |
|
|
* Disparage preventive measures such as immunization or fluoridation. |
|
|
* Who have waiting room literature promoting "nerve interference" as the underlying cause of disease, |
|
|
|
|
|
Conclusions |
|
|
|
|
|
# '''Barett acknowledges there is a scientific-based chiropractor'''. |
|
|
# '''Scientific chiropractic is confined to practicing manipulative therapy for treating back pain''' |
|
|
# '''Manipulative therapy may relieve other other musculoskeletal conditions''' |
|
|
# '''Scientific chiropractors are multi-modal and use adjunctive therapies such as heat, ice, ultrasound, and exercise''' |
|
|
#'''Non-scientific chiropractors will make bogus claims that joint dysfunction/subluxation is the underlying cause of disease |
|
|
#'''Non scientific chiropractors will disparage proven health measures such as immunization and fluoridation. |
|
|
#'''Non scientific chiropractors will tend to use scare tactics and require patients to sign long term contracts, for 'subluxation correction' |
|
|
#'''Non scientific chiropractors disparage all medical treatments there are skeptical or the medical community |
|
|
|
|
|
{{cquote|''Remember that although manipulative therapy has value in treating back pain and may relieve other musculoskeletal conditions, chiropractors are not the only source of manipulative therapy. Physical therapists, many osteopathic physicians, and a small number of medical doctors do it also.''}} |
|
|
] (]) 19:57, June 6, 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
===Comments=== |
|
|
|
|
|
Since QW considered reliable, this should be part of the main article. As well, because Barrett acknowledges a scientific chiropractic, this discussion is germane to this topic. This is also relevant to the discussions regarding ordering the sections here . ] (]) 15:44, June 7, 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:Okay so you want to use this ref to says what? ] (] · ] · ]) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 19:54, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
:: Those are two different subjects. I'm not sure which part of the QW source (last updated in 2000) you'd like to include, but he made it plain that ''"the number of chiropractors who belong to this group'' , a group of physiotherapists] ''is small. CAMT's "orthopractic guidelines" describe a science-based approach to manipulative therapy."'' |
|
|
:: He was unequivocally discouraging readers from visiting chiropractors, but allowed for the remote possibility that a few science-based ones existed in 2000, and only recommended them for those who insisted on going to a DC. Personally, I agree that there are many more of them now, but there is still far too much woo practiced, which is a shame for the sensible ones. |
|
|
:: If you want to include something from the source, write your proposed wording here and let's see if it flies. It might. -- ] (]) 20:06, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{od}} |
|
|
I do find your constant insistence on the theme of a "scientific chiropractic" to be disquietingly close to the theme of the indef blocked ]. I suggest you study his history and see if you can avoid the same mistakes. You'll need to find different and better arguments if you're going to fare any better at improving these articles. -- ] (]) 20:17, 7 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== No mention of reform chiropractic == |
|
|
|
|
|
While reviewing some of the diffs and comments from the various board postings (Arb clarification, ani) I did some google searches to evaluate some of the various statements being made by the parties involved. |
|
|
|
|
|
I came across http://www.chiropractors.org/resources/chiropractic-specializations/what-reform-chiropractic-care.htm which says the three types of Chiropractic are straight, mix, and reform. We do not seem to mention reform anywhere. I am not claiming this site as a RS so we would need some sources, but is there a reason we do not mention reform Chiropractic in the article? It seems to be the least fringy of the types but also unfortunately the smallest group of practice too. Since it is the smallest, per ] we shouldn't spend too much time on them, but it seems like they should at least be discussed? ] (]) 20:39, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
: In this section (]), we previously had three groups. IIRC, chiropractic editors managed to prevent and remove mention of reform chiropractors, which certainly made a lie of all their claims that the profession was reforming and becoming science-based. |
|
|
: We still have an article about them: ]. Reform efforts never gained any traction. They met constant opposition, other chiropractors would not associate with them, they and their families got threatened, and their ability to participate in chiropractic was seriously hampered. Membership was so risky that many of them kept their membership a secret. Their organization simply lost steam as reform seemed impossible, and many of them left the profession. Some are now MDs. You can read about their demise here: ]. |
|
|
: Obviously they should get short mention. -- ] (]) 05:12, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
{{hat|Off-topic rant and misuse of talk page}} |
|
|
:This article is very unbalanced (see archive 37 where I describe the biases) and the only editor who can freely edit the page is QG. Anyone who is not a cynic/skeptic will be reverted for presenting any information that challenges the status quo. Heck, I made 14 edits (minor ones at that too) over a 6 week period and they're looking to topic ban me. So, anyone with any expertise on manipulative therapies, which obviously will involve chiropractic to a larger extent that osteopathic medicine or physical therapy, will be shunned, called a fringe-pov pusher, an edit warrior and an ongoing smear campaign that slowly but surely is done to discredit you. Take it from me, I've been here for about a month and have been treated like an absolute heretic, an extremist, for merely suggesting that things have evolved or changed over the last 20 years or so regarding the research and acceptance or manual therapies for MSK. Feel free to take a look at my page and talk page for my experience thus far. The xenophonic fear-mongering of attempting to silence or white-wash all criticism is beyong bogus, but despite me repeatedly telling them this is not the case, they will gang up on you and continue to the character assassination. Some are more inconspicuous than others, and there is a bad cop/good cop dynamic at play. Read the archives and learn the issues and learn the editors. You will notice there is a constant, and a constant theme of ]. You will be exposed to tendentious editing, ] and wiki-lawyering. It has driven away any middle ground editor, for good reason. The emotional toll and the time sink that this becomes is too much for most, and it seems like the criticism WP gets for being unbalanced and not reliable (especially when it comes to CAM, as the skeptic cabal has managed to insert their own definitions of CAM (which is 100% not based on science, according to their biased sources) has led to a dysfunctional part of the encyclopedia. They will call you a lunatic charlatan for questioning the status quo and CAM articles. In essence, you will be relegated as a second class WP and treated like shit. Depending on my fate, I may not even be able to comment here anymore, but time will show that I am very knowledgeable, can write very well and will be able to increase the depth and breadth of articles relating to the manual sciences. Take care. ] (]) 23:36, 12 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
{{hab}} |
|
|
:] no longer exists. The previous discussion resulted in the Objective Straight and the Reform chiropractors being deleted from this article. I don't see any recent RS that Reforms (or Objective Straights) exist. If we did include it I think we would need a review that describes it. |
|
|
:The text was moved to ]: ''Objective Straight chiropractors, who are an off-shoot of straights, only focus on the correction of chiropractic vertebral subluxations while traditional straights claim that chiropractic adjustments are a plausible treatment for a wide range of diseases. Reform chiropractors are an evidence-based off-shoot of mixers who rejected traditional Palmer philosophy and tend not to use alternative medicine methods.'' |
|
|
:A 2008 review stated that "Currently, there are '''two types''' of chiropractors: those religiously adhering to the gospel of its founding fathers and those open to change." ] (]) 17:00, 13 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
== Removal of sources == |
|
|
|
|
|
{{ping|Smk65536}}, you reasoned your recent removal of sources by stating that: |
|
|
|
|
|
<blockquote><p>the Meeker-Haldeman source links to the book "Chiropractic. History and Evolution of a New Profession", which is authored by a chiropractic, the neutrality of information here is questionable</p></blockquote> |
|
|
|
|
|
Please correct me if I am wrong, but are you saying that a chiropractic author isn't a reliable source on chiropractic? How about an economist then, is an economist a reliable source on economics? Or a physician on medicine? ] (]) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:A long time chiropractor is definitely a reliable source on chiropractic, but the wikipedia summary is about chiropractic in a broader professional context by comparing alternative medicine to other science-based medicines. Therefore I'm doubting the neutrality of this. ] (]) 17:49, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
:The edit summary appears to be misleading. This text was from this source, '''Ann Intern Med. 2002 Feb 5;136(3):216-27.'''. It was also removed from the lede, no discussion. ] (]) 17:52, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The section "History" could use an update if sources are available. |
|
::Considering that there was no discussion for the removal in the lede, neither any clear WP policy why it was removed but only personal speculation, I think the source is better to be restored. If there is a clear WP policy though, please let me know. Perhaps you could find a secondary source that is doubting the very same source you removed? Then it would be alright. ] (]) 20:19, 15 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago. |
|
::: I have restored that content. It's good enough. -- ] (]) 00:18, 16 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- ] (]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC) |
|
::: The policy is clearly WP:NPOV, the source is also a secondary source, the book is instead a primary source, the edit summary summarizes the edit well and attempts to be clear as possible. The secondary source also considers the book's view to be a point of view, but the wikipedia summary appears to state it as fact. ] (]) 09:52, 16 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
: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) |
|
== Note for new users == |
|
|
|
:: In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at ] and ] for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. ] is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. ] is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical , a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- ] (]) (''''']''''') 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are? |
|
|
:::I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out? |
|
|
:::Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume? |
|
|
:::It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. ] (]) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::: I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with ], the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from ]. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic ]! It works like magic! -- ] (]) (''''']''''') |
|
|
|
|
|
|
== Remove opening claims that chiropractic is based in esotericism and is a pseudoscience == |
|
You have to cite references for every sentence you plan to add to any article of wikipedia and avoid removing sentences with references. Please also read - this article is written as per the policies of wikipedia which is that all complimentary and alternative medicine articles should be written, not from the perspective of its advocates/practitioners, but from the perspective of 'researchers and scientists'. If you want to complain about wikipedia's policies, please do what ] mentioned (and tell me also about it, on my ).—] (]) 08:53, 24 June 2014 (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). ] (]) 17:28, 1 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
::Nonsense. Please reread what I said, and stop ]ming this all over the place. ] <small>]</small> 14:45, 24 June 2014 (UTC) |
|
|
|
|
|
|
:::I'm only linking to what you said, LSD!—] (]) 14:55, 24 June 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) |
|
|
::I'm as anti-chiropractic as they come, but saying "we did the bare minimum" is a bad faith argument. There are plenty of high-quality articles discussing chiropractic as a pseudoscience and no real excuse to not accept criticism of the article just because it happens to be right. ] (]) 16:50, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::No one said "we did the bare minimum". What I did say is that Misplaced Pages has standards it follows. We're not going to switch standards and rule out references because someone sets the goalposts in some arbitrary place to get rid of results they dislike. ] (]) 17:09, 26 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:] is essentially equivalent to an MD, but we still characterize them as practitioners of pseudoscientific techniques. Much of the <s>profession</s> Chiropractic profession has changed to be essentially PT, but much of it has not. Globally, the field is still beset with snake oil, sorry to say. ] (]) 05:12, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:: I think there is some confusion there. Osteopathy is a red herring here, as this is about chiropractic. ]s are not comparable to ]s. DMs are real medical doctors, most of whom have long since rejected the pseudoscientific underpinnings of original ]. The chiropractic profession (except in England) still allows claims for non-existent ]s and "adjusting" patients for every disease imaginable, using claims that regular ]s will put the body in a better condition to self-heal. There is no evidence that adjustments make people more healthy. -- ] (]) (PING me) 05:25, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::Yes, I worded that very confusingly. ] (]) 05:41, 2 August 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::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. |
|
|
::::The WHO recognizes the World Chiropractic Federation. It also recognizes spinal manipulation as a viable and first step for chronic lower back pain (). |
|
|
::::I know people get on a high horse, but the body of evidence is massive compared to articles dated in 2008. Nearly 20 years have passed since the articles from Dr. Hall and you're touting it as if it's the end-all. |
|
|
::::Medicine changes and updates. I can't and won't speak for every practitioner, but evidence points towards chiropractic being beneficial for patients. It doesn't work the same way Dr. Palmer indicated it would in 1897, but Dr. A.T. Still wasn't correct either. |
|
|
::::If you're willing to keep your implicit bias against chiropractic, I'm only one person and cannot stop you, but being willing to accept data contrary to your beliefs is what makes Misplaced Pages a great resource. Yet, you're doing readers a disservice by using old data with outdated claims. |
|
|
::::I'm happy to keep providing updated data. I will concede that some chiropractors still subscribe to outdated beliefs, but I am also willing to provide evidence that MDs, DOs, and other medical providers do as well. |
|
|
::::You have a duty to maintain the up-to-date nature of the sources used. Otherwise, what's the point of science if you're going to cling to outdated ideas? ] (]) 18:19, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::See ]. Chiropractic is woo and that's been long settled & accepted knowledge. ] applies and an exceptional set of sources would be needed to source any change of position. ] (]) 18:34, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::Lol. I tried. I'm curious who you'll cite as it being "woo." ] (]) 18:49, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::The article is well cited at the end of the first paragraph. ] (]) 18:53, 18 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
::::::::I've read the sources. Pseudoscience is a pejorative term. You may not like chiropractic, but slamming something as pseudoscience leaves no room for discussion because you will dismiss evidence out of hand. |
|
|
::::::::If I gave you a dozen meta-analyses for chiropractic adjustments, would that change your mind? A hundred? |
|
|
::::::::If I gave you studies on patient outcomes? On patient satisfaction? |
|
|
::::::::What is the limit at which something becomes "science?" |
|
|
::::::::Psychiatry is still questionable on what causes depression. Yet it is a medical profession. Podiatry began as chiropody but is now a medical profession. |
|
|
::::::::This Wiki article cites DD Palmer as a problematic character. Look back at the origins of Osteopathic medicine. At the origins of modern medicine. None of it is good. |
|
|
::::::::Yet, you still fault them for the sins of those who came before. |
|
|
::::::::AT Still never went to medical school. Yet DOs are medical doctors. |
|
|
::::::::So, please, define for me what you consider pseudoscience. |
|
|
::::::::I have no problem playing this game and changing the edits however much I can. I think it's a disservice to those who seek chiropractic care into scaring them away when modern evidence points to the benefits and validity. ] (]) 00:49, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::Misplaced Pages follows reliable source. If they say something's pseudoscience that is reflected here. End of story. ] (]) 06:10, 20 September 2024 (UTC) |
|
|
:::::::::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.
