![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Well, according to the wikipedia mantra, everything requires evidence. According to the following statement taken from the Chiropractic page, "much [of my education in classrooms was] spent learning theory, adjustment, and MARKETING" I spent most of my time in a marketing class. Well, please somebody tell me where to get a refund from my college because I do not recall even one day of marketing in my 5 years of chiropractic education at NYCC. In fact, friends that attended CMCC and AECC also do not recall ever 'spending much of their time in marketing', or any time at all in marketing while at university. It would be accurate to say that marketing is available to chiropractors in post-graduate or non-institution associated(chiropractic school) environments. But to say "much time spent in marketing" is insulting and wholly inaccurate. Whoever wrote that line needs to PROVIDE EVIDENCE from curriculums provided by all chiropactic educational institutions that we spend "much of our time in marketing" while at chiropractic school, or it SHOULD BE REMOVED. I recall taking basic science (like biochem) classes, anatomy, dissection (3 cadavers over a 1 year period), neuroanatomy plus dissection, physiology, technique, radiology,......but marketing?.....ah NO. In fact, this is actually LACKING in the curriculum of MOST chiropractic schools. I completed my degree in 1997 after an Honours in Biochemistry. I do not recall marketing being a class in that either.... The onus is on the person who has posted this information to back it up with fact, because there is no evidence provided in the article, or citation. A citation is not considered evidence if the information it provides does not have evidence to back it up as well. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.193.49 ( talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
DVMt, when you have a moment, can we discuss this change [4]. While I agree that the word 'reject' is not in the text, the abstract does clearly state that 69% of chiropractors disagree with the CAM label. Personally, I think that the general statement that "...most chiropractors reject" is better than the list of numbers that you have added. What do you think about putting those specific numbers in the body of the article (if you think they are important) instead of the Lead. Personally, I think "reject" is ok, but if you disagree, can we find another way to make the statement more accurate...what about just using the word from the source: could we just change it to "A characterization that many chiropractors disagree with"? Puhlaa ( talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for perhaps kicking a dead horse....I am still of the opinion that this change has not been an improvement!
The text has been changed from (original text):
To (current text):
I think that the new sentence reads very poorly and also violates
WP:LEAD because it is not a summary of the body, it is a summary of a survey of chiropractors. Personally, I think that the original text in the Lead was a far better summary of the text in the body, now it is almost a replication of the text in the body. The body of the wiki article summarizes this study as well.
Text in the body:
Is it not enough to know that chiropractic is considered CAM (by all major medical organzations including WFC) and that a majority of practicing chiropractors reject that notion? Does the fact that 27% of surveyed chiropractors prefer 'Integrative' really worthy in the Lead? If 27% of major medical bodies agreed with 'Integrative', then I would definitely consider it worthy of the Lead. However, we are talking about 27% of DCs, less significant. Moreover, I dont think that a single survey of chiropractors warrants the weight it has been given in the LEAD by the addition of all these specific numbers and other details. Anyways, this is the last I will bring this up....not because I think you guys are being unreasonable...but if I am still remaining as the minority voice on this one, then I guess I am probably missing something. Puhlaa ( talk) 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the proper term but the picture in the beginning of the article with Davinci's vitruvian man and the spine, etc... could be improved IMO by replacing it with the official chiropractic emblem as seen here in this link http://www.komkare.com/images/emblem.jpg. I don't know how attribution works in regard to 'borrowing' this image or if it falls under some common license, but I'd thought I'd ask first and check out opinions. Having the official chiropractic emblem does seem to make logical sense as opposed to the mish-mashed picture which doesn't seem specific to chiropractic. DVMt ( talk) 03:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Some images that might improve the article:
Second paragraph. This phrase needs to include the word "some" in it. Chiropractic is part of the "healthcare communities" and I would doubt they (the discipline) disagree with their own concepts. Perhaps this should be edited to read "a vitalistic notion ridiculed by some scientific and healthcare communities." to not imply that *ALL* healthcare and science disciplines ridiclue this notion. Even the word "most" could remove some of the bias in the phrase. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 03:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In the first paragraph or the page, and in the first paragraph under "Scope of Practice" there is a sentence that reads: "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry".
I believe this sentence to be flawed. Throughout this article, chiropractic is referred to as alternative form of medicine that has little (though increasing) amounts of evidence-based scientific approach. Dentistry and podiatry are very mainstream. They are, like allopathic medicine, based almost entirely on science. Dental and podiatry students go through the same classes in the same schools as medical students, mostly parting ways in the clinical years (though with some overlap).
The request: remove that sentence, in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulkaloudis ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
mixers range of beliefs table
i think i have also posted this in the archived section by mistake, sorry.
Hi I'm new to wiki editing so sorry if this has been mentioned before I did read some archives but not all . I presume because it has not been changed it hasn't been brought up.
In the belief of chiropractor straight vs mixers it suggests that the mixers philosophical orientation is 'materialistic' ha ha maybe this is an insult to the mixers but I think its probably meant to be 'mechanistic'
also in the introduction it states that 'A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits' I have read this article before (although the reference does not lead to the full article, without a subscription) and it is in-fact a collection of case studies over time and not a true systematic review (the abstract of the article also confirms this). I also believe that this particular claim that was made by the author was disputed because the study did not examine the benefits of manipulation. However i did read this article a long time ago and so I maybe wrong or confused it for another.
I will try to read the rest of the wiki post and offer some more suggestion, if i get time. From the archive I can see editors on both sides have strong opinions on this subject so apologies if i have offended anyone (particularly the Edward Ernst fans)
geo4444spine 2/2/2012
```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo4444spine ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are rather incorrect and poorly sourced additions being proposed: This recent edit [5] added some general comments about chiropractic beliefs about scoliosis. There are a number of problems with this addition:
For the above reasons, either the sources need to be improved or the text needs to be removed. Despite the above facts, my removal of this text has been reverted multiple times. @ Gregorik, Just who is vanadlizing the article is a matter of opinion here I think, threats of ANI do not change the fact that the text does not meet WP:V or WP:RELY. Puhlaa ( talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned in the previous section, there is dispute and edit warring over this matter, so I've moved it here for discussion. Per WP:BRD it should not be restored until a consensus has been reached: -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
One of my objections is the placement. The controversy section needs to remain fairly general, with long discussion of specifics placed in the main controversy article. Otherwise this section will get bloated and cause undue weight. The section should simply be a copy of the lede of the main article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the best way to manage a section of this type (regardless of topic) - where a link to the "main" article precedes a short summation of that article - is to use the lede of that article. What say ye to that idea? -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=chiropractor%20quack&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0 Fasttimes68 ( talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several errors in the text of the page that I cannot correct because editing is restricted. Please correct these:
184.78.155.105 ( talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"A systematic review found 26 recorded deaths from manipulations to the spine during the period 1934-2009 (a death rate less than 0.00002%), concluding that the risk of cervical chiropractic treatment outweighs the benefits.[35]"
The above statment comes off as very biased. This claim is very minuit in the scope of iatrogenesis in traditional medicine. If one is to search Iatrogenesis in wikipedia then they will find the following included below. I am not stating that the statment should not be included but, should be compared to other treatments risks as well. A fuller scope of the risk benifit should be included. Although it is a systemic review, 26 deaths from 1934-2009 is not signifigant in the large scope. No health care provided is flawless however it appears as this profession is being attacked in this article.
"Iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten was considered major, and, in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[16] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[citation needed] In the United States, figures suggest estimated deaths per year of: [17] [18] [19] [20] • 12,000 due to unnecessary surgery • 7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals • 20,000 due to other errors in hospitals • 80,000 due to nosocomial infections in hospitals • 106,000 due to non-error, negative effects of drugs Based on these figures, iatrogenesis may cause 225,000 deaths per year in the United States (excluding recognizable error).[17] These estimates are lower than those in an earlier IOM report, which would suggest from 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths.[17] These figures are likely exaggerated, however, as they are based on recorded deaths in hospitals rather than in the general population. Even so, the large gap separating these estimates, deaths from cerebrovascular disease would still suggest that iatrogenic illness constitutes the third-leading cause of death in the United States; heart disease and cancer are the first- and second-leading causes of death, respectively.[17]
16.^ Steel K, Gertman PM, Crescenzi C, Anderson J (1981). "Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital". N. Engl. J. Med. 304 (11): 638–42. doi:10.1056/NEJM198103123041104. PMID 7453741.
17.^ a b c d Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH JAMA, July 26, 2000 – Vol 284, No. 4. p. 483 http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/4/483.extract http://www.avaresearch.com/ava-main-website/files/20100401061256.pdf?page=files/20100401061256.pdf
18.^ Lucian L. Leape: Unnecessary Surgery. Annual Review of Public Health Vol. 13: 363-383 (Volume publication date May 1992) http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pu.13.050192.002051
19.^ David P Phillips, Nicholas Christenfeld, Laura M Glynn: Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993 The Lancet, Volume 351, Issue 9103, Pages 643 - 644, 28 February 1998 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2898%2924009-8/fulltext
20.^ Jason Lazarou, MSc; Bruce H. Pomeranz, MD, PhD; Paul N. Corey, PhD: Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200-1205. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/15/1200.full
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erthom6173 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The latest 2 edits by Abotnick seem guilty of the same original research conflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.48.52 ( talk) 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed this recent edit [8] because it uses a single, old, paper by a single chiropractic author to synthesize an entire discussion about chiropractic listing systems. As it is, the added text is unsuitable because it violates WP:OR, the single source used has been grossly mis-represented, as it is actually only the opinion of Harrison; ie: The conclusion of the 1996 paper is "We believe that the term torque is misused in chiropractic literature"...."We strongly suggest that references to the term torque that are not biomechanically correct must be removed from all such sources." This in no way matches-up with the lengthy commentary added by editor Abotnick with regard to listing systems and chiropractic controversy; more and/or better sources will be needed to support the inclusion of a discussion about these listing systems I think. Puhlaa ( talk) 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I did some reading in the archives regarding this subject and I see that I am not the first to bring it up. I reviewed the cited article and this Wikipedia article seems to accurately reflect the conclusions of said article. However, there is a more recent article, conducted by a Medical school in conjunction with a Chiropractic school that showed quite the opposite. In keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and evidence-based standards, obviously this needs to be looked at ASAP. I will attach the link here and I plan to edit this section soon so that it reflects both conclusions, allowing individuals to draw their own conclusion rather than scaring them with statements like "...the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits." Here's the link to the article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922298/?tool=pubmed Akdc14 ( talk) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You people never give up. It doesn't mean that it cant be mentioned that "Several scientific studies of lower significance have shown that..." Research is done by doctors... hence aren't the studies bound not be neutral to some degree? Loads of med students use wikipedia, are you one of them? Med students are also extremely persistent and of higher intelligence than the general populus - at least at my university.
Javsav ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The latest bit added to the lede seems rather inappropriate with regard to its proximity in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.48.52 ( talk) 23:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
"For most of its existence it has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[15] that are not based on solid science.[16]"
I agree that this sentence is redundant and biased. It should be changed. User who brought this edit up, you are absolutely correct. It is interesting to me what a hostile environment is encountered on this page. Please continue to edit and don't be side-tracked by the distractions thrown out by those who obviously wish to keep this page biased. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) To further enhance your point, check this out: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. This is a section from the page "fringe" on wikipedia. This shouldn't even be referred to as pseudoscience. This article is about 90% in violation of the NPOV on wikipedia. Akdc14 ( talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
People are undoing additions I made to the controversy section. McSly commented that the comments were original research. This is not true and shows an ignorance of the literature by Mcsly. The revision as of 00:30, 22 May 2012 discussing torque and the lack of translation components in the Gonstead and Diversified biomechanical technique listings that are tested on by chiropractic boards have been published in Harrison's book Chiropractic Technique (blue) and torque is covered in the reference I cited. Ligament laxity is a known problem and it is obvious that chiropractic scope doesn't include provision to address it. Research on prolotherapy by osteopaths could be used for support. I know efficacy for prolotx isn't established yet but osteopaths don't combine it with biomechanical realigment so it is pending. Regardless it is important that people reading this article be informed that the claim that chiropractic is efficacious as a biomechanical treatment is false due to these problems. Also, it is important for readers to realize that physical therapists differ from chiropractors because PTs use clinical prediction rules and this affects outcomes in a negative way. Abotnick ( talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A law which was claimed to have been designed to allow chiropractors the ability to fill the void of Primary Care Physicians in the state of New Mexico failed in the New Mexico Senate by several votes, after having passed the state house. http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articles-news-across-the-profession/5313-law-for-advanced-practice-chiropractors-prescribing-rights-fails.html Sommers6z ( talk) 01:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be an interesting tidbit in the "history of Chiropractic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.40.70 ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following section was posted at WP:HD:
I was just reading your article on chiropractic which seemed to be pretty well-informed. I was a little thrown, though, by the last sentence in the Intro (or first) section: "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits.[35]"
I have been to a chiropractor several times over the years and always had amazing results, as have my friends/family that referred me. I found this sentence a little scary (like if I was reading this article for the first time prior to seeking chiropractic treatment, I might think twice) so read the article cited to justify this sentence: Deaths after Chiropractic: A review of published cases. The article actually states that there have been a total of 26 reported cases of death from chiropractic since 1934 (that's 26 deaths in 78 years of published data). Also, there were only 10 cases where the death occurred within one day of the treatment--the article states that the rest of the fatalities occurred up to 58 days following the treatment (not sure how linked the two can be with this amount of time--almost 2 months--passing between treatment and death).
I'm writing to Wiki to see if this sentence can't be deleted from the posted article...it seems really misleading to me and I know a lot of people read Wiki to get basic info on a subject and I would hate anyone else to be thrown by such a misleading sentence when the rest of the article seemed so well informed/impartial.
Copied here, since this is the appropriate venue. Nyttend ( talk) 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the sentencce should be changed as this is completely false and is based on ONE paper from several years ago. There have been numerous studies and literature reviews to negate these conclusions since then. Many of those references can be found in my previous edits, which have been reverted, but if you decide you'd like to join those of us who are up to date on the latest evidence, they are there for your perusal. Many more can be found on the ICL (Index to Chiropractic Literature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you saw, I made several edits to these sections to reflect more current data, broader data, or to simply provide other resources to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Effectiveness: However, a recent literature review published in March of 2012 sheds light on the fact that the placebo effect is not the reason for the positive results seen with chiropractic care. Interestingly enough, the review was of the literature regarding chiropractic care of animals, of which there is data dating back to 1896. The review states,"Acknowledgement of these early contributions to animal chiropractic and its steady acceptance would contradict critics who may claim that any positive result obtained by spinal adjustments is psychological. Successful resolution by spinal adjustments of health conditions in animal patients negates such claims. It would be up to critics to demonstrate any so-called placebo effect in view of the demand, acceptance and development of this evolving profession."
Safety:
However, a study performed on the vertebral arteries of cadavers found that, during a chiropractic adjustment, the vertebral artery undergoes only one-ninth of the strain required to reach mechanical failure. While this is an isolated study, it is a better representation of causation (or lack thereof) than a simple correlational study.
History:
Much of this stems from the ideas of the founder Daniel David Palmer which were so radically different from the mainstream thinking about health at the time. While many have mistakenly thought that D.D. Palmer presented subluxation as the cause of disease and the adjustment as the cure for all diseases, D.D. Palmer was actually more concerned with the cause of health than with the cause of disease, a thought process that still guides the chiropractic profession today. The original definition of chiropractic included the word "dis-ease" which has been taken by many as just another way of saying "disease" or "illness." In actuality, according to the rest of D.D. Palmer's writings, he was using the word "dis-ease" to mean a lack of ease, incoordination, or lack of organization that occurs in the body whenever the subluxation interferes with nervous system function in the body.
If there is something you feel should be changed about these, let me know on here. The edits will be restored soon, hopefully with some input. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so let me get this straight...this is an article to provide information on the topic, in this case the topic is chiropractic, and yet a source written by a well educated memember of the profession isn't considered a "real" source. That's very interesting. Next, about the animal study...you mean to tell me that animal studies are not valid? Granted they can't always account for all differences between animals and humans so they are never 100%, but in this case the study gives some pretty good indication of the validity of the science. It's beginning to look like that's exactly why a few of you are so opposed to its inclusion in the article. Is that what we are dealing with here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions I was able to take a look at those resources. I will probably be utilizing them soon. Oh, and about wikipedia not being unbiased....have you not read the copious quantity of information regarding NOT introducing bias into an article by using words such as "claimed," etc? NPOV needs to be restored in this article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hide anecdote. Yes, "not a forum" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I realize this is not a forum, and I'm not proposing any changes to the article, but I think it's important for people who are not familiar with chiropractic medicine and think it may help them to hear from personal testimony of someone who actually went through with it. Long story short, it's bullshit. I was having pain in my neck, and it would flare up and actually my neck would become crooked when I slept the wrong way. After many years of ignoring it, I thought I would go to a chiropractor and see if they could help me. About the only good they did was do an x-ray on my neck and told me that there was damage to the back of my neck. After thinking about how it was caused, I concluded it was probably do to my habitual nature to constantly crack my neck which I would do constantly without thinking about it. Apparently doing that for many years will cause real damage to the neck. Ever since I saw the chiropractor, I stopped cracking my neck, but everything else he did was worthless. He did all of his back and neck adjustments to me, and while it temporarily straitened my neck out for a few minutes, it went back to being crooked again, and actually got worse in the weeks following. I now sleep on my side with a pillow in front of me to keep me from sleeping on my belly (which forces me to turn my head to the side, which in turn causes my neck problems). So as long as I sleep like that, I don't have any neck problems, and I no longer crack my neck to further exacerbate any damage to my neck. But the chiropractor himself was essentially useless, and even if he did help, it would only provide temporary relief that doesn't provide any cures. ScienceApe ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the last comment in the introduction which claims (X: "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits.[35]" to (Y):"While adverse reactions do occur due to chiropractic intervention, further reserach is needed to confirm the prevalence and nature of these reactions to the interventions."firstly, becuase the vaguetries within the citation http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+4+August+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance. While this is not a standalone strong request, it is important to note that this is a heavily critiqued study and has many flaws, and there have been many more complete and informative studies with much more open, descriptive and specific protocols that have been plainly spelled out, which have managed to produce actual figures, such as this article: http://bigbrother.logan.edu:2067/pubmed/19444054. Just by looking at the abstracts its plain to see, that as a stand alone citation the previous one is making strong conclussive statements that comes from what is three pages of writing total within the actual article, where the source and conclusion which I propose is a more realistic reflection of the public & political concerns with chiropractic. Thank you. 2602:306:3647:DE40:B4DD:855E:633E:9BEB ( talk) 05:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this should be changed. The answer you were given makes no sense. The talk page is about reaching consensus and I see nothing wrong with your proposed edit. I support replacing the current sentence with your version. Thanks for bringing this up! Akdc14 ( talk) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Exscuse me sir, but the article that supports the previous claim is unscientific and unsuitable for making claims about an entire medical treatment based on 26 deaths since 1938, but I'm sure you would know if that if you had read the article... The one I proposed, though posted prior, is still more complete, and newer information, superior in virtually every way. Please read them. 2602:306:3647:DE40:D973:7D2:3B1:7726 ( talk)
It seems both claims are about as in conflict as they can be. One claims certainty while the other admits ignorance.Also, there are about 5 hotlink critiques attached to the article I am questioning on pubmed. Look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3647:DE40:D973:7D2:3B1:7726 ( talk) 03:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.Public Health Section In light of the recent statement by the EPA, it would be valuable to readers to change the public health section of this article. The only part that needs changed is the part that includes fluoridation as an important public health practice. The profession has opposed fluoridation for years so that part doesn't need changed. Just the part that is inaccurate. Fluoridation, especially at previous levels, is not a good public health practice. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/22/epa-reverses-fluoride/ Akdc14 ( talk) 19:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure! Perhaps this section of the article should read, "The majority of the chiropractic profession has taken a stance against water fluoridation, a position that formerly cast doubt on the public health practices of the profession. However, with the recent statement issued by the EPA regarding water fluoridation, the some of the profession's public health policies have become recognized by mainstream environmental health data." Akdc14 ( talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that the fluoridation issue was okay to mention in this article when it made chiropractors look like idiots but now that the EPA (that is the United States Environmental Protection Agency we are talking about here...)is showing that the profession has been right all along, you don't think it's such a good idea to include it? This isn't an "alleged departure from mainstream science." Fox news was reporting on a statement released by the EPA. I don't know how much more official it gets than that. You also mentioned that the statement about the profession's stance against fluoridation requires a source. Well, that's already stated in the article and has been there for quite some time, so I assume the source currently connected to that statement will continue to suffice. Would you like to suggest any changes to the wording I proposed in my initial response? If not, I think it's a good idea to continue with making these changes, as it is congruent with the previous content of the article...just updating it with new, more valid information. Akdc14 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not an opinion piece any more than any other news release would be. Here's an excerpt from the statement released by the EPA, found on the EPA's website: "it is likely that some children are exposed to too much fluoride at least occasionally." I will copy the link here so you can look it over and decide whether you think an official government document should suffice as official information. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/upload/2011_Fluoride_QuestionsAnswers.pdf So, it appears that the best way to handle this situation is to go with the original wording I proposed and to cite the government issued document rather than the news article. Akdc14 ( talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So based on what you're saying there are quite a few articles in violation of your ideas of what should be used. The actual article on water fluoridation on Wikipedia references the CDC, so clearly that should be changed. In the Chiropractic article, I guess that means that the book "Trick or Treatment" by Keating shouldn't be referenced either. Looks like there's a lot of work to do if this idea is going to be strictly adhered to. But I think we all know that not everything on Wikipedia absolutely has to come from peer reviewed sources. Yes it is the preferred method but there are obviously some things for which peer reviewed articles are either unavailable or uneccessary or both. I think we can all figure out too that things like CDC, EPA, WHO and national professional organizations are a valid source for providing standardized information. I agree they are not the only source, however they are A source. Thanks for your input though! In the efforts of keeping Wikipedia up to date and reliable though, it seems clear that the best option is to go ahead and update this section. P.S. the link you posted contradicts your own point. " Also, a few sources are in the public domain; these include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Thanks for that resource! Again, if you would like to suggest any changes to the wording before or after I edit the article, feel free to discuss it on the talk page with me! Akdc14 ( talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep...I just sent the changes through. Sounds like a good plan! Akdc14 ( talk) 00:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The controversies over Fluoridation is far beyond the scope of this article. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so if fluoridation doesn't belong in this article, then why don't we get rid of any mention of fluoridation in the article. Would that work better for you? Akdc14 ( talk) 19:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense...I agree that the stance of the profession is within the scale. However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on. Right now, the article is inaccurate. A simple mention of the fact that water fluoridation is under review and that perhaps chiropractors aren't as far off their rockers as the original wording depicted them to be would suffice. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's funny that you say the current version is accurate...since it clearly has some holes. Seems like the best answer is to go ahead and put in the article that chiropractors oppose water fluoridation, the health benefits of which are currently being re-evaluated by the EPA. We have already established thath chiros oppose water fluoridation and we have also established that the situation is "under review" by the EPA...looks like that's a good compromise. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, this was an entertaining exercise. I always enjoy seeing how far some people will go to keep things biased in their favor. Akdc14 ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on. "
No. Because if you wish to include that, you then have to provide balance, clarification, history and context. So a simple few lines then blows up into paragraphs upon paragraphs that re-cover the Water fluoridation controversy article. If, say, Chiropractic researchers found information relavant to the issue, then that would be included into it. But we have WP:Coatrack as a policy as a reason. We don't want articles to go on tangents that are not really related to the article. Some Chiropractors have been against Flouridation, some haven't. That is a simple fact and we don't need to expand those sections.
Why stop at fluoridation? Why not also expand the section on vaccination? Why not include a lengthy section on the history of the anti-vaccination movement? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever mentioned "However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on." The point is not moot, I was taking a break. If you would like to expound on both fluoridation and vaccination, feel free to do so if you think that would be the best way to achieve accuracy here. That's a great idea! See, it just seems silly to mention that chiropractors oppose fluoridation and then inaccurately describe what fluoridation is. Perhaps we could just take out the part that says fluoridation is a valuable public health measure. That would eliminate the need to make the article any longer but it would still achieve accuracy.... Akdc14 ( talk) 00:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Template is from WikiProject Pseudoscience, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Headers_for_flagging_well-known_pseudoscience_topics
I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not seeing what's 'bizarre' about that template, or understanding why you reverted my edit. Perhaps it's obvious to everyone else.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet there is no scientific basis for the concept of chiropractic "subluxation". Unsurprisingly, then, there is no good evidence that paediatric conditions respond to chiropractic manipulations.
This is true for "wellness care", adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, ear, nose and throat problems, digestive disorders and infant colic.
Even a report commissioned by the British General Chiropractic Council in the aftermath of the BCA vs Singh libel case confirmed this lack of sound evidence.
A largely ignored landmark review of the literature by Nansel and Szlazak,2 published in 1995, concluded that there is not a single appropriately controlled study to indicate that any dysfunction in structures of the spinal column is a cause of organic disease. ...
A review of the current evidence on the epidemiology of the subluxation construct also failed to find any credible evidence supporting the chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory.3 This review concluded that:
‘No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability.’3
It seems that all the time I took to explain to an editor yesterday how controversial this article was a waste of time? These edit [19] change NPOV text that has gained consensus and replacce it with the POV of the editor making the changes. As was extensively discussed above, changes here (especialy in the lede) need to be discussed first and need to be supported by high-qiality sources. Please discuss such controversial changes here first, otherwsie it creates nothing but frustration for everyone involved in the project! I have reverted all of the POV and unsourced changes. Puhlaa ( talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading here that "This edit wasn't discussed first" isn't a good reason for a revert.
I'm inclined to thing that it's an even less good reason when discussion on the topic has been open for 3 days.
The article does not belong to any one wikipedian, and I don't need permission to edit it.
The current version is not 'The NPOV Version' - my edits are not automatically 'POV'.
I'd like to know what was wrong with (for example) this source here: Chiropractic - NHS Choices which I added, and which was deleted without explanation or discussion (except for a simple and unreasonable refusal to allow me to edit without gaining prior permission to do so).
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
As I'm being told that I'm not allowed to edit the article without prior permission from it's owners, I request permission to add this source:
Reasons why this is a good source:
So, owners of the article, please may I have your permission to add this source?
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The lede of the chiropractic article currently ends with the conclusion of Ernst's 2010 review of case-studies "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits." However, a new systematic review, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice [ [21]], has examined the issue of stroke and cervical manipulation and states in it's discussion: "An accurate risk-benefit analysis for cSMT remains unavailable and additional research in this field is needed.". This seems to imply that Ernst review of case-studies was not considered an accurate risk-benefit assessment, thus its bold conclusions with regard to risk-benefit seem unjustified in this article. If nothing else, it seems that Ernst bold conclusions hold too much weight, as other 'experts' in the area seem to disagree with his conclusion. I propose that the lede be updated to better represent the current and accurate view, that "There is inconclusive evidence regarding a strong association or no association between cervical manipulation and stroke." Being an extremely controversial topic, I look forward to comments. Puhlaa ( talk) 05:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I made the above discussed changes to the lede. Note that I retained Ernst2010 as a source in the lede, with regard to the controversy surrounding safety, however, I gave the most weight to the newest and highest-quality systematic review. Puhlaa ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are you even bringing up the educational standards in the UK? Did you not see the memo at the top of the page?? This is not intended as a WORLDWIDE discussion on this topc. It is only explaining the US applications. Whoever keeps insisting that chiropractors are quacks obviously lives under a rock and is invited to stay there for as long as they like but should stay out of the way of the grown ups who actually want to learn things and use logic. To the individuals who keep insisting on keeping this page ridiculously biased AGAINST chiropractic I suggest you make yourself VERY familiar with the Wilk vs AMA case and get comfortable with the idea that this profession does not take kindly to those who try to unjustly suppress it. Things tend to go rather poorly for those who try to do so. Chiropractic is NOT a fringe idea. Those of you who are intent on keeping the truth out of the public's view on the internet should revel in your short lived victory and realize that it will not be that way forever. Akdc14 ( talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's another article supporting the recent changes. Perhaps this could be reflected under the "Risk-Benefit" heading as well? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204390# Akdc14 ( talk) 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that this sentence be deleted from the first para:
"Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry.[3]"
Here's the source:
Meeker WC, Haldeman S (2002). "Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine" (PDF). Ann Intern Med 136 (3): 216–27. PMID 11827498.
Link: [24]
The publicly visible part of the source content does not support the assertion that chiropracters are similar to either primary care physicians or to physicians who have a medical speciality.
Perhaps the part of the text which says that is in the non-public-access section? If so then maybe we could have a quote from it, to see what it says.
The idea that chiropracters have training or skills equivalent to a medically trained physician is a big claim; it needs sourcing really well if it's to be supported. Right now I'm not seeing anything supporting it.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that:
Chiropractic is a health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. [12] It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). [13]
be amended to:
"A field of alternative medicine, Chiropractic claims to diagnose, treat and prevent disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and to improve general health. [12] [13]
My reasoning:
Both the sources are retained.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In its "Foreword", the WHO document implies that chiropractic is "traditional and complementary/alternative medicine". although this is not directly linked to the statement in the "Glossary". My recommendation:-
Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"The second sentence in the lede already mentions that chiropractic, for the most part is considered CAM.... There's no need to insert in the first sentence and make it redundant."
"If we are going to try and make this article represent a more global view than surely we can't cherry pick more or less favourable "definitions" based positive or critical sources."
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The group beating I've undergone on this page has succeeded in driving me away from Wikipedia. I'm losing sleep over this; it isn't worth it. Bye. -- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 07:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC) |
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Just to let everyone know that I started a thread at WP:FTN. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A recent good-faith edit [26] has changed the meaning of the text. The original text stated that the 'battle between mainstream medicine and chiropractic has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation'. The new version of the text "...chiropractic has been sustained by..." is saying something different and should either be reverted to the original version or re-edited to give the correct meaning. Puhlaa ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikiped has flagged the intro as being too long. After reading it I agree. Much of the mixer/straight discussion needs to be in the appropriate section. I don't like the WHO definition for chiropractic-it isn't germane to chiropractic practice in the USA and was likely inserted by former Life U president Sid Williams DC who was affiliated with the straight ICA assoc. and wanted to push chiropractic as a universal panacea. Chiropractors aren't allowed to treat neurological conditions, they either diagnose subluxation or a musculoskeletal condition or they will not get paid by third party payers and the US government.
I am suggesting you start with this as the intro:
I think this catches the essence of why chirop is different from medicine which is important to state after listing it as a C&A health care prof. It also introduces the idea of basing a wider mixer scope around a narrow treatment manipulation. In fact, some states (NJ for example) will not allow a DC to treat a patient unless vertebral subluxation is diagnosed concurrently. Abotnick ( talk) 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Chiropractic Alliance
If anyone wants to improve it, please do, because it is notable, even if it's in an infamous way. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion to avoid edit-warring and hard feelings. I would advise all editors to avoid using the word tendentious in talking about other users' editing. It's kind of jarring and unhelpful. Thanks for listening. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Summary: The devil is in the detail. I am currently checking the detail. I am an admin and have no financial interest in chiropractic.
TL;DR version:
Puhlaa, a chiropractor, has repeatedly reverted in text stating that "Chiropractic care is generally safe when employed skillfully and appropriately" based on the WHO document. What that document actually says is: "When employed skilfully and appropriately, chiropractic care is safe and effective for the prevention and management of a number of health problems. There are, however, known risks and contraindications to manual and other treatment protocols used in chiropractic practice."
Note the significant caveats: skilfully and appropriately, and known risks and contraindications. So this cannot be taken as an unequivocal statement that chiro is safe, because the entire reason the document exists is that in many cases, as it states in the introduction, chiro is notused skilfully and appropriately.
The document itself is framed in terms of an idealised practice of chiropractic which provably does not match the actual practice by many within the chiropractic community; this goes to the heart of why chiropractic has not become, like osteopathy in the US, an accepted mainstream, medical profession.
Another common one in the UK is chiros claiming to treat infant colic ( discussion). This is quackery, pure and simple. There is absolutely no evidential basis for it; CAM proponent George Lewith tries to make the case in a Cochrane review but is forced to conclude that when you exclude trials with poor methodology, there is no significant result.
This is an absolutely classic CAM scenario: an implausible claim, with no credible mechanism, backed by observational data highly prone to bias, asserted as fact with demands that science-based medicine disprove the claim rather than through the correct scientific mechanism of testing the claim. And that's the kind of thing we have to be careful of here because supporters will claim: "The majority of the included trials appeared to indicate that the parents of infants receiving manipulative therapies reported fewer hours crying per day than parents whose infants did not, based on contemporaneous crying diaries, and this difference was statistically significant", but the entire text is "The studies included in this meta-analysis were generally small and methodologically prone to bias, which makes it impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of manipulative therapies for infantile colic. The majority of the included trials appeared to indicate that the parents of infants receiving manipulative therapies reported fewer hours crying per day than parents whose infants did not, based on contemporaneous crying diaries, and this difference was statistically significant. The trials also indicate that a greater proportion of those parents reported improvements that were clinically significant. However, most studies had a high risk of performance bias due to the fact that the assessors (parents) were not blind to who had received the intervention. When combining only those trials with a low risk of such performance bias, the results did not reach statistical significance. Further research is required where those assessing the treatment outcomes do not know whether or not the infant has received a manipulative therapy. There are inadequate data to reach any definitive conclusions about the safety of these interventions".
The correct conclusion from this is that chiro is not effective, not cost-effective and not indicated for infant colic, because the strongest studies, with the best methodology, show no significant benefit over doing nothing. It's important because infant colic is incredibly distressing for the parents (trust me, I've sat through those long nights), so, like cancer patients, you have a vulnerable community whose emotions are easily manipulated. In medicine, it is not enough to claim that you can't prove something doesn't work, you have to prove that it does work, and that it works better than the alternative. In our case the effective treatment was to push the lad round in a pram or take him for a drive in the car, which worked like a charm (until you stopped).
What's even more worrying is that adverse effects were only even considered in one of the studies reviewed. This blindness to potential adverse effects is also common in CAM.
The idea of "maintenance adjustments" is particularly problematic. From the outside, this looks like a money-making scam. There's no credible reason to suppose that maintenance adjustments are anything other than fraud. Studies in the US have found that once you take into account the number of treatments stated to be needed, chiro comes out very poorly in a value for money assessment - although manipulation works as well as any other manipulation for lower back pain, chiros typically seem to want you to go to them for longer, and ideally to keep going regularly forever.
So: any sources for safety and/or efficacy of this or any other CAM intervention have to be assessed very carefully, and we must only accept the studies which are methodologically rigorous and published in reputable journals, because as the Cochrane review shows the world of CAM, in which chiro is no exception, has its own walled garden of low impact low quality journals which will publish supportive studies pretty much regardless of methodological quality. This is not specific to chiro, as I say, but is a core principle behind WP:MEDRS, and allows us to keep fringe views in their proper context. We must also guard against implicitly extending claims; chiro is cost-effective for lower back pain based on 6 treatments does not mean chiro is cost effective for lower back pain period, because some chiros will want between 12 and infinity sessions.
There is little doubt that if chiropractors as a class restricted themselves to musculoskeletal pain in the lower back and stuck to the best evidence-based guidelines, there would be very little controversy. There is solid evidence that a very large number do not do this. That's why there is controversy, and lots of it. And that's why we must be careful with sources and reflect the generality of practice not an idealised model of practice, per the WHO guideline, which is not what happens in reality. And that is why I am reading throught he article very carefully now, checking the claims, and assessing the sources in context. Guy ( Help!) 12:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This edit [27] removed sourced information from the body of the article. I have reverted it as there is no consensus to remove information from reliable sources. Puhlaa ( talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have posted this concern at the Reliable Sources NoticeBoard [28] Puhlaa ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that Consumer Reports is a reliable source for that which is reports on, but be sure that you quote it or abstract from it accurately. The magazine certainly did not say or even imply that "A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments." If you don't have access to the magazine on line, I do, and I can send you the text if need be. There were 45,000 surveys returned to the magazine, and the readers' experience with chiropractic ranged all over the place. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which reference it was, but it was another pmid.gov. I seem to recall that the references from here I read last night said there's a correlation between interpersonal interaction and satisfaction rating, but the correlation between effectiveness and satisfaction was lacking sufficient evidence.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
02:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
JzG (Guy), you have again deleted reliable sources in the article without any prior discussion. This edit [34] removed 2 systematic reviews, one from European Spine Journal [35] and one from the Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology [36]. Can you explain why you do not think that these are suitable for the body of the article under the section 'cost-effectiveness'. Puhlaa ( talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks like editors are starting to fix some of the main problems with the article, I'd like to point out that there is a POV fork ( Chiropractic controversy and criticism) containing a lot of material that's underrepresented in this article, and it would probably be easiest to fix this problem now as well. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted these [38] recent edits according to WP:BRD. I reverted the bold edits for a number of reasons:
Puhlaa ( talk) 01:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
( Help!) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well Tippy or JzG (Guy), neither of you have addressed my concerns regarding the removal of the WHO-sourced definition from the first sentence of the lead diff and replacing it with a "historical" definition from a 1987 narrative? The WHO is the better source IMO (no one has challenged this), and is a current definition. The 1987 source is weaker and provides a "historical" perspective. No one has explained why a "hitorical" perspective is better than a current definition to start the lead? I propose restoring the sourced WHO definition in the first sentence, but lets retain the historical perspective you added for the second sentence, to attempt to avoid further dispute. Is this satisfactory? Puhlaa ( talk) 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am still hoping to hear more from editors about the changes made to the -first sentence- in the lead as part of this recent edit. I am concerned by the removal of "Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine [1] health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health [WHO]" and replacing it with "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine [1] historically based on the idea that misalignment of the spine can cause a wide range of diseases [1987 source]."
It has been suggested that "The WHO source was not a definition of a reliable source...". However, the WHO are specifically listed here as very reliable. It has also been suggested that “the WHO reference fails to reference innate intelligence”. However, this should not be a concern because the edit that I am asking others to review does not deal with innate intelligence; the discussion of innate is found in a separate section of our lead and I am not questioning the inclusion of that text.
I have proposed that "restoring the WHO definition in the first sentence, but lets retain the historical perspective you added for the second sentence...". I think that this proposal will ensure that the article effectively conveys to the reader both the current and the historical aspects of ‘what is chiropractic’ and will then also by consistent with policy like WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to the current situation rather than the historical perspective. Case in point, even the 1987 source that is supporting the “historical" definition in the lead says: "Although osteopathy and chiropractic emerged as medical revitalization movements with a similar disease theory during the late 19th century...chiropractic has evolved into a musculoskeletal speciality." Thus, there is no contradiction between the WHO and the 1987 source, both could exist in the lead, as per my proposal. Puhlaa ( talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This series of edits [47] by one editor has removed the sourced information that chiropractic is 3rd largest doctored profession (in 2 places and 2 sources), removed citation-needed tags without added sources, and removed the word profession from anywhere it was used to describe the chiropractic profession. These seem like edits that are meant to promote a single POV; ie: that chiropractors are not doctors and are not professionals; however, sources disagree. The edits have since been copy-edited and these cannot be undone by a regular editor (I think)? I am requesting someone with rollback privileges to examine the edits and comment or remove them. Puhlaa ( talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi John Snow, Yes, things have come a long ways since the AMA was penalized for prohibiting MDs from referring to DCs. I understand your concerns regarding a US-centric POV and only a single source. I have tried to remedy those concerns here with reliable sources from multiple countries. The changing attitude of physician towards some CAMS is very well known and documented, I have provided some sources that indicate physicians in all countries are starting to acknowledge the value of Chiropractic for musculature conditions.
I do not think that we need to add a bunch of additional sources to the article to further illustrate this point, however, I do still contend that you should revert the changes you made in this edit [53], where you removed reference to the changing opinion of medical doctors. Puhlaa ( talk) 07:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Puhlaa — I have had very little experience of this article, but I have quite some experience with COI (including my own, on a completely unrelated topic to this). The thing about COI is that it is not a content issue, it is a person issue – and that makes it particularly toxic since other editors will always be aware of it when controversial edits happen, and it will inevitably get raised. If your profession is chiropractic then you obviously have a COI. In my experience COI-afflicted editors genuinely believe they are neutral and working to improve the article, but are completely unaware of the decentered point of view they in fact have; they often think they are the "exception" to Wikpedia's rule, and can continue editing against the advice of the guidelines. Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest has some material in it you might find interesting. My advice is that if you want to make substantive edits to an article on a topic for which you are conflicted, then think twice – it is quite likely to end up being a frustrating and unfulfilling experience. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Bold edits and conflicts of interest are best dealt with through extensive reference to the most reliable secondary sources available. There are many personal opinions here, but what is important are sources. A COI is only problematic if it results in poor editing; looking above, Puhlaa is indeed citing MEDRS articles. However, the first point is old, the second is primary, the third is old and primary, the fourth is primary (and focused on Switzerland, making its use on this page a little complicated; at minimum I would be curious to see what Swiss chiros thought their focus of practice was) and the fifth is just on the cusp of being too old to be useful making it also a complex source to deal with. The true measure of a COI editor is what they do when they receive feedback. Edit warring on the basis of ideas that do not change is bad. Seeking better, newer sources is good and outside input on those sources is good. I suggest the latter path. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
GeorgeLouis, I was hoping you would be willing to discuss your rational for
these changes? My edits may indeed not have been optimal, so perhaps we can collaboratively determine a better way to express the conclusions of the source?
Here is full text.
My thought was that attribution was not necessary because this seems to be more than just the opinion of the authors, this review relies on multiple other sources to make the conclusions. What is your perspective on this suggestion? Thanks Puhlaa ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again JzG (Guy) has added a discussion of US chiro's trying to become PCP into the lead, however, this is a US-centric issue and is not worth any weight according to
WP:UNDUE. I have already mentioned this issue above, including a suggestion that it should at least be added to the body first, but rather than discuss it, JzG (Guy) continually just restores it in the lead and is unwilling to discuss it here. This is an example of tendentious and uncollaborative editing. JzG (Guy), is there a reason that you refuse to discuss the problems with this edit and rather just keep re-instating the text? Have you read
WP:MOS? what about
WP:UNDUE?
Puhlaa (
talk)
01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The current History section seems too long and detailed for an introductory article. There are already separate pages at Chiropractic history and Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I've placed a proposed shorter version for this section at Chiropractic/sandbox, and I invite all interested editors to visit it and make comments on the Sandbox Talk Page. I think the proposed section could actually be shortened again. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing feud in this article over
WP:RS,
WP:COI,
WP:POV and a constant edit warring. Most of the feud appears to be between
User:JzG and
User:Puhlaa.JzG is an involved admin whose affiliation I don't know. Puhlaa is a chiropractor. There are a handful of editors now involved in editing this article, so it is no longer material for
WP:3O. Can I get a fresh set of eyes to comment on about the discussion that is going back and forth? -
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
07:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a relative newcomer to this article: I have made one edit to it, and two contributions to Talk. Out of caution however I will classify myself as "involved".
What I am seeing here is a classic instance of the problems caused by COI editing. A discussion of issues around content, feuding, etc. would be largely beside the point as it swerves around this root concern of neutrality. As WP:BESTCOI has it, "the whole point of WP:COI is that editors with a conflict are not considered sufficiently impartial to make subjective editorial decisions regarding [conflicting] issues". The excessive heat and edit warring we are seeing in the article is the symptom of not adequately addressing this COI issue, in my view.
A look at User:Puhlaa's contributions shows he has restricted himself to this article, and other related and CAM articles. He has been actively pushing a certain view of Chiropractic, for example by adding it to a list of healthcare professions [55] [56], and then "roosting" on the edits [57] [58] [59]. He edits this article boldly.
As I have mentioned on the Talk page, I don't think any of this is to blame User:Puhlaa. Conflicted editors honestly and truly believe in their "cause" and the rightness of their edits; many (most?) of them don't recognize their COI and think they are an exception to WP's recommendations in this area. The "solution", which in my view addresses the root cause, is for User:Puhlaa to acknowledge his COI and follow the WP:COIU guidelines. This page could also usefully include a Template:Connected_contributor template. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I too have contributed to this discussion recently so also have to identify as 'involved', although I do not have a special interest in the topic. My feeling is that there is potential for conflict here, but this has largely been averted by the admirable restraint of both of the main protagonists. I would echo Alexbrn's comment that I have no doubt about Puhlaa's good faith. I do, however, feel that there is an increasingly clear conflict of interest here. I hope I have not overstepped the mark in advising Puhlaa to take some time out, contribute to a different part of Wikipedia for perspective, and later return to this with a more objective approach if possible. In the meantime, I have attempted to clear up some of the inconsistencies and imprecise phraseology which had appeared in this article and welcome the assistance of other editors in doing so; my own view is that it has improved. John Snow II ( talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I personally do not see a major problem of edit-warring by anyone, I believe no reverts have been made in over a week. For the most part, edits here have been constructive and improved the article. I do have a few remaining concerns about some of the edits, however, these should be easily dealt with if editors are willing to discuss sources and content. However, there has been a pattern of behavior from the editors involved, where they continually choose to discuss other editors instead of edits, content or sources. Initially it was only a single editor, JzG (Guy) who was accusing me of COI in every thread I comment in here. For example:
I have repeatedly asked editors to indicate specific behaviors that were concerning, but none have been presented. A review of my posts above will reveal that in every instance I have always posted with sources and discussion of content or policy. Rather than respond with policy, sources or content, editors have chosen repeatedly to discuss other editors. It is amazing that this has all resulted in me having to justify my behavior here! Puhlaa ( talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, there isn't any particular content issue that we can nail down in this RfC. The issue is a Puhlaa is a WP:SPA with an agenda. That's not something a RfC can resolve, as I understand it. TippyGoomba ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no affiliation. This is not a feud, it's a perfectly routine case of WP:COI and an editor who doesn't properly understand that Wikipedia is not going to document chiropractic in the way chiropractors would, because that would violate our content policies. I'm not the only one to have pointed this out by now. Chiropractic is slightly unusual in that as a manipulation therapy it has some plausible mechanistic explanations for effect on certain conditions, but this anchor in reality is pulled hither and yon by great sails of pseudoscience, WP:FRINGE nonsense and outright fraud. The case of Sam Homola is instructive: this is a man who has taken on the chiropractic profession's questionable practices and yet is still criticised by skeptics for failing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The difficulty is that unlike homeopathy, chiro is not blatant pseudoscience, but historically much of it has been and though Puhlaa says that modern chiropractic education is moving away from the pseudoscience, there is plenty of it still around - for example the McTimoney College of Chiropractic in the UK is still teaching abject nonsense, and the UK's General Chiropractic CXouncil ended up with a very large dose of egg on its face when it tried to use libel law to suppress statement of the fact that it happily promotes bogus treatments. Matters are not helped by the fact that chiropractic organisations are wise to the criticisms and advise their members not to be open about the crank elements, even if they then use them in patient consultations. So chiro may indeed be on the way from a form of quackery claiming to treat all disease to a much more restricted and evidence based practice, but the journey is far from over and in many cases barely begun. Wikipedia cannot be part of making this happen, or blaze the trail in telling the world about how it will be when the quackery is expunged, that is not our job. My advice to Puhlaa if he is sincere about promoting evidence-based practice in chiropractic is to volunteer at chirobase.org where this will be absolutely on mission, rather than try to shoehorn his mission into Wikipedia, where I'm afraid it doesn't really fit. Guy ( Help!) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from NickCT Ok. Couple comments. 1) This is a bad RfC. There don't appear to be any specific questions to address, rather than it seems to be an invitation to simply continue the debate that's raging above. 2) A brief glance at User:Puhlaa's contribution history shows a fairly stark example of a single-purpose account (SPA). SPAs are fairly strong indications of an editor with potential WP:COI/ WP:POV issues, and as such, I'd guess User:Alexbrn's comment that Puhlaa "has been actively pushing a certain view of Chiropractic" is likely correct. Furthermore, I might imagine that User:John Snow II's "advising Puhlaa to take some time out" is justified. I could even suggest referring this matter for a topic ban; however, at first glance Puhlaa's comments generally seem cordial, so a topic ban may be unnecessary. NickCT ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from IP I know my comments will be given discount weight given the anonymity, but JZG has a lot of friends and I fear reprisal from his and his cabal. More than that, I feel that someone needs to say what's not being said. Chiefly, that it is user JZG who seems to have brought all of the recent conflicts to this otherwise stable article as of late. A review of JZG's long edit history reveals an editor who has very much been on the attack against anything not considered by himself to be the scientific mainstream. What worse, his manner seems to be consistently rude and dismissive to any editor standing in his way. I am not saying that this is JZG's single purpose, but it does seem to be his dominant purpose on Wikipedia.
Puhlaa has respectfully questioned some of JZG's rather bold edits; politely citing Wikipedia policy and trying to start a discussion. Instead of engaging Puhlaa and addressing his points, JZG has consistently and unapologetically attacked Puhlaa as an editor.
I don't recognize any COI on the part of Puhlaa, who has progressed this article nicely, keeping it up to date with the latest reliable sources. Saying that a chiropractor can't edit Chiropractic without a COI is tantamount to saying no architect can edit Architecture. That's a ridiculous loss of professionals writing what they know best and cannot serve the purpose of Wikipedia.
My advice is for JZG to back down and not make this article yet another one of his battlegrounds. If JZG can now address - politely - Puhlaa's questions, that would be best. If not, the JZG should move along. I think we as a community need to keep a mindful eye on JZG to make sure he is not bullying his preferred point of view into article space and not abusing his admin status. 67.127.253.101 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by WLU - part of the issue seems to be treating chiropractic as if it were a single entity. There is a diverse range of chiropractors, ranging from self-defined ex-chiropractor Samuel Homola who sees his (former) profession as merely a specialized form of physiotherapy, all the way to chiropractors who believe the spine controls all functions of the body and thus are capable of treating any and all conditions. The reality is, some chiropractors are quacks whose claims have little relation to reality, some voluntarily restrain themselves to the treatment of musculoskeletal pain, and many are in between. I say this less for the actual page and more for the editors involved. I will also remind editors that all edits, particularly on controversial articles, should be verified by reliable sources. JzG's status as an admin is irrelevant unless he uses his tools inappropriately (in which case, start a discussion at WP:ANI). Puhlaa's status as a chiropractor is irrelevant unless he claims his experience is sufficient to change the main page (in which case, WP:OR and WP:RS come into play). The current lead seems to do a reasonable job of portraying the profession, the current body is riddled with references; may I suggest editors follow the cycle of finding, integrating and reviewing reliable sources?
Puhlaa, I will point out that edits like this are inappropriate; the sources used are rather old (1989 is really almost irrelevant in 2012) and appear to be primary sources when we are supposed to use secondary sources (i.e. review articles and books). However, as you correctly state in this diff, these are secondary sources and I am happy to see they are still in the article. This edit added a source that is questionable for two reasons - it is relatively primary, and not a MEDRS; better sources should be found for the information if at all possible, otherwise consensus should be reached on the talk page on whether to include it (my inclination is to leave it out; also, surveys of patient satisfaction say nothing about the actual efficacy of practice, an issue that should inform how the sources is used, but not necessarily bar it from inclusion - better is if a RS can be found that makes the point for us). I have only reviewed a very small number of your edits, but these are fundamental points that should be understood if you are going to edit a controversial article like this one. I do support the removal of sciencebasedmedicine - much as I love the website, and I LOVE SBM, it's not a MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from Anthonyhcole - Just a comment on COI. It's not relevant. We have plenty of topic experts editing in the health area and they're rarely a problem. If Pulhaa is misusing sources or breaching any of our other content norms, that needs addressing, but please don't characterise it as a COI issue. If he were inserting references to his own work, or being paid to edit here, that would be a COI issue. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep the discussion to the article itself. Stop sniping at individual contributors and questioning their motives. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Second that. If there is actual problematical behaviour, like deliberately misrepresenting sources, take it to another venue for resolution. Leave ad hominem out of article talk page discussions, it doesn't help. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. CAM practitioners and promoters will often attempt to use wikipedia as a soapbox, misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking shoddy sources and engaging in original research to push their POVs. Puhlaa does not appear to be doing this, or at least I have not seen evidence of it. Puhlaa's civilly-delivered sources and concerns should be addressed with equal civility, and not merely dismissed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It has been proposed (since December 2012) to split out the lengthy section now headed "Effectiveness" into a new article. One proposed name is "Effectiveness of Chiropractic." Please provide comments below on whether this idea should be adopted, and, if so, what the title should be. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed duplication in the article and have attempted to organize it better by putting the criticisms in the controversy and criticisms section. There are a lot of fluff in the article which can be avoided by making a simple statement "chiropractors are criticized for their uneven stance on water fluoridation and vaccination" as opposed to rambling on about politics. I also noticed that there is repeated use of one author who is cited alarmingly more often than all others. I understand that Ernst is a hero to many of the "anti-CAM" ilk, but his "conclusions" are disputed by many of his own colleagues and other researchers and the article should reflect that as well in a balanced way. Also, older sources are being misused as their conclusions are dated and have been replaced by more current literature on the same topic. Overall I hope we can find a middle groud where all sides are content but we should stick to the article as opposed to wikilawyering. DVMt ( talk) 22:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I note DVMt has just reverted my revert, skipping any customary prior discussion. In the 990 bytes removed from the article, the content sourced to Reggars, J. W. (2011). "Chiropractic at the crossroads or are we just going around in circles?". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 19: 11–67. was removed (at least, I have not checked other sourced content). From a quick glance it appears the pseudoscience / skeptical / critical materials has gone from early parts of the article, as well as well-sourced material stating it was unproven. A POV edit in my view. I think my revert was justified. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I notice you have just re-reverted again, with no discussion of the point of my edit summary. You are now duplicating body text in the lede in an already bloated article (the duplicated text is, incidentally, broadly "positive" commentary on chiropractic). As to your broader edits, it's up to you to make the case. I'm not going to point out each and every POV tweak you have performed, but will ask a couple of questions by way of example:
—isn't this what is called "watering-down" (and it's ungrammatical at that)? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your courteous reply Puhlaa. I understand what you are saying. I did not remove any criticism from the page and, as you can see from the section below I even added some to it. I have repeatedly asked other the other involved editors here (TG, Alex, Guy) to specifically state what they were in disagreement with, it would be much easier to proceed. However, as you can see for yourself, even the mention of the word "CAM health profession" which is V is being reverted for no other reason than they don't approve of the word "profession" even though the cited source states it. I will do my best and take your advice and breaking it into smaller chunks. DVMt ( talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Redwood-CAM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO-guidelines
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chapman-Smith
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 30 | ← | Archive 32 | Archive 33 | Archive 34 | Archive 35 | Archive 36 | → | Archive 40 |
Well, according to the wikipedia mantra, everything requires evidence. According to the following statement taken from the Chiropractic page, "much [of my education in classrooms was] spent learning theory, adjustment, and MARKETING" I spent most of my time in a marketing class. Well, please somebody tell me where to get a refund from my college because I do not recall even one day of marketing in my 5 years of chiropractic education at NYCC. In fact, friends that attended CMCC and AECC also do not recall ever 'spending much of their time in marketing', or any time at all in marketing while at university. It would be accurate to say that marketing is available to chiropractors in post-graduate or non-institution associated(chiropractic school) environments. But to say "much time spent in marketing" is insulting and wholly inaccurate. Whoever wrote that line needs to PROVIDE EVIDENCE from curriculums provided by all chiropactic educational institutions that we spend "much of our time in marketing" while at chiropractic school, or it SHOULD BE REMOVED. I recall taking basic science (like biochem) classes, anatomy, dissection (3 cadavers over a 1 year period), neuroanatomy plus dissection, physiology, technique, radiology,......but marketing?.....ah NO. In fact, this is actually LACKING in the curriculum of MOST chiropractic schools. I completed my degree in 1997 after an Honours in Biochemistry. I do not recall marketing being a class in that either.... The onus is on the person who has posted this information to back it up with fact, because there is no evidence provided in the article, or citation. A citation is not considered evidence if the information it provides does not have evidence to back it up as well. "Encyclopedic content must be verifiable." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.104.193.49 ( talk) 17:10, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
DVMt, when you have a moment, can we discuss this change [4]. While I agree that the word 'reject' is not in the text, the abstract does clearly state that 69% of chiropractors disagree with the CAM label. Personally, I think that the general statement that "...most chiropractors reject" is better than the list of numbers that you have added. What do you think about putting those specific numbers in the body of the article (if you think they are important) instead of the Lead. Personally, I think "reject" is ok, but if you disagree, can we find another way to make the statement more accurate...what about just using the word from the source: could we just change it to "A characterization that many chiropractors disagree with"? Puhlaa ( talk) 21:33, 23 November 2011 (UTC)
Forgive me for perhaps kicking a dead horse....I am still of the opinion that this change has not been an improvement!
The text has been changed from (original text):
To (current text):
I think that the new sentence reads very poorly and also violates
WP:LEAD because it is not a summary of the body, it is a summary of a survey of chiropractors. Personally, I think that the original text in the Lead was a far better summary of the text in the body, now it is almost a replication of the text in the body. The body of the wiki article summarizes this study as well.
Text in the body:
Is it not enough to know that chiropractic is considered CAM (by all major medical organzations including WFC) and that a majority of practicing chiropractors reject that notion? Does the fact that 27% of surveyed chiropractors prefer 'Integrative' really worthy in the Lead? If 27% of major medical bodies agreed with 'Integrative', then I would definitely consider it worthy of the Lead. However, we are talking about 27% of DCs, less significant. Moreover, I dont think that a single survey of chiropractors warrants the weight it has been given in the LEAD by the addition of all these specific numbers and other details. Anyways, this is the last I will bring this up....not because I think you guys are being unreasonable...but if I am still remaining as the minority voice on this one, then I guess I am probably missing something. Puhlaa ( talk) 16:28, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
I don't know the proper term but the picture in the beginning of the article with Davinci's vitruvian man and the spine, etc... could be improved IMO by replacing it with the official chiropractic emblem as seen here in this link http://www.komkare.com/images/emblem.jpg. I don't know how attribution works in regard to 'borrowing' this image or if it falls under some common license, but I'd thought I'd ask first and check out opinions. Having the official chiropractic emblem does seem to make logical sense as opposed to the mish-mashed picture which doesn't seem specific to chiropractic. DVMt ( talk) 03:52, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Some images that might improve the article:
Second paragraph. This phrase needs to include the word "some" in it. Chiropractic is part of the "healthcare communities" and I would doubt they (the discipline) disagree with their own concepts. Perhaps this should be edited to read "a vitalistic notion ridiculed by some scientific and healthcare communities." to not imply that *ALL* healthcare and science disciplines ridiclue this notion. Even the word "most" could remove some of the bias in the phrase. 99.251.114.120 ( talk) 03:32, 15 January 2012 (UTC)
In the first paragraph or the page, and in the first paragraph under "Scope of Practice" there is a sentence that reads: "chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry".
I believe this sentence to be flawed. Throughout this article, chiropractic is referred to as alternative form of medicine that has little (though increasing) amounts of evidence-based scientific approach. Dentistry and podiatry are very mainstream. They are, like allopathic medicine, based almost entirely on science. Dental and podiatry students go through the same classes in the same schools as medical students, mostly parting ways in the clinical years (though with some overlap).
The request: remove that sentence, in both places. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Paulkaloudis ( talk • contribs) 01:17, 28 January 2012 (UTC)
mixers range of beliefs table
i think i have also posted this in the archived section by mistake, sorry.
Hi I'm new to wiki editing so sorry if this has been mentioned before I did read some archives but not all . I presume because it has not been changed it hasn't been brought up.
In the belief of chiropractor straight vs mixers it suggests that the mixers philosophical orientation is 'materialistic' ha ha maybe this is an insult to the mixers but I think its probably meant to be 'mechanistic'
also in the introduction it states that 'A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits' I have read this article before (although the reference does not lead to the full article, without a subscription) and it is in-fact a collection of case studies over time and not a true systematic review (the abstract of the article also confirms this). I also believe that this particular claim that was made by the author was disputed because the study did not examine the benefits of manipulation. However i did read this article a long time ago and so I maybe wrong or confused it for another.
I will try to read the rest of the wiki post and offer some more suggestion, if i get time. From the archive I can see editors on both sides have strong opinions on this subject so apologies if i have offended anyone (particularly the Edward Ernst fans)
geo4444spine 2/2/2012
```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geo4444spine ( talk • contribs) 04:42, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
Unfortunately there are rather incorrect and poorly sourced additions being proposed: This recent edit [5] added some general comments about chiropractic beliefs about scoliosis. There are a number of problems with this addition:
For the above reasons, either the sources need to be improved or the text needs to be removed. Despite the above facts, my removal of this text has been reverted multiple times. @ Gregorik, Just who is vanadlizing the article is a matter of opinion here I think, threats of ANI do not change the fact that the text does not meet WP:V or WP:RELY. Puhlaa ( talk) 17:24, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
As mentioned in the previous section, there is dispute and edit warring over this matter, so I've moved it here for discussion. Per WP:BRD it should not be restored until a consensus has been reached: -- Brangifer ( talk) 00:50, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
One of my objections is the placement. The controversy section needs to remain fairly general, with long discussion of specifics placed in the main controversy article. Otherwise this section will get bloated and cause undue weight. The section should simply be a copy of the lede of the main article. -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:06, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I believe the best way to manage a section of this type (regardless of topic) - where a link to the "main" article precedes a short summation of that article - is to use the lede of that article. What say ye to that idea? -- Brangifer ( talk) 01:09, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
https://www.google.com/search?pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&tbm=nws&gl=us&as_q=chiropractor%20quack&as_occt=any&as_drrb=a&tbs=ar%3A1&authuser=0 Fasttimes68 ( talk) 13:56, 1 April 2012 (UTC)
There are several errors in the text of the page that I cannot correct because editing is restricted. Please correct these:
184.78.155.105 ( talk) 03:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
"A systematic review found 26 recorded deaths from manipulations to the spine during the period 1934-2009 (a death rate less than 0.00002%), concluding that the risk of cervical chiropractic treatment outweighs the benefits.[35]"
The above statment comes off as very biased. This claim is very minuit in the scope of iatrogenesis in traditional medicine. If one is to search Iatrogenesis in wikipedia then they will find the following included below. I am not stating that the statment should not be included but, should be compared to other treatments risks as well. A fuller scope of the risk benifit should be included. Although it is a systemic review, 26 deaths from 1934-2009 is not signifigant in the large scope. No health care provided is flawless however it appears as this profession is being attacked in this article.
"Iatrogenesis is a major phenomenon, and a severe risk to patients. A study carried out in 1981 more than one-third of illnesses of patients in a university hospital were iatrogenic, nearly one in ten was considered major, and, in 2% of the patients, the iatrogenic disorder ended in death. Complications were most strongly associated with exposure to drugs and medications.[16] In another study, the main factors leading to problems were inadequate patient evaluation, lack of monitoring and follow-up, and failure to perform necessary tests.[citation needed] In the United States, figures suggest estimated deaths per year of: [17] [18] [19] [20] • 12,000 due to unnecessary surgery • 7,000 due to medication errors in hospitals • 20,000 due to other errors in hospitals • 80,000 due to nosocomial infections in hospitals • 106,000 due to non-error, negative effects of drugs Based on these figures, iatrogenesis may cause 225,000 deaths per year in the United States (excluding recognizable error).[17] These estimates are lower than those in an earlier IOM report, which would suggest from 230,000 to 284,000 iatrogenic deaths.[17] These figures are likely exaggerated, however, as they are based on recorded deaths in hospitals rather than in the general population. Even so, the large gap separating these estimates, deaths from cerebrovascular disease would still suggest that iatrogenic illness constitutes the third-leading cause of death in the United States; heart disease and cancer are the first- and second-leading causes of death, respectively.[17]
16.^ Steel K, Gertman PM, Crescenzi C, Anderson J (1981). "Iatrogenic illness on a general medical service at a university hospital". N. Engl. J. Med. 304 (11): 638–42. doi:10.1056/NEJM198103123041104. PMID 7453741.
17.^ a b c d Is US Health Really the Best in the World? Barbara Starfield, MD, MPH JAMA, July 26, 2000 – Vol 284, No. 4. p. 483 http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/284/4/483.extract http://www.avaresearch.com/ava-main-website/files/20100401061256.pdf?page=files/20100401061256.pdf
18.^ Lucian L. Leape: Unnecessary Surgery. Annual Review of Public Health Vol. 13: 363-383 (Volume publication date May 1992) http://www.annualreviews.org/doi/abs/10.1146/annurev.pu.13.050192.002051
19.^ David P Phillips, Nicholas Christenfeld, Laura M Glynn: Increase in US medication-error deaths between 1983 and 1993 The Lancet, Volume 351, Issue 9103, Pages 643 - 644, 28 February 1998 http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736%2898%2924009-8/fulltext
20.^ Jason Lazarou, MSc; Bruce H. Pomeranz, MD, PhD; Paul N. Corey, PhD: Incidence of Adverse Drug Reactions in Hospitalized Patients JAMA. 1998;279(15):1200-1205. http://jama.ama-assn.org/content/279/15/1200.full
— Preceding unsigned comment added by Erthom6173 ( talk • contribs) 13:23, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
The latest 2 edits by Abotnick seem guilty of the same original research conflation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.48.52 ( talk) 22:30, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
I have removed this recent edit [8] because it uses a single, old, paper by a single chiropractic author to synthesize an entire discussion about chiropractic listing systems. As it is, the added text is unsuitable because it violates WP:OR, the single source used has been grossly mis-represented, as it is actually only the opinion of Harrison; ie: The conclusion of the 1996 paper is "We believe that the term torque is misused in chiropractic literature"...."We strongly suggest that references to the term torque that are not biomechanically correct must be removed from all such sources." This in no way matches-up with the lengthy commentary added by editor Abotnick with regard to listing systems and chiropractic controversy; more and/or better sources will be needed to support the inclusion of a discussion about these listing systems I think. Puhlaa ( talk) 00:46, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
I did some reading in the archives regarding this subject and I see that I am not the first to bring it up. I reviewed the cited article and this Wikipedia article seems to accurately reflect the conclusions of said article. However, there is a more recent article, conducted by a Medical school in conjunction with a Chiropractic school that showed quite the opposite. In keeping with Wikipedia's NPOV and evidence-based standards, obviously this needs to be looked at ASAP. I will attach the link here and I plan to edit this section soon so that it reflects both conclusions, allowing individuals to draw their own conclusion rather than scaring them with statements like "...the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits." Here's the link to the article. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2922298/?tool=pubmed Akdc14 ( talk) 16:30, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
You people never give up. It doesn't mean that it cant be mentioned that "Several scientific studies of lower significance have shown that..." Research is done by doctors... hence aren't the studies bound not be neutral to some degree? Loads of med students use wikipedia, are you one of them? Med students are also extremely persistent and of higher intelligence than the general populus - at least at my university.
Javsav ( talk) 23:02, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
The latest bit added to the lede seems rather inappropriate with regard to its proximity in this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.122.48.52 ( talk) 23:43, 16 May 2012 (UTC)
"For most of its existence it has battled with mainstream medicine, sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation and innate intelligence[15] that are not based on solid science.[16]"
I agree that this sentence is redundant and biased. It should be changed. User who brought this edit up, you are absolutely correct. It is interesting to me what a hostile environment is encountered on this page. Please continue to edit and don't be side-tracked by the distractions thrown out by those who obviously wish to keep this page biased. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:22, 25 July 2012 (UTC) To further enhance your point, check this out: 4. Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations from within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process. Such theoretical formulations may fail to explain some aspect of reality, but, should they succeed in doing so, will usually be rapidly accepted. For instance, the theory of continental drift was heavily criticised because there was no known mechanism for continents to move. When such a mechanism was discovered, it became mainstream as plate tectonics. This is a section from the page "fringe" on wikipedia. This shouldn't even be referred to as pseudoscience. This article is about 90% in violation of the NPOV on wikipedia. Akdc14 ( talk) 23:29, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
People are undoing additions I made to the controversy section. McSly commented that the comments were original research. This is not true and shows an ignorance of the literature by Mcsly. The revision as of 00:30, 22 May 2012 discussing torque and the lack of translation components in the Gonstead and Diversified biomechanical technique listings that are tested on by chiropractic boards have been published in Harrison's book Chiropractic Technique (blue) and torque is covered in the reference I cited. Ligament laxity is a known problem and it is obvious that chiropractic scope doesn't include provision to address it. Research on prolotherapy by osteopaths could be used for support. I know efficacy for prolotx isn't established yet but osteopaths don't combine it with biomechanical realigment so it is pending. Regardless it is important that people reading this article be informed that the claim that chiropractic is efficacious as a biomechanical treatment is false due to these problems. Also, it is important for readers to realize that physical therapists differ from chiropractors because PTs use clinical prediction rules and this affects outcomes in a negative way. Abotnick ( talk) 13:00, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
A law which was claimed to have been designed to allow chiropractors the ability to fill the void of Primary Care Physicians in the state of New Mexico failed in the New Mexico Senate by several votes, after having passed the state house. http://www.theamericanchiropractor.com/articles-news-across-the-profession/5313-law-for-advanced-practice-chiropractors-prescribing-rights-fails.html Sommers6z ( talk) 01:59, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
Might be an interesting tidbit in the "history of Chiropractic". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.217.40.70 ( talk) 17:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
The following section was posted at WP:HD:
I was just reading your article on chiropractic which seemed to be pretty well-informed. I was a little thrown, though, by the last sentence in the Intro (or first) section: "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits.[35]"
I have been to a chiropractor several times over the years and always had amazing results, as have my friends/family that referred me. I found this sentence a little scary (like if I was reading this article for the first time prior to seeking chiropractic treatment, I might think twice) so read the article cited to justify this sentence: Deaths after Chiropractic: A review of published cases. The article actually states that there have been a total of 26 reported cases of death from chiropractic since 1934 (that's 26 deaths in 78 years of published data). Also, there were only 10 cases where the death occurred within one day of the treatment--the article states that the rest of the fatalities occurred up to 58 days following the treatment (not sure how linked the two can be with this amount of time--almost 2 months--passing between treatment and death).
I'm writing to Wiki to see if this sentence can't be deleted from the posted article...it seems really misleading to me and I know a lot of people read Wiki to get basic info on a subject and I would hate anyone else to be thrown by such a misleading sentence when the rest of the article seemed so well informed/impartial.
Copied here, since this is the appropriate venue. Nyttend ( talk) 19:31, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree that the sentencce should be changed as this is completely false and is based on ONE paper from several years ago. There have been numerous studies and literature reviews to negate these conclusions since then. Many of those references can be found in my previous edits, which have been reverted, but if you decide you'd like to join those of us who are up to date on the latest evidence, they are there for your perusal. Many more can be found on the ICL (Index to Chiropractic Literature). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 20:27, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
As you saw, I made several edits to these sections to reflect more current data, broader data, or to simply provide other resources to allow readers to draw their own conclusions.
Effectiveness: However, a recent literature review published in March of 2012 sheds light on the fact that the placebo effect is not the reason for the positive results seen with chiropractic care. Interestingly enough, the review was of the literature regarding chiropractic care of animals, of which there is data dating back to 1896. The review states,"Acknowledgement of these early contributions to animal chiropractic and its steady acceptance would contradict critics who may claim that any positive result obtained by spinal adjustments is psychological. Successful resolution by spinal adjustments of health conditions in animal patients negates such claims. It would be up to critics to demonstrate any so-called placebo effect in view of the demand, acceptance and development of this evolving profession."
Safety:
However, a study performed on the vertebral arteries of cadavers found that, during a chiropractic adjustment, the vertebral artery undergoes only one-ninth of the strain required to reach mechanical failure. While this is an isolated study, it is a better representation of causation (or lack thereof) than a simple correlational study.
History:
Much of this stems from the ideas of the founder Daniel David Palmer which were so radically different from the mainstream thinking about health at the time. While many have mistakenly thought that D.D. Palmer presented subluxation as the cause of disease and the adjustment as the cure for all diseases, D.D. Palmer was actually more concerned with the cause of health than with the cause of disease, a thought process that still guides the chiropractic profession today. The original definition of chiropractic included the word "dis-ease" which has been taken by many as just another way of saying "disease" or "illness." In actuality, according to the rest of D.D. Palmer's writings, he was using the word "dis-ease" to mean a lack of ease, incoordination, or lack of organization that occurs in the body whenever the subluxation interferes with nervous system function in the body.
If there is something you feel should be changed about these, let me know on here. The edits will be restored soon, hopefully with some input. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 02:27, 16 July 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so let me get this straight...this is an article to provide information on the topic, in this case the topic is chiropractic, and yet a source written by a well educated memember of the profession isn't considered a "real" source. That's very interesting. Next, about the animal study...you mean to tell me that animal studies are not valid? Granted they can't always account for all differences between animals and humans so they are never 100%, but in this case the study gives some pretty good indication of the validity of the science. It's beginning to look like that's exactly why a few of you are so opposed to its inclusion in the article. Is that what we are dealing with here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 20:32, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions I was able to take a look at those resources. I will probably be utilizing them soon. Oh, and about wikipedia not being unbiased....have you not read the copious quantity of information regarding NOT introducing bias into an article by using words such as "claimed," etc? NPOV needs to be restored in this article ASAP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Akdc14 ( talk • contribs) 23:33, 25 July 2012 (UTC)
Hide anecdote. Yes, "not a forum" |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
I realize this is not a forum, and I'm not proposing any changes to the article, but I think it's important for people who are not familiar with chiropractic medicine and think it may help them to hear from personal testimony of someone who actually went through with it. Long story short, it's bullshit. I was having pain in my neck, and it would flare up and actually my neck would become crooked when I slept the wrong way. After many years of ignoring it, I thought I would go to a chiropractor and see if they could help me. About the only good they did was do an x-ray on my neck and told me that there was damage to the back of my neck. After thinking about how it was caused, I concluded it was probably do to my habitual nature to constantly crack my neck which I would do constantly without thinking about it. Apparently doing that for many years will cause real damage to the neck. Ever since I saw the chiropractor, I stopped cracking my neck, but everything else he did was worthless. He did all of his back and neck adjustments to me, and while it temporarily straitened my neck out for a few minutes, it went back to being crooked again, and actually got worse in the weeks following. I now sleep on my side with a pillow in front of me to keep me from sleeping on my belly (which forces me to turn my head to the side, which in turn causes my neck problems). So as long as I sleep like that, I don't have any neck problems, and I no longer crack my neck to further exacerbate any damage to my neck. But the chiropractor himself was essentially useless, and even if he did help, it would only provide temporary relief that doesn't provide any cures. ScienceApe ( talk) 13:51, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
|
![]() | This
edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the last comment in the introduction which claims (X: "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits.[35]" to (Y):"While adverse reactions do occur due to chiropractic intervention, further reserach is needed to confirm the prevalence and nature of these reactions to the interventions."firstly, becuase the vaguetries within the citation http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1742-1241.2010.02352.x/abstract?systemMessage=Wiley+Online+Library+will+be+disrupted+on+4+August+from+10%3A00-12%3A00+BST+%2805%3A00-07%3A00+EDT%29+for+essential+maintenance. While this is not a standalone strong request, it is important to note that this is a heavily critiqued study and has many flaws, and there have been many more complete and informative studies with much more open, descriptive and specific protocols that have been plainly spelled out, which have managed to produce actual figures, such as this article: http://bigbrother.logan.edu:2067/pubmed/19444054. Just by looking at the abstracts its plain to see, that as a stand alone citation the previous one is making strong conclussive statements that comes from what is three pages of writing total within the actual article, where the source and conclusion which I propose is a more realistic reflection of the public & political concerns with chiropractic. Thank you. 2602:306:3647:DE40:B4DD:855E:633E:9BEB ( talk) 05:20, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
I agree that this should be changed. The answer you were given makes no sense. The talk page is about reaching consensus and I see nothing wrong with your proposed edit. I support replacing the current sentence with your version. Thanks for bringing this up! Akdc14 ( talk) 20:02, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Exscuse me sir, but the article that supports the previous claim is unscientific and unsuitable for making claims about an entire medical treatment based on 26 deaths since 1938, but I'm sure you would know if that if you had read the article... The one I proposed, though posted prior, is still more complete, and newer information, superior in virtually every way. Please read them. 2602:306:3647:DE40:D973:7D2:3B1:7726 ( talk)
It seems both claims are about as in conflict as they can be. One claims certainty while the other admits ignorance.Also, there are about 5 hotlink critiques attached to the article I am questioning on pubmed. Look it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3647:DE40:D973:7D2:3B1:7726 ( talk) 03:27, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
{{
edit semi-protected}}
template.Public Health Section In light of the recent statement by the EPA, it would be valuable to readers to change the public health section of this article. The only part that needs changed is the part that includes fluoridation as an important public health practice. The profession has opposed fluoridation for years so that part doesn't need changed. Just the part that is inaccurate. Fluoridation, especially at previous levels, is not a good public health practice. http://www.foxnews.com/health/2011/02/22/epa-reverses-fluoride/ Akdc14 ( talk) 19:35, 12 August 2012 (UTC)
Sure! Perhaps this section of the article should read, "The majority of the chiropractic profession has taken a stance against water fluoridation, a position that formerly cast doubt on the public health practices of the profession. However, with the recent statement issued by the EPA regarding water fluoridation, the some of the profession's public health policies have become recognized by mainstream environmental health data." Akdc14 ( talk) 13:09, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So, what you're saying is that the fluoridation issue was okay to mention in this article when it made chiropractors look like idiots but now that the EPA (that is the United States Environmental Protection Agency we are talking about here...)is showing that the profession has been right all along, you don't think it's such a good idea to include it? This isn't an "alleged departure from mainstream science." Fox news was reporting on a statement released by the EPA. I don't know how much more official it gets than that. You also mentioned that the statement about the profession's stance against fluoridation requires a source. Well, that's already stated in the article and has been there for quite some time, so I assume the source currently connected to that statement will continue to suffice. Would you like to suggest any changes to the wording I proposed in my initial response? If not, I think it's a good idea to continue with making these changes, as it is congruent with the previous content of the article...just updating it with new, more valid information. Akdc14 ( talk) 21:36, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
No, this is not an opinion piece any more than any other news release would be. Here's an excerpt from the statement released by the EPA, found on the EPA's website: "it is likely that some children are exposed to too much fluoride at least occasionally." I will copy the link here so you can look it over and decide whether you think an official government document should suffice as official information. http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/rulesregs/regulatingcontaminants/sixyearreview/upload/2011_Fluoride_QuestionsAnswers.pdf So, it appears that the best way to handle this situation is to go with the original wording I proposed and to cite the government issued document rather than the news article. Akdc14 ( talk) 22:55, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
So based on what you're saying there are quite a few articles in violation of your ideas of what should be used. The actual article on water fluoridation on Wikipedia references the CDC, so clearly that should be changed. In the Chiropractic article, I guess that means that the book "Trick or Treatment" by Keating shouldn't be referenced either. Looks like there's a lot of work to do if this idea is going to be strictly adhered to. But I think we all know that not everything on Wikipedia absolutely has to come from peer reviewed sources. Yes it is the preferred method but there are obviously some things for which peer reviewed articles are either unavailable or uneccessary or both. I think we can all figure out too that things like CDC, EPA, WHO and national professional organizations are a valid source for providing standardized information. I agree they are not the only source, however they are A source. Thanks for your input though! In the efforts of keeping Wikipedia up to date and reliable though, it seems clear that the best option is to go ahead and update this section. P.S. the link you posted contradicts your own point. " Also, a few sources are in the public domain; these include many U.S. government publications, such as the Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention." Thanks for that resource! Again, if you would like to suggest any changes to the wording before or after I edit the article, feel free to discuss it on the talk page with me! Akdc14 ( talk) 00:42, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Yep...I just sent the changes through. Sounds like a good plan! Akdc14 ( talk) 00:54, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
The controversies over Fluoridation is far beyond the scope of this article. -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 02:07, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Ok, so if fluoridation doesn't belong in this article, then why don't we get rid of any mention of fluoridation in the article. Would that work better for you? Akdc14 ( talk) 19:29, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That makes sense...I agree that the stance of the profession is within the scale. However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on. Right now, the article is inaccurate. A simple mention of the fact that water fluoridation is under review and that perhaps chiropractors aren't as far off their rockers as the original wording depicted them to be would suffice. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:13, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
That's funny that you say the current version is accurate...since it clearly has some holes. Seems like the best answer is to go ahead and put in the article that chiropractors oppose water fluoridation, the health benefits of which are currently being re-evaluated by the EPA. We have already established thath chiros oppose water fluoridation and we have also established that the situation is "under review" by the EPA...looks like that's a good compromise. Akdc14 ( talk) 20:36, 14 August 2012 (UTC)
Well, this was an entertaining exercise. I always enjoy seeing how far some people will go to keep things biased in their favor. Akdc14 ( talk) 01:45, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
"However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on. "
No. Because if you wish to include that, you then have to provide balance, clarification, history and context. So a simple few lines then blows up into paragraphs upon paragraphs that re-cover the Water fluoridation controversy article. If, say, Chiropractic researchers found information relavant to the issue, then that would be included into it. But we have WP:Coatrack as a policy as a reason. We don't want articles to go on tangents that are not really related to the article. Some Chiropractors have been against Flouridation, some haven't. That is a simple fact and we don't need to expand those sections.
Why stop at fluoridation? Why not also expand the section on vaccination? Why not include a lengthy section on the history of the anti-vaccination movement? -- Harizotoh9 ( talk) 15:31, 15 August 2012 (UTC)
Thank you to whoever mentioned "However, so is an accurate representation of the thing we are mentioning they have a stance on." The point is not moot, I was taking a break. If you would like to expound on both fluoridation and vaccination, feel free to do so if you think that would be the best way to achieve accuracy here. That's a great idea! See, it just seems silly to mention that chiropractors oppose fluoridation and then inaccurately describe what fluoridation is. Perhaps we could just take out the part that says fluoridation is a valuable public health measure. That would eliminate the need to make the article any longer but it would still achieve accuracy.... Akdc14 ( talk) 00:18, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
Template is from WikiProject Pseudoscience, here: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Pseudoscience#Headers_for_flagging_well-known_pseudoscience_topics
I'm new to wikipedia, so I'm not seeing what's 'bizarre' about that template, or understanding why you reverted my edit. Perhaps it's obvious to everyone else.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 18:45, 5 October 2012 (UTC)
Yet there is no scientific basis for the concept of chiropractic "subluxation". Unsurprisingly, then, there is no good evidence that paediatric conditions respond to chiropractic manipulations.
This is true for "wellness care", adolescent idiopathic scoliosis, ear, nose and throat problems, digestive disorders and infant colic.
Even a report commissioned by the British General Chiropractic Council in the aftermath of the BCA vs Singh libel case confirmed this lack of sound evidence.
A largely ignored landmark review of the literature by Nansel and Szlazak,2 published in 1995, concluded that there is not a single appropriately controlled study to indicate that any dysfunction in structures of the spinal column is a cause of organic disease. ...
A review of the current evidence on the epidemiology of the subluxation construct also failed to find any credible evidence supporting the chiropractic vertebral subluxation theory.3 This review concluded that:
‘No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability.’3
It seems that all the time I took to explain to an editor yesterday how controversial this article was a waste of time? These edit [19] change NPOV text that has gained consensus and replacce it with the POV of the editor making the changes. As was extensively discussed above, changes here (especialy in the lede) need to be discussed first and need to be supported by high-qiality sources. Please discuss such controversial changes here first, otherwsie it creates nothing but frustration for everyone involved in the project! I have reverted all of the POV and unsourced changes. Puhlaa ( talk) 15:41, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I'm reading here that "This edit wasn't discussed first" isn't a good reason for a revert.
I'm inclined to thing that it's an even less good reason when discussion on the topic has been open for 3 days.
The article does not belong to any one wikipedian, and I don't need permission to edit it.
The current version is not 'The NPOV Version' - my edits are not automatically 'POV'.
I'd like to know what was wrong with (for example) this source here: Chiropractic - NHS Choices which I added, and which was deleted without explanation or discussion (except for a simple and unreasonable refusal to allow me to edit without gaining prior permission to do so).
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:03, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
Hi,
As I'm being told that I'm not allowed to edit the article without prior permission from it's owners, I request permission to add this source:
Reasons why this is a good source:
So, owners of the article, please may I have your permission to add this source?
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:21, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
The lede of the chiropractic article currently ends with the conclusion of Ernst's 2010 review of case-studies "A systematic review found that the risk of death from manipulations to the neck outweighs the benefits." However, a new systematic review, published in the International Journal of Clinical Practice [ [21]], has examined the issue of stroke and cervical manipulation and states in it's discussion: "An accurate risk-benefit analysis for cSMT remains unavailable and additional research in this field is needed.". This seems to imply that Ernst review of case-studies was not considered an accurate risk-benefit assessment, thus its bold conclusions with regard to risk-benefit seem unjustified in this article. If nothing else, it seems that Ernst bold conclusions hold too much weight, as other 'experts' in the area seem to disagree with his conclusion. I propose that the lede be updated to better represent the current and accurate view, that "There is inconclusive evidence regarding a strong association or no association between cervical manipulation and stroke." Being an extremely controversial topic, I look forward to comments. Puhlaa ( talk) 05:02, 27 September 2012 (UTC)
I made the above discussed changes to the lede. Note that I retained Ernst2010 as a source in the lede, with regard to the controversy surrounding safety, however, I gave the most weight to the newest and highest-quality systematic review. Puhlaa ( talk) 21:06, 7 October 2012 (UTC)
Why are you even bringing up the educational standards in the UK? Did you not see the memo at the top of the page?? This is not intended as a WORLDWIDE discussion on this topc. It is only explaining the US applications. Whoever keeps insisting that chiropractors are quacks obviously lives under a rock and is invited to stay there for as long as they like but should stay out of the way of the grown ups who actually want to learn things and use logic. To the individuals who keep insisting on keeping this page ridiculously biased AGAINST chiropractic I suggest you make yourself VERY familiar with the Wilk vs AMA case and get comfortable with the idea that this profession does not take kindly to those who try to unjustly suppress it. Things tend to go rather poorly for those who try to do so. Chiropractic is NOT a fringe idea. Those of you who are intent on keeping the truth out of the public's view on the internet should revel in your short lived victory and realize that it will not be that way forever. Akdc14 ( talk) 02:48, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
Here's another article supporting the recent changes. Perhaps this could be reflected under the "Risk-Benefit" heading as well? http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18204390# Akdc14 ( talk) 18:05, 10 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that this sentence be deleted from the first para:
"Although chiropractors have many attributes of primary care providers, chiropractic has more of the attributes of a medical specialty like dentistry or podiatry.[3]"
Here's the source:
Meeker WC, Haldeman S (2002). "Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine" (PDF). Ann Intern Med 136 (3): 216–27. PMID 11827498.
Link: [24]
The publicly visible part of the source content does not support the assertion that chiropracters are similar to either primary care physicians or to physicians who have a medical speciality.
Perhaps the part of the text which says that is in the non-public-access section? If so then maybe we could have a quote from it, to see what it says.
The idea that chiropracters have training or skills equivalent to a medically trained physician is a big claim; it needs sourcing really well if it's to be supported. Right now I'm not seeing anything supporting it.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:33, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
I suggest that:
Chiropractic is a health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health. [12] It is generally categorized as complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). [13]
be amended to:
"A field of alternative medicine, Chiropractic claims to diagnose, treat and prevent disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and to improve general health. [12] [13]
My reasoning:
Both the sources are retained.
-- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 16:52, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
In its "Foreword", the WHO document implies that chiropractic is "traditional and complementary/alternative medicine". although this is not directly linked to the statement in the "Glossary". My recommendation:-
Axl ¤ [Talk] 18:54, 8 October 2012 (UTC)
"The second sentence in the lede already mentions that chiropractic, for the most part is considered CAM.... There's no need to insert in the first sentence and make it redundant."
"If we are going to try and make this article represent a more global view than surely we can't cherry pick more or less favourable "definitions" based positive or critical sources."
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
The group beating I've undergone on this page has succeeded in driving me away from Wikipedia. I'm losing sleep over this; it isn't worth it. Bye. -- Mknjbhvgcf ( talk) 07:42, 9 October 2012 (UTC) |
WP:NOTFORUM |
---|
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it. |
|
Just to let everyone know that I started a thread at WP:FTN. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 09:53, 27 October 2012 (UTC)
A recent good-faith edit [26] has changed the meaning of the text. The original text stated that the 'battle between mainstream medicine and chiropractic has been sustained by pseudoscientific ideas such as subluxation'. The new version of the text "...chiropractic has been sustained by..." is saying something different and should either be reverted to the original version or re-edited to give the correct meaning. Puhlaa ( talk) 00:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
Wikiped has flagged the intro as being too long. After reading it I agree. Much of the mixer/straight discussion needs to be in the appropriate section. I don't like the WHO definition for chiropractic-it isn't germane to chiropractic practice in the USA and was likely inserted by former Life U president Sid Williams DC who was affiliated with the straight ICA assoc. and wanted to push chiropractic as a universal panacea. Chiropractors aren't allowed to treat neurological conditions, they either diagnose subluxation or a musculoskeletal condition or they will not get paid by third party payers and the US government.
I am suggesting you start with this as the intro:
I think this catches the essence of why chirop is different from medicine which is important to state after listing it as a C&A health care prof. It also introduces the idea of basing a wider mixer scope around a narrow treatment manipulation. In fact, some states (NJ for example) will not allow a DC to treat a patient unless vertebral subluxation is diagnosed concurrently. Abotnick ( talk) 01:33, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/World Chiropractic Alliance
If anyone wants to improve it, please do, because it is notable, even if it's in an infamous way. -- Brangifer ( talk) 17:25, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
This is just a suggestion to avoid edit-warring and hard feelings. I would advise all editors to avoid using the word tendentious in talking about other users' editing. It's kind of jarring and unhelpful. Thanks for listening. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:17, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Summary: The devil is in the detail. I am currently checking the detail. I am an admin and have no financial interest in chiropractic.
TL;DR version:
Puhlaa, a chiropractor, has repeatedly reverted in text stating that "Chiropractic care is generally safe when employed skillfully and appropriately" based on the WHO document. What that document actually says is: "When employed skilfully and appropriately, chiropractic care is safe and effective for the prevention and management of a number of health problems. There are, however, known risks and contraindications to manual and other treatment protocols used in chiropractic practice."
Note the significant caveats: skilfully and appropriately, and known risks and contraindications. So this cannot be taken as an unequivocal statement that chiro is safe, because the entire reason the document exists is that in many cases, as it states in the introduction, chiro is notused skilfully and appropriately.
The document itself is framed in terms of an idealised practice of chiropractic which provably does not match the actual practice by many within the chiropractic community; this goes to the heart of why chiropractic has not become, like osteopathy in the US, an accepted mainstream, medical profession.
Another common one in the UK is chiros claiming to treat infant colic ( discussion). This is quackery, pure and simple. There is absolutely no evidential basis for it; CAM proponent George Lewith tries to make the case in a Cochrane review but is forced to conclude that when you exclude trials with poor methodology, there is no significant result.
This is an absolutely classic CAM scenario: an implausible claim, with no credible mechanism, backed by observational data highly prone to bias, asserted as fact with demands that science-based medicine disprove the claim rather than through the correct scientific mechanism of testing the claim. And that's the kind of thing we have to be careful of here because supporters will claim: "The majority of the included trials appeared to indicate that the parents of infants receiving manipulative therapies reported fewer hours crying per day than parents whose infants did not, based on contemporaneous crying diaries, and this difference was statistically significant", but the entire text is "The studies included in this meta-analysis were generally small and methodologically prone to bias, which makes it impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion about the effectiveness of manipulative therapies for infantile colic. The majority of the included trials appeared to indicate that the parents of infants receiving manipulative therapies reported fewer hours crying per day than parents whose infants did not, based on contemporaneous crying diaries, and this difference was statistically significant. The trials also indicate that a greater proportion of those parents reported improvements that were clinically significant. However, most studies had a high risk of performance bias due to the fact that the assessors (parents) were not blind to who had received the intervention. When combining only those trials with a low risk of such performance bias, the results did not reach statistical significance. Further research is required where those assessing the treatment outcomes do not know whether or not the infant has received a manipulative therapy. There are inadequate data to reach any definitive conclusions about the safety of these interventions".
The correct conclusion from this is that chiro is not effective, not cost-effective and not indicated for infant colic, because the strongest studies, with the best methodology, show no significant benefit over doing nothing. It's important because infant colic is incredibly distressing for the parents (trust me, I've sat through those long nights), so, like cancer patients, you have a vulnerable community whose emotions are easily manipulated. In medicine, it is not enough to claim that you can't prove something doesn't work, you have to prove that it does work, and that it works better than the alternative. In our case the effective treatment was to push the lad round in a pram or take him for a drive in the car, which worked like a charm (until you stopped).
What's even more worrying is that adverse effects were only even considered in one of the studies reviewed. This blindness to potential adverse effects is also common in CAM.
The idea of "maintenance adjustments" is particularly problematic. From the outside, this looks like a money-making scam. There's no credible reason to suppose that maintenance adjustments are anything other than fraud. Studies in the US have found that once you take into account the number of treatments stated to be needed, chiro comes out very poorly in a value for money assessment - although manipulation works as well as any other manipulation for lower back pain, chiros typically seem to want you to go to them for longer, and ideally to keep going regularly forever.
So: any sources for safety and/or efficacy of this or any other CAM intervention have to be assessed very carefully, and we must only accept the studies which are methodologically rigorous and published in reputable journals, because as the Cochrane review shows the world of CAM, in which chiro is no exception, has its own walled garden of low impact low quality journals which will publish supportive studies pretty much regardless of methodological quality. This is not specific to chiro, as I say, but is a core principle behind WP:MEDRS, and allows us to keep fringe views in their proper context. We must also guard against implicitly extending claims; chiro is cost-effective for lower back pain based on 6 treatments does not mean chiro is cost effective for lower back pain period, because some chiros will want between 12 and infinity sessions.
There is little doubt that if chiropractors as a class restricted themselves to musculoskeletal pain in the lower back and stuck to the best evidence-based guidelines, there would be very little controversy. There is solid evidence that a very large number do not do this. That's why there is controversy, and lots of it. And that's why we must be careful with sources and reflect the generality of practice not an idealised model of practice, per the WHO guideline, which is not what happens in reality. And that is why I am reading throught he article very carefully now, checking the claims, and assessing the sources in context. Guy ( Help!) 12:29, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
This edit [27] removed sourced information from the body of the article. I have reverted it as there is no consensus to remove information from reliable sources. Puhlaa ( talk) 01:30, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I have posted this concern at the Reliable Sources NoticeBoard [28] Puhlaa ( talk) 02:23, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
It seems to me that Consumer Reports is a reliable source for that which is reports on, but be sure that you quote it or abstract from it accurately. The magazine certainly did not say or even imply that "A 2011 consumer report survey found that the public considered chiropractic to outperform all other available back and neck pain treatments." If you don't have access to the magazine on line, I do, and I can send you the text if need be. There were 45,000 surveys returned to the magazine, and the readers' experience with chiropractic ranged all over the place. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 05:14, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I'm not sure which reference it was, but it was another pmid.gov. I seem to recall that the references from here I read last night said there's a correlation between interpersonal interaction and satisfaction rating, but the correlation between effectiveness and satisfaction was lacking sufficient evidence.
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
02:35, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
JzG (Guy), you have again deleted reliable sources in the article without any prior discussion. This edit [34] removed 2 systematic reviews, one from European Spine Journal [35] and one from the Journal of Electromyography and Kinesiology [36]. Can you explain why you do not think that these are suitable for the body of the article under the section 'cost-effectiveness'. Puhlaa ( talk) 19:11, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
Since it looks like editors are starting to fix some of the main problems with the article, I'd like to point out that there is a POV fork ( Chiropractic controversy and criticism) containing a lot of material that's underrepresented in this article, and it would probably be easiest to fix this problem now as well. Arc de Ciel ( talk) 01:04, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
I have reverted these [38] recent edits according to WP:BRD. I reverted the bold edits for a number of reasons:
Puhlaa ( talk) 01:13, 28 December 2012 (UTC)
( Help!) 20:25, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Well Tippy or JzG (Guy), neither of you have addressed my concerns regarding the removal of the WHO-sourced definition from the first sentence of the lead diff and replacing it with a "historical" definition from a 1987 narrative? The WHO is the better source IMO (no one has challenged this), and is a current definition. The 1987 source is weaker and provides a "historical" perspective. No one has explained why a "hitorical" perspective is better than a current definition to start the lead? I propose restoring the sourced WHO definition in the first sentence, but lets retain the historical perspective you added for the second sentence, to attempt to avoid further dispute. Is this satisfactory? Puhlaa ( talk) 02:47, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
I am still hoping to hear more from editors about the changes made to the -first sentence- in the lead as part of this recent edit. I am concerned by the removal of "Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative medicine [1] health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health [WHO]" and replacing it with "Chiropractic is a form of alternative medicine [1] historically based on the idea that misalignment of the spine can cause a wide range of diseases [1987 source]."
It has been suggested that "The WHO source was not a definition of a reliable source...". However, the WHO are specifically listed here as very reliable. It has also been suggested that “the WHO reference fails to reference innate intelligence”. However, this should not be a concern because the edit that I am asking others to review does not deal with innate intelligence; the discussion of innate is found in a separate section of our lead and I am not questioning the inclusion of that text.
I have proposed that "restoring the WHO definition in the first sentence, but lets retain the historical perspective you added for the second sentence...". I think that this proposal will ensure that the article effectively conveys to the reader both the current and the historical aspects of ‘what is chiropractic’ and will then also by consistent with policy like WP:UNDUE by giving more weight to the current situation rather than the historical perspective. Case in point, even the 1987 source that is supporting the “historical" definition in the lead says: "Although osteopathy and chiropractic emerged as medical revitalization movements with a similar disease theory during the late 19th century...chiropractic has evolved into a musculoskeletal speciality." Thus, there is no contradiction between the WHO and the 1987 source, both could exist in the lead, as per my proposal. Puhlaa ( talk) 06:51, 6 January 2013 (UTC)
This series of edits [47] by one editor has removed the sourced information that chiropractic is 3rd largest doctored profession (in 2 places and 2 sources), removed citation-needed tags without added sources, and removed the word profession from anywhere it was used to describe the chiropractic profession. These seem like edits that are meant to promote a single POV; ie: that chiropractors are not doctors and are not professionals; however, sources disagree. The edits have since been copy-edited and these cannot be undone by a regular editor (I think)? I am requesting someone with rollback privileges to examine the edits and comment or remove them. Puhlaa ( talk) 16:36, 3 January 2013 (UTC)
Hi John Snow, Yes, things have come a long ways since the AMA was penalized for prohibiting MDs from referring to DCs. I understand your concerns regarding a US-centric POV and only a single source. I have tried to remedy those concerns here with reliable sources from multiple countries. The changing attitude of physician towards some CAMS is very well known and documented, I have provided some sources that indicate physicians in all countries are starting to acknowledge the value of Chiropractic for musculature conditions.
I do not think that we need to add a bunch of additional sources to the article to further illustrate this point, however, I do still contend that you should revert the changes you made in this edit [53], where you removed reference to the changing opinion of medical doctors. Puhlaa ( talk) 07:00, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Puhlaa — I have had very little experience of this article, but I have quite some experience with COI (including my own, on a completely unrelated topic to this). The thing about COI is that it is not a content issue, it is a person issue – and that makes it particularly toxic since other editors will always be aware of it when controversial edits happen, and it will inevitably get raised. If your profession is chiropractic then you obviously have a COI. In my experience COI-afflicted editors genuinely believe they are neutral and working to improve the article, but are completely unaware of the decentered point of view they in fact have; they often think they are the "exception" to Wikpedia's rule, and can continue editing against the advice of the guidelines. Wikipedia:Best practices for editors with conflicts of interest has some material in it you might find interesting. My advice is that if you want to make substantive edits to an article on a topic for which you are conflicted, then think twice – it is quite likely to end up being a frustrating and unfulfilling experience. Alexbrn ( talk) 09:09, 5 January 2013 (UTC)
Bold edits and conflicts of interest are best dealt with through extensive reference to the most reliable secondary sources available. There are many personal opinions here, but what is important are sources. A COI is only problematic if it results in poor editing; looking above, Puhlaa is indeed citing MEDRS articles. However, the first point is old, the second is primary, the third is old and primary, the fourth is primary (and focused on Switzerland, making its use on this page a little complicated; at minimum I would be curious to see what Swiss chiros thought their focus of practice was) and the fifth is just on the cusp of being too old to be useful making it also a complex source to deal with. The true measure of a COI editor is what they do when they receive feedback. Edit warring on the basis of ideas that do not change is bad. Seeking better, newer sources is good and outside input on those sources is good. I suggest the latter path. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:40, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
GeorgeLouis, I was hoping you would be willing to discuss your rational for
these changes? My edits may indeed not have been optimal, so perhaps we can collaboratively determine a better way to express the conclusions of the source?
Here is full text.
My thought was that attribution was not necessary because this seems to be more than just the opinion of the authors, this review relies on multiple other sources to make the conclusions. What is your perspective on this suggestion? Thanks Puhlaa ( talk) 18:14, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Once again JzG (Guy) has added a discussion of US chiro's trying to become PCP into the lead, however, this is a US-centric issue and is not worth any weight according to
WP:UNDUE. I have already mentioned this issue above, including a suggestion that it should at least be added to the body first, but rather than discuss it, JzG (Guy) continually just restores it in the lead and is unwilling to discuss it here. This is an example of tendentious and uncollaborative editing. JzG (Guy), is there a reason that you refuse to discuss the problems with this edit and rather just keep re-instating the text? Have you read
WP:MOS? what about
WP:UNDUE?
Puhlaa (
talk)
01:21, 31 December 2012 (UTC)
The current History section seems too long and detailed for an introductory article. There are already separate pages at Chiropractic history and Chiropractic controversy and criticism. I've placed a proposed shorter version for this section at Chiropractic/sandbox, and I invite all interested editors to visit it and make comments on the Sandbox Talk Page. I think the proposed section could actually be shortened again. Yours, GeorgeLouis ( talk) 20:02, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
There's an ongoing feud in this article over
WP:RS,
WP:COI,
WP:POV and a constant edit warring. Most of the feud appears to be between
User:JzG and
User:Puhlaa.JzG is an involved admin whose affiliation I don't know. Puhlaa is a chiropractor. There are a handful of editors now involved in editing this article, so it is no longer material for
WP:3O. Can I get a fresh set of eyes to comment on about the discussion that is going back and forth? -
Cantaloupe2 (
talk)
07:59, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am a relative newcomer to this article: I have made one edit to it, and two contributions to Talk. Out of caution however I will classify myself as "involved".
What I am seeing here is a classic instance of the problems caused by COI editing. A discussion of issues around content, feuding, etc. would be largely beside the point as it swerves around this root concern of neutrality. As WP:BESTCOI has it, "the whole point of WP:COI is that editors with a conflict are not considered sufficiently impartial to make subjective editorial decisions regarding [conflicting] issues". The excessive heat and edit warring we are seeing in the article is the symptom of not adequately addressing this COI issue, in my view.
A look at User:Puhlaa's contributions shows he has restricted himself to this article, and other related and CAM articles. He has been actively pushing a certain view of Chiropractic, for example by adding it to a list of healthcare professions [55] [56], and then "roosting" on the edits [57] [58] [59]. He edits this article boldly.
As I have mentioned on the Talk page, I don't think any of this is to blame User:Puhlaa. Conflicted editors honestly and truly believe in their "cause" and the rightness of their edits; many (most?) of them don't recognize their COI and think they are an exception to WP's recommendations in this area. The "solution", which in my view addresses the root cause, is for User:Puhlaa to acknowledge his COI and follow the WP:COIU guidelines. This page could also usefully include a Template:Connected_contributor template. Alexbrn ( talk) 10:08, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I too have contributed to this discussion recently so also have to identify as 'involved', although I do not have a special interest in the topic. My feeling is that there is potential for conflict here, but this has largely been averted by the admirable restraint of both of the main protagonists. I would echo Alexbrn's comment that I have no doubt about Puhlaa's good faith. I do, however, feel that there is an increasingly clear conflict of interest here. I hope I have not overstepped the mark in advising Puhlaa to take some time out, contribute to a different part of Wikipedia for perspective, and later return to this with a more objective approach if possible. In the meantime, I have attempted to clear up some of the inconsistencies and imprecise phraseology which had appeared in this article and welcome the assistance of other editors in doing so; my own view is that it has improved. John Snow II ( talk) 12:49, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I personally do not see a major problem of edit-warring by anyone, I believe no reverts have been made in over a week. For the most part, edits here have been constructive and improved the article. I do have a few remaining concerns about some of the edits, however, these should be easily dealt with if editors are willing to discuss sources and content. However, there has been a pattern of behavior from the editors involved, where they continually choose to discuss other editors instead of edits, content or sources. Initially it was only a single editor, JzG (Guy) who was accusing me of COI in every thread I comment in here. For example:
I have repeatedly asked editors to indicate specific behaviors that were concerning, but none have been presented. A review of my posts above will reveal that in every instance I have always posted with sources and discussion of content or policy. Rather than respond with policy, sources or content, editors have chosen repeatedly to discuss other editors. It is amazing that this has all resulted in me having to justify my behavior here! Puhlaa ( talk) 21:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
In my opinion, there isn't any particular content issue that we can nail down in this RfC. The issue is a Puhlaa is a WP:SPA with an agenda. That's not something a RfC can resolve, as I understand it. TippyGoomba ( talk) 05:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
I have no affiliation. This is not a feud, it's a perfectly routine case of WP:COI and an editor who doesn't properly understand that Wikipedia is not going to document chiropractic in the way chiropractors would, because that would violate our content policies. I'm not the only one to have pointed this out by now. Chiropractic is slightly unusual in that as a manipulation therapy it has some plausible mechanistic explanations for effect on certain conditions, but this anchor in reality is pulled hither and yon by great sails of pseudoscience, WP:FRINGE nonsense and outright fraud. The case of Sam Homola is instructive: this is a man who has taken on the chiropractic profession's questionable practices and yet is still criticised by skeptics for failing to acknowledge the elephant in the room. The difficulty is that unlike homeopathy, chiro is not blatant pseudoscience, but historically much of it has been and though Puhlaa says that modern chiropractic education is moving away from the pseudoscience, there is plenty of it still around - for example the McTimoney College of Chiropractic in the UK is still teaching abject nonsense, and the UK's General Chiropractic CXouncil ended up with a very large dose of egg on its face when it tried to use libel law to suppress statement of the fact that it happily promotes bogus treatments. Matters are not helped by the fact that chiropractic organisations are wise to the criticisms and advise their members not to be open about the crank elements, even if they then use them in patient consultations. So chiro may indeed be on the way from a form of quackery claiming to treat all disease to a much more restricted and evidence based practice, but the journey is far from over and in many cases barely begun. Wikipedia cannot be part of making this happen, or blaze the trail in telling the world about how it will be when the quackery is expunged, that is not our job. My advice to Puhlaa if he is sincere about promoting evidence-based practice in chiropractic is to volunteer at chirobase.org where this will be absolutely on mission, rather than try to shoehorn his mission into Wikipedia, where I'm afraid it doesn't really fit. Guy ( Help!) 10:07, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from NickCT Ok. Couple comments. 1) This is a bad RfC. There don't appear to be any specific questions to address, rather than it seems to be an invitation to simply continue the debate that's raging above. 2) A brief glance at User:Puhlaa's contribution history shows a fairly stark example of a single-purpose account (SPA). SPAs are fairly strong indications of an editor with potential WP:COI/ WP:POV issues, and as such, I'd guess User:Alexbrn's comment that Puhlaa "has been actively pushing a certain view of Chiropractic" is likely correct. Furthermore, I might imagine that User:John Snow II's "advising Puhlaa to take some time out" is justified. I could even suggest referring this matter for a topic ban; however, at first glance Puhlaa's comments generally seem cordial, so a topic ban may be unnecessary. NickCT ( talk) 19:55, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from IP I know my comments will be given discount weight given the anonymity, but JZG has a lot of friends and I fear reprisal from his and his cabal. More than that, I feel that someone needs to say what's not being said. Chiefly, that it is user JZG who seems to have brought all of the recent conflicts to this otherwise stable article as of late. A review of JZG's long edit history reveals an editor who has very much been on the attack against anything not considered by himself to be the scientific mainstream. What worse, his manner seems to be consistently rude and dismissive to any editor standing in his way. I am not saying that this is JZG's single purpose, but it does seem to be his dominant purpose on Wikipedia.
Puhlaa has respectfully questioned some of JZG's rather bold edits; politely citing Wikipedia policy and trying to start a discussion. Instead of engaging Puhlaa and addressing his points, JZG has consistently and unapologetically attacked Puhlaa as an editor.
I don't recognize any COI on the part of Puhlaa, who has progressed this article nicely, keeping it up to date with the latest reliable sources. Saying that a chiropractor can't edit Chiropractic without a COI is tantamount to saying no architect can edit Architecture. That's a ridiculous loss of professionals writing what they know best and cannot serve the purpose of Wikipedia.
My advice is for JZG to back down and not make this article yet another one of his battlegrounds. If JZG can now address - politely - Puhlaa's questions, that would be best. If not, the JZG should move along. I think we as a community need to keep a mindful eye on JZG to make sure he is not bullying his preferred point of view into article space and not abusing his admin status. 67.127.253.101 ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:11, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment by WLU - part of the issue seems to be treating chiropractic as if it were a single entity. There is a diverse range of chiropractors, ranging from self-defined ex-chiropractor Samuel Homola who sees his (former) profession as merely a specialized form of physiotherapy, all the way to chiropractors who believe the spine controls all functions of the body and thus are capable of treating any and all conditions. The reality is, some chiropractors are quacks whose claims have little relation to reality, some voluntarily restrain themselves to the treatment of musculoskeletal pain, and many are in between. I say this less for the actual page and more for the editors involved. I will also remind editors that all edits, particularly on controversial articles, should be verified by reliable sources. JzG's status as an admin is irrelevant unless he uses his tools inappropriately (in which case, start a discussion at WP:ANI). Puhlaa's status as a chiropractor is irrelevant unless he claims his experience is sufficient to change the main page (in which case, WP:OR and WP:RS come into play). The current lead seems to do a reasonable job of portraying the profession, the current body is riddled with references; may I suggest editors follow the cycle of finding, integrating and reviewing reliable sources?
Puhlaa, I will point out that edits like this are inappropriate; the sources used are rather old (1989 is really almost irrelevant in 2012) and appear to be primary sources when we are supposed to use secondary sources (i.e. review articles and books). However, as you correctly state in this diff, these are secondary sources and I am happy to see they are still in the article. This edit added a source that is questionable for two reasons - it is relatively primary, and not a MEDRS; better sources should be found for the information if at all possible, otherwise consensus should be reached on the talk page on whether to include it (my inclination is to leave it out; also, surveys of patient satisfaction say nothing about the actual efficacy of practice, an issue that should inform how the sources is used, but not necessarily bar it from inclusion - better is if a RS can be found that makes the point for us). I have only reviewed a very small number of your edits, but these are fundamental points that should be understood if you are going to edit a controversial article like this one. I do support the removal of sciencebasedmedicine - much as I love the website, and I LOVE SBM, it's not a MEDRS. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 03:29, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Comment from Anthonyhcole - Just a comment on COI. It's not relevant. We have plenty of topic experts editing in the health area and they're rarely a problem. If Pulhaa is misusing sources or breaching any of our other content norms, that needs addressing, but please don't characterise it as a COI issue. If he were inserting references to his own work, or being paid to edit here, that would be a COI issue. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:21, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Keep the discussion to the article itself. Stop sniping at individual contributors and questioning their motives. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 17:27, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Second that. If there is actual problematical behaviour, like deliberately misrepresenting sources, take it to another venue for resolution. Leave ad hominem out of article talk page discussions, it doesn't help. -- Anthonyhcole ( talk) 17:50, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
Indeed. CAM practitioners and promoters will often attempt to use wikipedia as a soapbox, misrepresenting sources, cherry-picking shoddy sources and engaging in original research to push their POVs. Puhlaa does not appear to be doing this, or at least I have not seen evidence of it. Puhlaa's civilly-delivered sources and concerns should be addressed with equal civility, and not merely dismissed. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules: simple/ complex 22:54, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
It has been proposed (since December 2012) to split out the lengthy section now headed "Effectiveness" into a new article. One proposed name is "Effectiveness of Chiropractic." Please provide comments below on whether this idea should be adopted, and, if so, what the title should be. Thank you. GeorgeLouis ( talk) 18:12, 8 January 2013 (UTC)
I have removed duplication in the article and have attempted to organize it better by putting the criticisms in the controversy and criticisms section. There are a lot of fluff in the article which can be avoided by making a simple statement "chiropractors are criticized for their uneven stance on water fluoridation and vaccination" as opposed to rambling on about politics. I also noticed that there is repeated use of one author who is cited alarmingly more often than all others. I understand that Ernst is a hero to many of the "anti-CAM" ilk, but his "conclusions" are disputed by many of his own colleagues and other researchers and the article should reflect that as well in a balanced way. Also, older sources are being misused as their conclusions are dated and have been replaced by more current literature on the same topic. Overall I hope we can find a middle groud where all sides are content but we should stick to the article as opposed to wikilawyering. DVMt ( talk) 22:16, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
I note DVMt has just reverted my revert, skipping any customary prior discussion. In the 990 bytes removed from the article, the content sourced to Reggars, J. W. (2011). "Chiropractic at the crossroads or are we just going around in circles?". Chiropractic & Manual Therapies 19: 11–67. was removed (at least, I have not checked other sourced content). From a quick glance it appears the pseudoscience / skeptical / critical materials has gone from early parts of the article, as well as well-sourced material stating it was unproven. A POV edit in my view. I think my revert was justified. Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 19:23, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
I notice you have just re-reverted again, with no discussion of the point of my edit summary. You are now duplicating body text in the lede in an already bloated article (the duplicated text is, incidentally, broadly "positive" commentary on chiropractic). As to your broader edits, it's up to you to make the case. I'm not going to point out each and every POV tweak you have performed, but will ask a couple of questions by way of example:
—isn't this what is called "watering-down" (and it's ungrammatical at that)? Alexbrn talk| contribs| COI 21:16, 13 January 2013 (UTC)
Thanks for your courteous reply Puhlaa. I understand what you are saying. I did not remove any criticism from the page and, as you can see from the section below I even added some to it. I have repeatedly asked other the other involved editors here (TG, Alex, Guy) to specifically state what they were in disagreement with, it would be much easier to proceed. However, as you can see for yourself, even the mention of the word "CAM health profession" which is V is being reverted for no other reason than they don't approve of the word "profession" even though the cited source states it. I will do my best and take your advice and breaking it into smaller chunks. DVMt ( talk) 01:39, 14 January 2013 (UTC)
Redwood-CAM
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).WHO-guidelines
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).Chapman-Smith
was invoked but never defined (see the
help page).