Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by J~enwiki (talk | contribs) at 02:09, 30 March 2006 (Archiving January and February.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This template is misplaced. It belongs on the talk page: Talk:Chiropractic. The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

Template:Cleanup taskforce closed

Archives
Mar 2003 to Apr 2004 Sep 2004 to Oct 2004 Feb 2005 to Jul 2005 Aug 2005 to Oct 2005 Nov 2005 to Dec 2005 Jan 2006 to Mar 2006

American Scientist study

I removed the following sentence: "The only study on chiropractic published in a peer reviewed scientific journal ( not a journal dedicated to chiropractic) was in "American Scientist" "". Per American Scientist's submission guidelines, "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 Hence, the study is not peer reviewed. AED 23:10, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Magnet therapy

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.

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

Here is a link to an article on Caster

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=11619056&dopt=Abstract

Caster called himself a magnetic and that is probably why chiropractic ends similarly.

Smperle 03:01, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Unjustified deletions

202.129.51.103 has twice made unexplained deletions of material that has earlier been a part of the article. The last edit summary stated:

• (also falsified, read talk page on double-blind studies and chiropractic)

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.

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 falsification, a concept originated by Karl Popper. 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.

I invite 202.129.51.103 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. -- Fyslee 21:38, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Peer-review

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."

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.

Responding to RfC by Fred-Chess

Hi.

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.

My impression of the "Critique"-part is: no offense, but I find it comparatively poor, although not negligible. Specifics:

• "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. ."
  • 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. Fred-Chess 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? Midgley 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?

1. 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?
2. 1/400,000 gets serious complications from chripractice. -- Aren't maltreatement in traditional health care far more common than that?
3. I did find the NCAHF paper interesting but it was so long, and this article does not mention anything therein.

Fred-Chess 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. Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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.Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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'. Maustrauser 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. Midgley 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. 68.3.136.145 17:54, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

I put the following message on User:TheDoctorIsIn 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. Maustrauser 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. Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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 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 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 Greek language 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 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 says that in 1995 he was investigating the medical history 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. 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.

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.

Mccready 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 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:

• Asthma
• Carpal tunnel syndrome
• [http://www.cochrane.org/reviews/en/ab002119.html Painful menstrual periods

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

• Migraine
• Chronic low back pain
• Menopausal symptoms

Mccready 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? TheDoctorIsIn 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 00:56, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

Cochrane is very credible and reliable. Osteopathy and Chiropractic articles would benefit from a cladogram 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... Midgley 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. Mccready 01:49, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

No logic flaws. Spinal and bone manipulation were predecessors to chiropractor and thus part of its history. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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.

Steth 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 Mccready 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. TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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 - here I did one for you. 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". TheDoctorIsIn 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 Health care system article. I would like to know if this sentence should be changed, or if a disambiguation page needs to be set up. Thoughts? -AED 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? TheDoctorIsIn 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. Mccready 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. Mccready 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. Mccready 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 my analysis of the links 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! -- Fyslee 20:22, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Question for Mcready

Hello Mccready. I read your CV. My homepage 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 Steth 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. Mccready 05:04, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Mccready. Have you had any personal experiences with chiropractic? Steth 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. Mirasmus 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. Steth 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? Mirasmus 03:59, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

i am reporting user:steth 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. Mccready 07:02, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I haven't looked, in depth, at User:Steth'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 here. I can't find any dictionary which refers to the subject of this article as a religion, and the phrase crank has the distinct smell of non-WP:NPOV. 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 WP:RS that would support such a direction in this article at this point. Justen Deal 08:32, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Palmer himself calls it a religion. Isn't this sufficient? The definition of crank 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. Mccready

Chiropractic's dismal future outlook

Rand Baird analyses 20 predictions that have come true, all pointing downward:

Back to the Futurism of Chiropractic - Revisited -- by Rand Baird, DC, MPH, FICA, FICC

-- Fyslee 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. Steth 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. User:Leifern 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. —Ruud 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. —Ruud 11:53, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

• 2. Is Palmer a crank - check crank 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 WP:NPOV and WP:V. —Ruud 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. Mccready 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 vandalism. I, personally, would hesitate to deem anyone's edits (or reverts) vandalism, as it seems to stem from a lack of WP:FAITH.

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 crank in the article (within the limits of WP:3RR). 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 WP:RS. The one (unreliable, IMO) 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. Justen Deal 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 Steth 23:38, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Introduction

Chiropractic is a religion and controversial system of health care founded by the crank Daniel David Palmer. It 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.

If it were a religion there would be churches. Christian Science is a religion. It is alternative medicine. If it is a religion then it has a prophet or teacher, not a "crank". Fred Bauder 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.

John Norris's apology for knowingly making false statements under oath.

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 Steth 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. Maustrauser 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. Steth 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. Maustrauser 05:36, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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). Mccready

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. Justen Deal 08:00, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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 soGleng 11:57, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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?Steth 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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 sourcesGleng 16:27, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Maustrauser 05:54, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Gleng. So is that OK with Maustrauser and Justen?

Steth 04:50, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Sensible people don't see chiropractic as controversial or dangerous, just ineffective and more expensive than a placebo needs to be. Millions of people swear by it and for them it seems to work. Fred Bauder 14:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Mccready 06:33, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

I think that WP:RS 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. Gleng 11:49, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

Neurologist Norris

Hi Gang, Had a busy weekend. Anyone see the film, "V"? Very powerful, very interesting and different. I recommend it.

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.

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.

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.

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 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.

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

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.

Steth 04:39, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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.Gleng 08:56, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Mccready 09:48, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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.Gleng 12:08, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

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? Steth 02:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

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. Gleng 11:26, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Gleng and Steth reverts

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. Mccready 04:30, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

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. 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. 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. Gleng 08:59, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Science belongs in the lead because it's in the article. That's wikipedia policy -see WP:LEAD. "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. Mccready 11:14, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

From the AMA, ] "Manipulation has been shown to have a reasonably good degree of efficacy in ameliorating back pain, headache, and similar musculoskeletal complaints" 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.Gleng 12:25, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Today's Reverts (29 March 2006)

(Originally posted by User:Newsmare to User_talk:Justen.)

Your recent editing history shows that you are currently engaged in an edit war; that means that you are repeatedly changing content back to how you think it should be, when you have seen that other editors disagree. To resolve the content dispute, please do not revert or change the edits of others when you are reverted. Instead of reverting, please use the talk page to work toward making a version that represents consensus among editors. The best practice at this stage is to discuss, not edit-war; read about how this is done. If discussions reach an impasse, you can then post a request for help at a relevant noticeboard or seek dispute resolution. In some cases, you may wish to request temporary page protection.

Being involved in an edit war can result in you being blocked from editing—especially if you violate the three-revert rule, which states that an editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page within a 24-hour period. Undoing another editor's work—whether in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material each time—counts as a revert. Also keep in mind that while violating the three-revert rule often leads to a block, you can still be blocked for edit warring—even if you do not violate the three-revert rule—should your behavior indicate that you intend to continue reverting repeatedly. ◄ИΞШSΜΛЯΞ► 00:01, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for the warning. I was aware. Justen Deal 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 today, but it's important to note that there is no compromising on WP:RS and WP:V. 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 User:Mccready has added his thoughts to the Talk:Chiropractic 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 User:Mccready, 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. Justen Deal 00:26, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

1. Palmer DD. The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic. Portland, Oregon: Portland Printing House Company, 1910
2. James C. Whorton, Nature Cures: The History of Alternative Medicine in America
3. 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.)