Misplaced Pages

Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:09, 30 March 2006 view sourceJ~enwiki (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,427 edits Archiving January and February.← Previous edit Revision as of 02:12, 30 March 2006 view source J~enwiki (talk | contribs)Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers5,427 edits Reverting edit mistake (talk and article pages intertwined).Next edit →
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Totally disputed}}
{{controversial}}
{{cleanup taskforce closed|Chiropractic medicine}}


'''Chiropractic''', or '''chiropractic care''', is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using ]s to correct ]s which, according to chiropractors, are the cause of much disease. Chiropractic was founded by ].


==Introduction==
{| class="infobox" width="270px"
Chiropractors believe there is causal relationship between nerve interference or compression at the spine and subsequent problems in more distant body parts or ]s connected by the nerve.
|-
!align="center"|]<br/>]
----
|-
|
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
*
*
|}<!--Template:Archivebox-->


The main chiropractic technique is joint manipulation (called ]), especially of the spine. Spinal adjustments may provide short-term relief of certain forms of ], ]s, and other spine-related conditions, however, studies show conflicting results. A 1979 study showed manipulation of the lumbar spine to have no "superior long-term effect compared to other methods of treatment",<ref name="moritz">Moritz U (1979). Evaluation of manipulation and other manual therapy. Criteria for measuring the effect of treatment. ''Scand J Rehabil Med'' 11(4):173-9. PMID 161070 </ref> while a 2005 study stated that "the inclusion of a chiropractic benefit resulted in a reduction in the rates of surgery, advanced imaging, inpatient care, and plain-film radiographs."<ref name="nelson">Nelson CF, Metz RD, LaBrot T (2005). Effects of a Managed Chiropractic Benefit on the Use of Specific Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in the Treatment of Low Back and Neck Pain. ''J Man Phys Ther'' 28(8):564-569. </ref>
==''American Scientist'' study==
I removed the following sentence: ''"The only study on chiropractic published in a ]ed scientific journal ( not a journal dedicated to chiropractic) was in "American Scientist" "".'' Per ''American Scientist's'' , "''American Scientist'' is a general-interest, '''nonrefereed''' science magazine". It also states: "If your article is accepted, an editor will be assigned to work with you on revisions—which may be extensive—captions and the plan of illustration. You will be asked to check illustrations and editorial revisions to ensure that accuracy is maintained. Our goal is to help you write and illustrate your article in such a way as to attract and hold the interest of the reader." Hence, the study is not peer reviewed. ] 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)


Chiropractors infer a causal relationship between nerve compression at the spine and disease or ill-health in distant body parts or ]s connected by the nerve.
== Magnet therapy ==


Chiropractic has been long utilized by professional and Olympic athletes. Medical and chiropractic doctors work together as a team to benefit patients. Some also employ massage and physiotherapists as adjuncts to chiropractic care.
The article on chiropractic notes that DD Palmer was a magnetic therapist. This according to all evidence is a valid assertion. However, the article has a link to magnetic therapy. Unfortunately while these sound the same they are vastly different. Palmer appears to have been a student of Paul Caster. Mr. Caster taught magnetic therapy in the later part of the 20th century in the Midwest. This type of magnetic therapy had nothing to do with magnets and appeared to be related to Franz Mesmer's animal magnetism. The practitioner attempted to force their own animal magnetism into the patient and thus affect a cure.


A US Department of Labor Occupational Outlook handbook said:
Thus the link would be more appropriate to go to Mesmer
http://en.wikipedia.org/Mesmer
Or animal magnetism
http://en.wikipedia.org/Animal_magnetism


:Because chiropractic emphasize the importance of healthy lifestyles and without the use of drugs, chiropractic care is appealing to many health-conscious Americans. Chiropractic treatment of the back, neck, extremities, and joints has become more accepted as a result of research and changing attitudes about alternative, noninvasive health care practices.
Here is a link to an article on Caster


A ] survey release in ] by the ] said chiropractic was the fourth most commonly used ] therapy among adults in the ] (7.5%).{{fn|3}}<sup>,</sup>{{fn|4}}
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11619056&dopt=Abstract


==History==
Caster called himself a magnetic and that is probably why chiropractic ends similarly.
Chiropractic was founded by ] in ], ]. He said he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician, Dr. Jim Atkinson, during a seance. Palmer’s son, ] initiated research, development and promotion of chiropractic.


DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say ''A subluxated vertebra . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.'' (From: Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.) The term '''''chiropractic''''' originated when Palmer asked a patient - Rev. Samuel Weed - to come up with a name from the ] to describe his practice. Weed suggested combining the words ''chiros'' and ''praktikos'' (meaning "done by hand") to describe the adjustment of a ] in the ].
] 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)


===Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation===
Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.


====Palmer’s account====
==Unjustified deletions==
Palmer recalled an incident in 1895 whereby he was investigating the ] of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years earlier, he felt a 'pop' in his back, and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment, and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. <ref>Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910</ref> Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this, as it was accomplished with an object in view, and the expected result was obtained.
] has twice made unexplained deletions of material that has earlier been a part of the article. The edit summary stated:


====Lillard’s account====
* (also falsified, read talk page on double-blind studies and chiropractic)
Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer that his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures. <ref>James C. Whorton, ''Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America''</ref>


===Since Palmer===
This User hadn't written anything on the Talk page that seemed to apply, nor could I find it anywhere else. I would like to have a link to the mentioned content.


Chiropractic is now practiced in hundreds of different ways.<ref></ref>
The word "falsified" was used in two edit summaries, but I wonder if the User is using the word properly. Here is a whole article on ], a concept originated by ]. If the User would explain in what sense the word was being used, then it might make more sense. Without any context it's hard to know for sure if it was being used correctly, or if the User doesn't understand the concept.


Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960's, its popularity is declining. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports that enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell by 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002, and the number of Chiropractic patients fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002. <ref>Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.)</ref>
I invite ] to explain what is meant by these edit summaries, and also to justify such sudden removals of the work of other editors, without any discussion or proper explanation here on the Talk page. -- ] 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)


==Peer-review== ==Legal History==
From the mid-1960s the ] (AMA) boycotted chiropractors claiming the practice was "unscientific". An antitrust suit brought against the AMA in 1976 - ] - by Wilk and other chiropractors charged the AMA, as well as the Joint Council on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians and other medical associations, with restraint of trade. The landmark lawsuit concluded in in 1987 when the Federal Appeals Court found the AMA guilty of conspiracy and restraint of trade. The Joint Council on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians were exonerated. The court recognized a "patient care defense," but imposed a difficult burden of proof on the AMA which had to show its concern for patients could not have been satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition. The AMA then lost its appeal to the Supreme Court and had to allow its members to collaborate with chiropractors.
Peer-reviewed journal articles should be referenced. Not all journals were created equal. The article states:
"There is some objective clinical data and peer-reviewed research that demonstrates the efficacy of certain therapeutic techniques used by chiropractors."


The judge in the Wilk case said the AMA had covered up research on the effectiveness of chiropractic for back pain. She then said chiropractors clearly wanted “a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid. efficacious, even scientific health care service.” She said no ”well designed, controlled, scientific study” had been done and concluded “I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.” .
I think it is important to note that evidence for the effectiveness of the practice is not the same as evidence for the underlying theory or philosophy.


==Chiropractic subluxation==
== Responding to RfC by ]-] ==
Palmer imbued the term "]" with a ] and ] meaning. He held that certain dislocations of ]s interfered with the "]", a kind of spiritual energy or ] dependent upon ] that connects the ] to the rest of the body. Palmer claimed that subluxations interfered with the proper communication of this innate intelligence with the rest of the body, and that by fixing them 100% of all diseases could be treated.


In the mid-] the redefined a subluxation as follows: ''"A ] is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system and general health."'' In ] the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research defined a subluxation as "a joint problem (whether a problem with the way the joint is functioning, a physical problem with the joint, or a combination of any of these) that affects the function of nerves and therefore affects the body's organs and general health."
Hi.


Most chiropractors subscribe to the principle that the body has an intelligent and self-healing physiology. One result of this is the general chiropractic belief that healthcare interventions should consider the person as a ] and that conservative (non-invasive) treatment approaches should be used where possible.
First of all, I'd consider myself neutral in this question as I have no previous experience in this, have not written about this topic or read about it.


=====Philosophy of the subluxation=====
My impression of the "Critique"-part is: no offense, but I find it comparatively poor, although not negligible. Specifics:
Both chiropractic and mainstream medicine hold that much of the body is controlled by ] sent to and from the ] along the ]. Whether the brain commanding the foot to move, the foot signaling the brain that it is in pain, or even a simple ], the spinal cord is involved. Outgoing impulses from the brain pass down the spinal cord and exit through the appropriate ] branch held between the ] on either side of the spinal cord. There are 31 pairs of spinal nerves that emerge from the spinal cord; all of which are housed by vertebrae. If the vertebrae are misaligned (subluxated), chiropractic doctors believe that a spinal nerve can be squeezed or pinched and therefore message flow can be compromised. By aligning the vertebrae and removing restrictions on the spinal nerves, chiropractic claims to allow the spinal cord to more effectively relay messages to and from the brain; thus promoting better health.


==Science and chiropractic==
* "''The Chiropractic community maintains that serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine are extremely rare, being 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. This figure, which is based on over 40 years of chiropractic research and millions of cervical adjustments, is echoed by extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation. However in one other study, Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000. .''"
There is scientific agreement that an ] framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential. Organisations such as the ] and ] publish such reviews.
** This is not much of a critique of the topic. It should be integrated into another section in the article. 1 / 400,000 sounds harmless to me.
* Many parts read like trivia. It would be better to reference from the ''NCAHF Position Paper on Chiropractic'' than to just mention it. To quote from every conducted study might well expand and become incomprehensible.

Ok that's my input. Take it or leave it. ]-] 17:40, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
:1/400 000 sounds rare, but if 400 000 are done per year then that is one serious adverse outcome per year - do we have an idea of what the total number per year, or per year per million population or whatever, ''is''? ] 15:05, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I'll clarify my opinions:
:: I don't think the critique sounds like anything. Is there nothing more serious to complain about?
::# The Norwegian study ( I read the web page references ) showed "Thirty two of 46 infants in the treatment group (69.9%), and 24 of 40 in the control group (60.0%), showed some degree of improvement." -- so chiropractice is only slightly better?
::# 1/400,000 gets serious complications from chripractice. -- Aren't maltreatement in traditional health care far more common than that?
::# I did find the NCAHF paper interesting but it was so long, and this article does not mention anything therein.
:: ]-] 19:20, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

== intro ==

You may not like to admit there is pol and sci controversy, but the fact remains that such controversy exists. WP guidelines say that in that case we should point it out to the reader. What we are doing here is creating an encyclopedia, not arguing one way or the other whether we like chiro or not. Pls discuss before making more intro changes. ] 01:33, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

:I think the controversy is apparent in the article but is not one of the major tennants of the page nor chiropractic. Therefore it doens't belong in the first sentence. It's bad enough that the article jumps back-and-forth and in-and-out of opposing POVs. Stating it in the first sentence (one which is now a very basic definition of what chiropractic is) seems argumentative and the result of soapboxing. ] 17:54, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Not so. I am helping to create an encyclopedia. That the issue has had such high level attention in the courts and elsewhere is obvious evidence of controversy which I reader should know about up front. If you are accusing me of soapboxing I hope you can apologise. I look forward to your cooperation in removing all POV.] 00:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:I am sorry for accusing so quicky, but my accusations are proving more true with your recent edits...

:You added the following to the portion before the intro: ''Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer who claimed he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance.''

:That doesn't belong in the general intro to the page but rather in the history section (where it is repeated). Thus I removed it for this intro. What was your purpose in adding this sentence there if not to cast chiropractic into a bad light in the opening of this article. You are asking to help make the page NPOV when you are demonstrating just the opposite. Clearly, you are adding the seance bit to make chiropractic seem ludicrous. I'm not trying to sweep the seanace bit under the rug, but is it really such a big tenet of chiropractic that it needs to be in the opening sentences? Hardly. As it is now, the opening is a clear definition of what chiropractic is. No POV at all. I think it is complete. Leave it be. ] 02:58, 15 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks for your cooperation. The logic you use is not impregnable (ie if it's POV it's POV wherever it occurs in the article). If it does make Chiro look ludicrous then we must face that fact. However, for the moment I am prepared to compromise. Let us put "politically and scientifically controversial" up top. Thanks for agreeing (and polishing) my attempts to have one scientific section. I will work on it some more to try to find a mutually agreeable formulation. ] 04:07, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:I still don't think pol and sci controversary needs to be mentioned in the opener. Sorry. It is not part of the main tenet, broad overview, nor even the definition. The rest of the article does a fine job of showing the contraversy. But contraversy does not define chiropractic. I must strike it again. Sorry. Be taht as it may, I would like to work together. ] 04:50, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I think we're both in danger of violating 3R here so I'll refrain from editing it for today and leave it to your good judgement to make that decision for yourself. The "main tenet" is an encylopedic article about chiro - not the main tenet of chiro. This is an important distinction and one I urge you to consider. We both agree that the controversy is fundamental. Therefore what words would you suggest to convey this fundamental point? You may like to review the discussion elsewhere on this page before formulating your response. My preference, given the discussion elsewhere on the page is "politically and scientifically controversial" which I think you will agree is NPOV. Yes good to work with you too and I look forward to more cooperation. ] 05:44, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I don't think I am breaching the 3R rule so I shall revert it. It is a significant part of the whole article to indicate that chiropractic is controversial. Thus, to take it out of the introduction fails to indicate to the reader that there are many POVs about it. I'm not sure if it is politically controversial so I shall simply say 'scientific'. ] 08:17, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Spinal subluxations are controversial. Writing in the opening sentence that the belief is that they exist and cause disease and that those diseases can be treated by adjusting them is NPOV. The current state asserts that spinal subluxations exist. I recall a randomised trial of xray interpretation in which chiropractors were unable to distingusih those spinal films which had been been used to diagnose subluxations to adjust from the controls that had not. Someone will provide the reference I don't doubt...

''Manipulation'' fixes back pain in many people and is good enough empiric treatment, but the system of belief that underpins a claim to be a complete system of medicine is based on a poorly supported assumption which is hard to demonstrate.
] 13:13, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

:There is enough scientific evidence to say that subluxation exist (see Maigne). However, that is regardless to this point. For this is an article about Chiropractic... not subluxation. Yes, it is clear now that Chiropractic does cause so contraversy. Lots of things do. Israel, penecilin, Paris Hilton... however, the contraversy doesn't define this things (sorry to reduce Paris to a thing). The current chiro article already points to the contraversy to a degree that is sufficient to let the reader know that the contraversy exists. Please leave it out of the topic sentence. ] 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the following message on ] page: There is little doubt that part of chiropractic's 'fame' is that some believe it works and others don't. Therefore, an important aspect of defining chiropractic is that it is controversial. Hence it is part of its definition within the introductory paragraph. What is your problem with that? It is a 'fact' that it is controversial. As you are a chiropractor you do not believe that it is controversial. As a scientist I believe that it is controversial. We encapsulate the two sides of the debate. By your continual removal of 'controversial' you are claiming that the modality is generally accepted when it isn't. This is not a neutral POV. I look forward to further discussions. ] 00:25, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

== NPOV ==

May I draw editors' attention to the following NPOV guideline: "neutral point of view NPOV means, among other things, that a reader should walk away from an article with a clear sense of what the controversy is all about." Given there is no disagreement that chiro is controversial politically and scientifically, a good introduction would point this out. An introduction would ideally cover what, who, when, why in 100 words or less. What we are doing here is writing a helpful encyclopedia, not defending a position on chiro. ] 02:34, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

:So why create a position by calling it controversial in the first sentence? I think Israel is so more controversial and yet its first sentence doesn't mention contraversy. I feel you are trying hard to insert your own POV slanted against chiropractic by continuing to add "contraversy" here. Leave it out of the first sentence. This is not an article about contraversy. This is an article about chiropractic. ] 03:44, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== History section ==

The references to greeks and ancient history contain no mention of vertebral subluxations. Before reverting please provide references. You have had many more than 3 reverts today and have not discussed your reasons on the talk page. May I suggest you read WP guidelines on dispute resolution. ] 05:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I will refrain from revert wars. Please consider the following and discuss each point separately so we can come to agreement.

"==History==
Chiropractic was founded by ] in ], ]. He said he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician Dr. Jim Atkinson during a seance. Palmer’s son, ] initiated research, development and promotion of chiropractic.

DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say ''A subluxated vertebrae . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column.'' (From: Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.) The term '''''chiropractic''''' originated when Palmer asked a patient - Rev. Samuel Weed - to come up with a name from the ] to describe his practice. Among other terms Weed suggested combining the words ''chiros'' and ''praktikos'' (meaning "done by hand") to describe the adjustment of a ] in the ].

===Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation===

Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.

====Palmer’s account====

Palmer says that in 1995 he was investigating the ] of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years prior, he felt a pop in his back and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. <ref>Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910</ref> Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this as it was accomplished with an object in view and the expected result was obtained.

====Lillard’s account====

Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures. <ref>James C. Whorton, ''Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America''</ref>

Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960s, it’s popularity is decreasing. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002. Chiropractic patients numbers dropped 25% from 1997 to 2002. <ref>Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.)</ref>

] 07:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

== Science section ==

I have refrained from revert war. Please discuss this proposal item by item here so we can come to an agreement.

"==Science and chiropractic== - There is scientific agreement that an ] framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential. Organisations such as the ] and ] publish such reviews.


For the following conditions the ] found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial: For the following conditions the ] found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:
* *
* *
* [http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002119.html Painful menstrual periods *


For the following conditions ] found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial: For the following conditions ] found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:
Line 160: Line 66:
* *


Some traditional medical practitioners do not believe that chiropractic is science-based. University of Saskatchewan sociologist Leslie Biggs surveyed Canadian Chiropractors in 1997 and found that 74.3% of those interviewed (n=600) did not believe that controlled clinical trials were the best way to evaluate Chiropractic methods. The same study revealed that 68.1% believed that most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment.
] 07:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::There is already far too much info in this science section and I believe this entire article already exceeds the recommended page size. I don't know how reliable Cochrane is considering they state quite plainly on their site: "We make no representations and give no warranties with respect to the accuracy or completeness of the information." They don't seem credible in that resepect. I am not trying to squelch anti-chiro info from being posted. It just seems that the science section already has it in there...and then some. Adding more seems to me as though there is a clear anti-chiro agenda at work here rather than an agenda of creating an encyclopaedic article. The anti-chiro agenda is furthered by repeated attempts to add "controversy" to the opening sentence on this page, as if "controversy" surround chiropractic and is a defining element. It is not. I tried to appease the anti-chiros by including "controversy" in the latter Introduction section - where it is more apropos than the topic sentence. However, my attempts at a compromise didn't seem to work. But I'm trying. I am a chiropactic. McCready, just curious, what are you qualifications on this subject? ] 18:24, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

::Another problem with Cochrane is that these reports are about spinal manipulation... not chiropractic. Spinal manipulation is performed by all sorts practitioners other that chiropractors. The same goes for the VBA and strokes as a result of neck manipulation. How many of these 1-out-of-4-million strokes were caused by chiropractic adjustments and how many by another practioner who was less skillful than chiropractors? The report dating back to 1965 and covering millions of chiropractic adjustments found no accounts of strokes. But the reports that only cover general neck manipulation show the 1-out-of-4-million figure. I think that if the reference or research is not specifically about chiropractic spinal adjustments (manipulation) than it is irrelevant to this article.

::There is a clear agenda at work here trying to turn this article into a biased piece against chiropractic. It needs to stop. What is the motivation? Is there that much chiropractic hate out there that people feel it neccessary to spend their time bashing it on WP? I am postulating that these people feel threatened for one reason or antoher. Maybe they fear losing patients. Maybe the fear having to face that the knowledge that they accepted as fact for so long is incorrect. Maybe it is laziness. I don't know, but I am continually astounded by detractors and the way they spend their time and energy spreading hate rather than love; doubt instead of curiosity; and promoting illness instead of health. ] 19:05, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for you willingness to talk about the science section. Do I take it you are happy to have an EMB statement. I rechecked the cochrane references and I am afraid you are mistaken, each one discusses chiro. I agree the section needs to be shorter but in the meantime we need to agree on how to shorten it. Removing well referenced scientific material on the basis that the website it is posted on has a disclaimer is not IMHO the way to go. I look forward to your further discussion here before I begin to edit the section again. ] 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:::Cochrane is very credible and reliable. Osteopathy and Chiropractic articles would benefit from a ] showing where they split off from each other and the subgroups formed. The things that cause me disquiet about this are the origin with a single chap who decided that all disease came from one cause, and then that he could cure it by making movements that in bones that are variously claimed to be out of place (but in no way that can be demonstrated in blind trials of xray images) or that are not actually physical displacements but something more mystical. At this point we hear there is already too much science in the article, and that all of conventional medicine is untrue and causing harm not benefit. Credibility was mentioned... ] 00:17, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

== History manipulation ==

I have removed the following sentence from the history section. "Writings from China and Greece written in 2700 B.C. and 1500 B.C. mention spinal manipulation and the maneuvering of the lower extremities to ease lower back pain." The source quoted does not mention China and does not assign these dates. In fact the source says "Chiropractic is 105 years old."

TheDoctorIsIn says on this talk page that manipulation is not the same as chiro. His logic is flawed if he then wants to claim manipulation as essential to the history of chiro. I don't think we can change the definition as will.

I would also like to remove the reference to Hippocrates. If you check the context (part 44 on the referenced translation) you will see Hippocrates was discussing succussion. What do you think, DoctorIsIn. ] 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:No logic flaws. Spinal and bone manipulation were predecessors to chiropractor and thus part of its history. ] 05:27, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

The logical flaw is to claim, as you incorectly did, that the Cochrane material referred to spinal manipulation and not to chiropractic and that therefore it wasn't relevant. ie your claim was that if it didn't mention chiro then it wasn't relevant. Now however you claim that any reference to spinal manipulation is part of the history of chiro. You can't have it both ways. Chiro was invented by Palmer who, unless you have evidence to the contrary did not base his arguments on succussion mentioned by Hippocrates. You have not addressed the issue of succussion. H was refering to it, not to chiro. I will amened the article accordingly until you provide evidence to the contrary. Thirdly, the souce referenced did not support the claim. Again you have failed to address this crucial point. If the reference cannot support the claim, it is unverifiable and therefore according to WP policy, does not belong. ] 08:45, 19 March 2006 (UTC)

:I will lay this out quite clearly for you. Ancient bone and spine manipulations were the predecessors to chiropractic adjustments. Therefore, it is part of the history of chiropractic. However, chiropractic adjustments evolved beyond these techniques and now are something different entirely. "A" led to "B" but "B" is no longer "A". A study of "A" is thus not a scientific study of "B" but rather a historical study of "B". I will now revert. ] 17:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)


By your logic witch doctor bloodletting of the head should be included in an article on nureosurgery. Can you demonstrate where Palmer saw his lineage including Hippocrates. Until you do there is no justification for including it in the article. You have failed to address each item in my above post. ] 04:02, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

==Controversy in the articles topic sentence==

Chiropractic's fame is not founded in contraversy. Chiropractic's fame is founded in its continued success. That something so noninvasive and simple could be the answer to so many health problems that humankind have sought to cure with everything from drugs to leeches to ingesting chemicals is how chiropractic derived its fame. That the solution to much disease was founded in optimizing the body's nervous system so the body could heal itself is how chiropractic became famous. The contraversy is merely a side-effect of people clutching onto their old way of thinking about health and the body. ] 05:37, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Controversial or hatred?'''

:Very well said Doc. There isn't so much controversy, as there IS a lot of chiropractic-hating extremists. If an ex-psychiatrist, a few MDs and a PT are filled with enough chiropractic hatred to carve out a career actively taking part in things like preventing chiropractic schools from opening, creating multiple websites attacking chiropractic and recruiting others to add statements to Misplaced Pages so it appears that chiropractic is controversial, this doesn't make chiropractic controversial.

:Millions of people utilize chiropractic care, MDs go to chiropractors and send their families as well as refer to chiropractic doctors, US Congress, states, countries, insurance, laws, licensing bodies, Olympic teams, athletes, committees, etc., etc., recognize chiropractic. So if it is OK with all of them and, of course, 75,000 DC's, doesn't this make chiropractic mainstream? Why isn't it OK with Maus and the others? If they have a vendetta or something, that still doesn't make chiropractic controversial, just because they say it is.
] 11:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks for your thoughts. I agree with you the first sentence would usually be a simple defn. I'd like to put the controversy in the second sentenc of the top ] 18:07, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:The article is filled with the legal contraversy (Wilk) and the differing scienitific opinions. The introduction already mentions the controversary in the medical community. Adding it anywhere else would be overkill and would tip the scales of this article even more towards and anti-chiro POV than it already is. ] 01:55, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

thanks guys, it would help to remain unemotional and objective here. We have all agreed it is controversial, the only question is whether it should go at the top. Argument saying no relies on the idea that it is not part of the defintion. Argument against this is that WP is not a dictionary. We are writing an article ABOUT chiro, not merely providing a dictionary definition. Once again, I will refrain from reverting until we sort this out. Looking foward to your answer. ] 15:36, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:This is certainly not a dictionary. You are right. But the first sentence of an encyclopaedic article can provide a broad definition of the topic before the rest of the article dissects the topic. And in a broad definition of the word, chiropractic shouldn't be characterized as "controversial". Adding that word provides unneccessary POV. Do a search for chiropractic in a dictionary - . There is no mention of this controversy. Why? Because a good dictionary doesn't provide POV... just a definition. Beyind the topic sentence of this article is another matter. But the first sentence should not have the word "controversial" in it just as it should say "amazing". ] 16:23, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

==Introductory sentence==
The introductory sentence states: ''"Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is '''a system of health care''' that is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations which are believed to be the cause of much disease."'' "A system of health care" in this context obviously means something different than what appears in the ] article. I would like to know if this sentence should be changed, or if a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Thoughts? -] 23:16, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

:Is there a general term that means the same as a service provided by doctors to promote health? Also, the Healthcare System article treats "Healthcare" as one word. On Chiro, we treat it as two words. Is this grammatically incorrect or does this provide the disambiguity that you are seeking? ] 01:52, 18 March 2006 (UTC)

== Science section ==

There would have to be very strong reasons why non RCTs should go in the science section. The study reported said "Chiropractic office costs were higher for both acute and chronic patients (P < .01). When referrals were included, there were no significant differences in either group between provider types (P > .20)." The .2 figure is crucial here. ] 04:18, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

A 2002 investigation supports that spinal manipulation may benefit patients afflicted with asthma. This was not a RCT study, no references are given in the study to check the assertions made, it is not a scientific study in any sense of the word. Where are the confidence intevals? Where are the footnotes? How can we check its verifiablity? In any case the cohrane work of 2006 supercedes. ] 04:26, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have gone to the trouble of reviewing each link:
*glaucoma - single case study proves nothing - the link says MAY
*Bell’s palsy - single case study proves nothing - the link says it's possible
*Allergy and Crohn's Disease - not double or even single blinded, not RCT - the link says "the possibility may be considered"
*infantile colic - "suggest a possible association" - not good enough, not proven, 2 case studies
*duodenal ulcer - control group not the same as trial group - you've got to be joking; in any case the "pilot" concluded "under discussion as a possible mechanism for the treatment effect." this is dangerous stuff. How can people rely on this to treat ulcer???
*PARKINSON'S DISEASE - case study again, but at least the author has the decency to say "No firm conclusion can be obtained from the results of one case."

These links are not science and don't belong in the science section unless to say that they are unscientific. May and possible are words that anyone can use. It MAY be POSSIBLE that the moon is made of green cheese. Without double blind RCT we are pretty much wasting our time trying to argue these studies are scientific. ] 05:01, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:Mccready, I must say that you've done a '''good job''' of cleaning up this mess. I've been over this ground before without success, since the one who placed all those links has little understanding of what consitutes good scientific research. Discussion was a waste of time. If you will look in the archives at to so-called research, you'll see his remarks immediately before, where he considers it good research. He and his supporters have repeatedly claimed this junk was proof for many weird chiropractic claims, but have failed to realize that those links only place chiropractic in a very bad light, since better research regarding manipulation (not adjustments) is available from non-chiropractic sources, but certainly not for such wild claims. If that is the best that chiropractic can come up with, what a pity. Such claims and attempts to "document" (sarcasm!) them should be buried out of sight, and many enlightened chiropractors will thank you for your efforts. Those links were an embarrassment! -- ] 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

== Question for Mcready ==
:Hello Mccready. I read your CV. Very interesting background. Was wondering why you harbor what appears to be tremendous animosity towards the chiropractic profession. What's behind this? Have you had personal experience with chiropractic? I would be interested in knowing what's behind it all. Thanks ] 04:37, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

I have no particular animosity at all to chiropractic. You need to show me a meta-analysis reporting well controlled double blind RCTs. This is the standard usually required in science. Looking forward to futher discussion. ] 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:Thanks Mccready. Have you had any personal experiences with chiropractic? ] 17:38, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I wonder if you are thinking about attacking the man and not the argument here Steth? The fact that those sceptical of chiropractic are interested in the scientific evidence doesn't mean that they have had some dark experience with chiropractic in the past. I personally was sceptical of the claims made well before a close friend's spine was broken by a long practising and highly qualified chiropractor. But I know that a simple case study of a smashed spine proves nothing. Only double-blind random controlled trials prove things. And given the claims made by chiropractic, this is hardly much to ask. ] 02:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:Something to ponder Miasmus. Being skeptical and asking for RCT's is one thing, but actively engaging in full-time chiropractic-hating extremism is certainly something else.

:As for smashing someone's spine, I think you are prone to hyperbole. Likely it didn't happen, especially from a "long practising and highly qualified chiropractor." So why you added that is questionable.

:Mcready's silence answers the question. He is here on a mission to ensure that this article paints chiropractic in as bad a light as possible. This is radically different than asking for RCT's.

:He was probably recruited by someone who is also on a mission to do everything possible to damage chiropractic. ] 03:16, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:: You see, this is the value of case studies - NONE AT ALL. You claim that my friend's spine was not smashed and he didn't die six weeks later. I cannot prove it to you and you choose not to believe it. I could provide evidence to you in the form of press material from 1993 but I'm not going to waste my time arguing with someone who has such a pro-chiropractic stance. I am not pro or anti-chiropractic. I simply ask for the same evidence that every other medical claimant must provide to claim that their professed miracle cure works - randomized controlled double-blind trials. Why is that so difficult? ] 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

== Vandalism ==

i am reporting ] for vandalism to the chiropractic article: "Vandalism is any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to reduce the quality of the encyclopedia." This user has failed to discuss his reasons for reverting, engaged in personal attacks, and seems convinced he has the right to question other editors about their private lives. When they fail to respond he draws conclusions without evidence then indulges in further personal attack and accusations of conspiracy. ] 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

:I haven't looked, in depth, at ]'s edits, so I can't comment on any charge that he is vandalising the article. However, I should be clear that there are serious issues with the version of the article seen on the left . I can't find any dictionary which refers to the subject of this article as a religion, and the phrase ] has the distinct smell of non-]. Certainly, if it can be properly sourced, a section of this article, or perhaps a separate article, could investigate the concents of this subject as a religion, but I cannot find a ] that would support such a direction in this article at this point. ] 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmer himself calls it a religion. Isn't this sufficient? The definition of ] fits Palmer. If this doesn't meet your concerns I'd be pleased to discuss further. May I urge you to look at this in depth. We could welcome more independent editors on this page. ]

==Chiropractic's dismal future outlook==
Rand Baird analyses 20 predictions that have come true, all pointing downward:

-- by Rand Baird, DC, MPH, FICA, FICC

-- ] 20:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


'''Outlook dismal for NPOV too'''
:And you feel the need to gleefully point out the above why? It won't help to create accord, build bridges and improve communication and agreement between editors/contributors. It won't help stop the revert wars.

:So why post it at all? Is it to demonstrate further your biased agenda here? To me, this example only serves as more proof why NPOV is difficult (more likely, impossible) for you when it comes to chiropractic (and other non-traditional medical approaches.)

:Posts like the one above indicate that you are still using Misplaced Pages as your free blog, behaviour which is clearly not Wikipedian. I think this is also a case of 'sour grapes'-type behaviour more fitting for a five-year-old child. That's why Mccready's heavy-handed tactics has gotten him branded as a 'Bad Boy'.

:Kindly stop the chiropractic attacks and we will all get along just fine. ] 00:03, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

== Revert War – Attempt at Resolution ==

Dear Editors of this page.
Please do not bulk revert without discussing the following items. I will not edit again on this page for 24 hours, so you will have plenty of time to put some consideration to your work. ] says the indiscriminate bulk reversion is vandalism. In my revert, I have taken pains to examine each edit by looking carefully at the history page. I have also compromised by taking the claims for religion out of the introduction section (I have left in the statement about nerve compression, but I’m not sure it applies to NACM adherents.

If you revert in bulk you will be undoing my work and that of many editors. The issues you need to consider before reverting are:

:''No, if you don't want your edits reverted in bulk, don't mix good edits with borderline vandalism ones.'' —'']'' 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

*1. Is chiro a religion - Palmer said so, why is that not enough? Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987).
:''Calling chiro a a religion in the first sentence, without any qualifications is confusing and misleading the reader. A paragraph stating "Palmer believed that what he called Innate was an intelligent entity directing the body and was a manifestation of God (Donahue 1986, 1987)" would be probably be fine.'' —'']'' 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
*2. Is Palmer a crank - check ] and explain if you disagree
: ''From ''your'' point of view (maybe even mine) Palmer is a crank. Again calling someone, without any qualifications or reliable sources to back it up, a crack is in gross violation of ] and ].'' —'']'' 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
*3. Is the section on Australian training OK
*4. Whether the comments about chiros having rooms in malls belongs in an encyclopedia
*5. Whether chiropractors should be called doctors in the article. I understand this term is only allowed in the United States, so we have to be careful to distinguish
*6. The copy edit I have done to the US Bureau of Labor Outlook section. If you want to revert to the old version please say why my version is not clearer to the reader (the information content is the same)
*7. Whether the warning by 62 neurosurgeons should be deleted – if so, why – it is not good enough to allege conspiracies of chiro haters.
*8. In the legal history section whether at that stage of history chiros could call themselves doctors (I could be wrong and I hope you check before any bulk reverting)

Further areas in the article which need improvement:
*1. Intro is biased against chiro – let’s just get the beliefs down and address the science later
*2. History – the “chiro primerall72.pdf “ though biased in favour of chiro seems the best history available on the internet – does anyone know of a better one and shouldn’t we link this?. At the moment the history section is biased because it doesn’t show the attempts by some chiros since the 1975 conference to adopt a scientific framework. It doesn’t discuss the Alberta pediatricians campaign or the Rand Baird analysis either.
*3. Provision of scientific proof of chiro - not isolated case studies by believers.
*4. Future of chiropractic – the diminution of the profession as outlined for example by
*5. should we expand on the history to note the hundreds of California chiropractors incarcerated for unlicensed practice prior to passage of the Chiropractic Act in 1922. (if someone has a link to this Act pls provide)
*6. links to the history of medicine would be useful
*7. The Lon Morgon quote needs a reference – whoever deleted it before may know.

For your information, I’ve also found the William T. Jarvis article “Why Chiropractic Is Controversial (1990)” inaccurate in reporting Wilk, though worth a read.

Please remember we are all here to create the best possible article taking into account all views and representing them as fairly as possible. I aim to gain you agreement soon to remove the NPOV tag. Once again if my edits are incorrect please correct them, don’t revert wholesale and don’t respond with vitriol. I have avoided saying so until now but I fully support any chiropractic within an evidence based framework and I deplore any conventional medicine which operates outside such a framework. Happy editing. ] 05:37, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

:I generally would have a difficult time defining any of the reverts made to this article's page as "indiscriminate bulk," as that is a fairly arbitrary and subjective description, at best. Also, I would hesitate to accept the opinion of one Wikipedian, or even two, as consensus. For all intents and purposes, none of the reverts I've seen to this page, by any editor, yet fall into the category of ]. I, personally, would hesitate to deem anyone's edits (or reverts) vandalism, as it seems to stem from a lack of ].

:'''Crank'''. All of that being said, I will continue to keep the article on my watchlist, and unless there is a consensus on this page otherwise, I will continue to revert any inclusion of the word ] in the article (within the limits of ]). From that very article: ''"Crank" (or kook, crackpot, or quack) is a pejorative term...'' Misplaced Pages is not a place for editors to determine who is a crank, kook, crackpot, or quack. That is up for our readers to determine that on their own.

:'''Religion'''. Further, to date, the only sources I have seen defining this article as a religion don't seem to pass muster as ]. The one (unreliable, ]) document linked from this article, which claims to be a letter from the gentleman who created (is that the right word?) this "system of care" is not accurate today, insofar as what this "system of care" is today. Every definition I can find defines it as just that, again, a "system of care" -- not a religion. Certainly it seems reasonable to note, in an appropriate section in the article, that historically, chiropractic may have had some (apparently economic) interest in being defined as a religion. That is, if it can be reliable sourced.

:I don't really have anything to say about your other points right now. I agree that the article has quite a ways to go, and, thus, as do the editors. I think this revert business is a bit on the ridiculous side, but, again, it isn't Misplaced Pages's place to define people or things in pejorative terms. I think we'll do well to stick to the facts, and in doing so, I think this article could well become a model article citizen here on Misplaced Pages in the process. ] 08:40, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

'''Skeptical about Mccready's contrition'''

Well, based on Mccready’s return bulk revert vandalism and another whack in the head by the Admin, it would appear that Mcready hasn’t really changed much since his 24 hours in the ‘naughty chair”.

After reviewing the bulk reverts he made and his plea for understanding, he has certainly convinced me – he really is intent on turning Misplaced Pages into his soapbox to ensure that the topic of Chiropractic is portrayed in as negative a light as possible.

His edits are largely unacceptable and should be removed to restore this to a neutral informative article, not a personal blog/soapbox for his anti-chiropractic agenda and a link repository so donations can increase for his like-minded friends.

Hopefully the more than fair and neutral Admin will begin to do this.
Thank you very much ] 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

==Introduction==
<blockquote>'''Chiropractic''' is a ] and controversial system of health care founded by the ] ]. It is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using ]s in order to correct ]s which are believed to be the cause of much disease.</blockquote>

If it were a religion there would be churches. ] is a religion. It is ]. If it is a religion then it has a prophet or teacher, not a "crank". ] 16:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

==Misuse of a citation==
I have eliminated the very misleading section:

:"Many doctors warn against the dangers of chiropractic. Sixty-two clinical neurologists issued a warning about the dangers of neck manipulation. The signers include private neurologists as well as chiefs of neurology departments of major teaching hospitals. Calling their concerns significant,..."

The head neurologist of SPONTADS, John Norris in Canada whose report this 'warning' was based on confessed under oath that he had nothing to base his findings on and couldn't remember how he arrived at them. In other words he made the whole thing up. He has since left his position and this unfortunate episode is now a permanent black mark on his record. This was in 2002 and the neurologists were threatened with legal action for this 'warning.'
They have since distanced themselves from this false decree when they found that they were long on hate and short on facts.

Also the 'website' listed as a reference is yet another site owned by an ex-psychiatrist who has a long history of chiropractic antagonism and should be suspect and viewed as unreliable. Why hasn't he changed his site to reflect the true accuracy?

Admins should note: Other misleading statements about stroke should also be viewed with skepticism and eliminated from this article as should be any other uses of biased websites owned by individuals who flagrantly solicit donations when you visit. Misplaced Pages should not be used to increase the donation flow to private individuals.

''''''

I have noted this before in the Talk section but Mccready seems to have overlooked this. I am sure it was just an oversight on his part and would expect him to be more careful in the future about including this. Thanks ] 05:08, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

:: I find that this citation from an organization called "Chiropractic is Safe" could be just as suspect and unreliable as your claim that chirobase is. I will revert your removal of the anti-chiropractic material. It seems that you are intent to remove anything remotely indicating that chiro is unsafe from this article. I think you have an almighty large barrow to push yourself. If you wish to balance out the your claimed bias in the article then put it in the text without removing large slabs of the controversy. ] 06:44, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, no. But I AM intent on removing things that are being misused such as a statement that is really false and POV and should not be included. Dr. Norris recanted his findings which the 'warning' was based on. This was widely reported. Do you have any citations to the contrary I would be happy to reveiw them? If you post them here, I will leave the warning in. Otherwise, I believe the paragraph in question should be removed.
Thanks. ] 13:11, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

::I can find no shortage of citations relating to the Norris study, such as http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn1914 but nothing (other than from chiropractic newsletters) saying that Norris has recanted. You show me a citation showing that he has recanted his research from something other than a chiropractic newsletter or supporter of chiropractic. Perhaps the Canadian Journal of Medicine where the Norris research was first published, or perhaps a newspaper? If you can do that then I am happy to admit I am wrong and will happily delete the reference to the Norris research. ] 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


Likewise numerous Chiropractors on the web claim to treat infantile colic. According to a 1999 survey of the Ontario Chiropractic Association (which represents 83% of the Chiropractors in Ontario), 46% treated children for colic. However in 2001 a Norwegian double-blind study demonstrated that Chiropractic manipulation for infantile colic proved only slightly better (10%) than the placebo group.
I agree with Maustrauser in this and will, meantime, reinsert controversial in the top, having accepted the majority view re religion (though I must say that if you check the definition is fits). ]


In another trial, spinal manipulation for episodic tension headache showed no significant value beyond placebo in controlled trials.
:Adding "controversial" to the introduction of the article does not have even a plurality of the support of the editors on this page, let alone a consensus in support. Until that time comes, and I think it won't, adding it back will simply be reverted. The reality is, it's an adjective (the word, controversial, that is)... Once more, our job here is to state the facts, in the article. If the facts support the notion that the subject of this article is controversial, then so be it. But again, whether they do or don't, it isn't our job to whack Misplaced Pages readers over the head with any of our particular beliefs. ] 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


===Safety===
::I agree with Justen Deal above, and with Maustrauser on Norris - I have searched and not found independent evidence that he has recanted, or that any other signatories have done so] 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
As with all interventions, risks may be associated with the practice of ]. These risks, although rare, include vertebrobasilar accidents, ]s, disc herniations, ]l ], and ], according to ''Harrison's''. Most serious complications occur after cervical (neck) manipulation. The practice of greatest concern is the rotary neck movement, sometimes called "Master cervical" or "rotary break", which has led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients.


Documented serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine are extremely rare, being 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. The current estimate is based on multiple international studies of millions of chiropractic cervical adjustments spanning from present day back to at least 1965. The "one in a million" estimate is echoed in an extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation. However in one other study, Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000 while Jaskoviak reported approximately 5 million cervical manipulations from 1965 to 1980 at The National College of Chiropractic Clinic in Chicago, without a single case of vertebral artery stroke or serious injury. . Less conservative treatments such as neck surgery are also commonly used for conditions very similar to the conditions chiropractors treat using spinal adjustments. In comparison, cervical spine surgery has a 3-4% rate of complication and 4,000-10,000 deaths per million neck surgeries.
:::Alright, I will try to find a neutral reference where Norris recants his findings as proof. Then, in the interest of fairness, websites that still have the Norris study posted should also be viewed as unreliable and should also not be allowed here and deleted. Is that OK Justen, Gleng and Maus?] 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


With studies of this nature it is difficult to determine what percentage of incidents remain unreported, if any at all. The RAND study, for example, assumed that only 1 in 10 cases would have been reported. Dr. Edzard Ernst surveyed all neurologists in Britain for cases of serious neurological complication occuring within 24 hours after cervical spinal manipulation during the past year. 35 such cases had been seen by the 24 who responded, and none of those cases had been reported. His survey led him to conclude that underreporting was closer to 100%, rendering estimates "non-sensical."
:: I agree, I don't think that websites are a good source for anything much anyway, and should generally be treated as unreliable, as they are likely to be there to propogate a particular viewpoint rather than objectively display evidence. However, of course they might be helpful in tracking reliable sources] 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


A 2001 study in the medical journal ''Stroke'', found that vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) are five times more likely to occur in those aged <45 years who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week prior to the VBA, than for controls who have not visited a chiropractor.
::I partly agree. I think websites that are set up to be pro-chiro or anti-chiro are unacceptable as they are pushing a POV. Neutral websites that exist for the exploration of science and human knowledge (eg Nature, Scientific American, Cochrane Collaboration, New Scientist) and that are peer reviewed from experts outside the area of professed expertise, should be considered acceptable. The reason I can't accept blanket 'banning' of websites is that much research is simply published electronically now and no longer on paper. ] 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


==Claims for chiropractic religious status==
:::Thank you Gleng. So is that OK with Maustrauser and Justen?
] 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


DD Palmer in a letter of May 4, 1911 said:
Sensible people don't see chiropractic as controversial or dangerous, just ineffective and more expensive than a ] needs to be. Millions of people swear by it and for them it seems to work. ] 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


:"we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Mohamed, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions. I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase." <ref></ref>


Keating et al writing for the Association for the History of Chiropractic said DD Palmer
The blanket argument that websites are not a good source is absurd. Sorry Gareth. If you hold this view, what do you think of WP? How do you expect readers to view WP? Pleeease! As to Fred's argument, millions of people used to say the world was flat. I kinda like the idea that most humans aspire to be more than dumb suckers. And there is plenty of evidence for the dangers of chiro, not to mention the utter waste of human resources devoted to it. ] 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


:”introduced the concept of Innate Intelligence circa 1904. Innate, he believed, was an intelligent entity which directed all the functions of the body, and used the nervous system to exert its influence. Old Dad Chiro eventually came to see Innate Intelligence as an individual manifestation of Universal Intelligence, or God (Donahue 1986, 1987).”
I think that ] is very sound advice. Websites vary massively, and judging their reliability is not always easy, though many are fine; certainly they are fine to cite as sources of opinion rather than fact. The general problem in citing them for fact is a) content on a website can change and so any citation is insecure and b) the status of the material cited is uncertain - exactly what is peer reviewed etc. So I would recommend references to peer-reviewed archived secondary sources, published in very reputable journals as the ideal source for potentially controversial statements about science. Where the evidence is strong and the consensus is there, there will be such sources, and if they can't be found it is a cause of concern. Obviously I think WP is great, but it is not itself authoratative (not yet at least), although at its best it cites authoritative sources.
If a website posts as facts things that are demonstrably false, knowing them to be false, then I would consider it discredited. Websites that expect to be taken seriously should respect truth, even when inconvenient.
] 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)


Palmer also wrote:
'''Neurologist Norris'''


:"I have answered the time-worn question -- what is life?” pp. 17-19 of his book The Chiropractor's Adjuster (also called The Text-Book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic). The book was published in 1910 by the Portland Printing House Company of Portland, Oregon, and reprinted in 1966 by his grandson, David D. Palmer, 1966.
Hi Gang,
Had a busy weekend. Anyone see the film, "V"? Very powerful, very interesting and different. I recommend it.


American chiropractor Lon Morgan, writing in the Journal of Canadian Chiropractic Association, said "Innate Intelligence clearly has its origins in borrowed mystical and occult practices of a bygone era. It remains untestable and unverifiable and has an unacceptably high penalty/benefit ratio for the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic concept of Innate Intelligence is an anachronistic holdover from a time when insufficient scientific understanding existed to explain human physiological processes. It is clearly religious in nature and must be considered harmful to normal scientific activity."
Wow, Mccready really let his anti-chiro bias show with statements about "the dangers of chiro" (Where? Compared to what?) His chiro-hatred really comes shining through, and he obviously hasn't learned anything from 24 hours in the naughty corner.


==Chiropractic education, licensing, and regulation==
Anyway, I agree with Maustrauser that sites that are used as references on WP shouldn't be pro or anti-anything. So after sifting through the morass of chiro-hate spin websites from angry shrinks, acne docs and a PT, I will reference the transcripts directly to answer the Norris issue so we can delete the so-called neurologists'warning' and put this thing to rest and move on. Websites that cite the neurologists 'warning' or the Norris study without noting that he publicly acknowledged that he had no basis to draw any conclusions, do not meet the WP standards and should be deleted.
===United States===
In the ] chiropractors receive the degree ''Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.)'' and are referred to as ] and are licensed in all jurisdictions.


In the ], the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) is in charge of setting minimum guidelines for chiropractic colleges; however, additional requirements may be needed for a license depending on the ] where a chiropractor chooses to practice. In 2005, 15 chiropractic programs and 2 chiropractic institutions in the United States were accredited by the CCE. The process of ] varies widely by country.
From Inquest Transcripts
:"(John) Norris states that the Stroke Consortium lacks the knowledge about chiropractic manipulation, chiropractic science. There is no evidence-based data, no concrete scientific conclusions, to show that what a chiropractor does stretches the artery in such a way to cause a dissection." Ted Danson, testimony of May 16, 2002 from transcript of Lana Lewis Inquest, pp. 72-75.


Students often enter chiropractic school with a Bachelor's degree, or with three years of post-secondary education in the sciences and other appropriate coursework. However, in 2005 "only one chiropractic college required a baccalaureate degree as an admission requirement." The minimum ] for enrollment in a chiropractic college set forth by the CCE is 90 semester hours. The minimum cumulative GPA for a student entering a chiropractic college is 2.50. Commonly required classes include: ], ], ] or ], ], ] and ] ], and ]. Other common medical classes are: ] or ], ], ], ], ], ], ], ], and ].
:Norris: (regarding SPONTADS), “So I think that it is an essentially hypothesisgenerating, interesting case series, but no more than that ... It is just that. So I think, well, I agree with Mr. Danson, it's irrelevant to this inquest.'" -- pp.27-28.


In the United States, chiropractic programs require a minimum of 4,200 hours of combined classroom, laboratory, and clinical experience. The last 2 years stress courses in manipulation and spinal adjustment and provide clinical experience in physical and laboratory diagnosis, ], ], geriatrics, ], and ]. Coursework in Chiropractic school may also include study in ], ], ], ], ] and ] in the first half of formal schooling.
:In response to the total patient size of SPONTADS study being 180, Norris replies: “It is a drop in the ointment. You can’t do a study based on figures like that. You need a large study to do it.” Transcript May 16, 2002, pp 156-157.


Graduates of chiropractic schools have to complete 5 years of schooling and pass 4 national board exams in order to complete their education. To qualify for licensure, graduates of chiropractic schools must sit for State examination. Most State boards require at least 2 years of undergraduate education; an increasing number are requiring a 4-year bachelor’s degree. All boards require the completion of a 4-year program at an accredited chiropractic college leading to the Doctor of Chiropractic degree. Once licensed, most States require chiropractors to annually attend 12 to 48 hours of continuing education courses.
:Responding to the questions as to how many manipulations are done in Canada and how many of them lead to Stroke – Norris: “I think probably until we get a collaborative study going, we really can’t answer these questions, and they are really very critical, I think.” May 16, 2002, pp 113-114


Chiropractic colleges also offer ] training in ], ], ], ], ], industrial consulting, ], family practice, ], and applied chiropractic sciences. Once such training is complete, chiropractors may take specialty exams leading to “diplomate” status in a given specialty including orthopedics, neurology and radiology. Exams are administered by specialty chiropractic associations.
:Responding to the question as to why he knowingly made public statements for which there was no scientific substantiation, Norris: “I can’t explain that to the jury. I’m sorry.” May 16, 2002, pp. 113-114.


==Australia==
] 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
In Australia chiropractic is taught at three universities: RMIT in Melbourne, Murdoch University in Perth and Macquarie University in Sydney.To be registered by various state Chiropractic Registration Boards a Bachelor of Chiropractic Science, a Bachelor of Science or health-related degree, plus the successful completion of a full-fee paying postgraduate qualifying program for the Master of Chiropractic is required.<ref></ref>


==Practice styles and schools of thought==
I think that Steth has made a good case that the warning from Canadian neurosurgeons is not really a reliable source for strong evidence, though it would be nice to be able to see the transcripts to check the full context.] 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
Contemporary chiropractic is divided into three schools of thought - straight, mixer, and reform - which differ in their approaches to patient care. All chiropractic approaches are based on non-invasive, non-medication approaches, with many based on the use of manipulation as a treatment for mechanical musculoskeletal dysfunction of the spine and extremities. The three schools of thought do not correspond exactly to the existing membership organizations, but there are clear trends, with adherents tending to favor certain organizations.


The three categorizations are currently used mainly within the profession and in discussions. Since the actual differences are very real, they are explained here for the benefit of the general public, which is generally unaware of these differences:
Sure is a bias Steth and it's called science. You have yet to show me a single large RCT that supports your belief. Your snide comments about being banned apply to yourself when you were blocked by the same trigger happy admin. And no I do not agree the case has been made for deleting the canadian material. We need to see the whole transcript and even then that leaves 91 other signatories does it not. ] 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)


#'''Straight''' chiropractors primarily concern themselves with ] correction. Practitioners often use varying vertebral manipulation techniques known as "adjustments" for the purpose of preventive medicine and pain relief. Straight chiropractors hold that only the body can cure the body. By aligning the vertebrae, straight chiropractors believe that they are clearing nerve impulse restrictions and therefore providing a more efficient dialogue between the brain and the rest of the body's systems, thus putting the body in a better position to cure (or heal) itself. Straight chiropractors represent a minority position, and tend to be members of the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
Let's keep cool here. As far as I can see, the SPONTADS study is ongoing ad hasn't reported properly yet, until it does the jury is out. Norris and others may have jumped the gun with early data, and it seems that they might not have taken account of referral bias which might have exaggerated the effect of chiropractic. A group of 62 (not 92) Canadian neurosurgeons signed up to the warning, but the case they make is based on a few isolated case reports, and doesn't amount to compelling evidence, and I haven't heard widespread concern from other quarters like the AMA. The citation to this statement was from a strongly opinionated website. If this is the evidence for lack of safety of chiropractic, then it's not strong in my view. If it is unsafe, let's see the authoratative secondary sources in peer-reviewed reputable journals.] 12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)
#'''Mixing''' chiropractors combine contemporary medical diagnosis and treatment with chiropractic adjustments. Mixing style practitioners utilize adjustments to treat chiropractic subluxations, as well as nutrition and naturopathic style remedies for other disorders. Methods used might include ultrasound, TENS, rehabilitation or the use of other diagnostic methods such as ] (AK). Mixing chiropractic is itself divided into conservative and liberal groups{{fn|2}}. Many mixers are members of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), but there are also many exceptions.
#'''Reform''' chiropractors are oriented at mainstream medicine, advocating a highly limited use of chiropractic care primarily for treatment of musculoskeletal conditions only.


Most universities teaching chiropractic, including Palmer in Davenport Iowa, USA, utilize rehabilitation methods, exercise, physiological therapeutics and nutrition. The National College (now University) incorporated physical therapy as early as 1912, even before there was a profession bearing its name. The profession in the USA continues to be divided only into specialities. Some do spine-only. Others prefer to do sports and rehabilitation. There are musculoskeletal foci and those who co-manage people with organic problems, MS or cancer along with their regular medical approaches.
:Well, I am sure Mcready that you can find the transcripts and read them for yourself. I have given you the references. Then after reading them, I guess you won't hate chiropractic anymore and will post neutral information, right? ] 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)


==References==
I'm reverting to Steth's version; it seems to me that the EBM side is covered in detail later, and the statement from Canadian neurologists is not sufficiently authoritative evidence to put up front, and it's reasonable to hold it back, at least pending discussion. There are separate sections on safety and scientific validity, and no need for overkill. ] 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
* From :
** {{fnb|1}} Cherkin, Daniel C.; Mootz, Robert D. (1997) ''Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research'',
** {{fnb|2}} Healey, James W. (1990) ''"It's Where You Put the Period"'', ''Dynamic Chiropractic'', Volume 08, Issue 21 (], 1990)


* From the ] (NCCAM) ():
== Gleng and Steth reverts ==
** {{fnb|3}} ''More Than One-Third of U.S. Adults Use Complementary and Alternative Medicine, According to New Government Survey'' (Press Release), ] 2004,
** {{fnb|4}} ''Complementary and Alternative Medicine Use Among Adults: United States, 2002'' (Report), ] 2004, (] format)
<references/>


== See also ==
Gleng said before that Steth should provided evidence, other than on a chiro page, that Norris has retracted. Steth has not done so. His claim to have done so points to a chiro page. I have redited having considered carefully the edits since my last edit - for example, Steth's removal of the note on NCAM. The systematic attempt to remove EBM is deplorable. Please discuss why EBM should be deleted. Please also discuss the deletion of Lon Morgon's summary - it is in the religion section and therefore apposite. ] 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]
* ]


==External links==
1) I would resist any attempt to remove EBM - but this is extensively covered later in the article and just doesn't need to be in the lead. In the lead it is simply a judgemental statement; later it is backed by fact.
=== Advocacy ===
2) On the safely issue, I have looked at inquest reports, and looked for outcomes of the Canadian work. It certainly seems likely that Norris said nothing at the inquest that was taken as evidence that chiropractic was unsafe - at least nothing mentioned in the summing up. It seems to me now that yes, clearly many neurosurgeons are concerned about possible health risks - but also many do not think that there are serious health risks, and work with chiroprracters; so where is the evidence - let's cite that; find a peer-reviewed analysis of health risks, not a press statement that may have been rash. As far as I can see, the statement was triggered by early data that showed a high risk in patients who had been treated by chiropracters - but this may have been misleading because early recruitment to the study was biased by preferential recruitment of such cases to the study cohort (referral bias). I'm not saying suppress the facts, I am saying let's get unarguable facts.
;Chiropractic organizations
3) Lon Morgan and religion. I don't know enough here to comment. Is this really germane to chiropractic? Perhaps the historical origins are mystical and fraudulent (and I'm not saying that they are), but the same might be argued for much of modern medical practice, and the sins of the fathers etc. History is interesting and relevant, but needs to be handled carefully to avoid guilt by association. ] 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


;Chiropractic colleges
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*


;Descriptions of chiropractic procedures
Science belongs in the lead because it's in the article. That's wikipedia policy -see ]. "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it could stand on its own as a concise version of the article." Show me neurosurgeons who work with chiropracters - sounds like propaganda to me. Happy to move it to history section if you can show neurosurgeons don't still have such concerns. I can't see how you can rewrite history to exculpate fraud and guilt if it's already present. ] 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*
*
*


;Other resources
From the AMA, ]
* -- Interactive nerve chart, body posture and subluxation / degeneration models
"Manipulation has been shown to have a reasonably good degree of efficacy in ameliorating back pain, headache, and similar musculoskeletal complaints"
* -- alternative health website with many articles about chiropractic treatment
and "In a national survey of referral patterns by board-certified family physicians and internists ... 47% said they would refer for chiropractic"
*
I haven't found a direct and serious health warning from the AMA. I'm open on this, I just don't see hard evidence of health risks. Where is the evidence? Studies, not opinions. OK on the lead. As for history - no I just don't go along with this at all. Mendel's data were fraudulent, this doesn't taint modern genetics.] 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
*
* -- More than 1000 Chiropractic related articles
*
*


=== Critiques ===
== Today's Reverts (29 March 2006) ==
* -- PBS - Scientific American Frontiers, Web Feature
* -- a "Skeptical Guide to Chiropractic History, Theories, and Practices", ]
<!-- Should be referenced instead of listed here
* -- Joseph C. Keating, Jr, PhD


-->
''(Originally posted by ] to ].)''
* -- Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD
* -- Joseph C. Keating Jr, PhD


]
{{3RR2}} ''']]]''' 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


]
:Thank you for the warning. I was aware. ] 00:14, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
:
:I should add... You stated in your edit summary for the revert: "rv. 3RR coming into play next time - mccready attempted dispute resolution/compromise on the talk page, but you choose to ignore it and continue edit warring.)" I understand you've just familiarised yourself with this article , but it's important to note that there is no compromising on ] and ]. An "edit war," in my mind, requires that I might take a position on the "edits" that are being disputed... I don't. I take issue with those edits being added without being reliably and verifiably sourced. Certainly ] has added his thoughts to the ] page, but nobody, to date, has found reason for adding content to the article that cannot be verified. These statements are important to the subject of the article, but Misplaced Pages requires the statements be verifiable and reliable. So far, you, nor ], nor anybody else (for that matter), have offered a source for the statements you're trying to add into the article. I have searched, and cannot find any to support the statements myself. That means the edits need to come out of the article until someone (preferably whoever added the statements) can source it. ] 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 02:12, 30 March 2006

Template:Totally disputed

Chiropractic, or chiropractic care, is based on the belief that many health problems can be prevented and treated using spinal adjustments to correct vertebral subluxations which, according to chiropractors, are the cause of much disease. Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer.

Introduction

Chiropractors believe there is causal relationship between nerve interference or compression at the spine and subsequent problems in more distant body parts or organ systems connected by the nerve.

The main chiropractic technique is joint manipulation (called "adjustment"), especially of the spine. Spinal adjustments may provide short-term relief of certain forms of back and neck pain, headaches, and other spine-related conditions, however, studies show conflicting results. A 1979 study showed manipulation of the lumbar spine to have no "superior long-term effect compared to other methods of treatment", while a 2005 study stated that "the inclusion of a chiropractic benefit resulted in a reduction in the rates of surgery, advanced imaging, inpatient care, and plain-film radiographs."

Chiropractors infer a causal relationship between nerve compression at the spine and disease or ill-health in distant body parts or organ systems connected by the nerve.

Chiropractic has been long utilized by professional and Olympic athletes. (Chiropractic at the Winter Olympic Games) Medical and chiropractic doctors work together as a team to benefit patients. Some also employ massage and physiotherapists as adjuncts to chiropractic care.

A US Department of Labor Occupational Outlook handbook said:

Because chiropractic emphasize the importance of healthy lifestyles and without the use of drugs, chiropractic care is appealing to many health-conscious Americans. Chiropractic treatment of the back, neck, extremities, and joints has become more accepted as a result of research and changing attitudes about alternative, noninvasive health care practices.

A 2002 survey release in 2004 by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine said chiropractic was the fourth most commonly used complementary and alternative medicine therapy among adults in the United States (7.5%).Template:FnTemplate:Fn

History

Chiropractic was founded by Daniel David Palmer in Davenport, Iowa, USA. He said he received the chiropractic principles from a dead physician, Dr. Jim Atkinson, during a seance. Palmer’s son, B. J. Palmer initiated research, development and promotion of chiropractic.

DD Palmer's effort to find a single cause for all disease led him to say A subluxated vertebra . . . is the cause of 95 percent of all diseases. . . . The other five percent is caused by displaced joints other than those of the vertebral column. (From: Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910.) The term chiropractic originated when Palmer asked a patient - Rev. Samuel Weed - to come up with a name from the Greek language to describe his practice. Weed suggested combining the words chiros and praktikos (meaning "done by hand") to describe the adjustment of a vertebra in the spinal column.

Differing accounts of origins of spinal manipulation

Palmer and his patient Harvey Lillard give differing accounts of when and how Palmer began to experiment with spinal manipulation.

Palmer’s account

Palmer recalled an incident in 1895 whereby he was investigating the medical history of a deaf janitor, Harvey Lillard. Lillard informed Palmer that while working in a cramped area seventeen years earlier, he felt a 'pop' in his back, and had been nearly deaf ever since. Palmer’s examination found a sore lump which indicated spinal misalignment and a possible cause of Lillard's deafness. Palmer corrected the misalignment, and Lillard could then hear the wheels of the horse-drawn carts in the street below. Palmer said there was nothing accidental about this, as it was accomplished with an object in view, and the expected result was obtained.

Lillard’s account

Lillard said he had been swapping jokes in the hall outside Palmer's office. Palmer joined them and, amused at a joke, slapped Lillard on the back with a book he was carrying. A few days later Lillard told Palmer that his hearing had improved. Palmer then began to experiment with manipulative procedures.

Since Palmer

Chiropractic is now practiced in hundreds of different ways.

Although Chiropractic gained more acceptance from the 1960's, its popularity is declining. The US National Center for Education Statistics reports that enrollments for sixteen U.S. chiropractic programs fell by 39.9% from 16,500 in 1996 to 9,921 in 2002, and the number of Chiropractic patients fell by 25% from 1997 to 2002.

Legal History

From the mid-1960s the American Medical Association (AMA) boycotted chiropractors claiming the practice was "unscientific". An antitrust suit brought against the AMA in 1976 - Wilk et al v. American Medical Association et al - by Wilk and other chiropractors charged the AMA, as well as the Joint Council on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians and other medical associations, with restraint of trade. The landmark lawsuit concluded in in 1987 when the Federal Appeals Court found the AMA guilty of conspiracy and restraint of trade. The Joint Council on Accreditation of Hospitals and the American College of Physicians were exonerated. The court recognized a "patient care defense," but imposed a difficult burden of proof on the AMA which had to show its concern for patients could not have been satisfied in a manner less restrictive of competition. The AMA then lost its appeal to the Supreme Court and had to allow its members to collaborate with chiropractors.

The judge in the Wilk case said the AMA had covered up research on the effectiveness of chiropractic for back pain. She then said chiropractors clearly wanted “a judicial pronouncement that chiropractic is a valid. efficacious, even scientific health care service.” She said no ”well designed, controlled, scientific study” had been done and concluded “I decline to pronounce chiropractic valid or invalid on anecdotal evidence.” .

Chiropractic subluxation

Palmer imbued the term "subluxation" with a metaphysical and philosophical meaning. He held that certain dislocations of bones interfered with the "innate intelligence", a kind of spiritual energy or life force dependent upon God that connects the brain to the rest of the body. Palmer claimed that subluxations interfered with the proper communication of this innate intelligence with the rest of the body, and that by fixing them 100% of all diseases could be treated.

In the mid-1990s the Association of Chiropractic Colleges redefined a subluxation as follows: "A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system and general health." In 1997 the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research defined a subluxation as "a joint problem (whether a problem with the way the joint is functioning, a physical problem with the joint, or a combination of any of these) that affects the function of nerves and therefore affects the body's organs and general health."

Most chiropractors subscribe to the principle that the body has an intelligent and self-healing physiology. One result of this is the general chiropractic belief that healthcare interventions should consider the person as a whole and that conservative (non-invasive) treatment approaches should be used where possible.

Philosophy of the subluxation

Both chiropractic and mainstream medicine hold that much of the body is controlled by nerve impulses sent to and from the brain along the spinal cord. Whether the brain commanding the foot to move, the foot signaling the brain that it is in pain, or even a simple patellar reflex, the spinal cord is involved. Outgoing impulses from the brain pass down the spinal cord and exit through the appropriate spinal nerve branch held between the vertebrae on either side of the spinal cord. There are 31 pairs of spinal nerves that emerge from the spinal cord; all of which are housed by vertebrae. If the vertebrae are misaligned (subluxated), chiropractic doctors believe that a spinal nerve can be squeezed or pinched and therefore message flow can be compromised. By aligning the vertebrae and removing restrictions on the spinal nerves, chiropractic claims to allow the spinal cord to more effectively relay messages to and from the brain; thus promoting better health.

Science and chiropractic

There is scientific agreement that an evidence based medicine framework should be used to assess health outcomes and that systematic reviews with strict protocols are essential. Organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration and Bandolier publish such reviews.

For the following conditions the Cochrane Collaboration found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

For the following conditions Bandolier found insufficient evidence that chiropractic is beneficial:

Some traditional medical practitioners do not believe that chiropractic is science-based. University of Saskatchewan sociologist Leslie Biggs surveyed Canadian Chiropractors in 1997 and found that 74.3% of those interviewed (n=600) did not believe that controlled clinical trials were the best way to evaluate Chiropractic methods. The same study revealed that 68.1% believed that most diseases are caused by spinal malalignment.

Likewise numerous Chiropractors on the web claim to treat infantile colic. According to a 1999 survey of the Ontario Chiropractic Association (which represents 83% of the Chiropractors in Ontario), 46% treated children for colic. However in 2001 a Norwegian double-blind study demonstrated that Chiropractic manipulation for infantile colic proved only slightly better (10%) than the placebo group.

In another trial, spinal manipulation for episodic tension headache showed no significant value beyond placebo in controlled trials.

Safety

As with all interventions, risks may be associated with the practice of spinal manipulation. These risks, although rare, include vertebrobasilar accidents, strokes, disc herniations, vertebral fracture, and cauda equina syndrome, according to Harrison's. Most serious complications occur after cervical (neck) manipulation. The practice of greatest concern is the rotary neck movement, sometimes called "Master cervical" or "rotary break", which has led to trauma, paralysis, strokes, and death among patients.

Documented serious complications due to manipulation of the cervical spine are extremely rare, being 1 in 3 or 4 million manipulations or fewer. The current estimate is based on multiple international studies of millions of chiropractic cervical adjustments spanning from present day back to at least 1965. The "one in a million" estimate is echoed in an extensive review of spinal manipulation performed by the RAND corporation. However in one other study, Dvorak cites figures of 1 in 400,000 while Jaskoviak reported approximately 5 million cervical manipulations from 1965 to 1980 at The National College of Chiropractic Clinic in Chicago, without a single case of vertebral artery stroke or serious injury. . Less conservative treatments such as neck surgery are also commonly used for conditions very similar to the conditions chiropractors treat using spinal adjustments. In comparison, cervical spine surgery has a 3-4% rate of complication and 4,000-10,000 deaths per million neck surgeries.

With studies of this nature it is difficult to determine what percentage of incidents remain unreported, if any at all. The RAND study, for example, assumed that only 1 in 10 cases would have been reported. Dr. Edzard Ernst surveyed all neurologists in Britain for cases of serious neurological complication occuring within 24 hours after cervical spinal manipulation during the past year. 35 such cases had been seen by the 24 who responded, and none of those cases had been reported. His survey led him to conclude that underreporting was closer to 100%, rendering estimates "non-sensical."

A 2001 study in the medical journal Stroke, found that vertebrobasilar accidents (VBAs) are five times more likely to occur in those aged <45 years who have visited a chiropractor within 1 week prior to the VBA, than for controls who have not visited a chiropractor.

Claims for chiropractic religious status

DD Palmer in a letter of May 4, 1911 said:

"we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Mohamed, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions. I am the fountain head. I am the founder of chiropractic in its science, in its art, in its philosophy and in its religious phase."

Keating et al writing for the Association for the History of Chiropractic said DD Palmer

”introduced the concept of Innate Intelligence circa 1904. Innate, he believed, was an intelligent entity which directed all the functions of the body, and used the nervous system to exert its influence. Old Dad Chiro eventually came to see Innate Intelligence as an individual manifestation of Universal Intelligence, or God (Donahue 1986, 1987).”

Palmer also wrote:

"I have answered the time-worn question -- what is life?” pp. 17-19 of his book The Chiropractor's Adjuster (also called The Text-Book of the Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic). The book was published in 1910 by the Portland Printing House Company of Portland, Oregon, and reprinted in 1966 by his grandson, David D. Palmer, 1966.

American chiropractor Lon Morgan, writing in the Journal of Canadian Chiropractic Association, said "Innate Intelligence clearly has its origins in borrowed mystical and occult practices of a bygone era. It remains untestable and unverifiable and has an unacceptably high penalty/benefit ratio for the chiropractic profession. The chiropractic concept of Innate Intelligence is an anachronistic holdover from a time when insufficient scientific understanding existed to explain human physiological processes. It is clearly religious in nature and must be considered harmful to normal scientific activity."

Chiropractic education, licensing, and regulation

United States

In the United States of America chiropractors receive the degree Doctor of Chiropractic (D.C.) and are referred to as "doctor" and are licensed in all jurisdictions.

In the United States, the Council on Chiropractic Education (CCE) is in charge of setting minimum guidelines for chiropractic colleges; however, additional requirements may be needed for a license depending on the jurisdiction where a chiropractor chooses to practice. In 2005, 15 chiropractic programs and 2 chiropractic institutions in the United States were accredited by the CCE. The process of credentialing varies widely by country.

Students often enter chiropractic school with a Bachelor's degree, or with three years of post-secondary education in the sciences and other appropriate coursework. However, in 2005 "only one chiropractic college required a baccalaureate degree as an admission requirement." The minimum prerequisite for enrollment in a chiropractic college set forth by the CCE is 90 semester hours. The minimum cumulative GPA for a student entering a chiropractic college is 2.50. Commonly required classes include: communication or language skills, psychology, social science or humanities, biology, organic and inorganic chemistry, and physics. Other common medical classes are: anatomy or embryology, physiology, microbiology, diagnosis, neurology, x-ray, orthopedics, obstetrics, and gynecology.

In the United States, chiropractic programs require a minimum of 4,200 hours of combined classroom, laboratory, and clinical experience. The last 2 years stress courses in manipulation and spinal adjustment and provide clinical experience in physical and laboratory diagnosis, orthopedics, neurology, geriatrics, physiotherapy, and nutrition. Coursework in Chiropractic school may also include study in gross anatomy, biochemistry, embryology, microbiology, anatomy and physiology in the first half of formal schooling.

Graduates of chiropractic schools have to complete 5 years of schooling and pass 4 national board exams in order to complete their education. To qualify for licensure, graduates of chiropractic schools must sit for State examination. Most State boards require at least 2 years of undergraduate education; an increasing number are requiring a 4-year bachelor’s degree. All boards require the completion of a 4-year program at an accredited chiropractic college leading to the Doctor of Chiropractic degree. Once licensed, most States require chiropractors to annually attend 12 to 48 hours of continuing education courses.

Chiropractic colleges also offer Postdoctoral training in neurology, orthopedics, sports injuries, nutrition, rehabilitation, industrial consulting, radiology, family practice, pediatrics, and applied chiropractic sciences. Once such training is complete, chiropractors may take specialty exams leading to “diplomate” status in a given specialty including orthopedics, neurology and radiology. Exams are administered by specialty chiropractic associations.

Australia

In Australia chiropractic is taught at three universities: RMIT in Melbourne, Murdoch University in Perth and Macquarie University in Sydney.To be registered by various state Chiropractic Registration Boards a Bachelor of Chiropractic Science, a Bachelor of Science or health-related degree, plus the successful completion of a full-fee paying postgraduate qualifying program for the Master of Chiropractic is required.

Practice styles and schools of thought

Contemporary chiropractic is divided into three schools of thought - straight, mixer, and reform - which differ in their approaches to patient care. All chiropractic approaches are based on non-invasive, non-medication approaches, with many based on the use of manipulation as a treatment for mechanical musculoskeletal dysfunction of the spine and extremities. The three schools of thought do not correspond exactly to the existing membership organizations, but there are clear trends, with adherents tending to favor certain organizations.

The three categorizations are currently used mainly within the profession and in discussions. Since the actual differences are very real, they are explained here for the benefit of the general public, which is generally unaware of these differences:

  1. Straight chiropractors primarily concern themselves with vertebral subluxation correction. Practitioners often use varying vertebral manipulation techniques known as "adjustments" for the purpose of preventive medicine and pain relief. Straight chiropractors hold that only the body can cure the body. By aligning the vertebrae, straight chiropractors believe that they are clearing nerve impulse restrictions and therefore providing a more efficient dialogue between the brain and the rest of the body's systems, thus putting the body in a better position to cure (or heal) itself. Straight chiropractors represent a minority position, and tend to be members of the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
  2. Mixing chiropractors combine contemporary medical diagnosis and treatment with chiropractic adjustments. Mixing style practitioners utilize adjustments to treat chiropractic subluxations, as well as nutrition and naturopathic style remedies for other disorders. Methods used might include ultrasound, TENS, rehabilitation or the use of other diagnostic methods such as Applied Kinesiology (AK). Mixing chiropractic is itself divided into conservative and liberal groupsTemplate:Fn. Many mixers are members of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), but there are also many exceptions.
  3. Reform chiropractors are oriented at mainstream medicine, advocating a highly limited use of chiropractic care primarily for treatment of musculoskeletal conditions only.

Most universities teaching chiropractic, including Palmer in Davenport Iowa, USA, utilize rehabilitation methods, exercise, physiological therapeutics and nutrition. The National College (now University) incorporated physical therapy as early as 1912, even before there was a profession bearing its name. The profession in the USA continues to be divided only into specialities. Some do spine-only. Others prefer to do sports and rehabilitation. There are musculoskeletal foci and those who co-manage people with organic problems, MS or cancer along with their regular medical approaches.

References

  1. Moritz U (1979). Evaluation of manipulation and other manual therapy. Criteria for measuring the effect of treatment. Scand J Rehabil Med 11(4):173-9. PMID 161070 Abstract
  2. Nelson CF, Metz RD, LaBrot T (2005). Effects of a Managed Chiropractic Benefit on the Use of Specific Diagnostic and Therapeutic Procedures in the Treatment of Low Back and Neck Pain. J Man Phys Ther 28(8):564-569. Abstract
  3. Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910
  4. James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America
  5. Tindle HA. Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: 1997-2002. Altern Ther Health Med. 2005 Jan-Feb;11(1):42-9.)

See also

External links

Advocacy

Chiropractic organizations
Chiropractic colleges
Descriptions of chiropractic procedures
Other resources

Critiques

Category: