Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Neuraxis (talk | contribs) at 15:23, 5 June 2014 (→No need for a separate article because it violates WP principles: c). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:23, 5 June 2014 by Neuraxis (talk | contribs) (→No need for a separate article because it violates WP principles: c)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chiropractic controversy and criticism at the Reference desk.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:

no consensus, 16 May 2010 (UTC), see discussion.
no consensus, 20 June 2009 (UTC), see discussion.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Medicine Mid‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative medicine

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Alternative views Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Skepticism High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days

No need for a separate article because it violates WP principles

https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Criticism_sections#Separate_articles_devoted_to_criticism. This entire article is a POV fork with a complete reworking of the main chiropractic article. DVMt (talk) 01:27, 21 May 2014 (UTC)

I would happily merge all this content into the main article. Keeping this article as-is would be the second-best option. Removing criticism altogether is not a good option. bobrayner (talk) 15:17, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

We have the same for ADHD. This is not a POV fork but a subarticle. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 18:43, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

The subarticle contains significant duplication from the main and thus produces a very unbalanced viewpoint. I would also consider working on trimming the duplication. DVMt (talk) 18:47, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

This is not a POV fork. bobrayner (talk) 02:17, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

That remains to be seen. I've made a claim, I've provided the evidence below. You haven't formally rebutted the evidence, and happen not to like it. So, in order to advance the discussion further, what exactly, with the evidence presented below, do you disagree with?. These 'debates' can get tendentious real fast, so I'll just to the point. Regards, DVMt (talk) 02:26, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

User:Jmh649 you claimed it was a not a POV fork, I rebutted your claim. Please see the section below and provide evidence that supports your claim. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:21, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Try a RfC. What you need to do is convince others. You have not convinced me. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:22, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Will consider, RfC. You seem to have a habit of dodging my questions and have a different standard of treating individuals who have an interest in some of the potential benefits in CAM differently. Regards, DVMt (talk) 01:48, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

You seem to fail to understand the purpose of a subarticle like this. An improper fork would not contain much duplication, because it would be an attempt to sneak information into Misplaced Pages without mentioning the subject in the main article. That's what defenders of chiropractic would like. They'd like to remove all criticism and hide it here, but that was not allowed, and that's not what's happening here. We just go deeper into the topic here. Doing so in the main article would create "weight" and "undue" issues.

Skeptics, who see the negative aspects of chiropractic as a huge issue, may tend to wish for more negative content in the main article, and I've seen it argued that the main article should be dominated by such subject matter, but I don't think that would be good. Do you? I really doubt it. That's why we have some of the content duplicated, but you'll find more stuff here which is not mentioned in the main article. The justification for this subarticle is that the subject itself is worthy of much deeper coverage than can be done in the main article without creating the named issues.

It's a compromise which should satisfy believers and skeptics alike. If you wish to upset the delicately-balanced apple cart, which has been stable for some time, we can easily add much more negative content to the main article.... Either it stays here, or it ALL gets included there, because a merge will not end with it being deleted completely. Some duplication is simply what's necessary to avoid the main article violating NPOV and being a whitewash with all negative content removed. Bob Rayner's comment above is right on target (see: bobrayner 15:17, 25 May 2014). -- Brangifer (talk) 03:27, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

“

It's a compromise which should satisfy believers and skeptics alike.'

”

It's not about belief. You don't need to 'believe' in chiropractic, because it's not a religion. The main article is already unbalanced, because the arguments of skeptics are the same as here, and haven't evolved . They're about vaccination, fluoridation, subluxation is the cause of disease, practicing outside of musculoskeletal medicine, x-ray overuse, ethics, overtreatment, kids, death, whether or not to be in primary care, etc. Same old, same old. These, of course, are notable and legitimate. The concern of a white-wash is unfounded. Ernst has his papers and his book, QuackWatch is a reliable source at WP. The skeptical viewpoint will be represented. However, the weight of it will be directly proportional to the a) conditions commonly treated by chiropractors b) # of chiropractors who are practicing 'scientifically' (i.e. orthodox biomedical view) vs. how many are practicing in an unorthodox (fringe) manner. The duplication is not necessary. The quotes are puffery. Misplaced Pages is clear about articles devoted to criticism .

The weight of the issue will also determine its degree of coverage. Skepticism of chiropractic is not new. It's a huge subject that is as old as the profession itself, and that must be documented here. Including all of it in the main article would be an undue violation and make it look like there is nothing sensible in the profession, and we know that's not true. The main article is fairly well balanced now, but if you keep pressing this issue, as others have done before you, the end result will not be what you wish. You need to study Pyrrhic victory. I don't see how you can avoid any duplication at all. The skeptical/mainstream POV must be mentioned in the main article, but if we do too much of it, that article gets unbalanced. This article allows for covering the subject without overwhelming the main article. Of course this article could get expanded even more, if that's really what you wish. -- Brangifer (talk) 15:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

I disagree that main article is balanced, and I am aware of pyrric victory. Two wrongs don't make a right. If you're up to it, we can collaborate here if you wish to try to resolve the issues. If we can't get it done together, we can do an RfC. How does that sound? DVMt (talk) 15:23, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Duplication

'Main article

Some chiropractors oppose vaccination and water fluoridation, which are common public health practices. Within the chiropractic community there are significant disagreements about vaccination, one of the most cost-effective public health interventions available. Most chiropractic writings on vaccination focus on its negative aspects, claiming that it is hazardous, ineffective, and unnecessary. Some chiropractors have embraced vaccination, but a significant portion of the profession rejects it, as original chiropractic philosophy traces diseases to causes in the spine and states that vaccines interfere with healing. The extent to which anti-vaccination views perpetuate the current chiropractic profession is uncertain. The American Chiropractic Association and the International Chiropractors Association support individual exemptions to compulsory vaccination laws, and a 1995 survey of U.S. chiropractors found that about a third believed there was no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease. The Canadian Chiropractic Association supports vaccination; a survey in Alberta in 2002 found that 25% of chiropractors advised patients for, and 27% against, vaccinating themselves or their children. Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors, some of whom continue to oppose it as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health. In addition to traditional chiropractic opposition to water fluoridation and vaccination, chiropractors' attempts to establish a positive reputation for their public health role are also compromised by their reputation for recommending repetitive lifelong chiropractic treatment.

No single profession "owns" spinal manipulation and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, raising concerns by chiropractors that other medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors. A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks. Two U.S. states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM, some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM, and some states allow only chiropractors to perform SM, or only chiropractors and physicians. Bills to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM are regularly introduced into state legislatures and are opposed by physical therapist organizations.

According to a 2006 Gallup Poll of U.S. adults, when asked how they would "rate the honesty and ethical standards of people in these different fields", chiropractic compared unfavorably with mainstream medicine. When chiropractic was rated, it "rated dead last amongst healthcare professions". While 84% of respondents considered nurses' ethics "very high" or "high," only 36% felt that way about chiropractors. Other healthcare professions ranged from 38% for psychiatrists, to 62% for dentists, 69% for medical doctors, 71% for veterinarians, and 73% for druggists or pharmacists. Similar results were found in the 2003 Gallup Poll.

Although there is no clear evidence for the practice, some chiropractors may still X-ray a patient several times a year. Practice guidelines aim to reduce unnecessary radiation exposure, which increases cancer risk in proportion to the amount of radiation received. Research suggests that radiology instruction given at chiropractic schools worldwide seem to be evidence-based. Although, there seems to be a disparity between some schools and available evidence regarding the aspect of radiography for patients with acute low back pain without an indication of a serious disease, which may contribute to chiropractic overuse of radiography for low back pain.

This article

Many forms of alternative medicine are based on philosophies that oppose vaccination and have practitioners who voice their opposition. These include some elements of the chiropractic community. The reasons for this negative vaccination view are complicated and rest, at least in part, on the early philosophies which shape the foundation of these professions. Chiropractors historically were strongly opposed to vaccination based on their belief that all diseases were traceable to causes in the spine, and therefore could not be affected by vaccines; D.D. Palmer wrote, "It is the very height of absurdity to strive to 'protect' any person from smallpox or any other malady by inoculating them with a filthy animal poison." Some chiropractors continue to be opposed to vaccination, one of the most effective public health measures in history. Early opposition to water fluoridation included chiropractors in the U.S. Some chiropractors oppose water fluoridation as being incompatible with chiropractic philosophy and an infringement of personal freedom. Recently, other chiropractors have actively promoted fluoridation, and several chiropractic organizations have endorsed scientific principles of public health.

No single profession "owns" spinal manipulation (SM) and there is little consensus as to which profession should administer SM, raising concerns by chiropractors that orthodox medical physicians could "steal" SM procedures from chiropractors. A focus on evidence-based SM research has also raised concerns that the resulting practice guidelines could limit the scope of chiropractic practice to treating backs and necks. Two U.S. states (Washington and Arkansas) prohibit physical therapists from performing SM, some states allow them to do it only if they have completed advanced training in SM, and some states allow only chiropractors to perform SM, or only chiropractors and physicians. Bills to further prohibit non-chiropractors from performing SM are regularly introduced into state legislatures and are opposed by physical therapist organizations.

Quotes in the article

""Chiropractic is a freak offshoot from osteopathy. Disease, say the chiropractors, is due to pressure on the spinal nerves; ergo it can be cured by "adjusting" the spinal column. It is the sheerest quackery, and those who profess to teach it make their appeal to the cupidity of the ignorant. Its practice is in no sense a profession but a trade - and a trade that is potent for great harm. It is carried on almost exclusively by those of no education, ignorant of anatomy, ignorant even of the fundamental sciences on which the treatment of disease depends." (p. 29)"

""Non-scientific health care (e.g., acupuncture, ayurvedic medicine, chiropractic, homeopathy, naturopathy) is licensed by individual states. Practitioners use unscientific practices and deception on a public who, lacking complex health-care knowledge, must rely upon the trustworthiness of providers. Quackery not only harms people, it undermines the scientific enterprise and should be actively opposed by every scientist.""

"According to David Colquhoun, chiropractic is no more effective than conventional treatment at its best, and has a disadvantage of being "surrounded by gobbledygook about 'subluxations'", and, more seriously, it does kill patients occasionally. He states that chiropractic manipulation is the number one cause of stroke under the age of 45. "

""chiropractors may X-ray the same patient several times a year, even though there is no clear evidence that X-rays will help the therapist treat the patient. X-rays can reveal neither the subluxations nor the innate intelligence associated with chiropractic philosophy, because they do not exist. There is no conceivable reason at all why X-raying the spine should help a straight chiropractor treat an ear infection, asthma or period pains. Most worrying of all, chiropractors generally require a full spine X-ray, which delivers a significant higher radiation dose than most other X-ray procedures".

""So long as we propound the "One cause, one cure" rhetoric of Innate, we should expect to be met by ridicule from the wider health science community. Chiropractors can’t have it both ways. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers' Innate should be rejected.""

"Chiropractic is a controversial health-care system that has been legalized throughout the United States and in several other countries. In the United States in 1984, roughly 10.7 million people made 163 million office visits to 30,000 chiropractors. More than three fourths of the states require insurance companies to include chiropractic services in health and accident policies. The federal government pays for limited chiropractic services under Medicare, Medicaid, and its vocational rehabilitation program, and the Internal Revenue Service allows a medical deduction for chiropractic services. Chiropractors cite such facts as evidence of "recognition." However, these are merely business statistics and legal arrangements that have nothing to do with chiropractic's scientific validity.""

These are all point violations and moreover appear to be a soapbox for Skeptics Barrett, Colqhoun, Sighn, Jarvis, Ernst, Quackwatch. Without the excessive use of quotes and duplication from the main page, this article is a collection of primarily primary sources that were once in the main article, but usurped by newer sources. By removing the duplication and puffery, there isn't anything that isn't already covered in detail in the main article, thus, is a POVFORK and a COATRACK. Although I don't object to covering the criticism, the evidence demonstrated here shows that minus the quotes or duplication, there really isn't much left that merits a stand alone article. DVMt (talk) 00:23, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: