This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Veterinary chiropractic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Chiropractic was copied or moved into Veterinary chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Animal chiropractic was copied or moved into Veterinary chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
AbbeyZastrow.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The arguments pro are entertaining, but it's still the continued endeavors of a "made-up" medical discipline. Conventional (truthful, evidence based, non-holistic) medicine was successfully sued by a group of chiropractors, but it didn't give their cause more credibility. It's simply allowed "real" doctors to write a referral for a glorified massage or muscle stretching. It's not a permit for another "credibility enhancing" x-ray view to lead a victim on to a lifetime of adjustments for a completely made up affliction or "subluxation." An MD should beware of creating a Pied Piperesque following, certain to be included in said chiro's advertising material for the rest of their business career.
I've had two friends who were chiro's. From hanging out with me, I have, hopefully, constrained their activities and caused them to be more critical of their convention going associates to admire practice building advertising and patient recruitment and retention devices. Lobby cards are used to sucker in other ailments and "get them while they're young." I really get mad at pregnancy well checks through chiro's...STAY AWAY from my patients.
I truly appreciate DVMt, BullRanfifeer, and Puhlaa's additions. We are all self-critiqued here, and sticking to the topic at hand has been well-done. Hell, it's chiropractic. Have fun with it. But when you see something legitimately wrong with someone, get some real help from a nurse/doctor/veterinarian, ambulance driver, or paramedic. Look outside the box. You're not saving lives by cracking bones. You're collecting fees for cracking bones.
AND!!!...don't touch my animals. They are devoid of the reasoning required to make an intelligent choice. This is so sad, in the name of a dollar.
I just have a major, major problem with this entire chiropractic fraud in and of itself. "Doctor." My gawd...it's fraud.
Blondesareeasy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
While continuing to read this, for entertainment purposes only...I just wonder how the "power" of the human chiropractor magically transfers to some innate ability to adjust a horses spine? What next? Elephant? Whale? We've read tales of chiropractors "adjusting" infant spines. How much do you move them? And do you know how much you've moved a 300 pound adult males spine without an audible click or pop? And do your fingers palpate through the muscle mass of a Clydesdale with adequate pinpoint precision? Please understand...this is just horse___. Blondesareeasy ( talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt, again there are too many changes for another editor (like me) to sift-through. It looks like your first change, the addition of a needed source to the history section, is a good contribution. However, it is mixed up now with all the reverts/edits/etc. I would suggest that you revert your own reversion of BullRangifer, and discuss each change here. The first, the addition of a source, will likely be unchallenged as long as there are no higher quality sources that say something contradictory. It looks like you have value to add here, you just have to 'conform' a bit to the wikipedia culture. If not, you are likely to get banned from contributing, which would be unfortunate, as there are not enough editors willing to struggle through the discussion required to make good and significant changes to these controversial articles. Puhlaa ( talk) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I still see a problem with recentism here. By using primary sources which are not directly mentioned in the secondary sources, we are violating the spirit of no original research. Yes, primary sources are occasionally allowed, but not very often and they should already be mentioned in secondary sources, and for MEDRS matters they should be literature reviews, not single studies. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first place that mentions a study. That makes Wikipedia the publisher of OR and the secondary source, and that's not okay at all. We're not supposed to do that. If a primary study is mentioned in a secondary MEDRS, then we can ALSO include the primary study. Until then recentism should be avoided, since the large majority of primary studies often don't pan out well in the future anyway. Only those that are good enough and accurate enough to stand the test of time should be mentioned here, and whether they pass is proven by whether they are mentioned in secondary sources. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization for equine pain management and the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown. [1] The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners have stated that there is currently insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations about the use of chiropractic intervention for dogs and cats. [2] A recent survey has suggested that the use of allied health therapies, including animal chiropractic, for the treatment of competition race horses is widespread and many riders or trainers perceived it to be beneficial. [3] One study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation might increase pain thresholds in healthy horses. [4] Another small study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation can cause changes in thoracolumbar and pelvic kinematics in healthy horses, however, it is not yet known if these changes are beneficial. [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |access date=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I recently attempted to "spruce-up" the vet chiro page. The grammer, spelling, capitalization, etc. is ridiculous. I also edited and made several corrections to the history of animal chiropractic. I should know, I have been there from the beginning. See my page. My edits, although many with legal and scientific citations, were quickly "undone" by DVMt, a self professed "skeptic" (see DVMt's page) Although I do agree that some of the information I added could be left out until more citations are added, the majority is pure history and fact. But come on, why let facts get in the way of a skeptic who professes to be inspired by evidence based discussions. So I ask; What is Objective? Why are so many that profess to be "evidence-based" so afraid of the evidence?
Many of the statements on the present vet chiro page are simply not true. But they do provide an agenda for confusing the public and the profession. So again I ask, WHAT IS OBJECTIVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDennisEschbach ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The above article is a redirect to this article, but in its history, at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Animal_chiropractic&oldid=604238901 , there is quite a bit of information and some sources that can be freely used to enhance this article. The attribution is saved in the redirect history, so there's no problem there. I'd do it myself it I knew anything about the subject. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Take to talk" means the article talk page, QuackGuru, not the editor's user page (unless it's an issue across multiple articles. Montanabw (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
How much something is used does not say whether or not it works Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't seem to find content in the source for this cite (below). Line three of the article. Could someone post the page number. Thank you.
Veterinary chiropractic methods can potentially cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force.[3]
I do see this below under Chiropractic care same source
Chiropractic Care
This Task Force has not found sufficient, reliable, noncontradictory evidence for the use of chiropractic care for pain management in veterinary medicine at this time. That said, chiropractic care has many well-defined applications in human medicine that have been supported through reliable research.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A new review has been published that should make a good source for this wikipedia article.
Abstract: "Joint mobilization and manipulation provide important diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for addressing musculoskeletal issues in veterinary medicine. Soft tissue and joint mobilization are used to assess the quality and quantity of joint range of motion and as a primary means of treating musculoskeletal disorders. Spinal manipulation was shown to be effective for reducing pain, improving flexibility, reducing muscle tone, and improving symmetry of spinal kinematics in horses. Because of potential misuse and safety issues, joint mobilization and manipulative therapies should be provided only by specially trained veterinarians or licensed human manual therapists." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012508 108.181.201.237 ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if the page layout would make more sense having history first and then diving further into the practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyZastrow ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Veterinary chiropractic article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
![]() | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Chiropractic was copied or moved into Veterinary chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
![]() | Text and/or other creative content from Animal chiropractic was copied or moved into Veterinary chiropractic. The former page's history now serves to provide attribution for that content in the latter page, and it must not be deleted as long as the latter page exists. |
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 3 September 2021 and 16 December 2021. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
AbbeyZastrow.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 12:21, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
The arguments pro are entertaining, but it's still the continued endeavors of a "made-up" medical discipline. Conventional (truthful, evidence based, non-holistic) medicine was successfully sued by a group of chiropractors, but it didn't give their cause more credibility. It's simply allowed "real" doctors to write a referral for a glorified massage or muscle stretching. It's not a permit for another "credibility enhancing" x-ray view to lead a victim on to a lifetime of adjustments for a completely made up affliction or "subluxation." An MD should beware of creating a Pied Piperesque following, certain to be included in said chiro's advertising material for the rest of their business career.
I've had two friends who were chiro's. From hanging out with me, I have, hopefully, constrained their activities and caused them to be more critical of their convention going associates to admire practice building advertising and patient recruitment and retention devices. Lobby cards are used to sucker in other ailments and "get them while they're young." I really get mad at pregnancy well checks through chiro's...STAY AWAY from my patients.
I truly appreciate DVMt, BullRanfifeer, and Puhlaa's additions. We are all self-critiqued here, and sticking to the topic at hand has been well-done. Hell, it's chiropractic. Have fun with it. But when you see something legitimately wrong with someone, get some real help from a nurse/doctor/veterinarian, ambulance driver, or paramedic. Look outside the box. You're not saving lives by cracking bones. You're collecting fees for cracking bones.
AND!!!...don't touch my animals. They are devoid of the reasoning required to make an intelligent choice. This is so sad, in the name of a dollar.
I just have a major, major problem with this entire chiropractic fraud in and of itself. "Doctor." My gawd...it's fraud.
Blondesareeasy ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 07:39, 27 January 2013 (UTC)
While continuing to read this, for entertainment purposes only...I just wonder how the "power" of the human chiropractor magically transfers to some innate ability to adjust a horses spine? What next? Elephant? Whale? We've read tales of chiropractors "adjusting" infant spines. How much do you move them? And do you know how much you've moved a 300 pound adult males spine without an audible click or pop? And do your fingers palpate through the muscle mass of a Clydesdale with adequate pinpoint precision? Please understand...this is just horse___. Blondesareeasy ( talk) 23:20, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
DVMt, again there are too many changes for another editor (like me) to sift-through. It looks like your first change, the addition of a needed source to the history section, is a good contribution. However, it is mixed up now with all the reverts/edits/etc. I would suggest that you revert your own reversion of BullRangifer, and discuss each change here. The first, the addition of a source, will likely be unchallenged as long as there are no higher quality sources that say something contradictory. It looks like you have value to add here, you just have to 'conform' a bit to the wikipedia culture. If not, you are likely to get banned from contributing, which would be unfortunate, as there are not enough editors willing to struggle through the discussion required to make good and significant changes to these controversial articles. Puhlaa ( talk) 13:27, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
I still see a problem with recentism here. By using primary sources which are not directly mentioned in the secondary sources, we are violating the spirit of no original research. Yes, primary sources are occasionally allowed, but not very often and they should already be mentioned in secondary sources, and for MEDRS matters they should be literature reviews, not single studies. Wikipedia is not supposed to be the first place that mentions a study. That makes Wikipedia the publisher of OR and the secondary source, and that's not okay at all. We're not supposed to do that. If a primary study is mentioned in a secondary MEDRS, then we can ALSO include the primary study. Until then recentism should be avoided, since the large majority of primary studies often don't pan out well in the future anyway. Only those that are good enough and accurate enough to stand the test of time should be mentioned here, and whether they pass is proven by whether they are mentioned in secondary sources. -- Brangifer ( talk) 18:00, 20 November 2011 (UTC)
There is limited evidence supporting the effectiveness of spinal manipulation or mobilization for equine pain management and the efficacy of specific equine manual therapy techniques is unknown. [1] The American Animal Hospital Association and the American Association of Feline Practitioners have stated that there is currently insufficient evidence to make specific recommendations about the use of chiropractic intervention for dogs and cats. [2] A recent survey has suggested that the use of allied health therapies, including animal chiropractic, for the treatment of competition race horses is widespread and many riders or trainers perceived it to be beneficial. [3] One study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation might increase pain thresholds in healthy horses. [4] Another small study has suggested that chiropractic manipulation can cause changes in thoracolumbar and pelvic kinematics in healthy horses, however, it is not yet known if these changes are beneficial. [5]
{{
cite journal}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
(
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1=
(
help); Cite journal requires |journal=
(
help); Unknown parameter |access date=
ignored (|access-date=
suggested) (
help)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
{{
cite journal}}
: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (
link)
I recently attempted to "spruce-up" the vet chiro page. The grammer, spelling, capitalization, etc. is ridiculous. I also edited and made several corrections to the history of animal chiropractic. I should know, I have been there from the beginning. See my page. My edits, although many with legal and scientific citations, were quickly "undone" by DVMt, a self professed "skeptic" (see DVMt's page) Although I do agree that some of the information I added could be left out until more citations are added, the majority is pure history and fact. But come on, why let facts get in the way of a skeptic who professes to be inspired by evidence based discussions. So I ask; What is Objective? Why are so many that profess to be "evidence-based" so afraid of the evidence?
Many of the statements on the present vet chiro page are simply not true. But they do provide an agenda for confusing the public and the profession. So again I ask, WHAT IS OBJECTIVE? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrDennisEschbach ( talk • contribs) 18:02, 12 March 2013 (UTC)
The above article is a redirect to this article, but in its history, at https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Animal_chiropractic&oldid=604238901 , there is quite a bit of information and some sources that can be freely used to enhance this article. The attribution is saved in the redirect history, so there's no problem there. I'd do it myself it I knew anything about the subject. — Anne Delong ( talk) 21:28, 15 April 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 17:59, 23 January 2016 (UTC)
"Take to talk" means the article talk page, QuackGuru, not the editor's user page (unless it's an issue across multiple articles. Montanabw (talk) 06:05, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
How much something is used does not say whether or not it works Doc James ( talk · contribs · email) 10:40, 1 April 2016 (UTC)
I can't seem to find content in the source for this cite (below). Line three of the article. Could someone post the page number. Thank you.
Veterinary chiropractic methods can potentially cause injury through the use of inappropriate technique or excessive force.[3]
I do see this below under Chiropractic care same source
Chiropractic Care
This Task Force has not found sufficient, reliable, noncontradictory evidence for the use of chiropractic care for pain management in veterinary medicine at this time. That said, chiropractic care has many well-defined applications in human medicine that have been supported through reliable research.( Littleolive oil ( talk) 16:28, 1 April 2016 (UTC))
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Veterinary chiropractic. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{
Sourcecheck}}
).
An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 01:55, 2 April 2016 (UTC)
A new review has been published that should make a good source for this wikipedia article.
Abstract: "Joint mobilization and manipulation provide important diagnostic and therapeutic approaches for addressing musculoskeletal issues in veterinary medicine. Soft tissue and joint mobilization are used to assess the quality and quantity of joint range of motion and as a primary means of treating musculoskeletal disorders. Spinal manipulation was shown to be effective for reducing pain, improving flexibility, reducing muscle tone, and improving symmetry of spinal kinematics in horses. Because of potential misuse and safety issues, joint mobilization and manipulative therapies should be provided only by specially trained veterinarians or licensed human manual therapists." https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27012508 108.181.201.237 ( talk) 01:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
I was wondering if the page layout would make more sense having history first and then diving further into the practice? — Preceding unsigned comment added by AbbeyZastrow ( talk • contribs) 16:28, 9 November 2021 (UTC)