Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

→

Archive 20

Pseudoscience redux

For a brief history of this, please see [1]. Basically, the argument is that unless there is evidence to show that chiropractic is pseudoscience, it should not be in that category. However, what the argument fails to comprehend is that pseudoscience consists of concepts and practices purported to be science but have no scientific basis for claims. Not all of chiropractic can be included in that category, but many of the notable aspects of it ("subluxations", "holistic health") have no scientific basis at this time. Chiropractic cannot yet be separated from its non-scientific roots, and thus, it belongs in this category, as much as that would offend honest, well-meaning practitioners. Note, this category would not belong to Chiropractors. --Otheus 22:00, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you cite a reliable source which supports this assertion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Levine2112 (talk • contribs) 22:58, 29 March 2007 (UTC).

These are already within the article. Nonetheless, here you go:

William Jarvis, PhD: "Chiropractic is the most significant nonscientific health-care delivery system in the United States."

Letter from Dr. Saul Green to The Scientist "When rigorous scientific trials on laetrile, vitamin C, hydrazine sulfate, chelation therapy, chiropractic, and homeopathy proved them worthless, did the alternativists accept the results and quit foisting them on medical consumers? No way! They are still prompting them today." This blog is a reposting of Saul Green's letters and other writings. This one quotes from:http://www.the-scientist.com/yr1996/feb/let3_960219.html, which required premium subscription

John Jackson "Chiropractic is a pseudoscientific approach to health care. The thinking behind it has no basis in fact, and even after more than a century, its core belief, the subluxation, cannot be shown to exist; even though it is a scientifically testable theory."

I hope that clarifies. Thanks. --Otheus 12:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC) And as I said in my prior posting, no matter if 20 years from now, all of Chiropractic disavows the pseudoscientific concepts, because of reasons of notability, it would still be appropriate to place it in the pseudoscientific category. (Or fork into "Modern chiropractic".) --Otheus 12:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

These all seems to be highly critical sources, and rather old. Many scientific advances have been made in chiropractic. Don't forget, medical science was practicing leeching two hundred years ago. Are we to include medicine in pseudoscience as well?

It would be better stated that some criticis think chiropractic contains elements that are pseudoscientific, but I don't think it is fair the label the proverbial baby with the bath-water from 100 years ago, so to speak.

I would like to see others comment here and find out what everyone thinks is the best way to handle this. In the meantime, let's keep the label off until wwe can come to some agreement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

PS. Funny enough, I just came across this article.It appears that leeching is back! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:18, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine,

1. Inclusion in a category does not indicate that the category applies to the whole of the topic.
   • If this article were about "modern chiropractic" AND
   • If "modern chiropractic" no longer taught the unscientific concepts whatsoever, AND
   • If the pseudo-scientific concepts of chiropractic were in a sub-article

   Then we could go ahead and leave the topic out.

2. "These sources are highly critical" (paraphr.). Yes, and? They are critical of it being called 'science'.
3. "These sources are rather old". 10 years at most.
   1. Most chiropractors out there are practising what they were taught more than 10 years ago.
   2. This reference is the same age as or newer than more than half of the existing references.
4. Since you asked me for sources, and I provided some, maybe it's your turn: "many scientific advances have been made in chiropractic". Anything concerning subluxations?
5. "It would be better stated that some critics think"... This is already in the article, in so many words. See "scientific investigation".
6. "Let's see what others think" (edit summary). It was already in the article when I came along and someone removed it. But I'll tell you what. I'll give you until Tuesday to provide some convincing argument why this category shouldn't be applied here. --Otheus 22:41, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Actually it is all on you to show why it should. SO far I don't see an overwhelming reason to include it. However, let's wait until Tuesday, as you suggest, to hear from others on this topic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:22, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I showed why it belongs, above. You haven't refuted anything! The first time you asked for some sources. I produced them. Then you said "well, those sources seem awfully critical" and asked for more reasons. I produced them. Will anything convince you? If so, what? --Otheus 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Otheus - you said that even in 20 years if all of Chiropractic disavows the pseudoscientific concepts it would still be appropriate to place it in the pseudoscientific category. For this reason alone I am not sure whether it belongs in that category now. Subluxations are pseudoscientific, but many chiropractors are not subluxation-based. Please refer to the discussion under Chiropractic (USA). If in other places, Chiropractors are not being taught subluxation-based Chiropractic, and are in fact practicing evidence-based Chiropractic, how is that Pseudoscience? It is certainly fair to consider the subluxation a pseudoscientific construct (depending on its definition - it can also be a hypothetical scientific construct if it was actually studied), but I don't think it is reasonable to consider Chiropractic a pseudoscience, when Chiropractic is not based on the subluxation. DigitalC 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

This goes along the lines of notability. If someone was notable 20 years ago for something they did 20 years prior, even if the impact has long since died out, they are notable. If Chiropractic in the USA is pseudoscience, and the article includes Chiropractic in the USA, the whole article should be tagged. Now, if we were to fork off this part of the article (following Wikipedia guidelines on Wikipedia:Content forking), we could limit the forked article to the category. I don't have a problem with that, but I'm not the best person qualified to properly and accurately split the article.

Further, as the discussion we're having below, and as I point out, even as recently as 5 years ago, one of the major producers of chiropractic -- Life University -- was emphatically "preaching" subluxation theory. --Otheus 21:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I disagree on a number of reasons. First, I don't think it is within a NPOV to say that Chiropractic is a pseudoscience. Secondly, even if you were to argue that Chiropractic in the USA is a Pseudoscience, then I don't think it would be a worldwide view to categorize this article as Pseudoscience. I think based on the length of discussion that this has generated, and the number of reverts that have occured with the Pseudoscience categorization, I would say that it is controversial. From Wikipedia:Categorization#Some_general_guidelines guideline number 8, it should not be put into the category. DigitalC 00:38, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DigitalC, you make some very good points. Let me see what solutions the pseudoscience "gatekeepers" suggest. Splitting up this article would seem like a dramatic step just to have a catg. There might be a better way. --Otheus 18:13, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Amendment in the Header

I have patiently been waiting for a reply regarding my concern that the POV presented here is not a universal one, but rather an American one. The biggest issue being the teachings and adherence to DD's prinicples of subluxation theory and innate intelligence.

Canada, Denmark and the UK does not teach this model in their chiropractic schools, hence the amendment was made. Not all chiropractic institutions teach subluxation theory, in fact, no instituion in Canada, Denmark and the UK teaches it. So, when entire countries teach an entirely different model, it deserves to be made reference to. Especially when Canada's chiropractic institutions are among the best ranked in the world for research and education.

Marcbronson 22:54, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable source to cite to support this information and include it in the article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:57, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I can bring up the CMCC and UQTR curriculums as well as the Canadian Chiropractic Association position. Will do. Marcbronson 01:59, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. Just as long as it supports everything which you added:

It should be noted, however, that the teachings of the vertebral subluxation is controversial, and that it's use has been abandoned in certain chiropractic programs, notably in Canada, Denmark and the United Kingdom.

The grammar of this sentence could be cleaned up, but let's wait on that. Make sure your sources state that teaching VS is controversial, that it has been abandoned in certain chiro programs, and specifically in Canada, Denmark, and the UK. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:03, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

--Otheus 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC) I would really like to see this "evidence" cited by Marcbronson as well. There are many claims being made here that I would like to see "unbiased" evidence verifying. I have yet to see anything within Chiropractic educational establishments that show absolute controversy regarding VS. Sure it is debating within the Chiropractic community, but with in educational institutions?...I have never seen an official position to this claim. Jokerst44 03:48, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Joker, Levine: Your wish is my command. Here is the CMCC Doctor of Chiropractic Curriculum. Not one word of subluxations, no mission of correcting subluxations. Also, here is a link to the UQTR DC programme. It's in French, but regardless, there is no mention of vertebral subluxations (or its French equivalent) in the programme. Canada's chiropractic educational programs are subluxation free.

References

http://www.cmcc.ca/PDF/2006/CMCC_Calendar06to07.pdf

https://oraprdnt.uqtr.uquebec.ca/pls/public/gscw030?owa_no_site=679 (In French)

Will get the Denmark an UK references soon.

Marcbronson 21:49, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Marcbronson. I do appreciate your position here and welcome your input. Here is the dilemma. When I first arrived here, it was my impression that we chiropractors here in the US had not practiced subluxation based chiropractic for years and that our schooling had changed. It was this report that basically settled the argument among those involved that chiropractors still believed that subluxations played a significant role in health. So the irony in your argument that Canadian chiropractic is different is that a study from Canada was hard to refute. If you can find something that shows that these attitudes have changed, it would be helpful, but I would disagree that it is much different in the US. I have great respect for the strides that CMCC is making in science along with LACC, National, and Logan as well as others. By the same token, I have to respect the straight position that not all effects of chiropractic may be able to be reduced into a nice theory of cause and effect, much the same way a lot of medicine cannot either. No disrespect in that. So your statement that this article is only one POV is correct, but that POV is NPOV. If it doesn't sound like your POV that is good because it includes other POVs. The question is, does it include your POV? I would suggest that your approach to chiropractic still fits into one of the chiropractic approaches to healthcare, maybe we can expand on that approach and then make a statement to the effect that some in Canada are working in that direction. We could even include the Chiropractic Canada article in the text. What do you think? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 22:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

"it was my impression that we chiropractors here in the US had not practiced subluxation based chiropractic for years". Five years ago, Life College (Life University) in Marietta, Georgia, lost its accredidation for various reasons, resulting in the ouster of its founder and president. Before that, I had many friends who were studying there, and I ran into quite a few students in restaurants (I was a bartender and bar-hopper back then). One student told me about the Journal of Subluxations (or something like that) and that he was essentially a subluxation apologist. The other students I knew (we're talking 5) all held the subluxation theory to be foundational. So that was 2001/2002. I submit, therefore, just as a minor point, that perhaps the prevailing and official viewpoints have changed, but it's far from obsolete.--Otheus 22:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

That has been my interpretation of the research to date. The problem is that we can't make the mistake of assuming that, just because they don't use the word subluxation, it does not mean that they don't still believe that there is a relationship between the spine and general health. I submit that a thorough look at the research would suggest that if we replace the word subluxation with the known physiology of the nervous system and its relationship to the immune system and endochrine systems and autonomic nervous system, we would have to conclude that there is a relationship there. Now some may lump this into a word, "subluxation", and others may just call it reflex dysarthopathy (or whatever else they want) but most are talking about the same thing - (except those few who are treating only low back pain because that is the only thing that spinal manipulation has been considered efficacious for). The rest of the question is where does Canada, Norway, etc fit in. If they don't call it subluxation, what do they call it? How do they describe what they do? Are they only treating mechanical low back pain? Do they not consider mechanical low back pain a type of subluxation? Or are we just talking about semantics? We would have to dig that out with verifiable and reliable sources. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:47, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Dematt

I hear where you are coming from. Like I said, CMCC and UQTR don't teach subluxation theory. In 2002 there was a major change in the curriculum at CMCC, new educational directors, etc. The school has adopted an evidence-based framework (as did UQTR) and we are primarily limiting ourselves to NMSK. There was recently a survey last week regarding the current practice habits of DC's in Canada. When the results are released, I will be sure to post them, but there is an undeniable trend occuring; every new grad are less and less inclined to "believe" in chiropractic the way DD and BJ said it was (subluxations and health). What persists is a natural, holistic approach to health care via conservative measures. One can still be a chiropractor, and go to a chiropractic school that does not follow BJ/DD. Myself and thousands of other DC's in Canada and world-wide are proof of this.

VSC was not allowed to be a diagnosis in clinic. Also, mechanical low back pain is so non-specific, joint dysfunction is merely but one sign. It's never been proven that the "cause" of the LBP was a joint issue, it can merely be an effect. In fact, Australian physiotherapists and Stu McGill, PhD have presented compelling evidence that motor control and neuromuscular imbalances may be the "cause".

I respect the straights interpretation that not everything can be reduced to cause and effect, but I would argue that they grossly de-emphasize proper differential diagnosis and assessment and their position is more grounded in dogma than science. And for anyone seeking health care services, that's a little disconcerning that your DC may completely ignore the evidence (if they're even aware of it to begin with) to continue to practice a certain way that is financially lucrative.

A vertebral joint dysfunction, fixation, restriction, hypo/permobility, aberrant arthokinematics, altered vertebral dynamics, are all terms that have been used in peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary literature to describe aberrant vertebral motion. Those are the terms that are currently used in CMCC. The bottom line is, the Canadian schools are restricting their practice to primarily NSMK issues.

Dematt, when there are only 2 chiropractic schools in Canada, both evidence-based, both rejecting Pamer philosophy, both having 90% of their incoming classes with Bachelor degrees, both with tougher admission standards, accreditation standards and clinic standards, focus their scope of practice to primarily NMSK and actively encourage research its very different CULTURE of chiropractic compared to the US.

How many schools down there have outright rejected subluxation theory? How many require at least 3 completed years of university? How many require an admissions essay/package and an interview prior to entrance? How many schools there have formal affiliations with non-chiropractic universities? How many there have clinical requirements of 35 new patients, 350 patient visits and 250 SMT's prior to graduating? How many there require all students complete an investigative research project as part of their curriculum? How many there have teaching clinics WITHIN a hospital setting?

I can go on and on how chiropractic culture in Canada is fundamentally different. There have been some major advances for the profession here in the 21st century and its directly related to high educational and research standards our schools espouse. Are there still some chiropractic dinosaurs in practice here? Definitely. And, they're currently in control of many of the provincial associations. But, it's inevitable that a generation shift will occur, and that the practicing standards will be increased, not decreased. Again, I will provide you with all the references when they come out (2007).

In terms of your suggestion of linking to chiropractic Canada, I'm all in for a consensus approach and segway for that. But, I felt compelled to point out that not all chiropractors and chiropractic institutions believe in or teach the VSC (as DD and BJ described it) and if this wiki is to have a NPOV it has to take into account the various chiropractic CULTURES of other countries including your Northern neighbour.

Best, 209.90.150.114 16:58, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Marcbronson (I assume:)

• How many schools down there have outright rejected subluxation theory? How many require at least 3 completed years of university? How many require an admissions essay/package and an interview prior to entrance? How many schools there have formal affiliations with non-chiropractic universities? How many there have clinical requirements of 35 new patients, 350 patient visits and 250 SMT's prior to graduating? How many there require all students complete an investigative research project as part of their curriculum? How many there have teaching clinics WITHIN a hospital setting?

The answer to this may well be all of them, with the exception of "within a hospital setting" for most. I believe you may well have just described the CCE requirements for chiropractic education in the USA (start on page 31). That is my point. The trends in Canada are not that much different than in the USA. The USA is making those same changes. My state requires a batchelors degree (4 years) as a prerequisite to chiropractic scholl. Sure there are those dinosaurs[yours] (and I assume their offspring) in the USA, but I would suggest that the percentages are still similar to Canada, but I can't claim that as verifiable or reliable so I won't put it in the article. You're new 2002 report will be very much appreciated if it shows a trend, but Marc, I would suggest that, since the Canada report from 1998(?) is the one we used to get the line "most chiropractors still consider subluxation to be a significant part of healthcare(similar)", if your new report suggests a difference, lets correct the statement that we make about all chiropractors, not just Canada. That is all that I am saying. I agree with you. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

BTW,

• A vertebral joint dysfunction, fixation, restriction, hypo/permobility, aberrant arthokinematics, altered vertebral dynamics, are all terms that have been used in peer-reviewed, multi-disciplinary literature to describe aberrant vertebral motion. Those are the terms that are currently used in CMCC. The bottom line is, the Canadian schools are restricting their practice to primarily NSMK issues.

Same in the USA... but is this really any different than the physical properties of a subluxation? Are there any neurological consequences of your lesion? Any health issues? We can't confuse semantic change with real change. Unless you think that manipulation only fixes low back pain (which is also included in subluxation), then you are invoking some form of greater subluxation concept. Is that what Canadian chiropractic schools are teaching (just low back pain), because that would be a change. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:20, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Dematt

This is my POV, but of course there are neurological complications of joint dysfunction; clearly the mechanism responsible for immediately relieving pain, improving mobility and decreasing spasticity is neurological in nature. What is not known, conclusively, is the extent of the neurological implication for non NMSK conditions. There is a growing body of evidence in terms of case reports showing that SMT has had positive somato-visceral effects. In terms of identifiable, reproduceable health effects, there's no good studies indicating that vertebral joint dysfunction is a primary or cause of this. There would be many confounding factors to overcome, but IMO, I think this can be done.

I think that we're at the tip of the iceberg in terms of seeing the full spectrum of neurophysiological effects of SMT; but until that evidence comes out we have to stick to what is known: SMT and CMT is good for NMSK issues. In terms of the chiro edu in the USA, my understanding came from the Wyatt et al. paper (2005) on the educational requirements and currents reforms occuring at chiropractic schools down there, but let me know if I was out to lunch on the graduation requirements (15/150) which is significant lower than Canada (35/350).

On a separate note, it's good to know that we can have a productive dialogue like this, better understand each other's POV, provide sources and come to a mutual understanding of a given topic. My biggest complaint about the profession, personally, is how a certain subset of straight chiropractors are so entrenched in dogma is that no amount of evidence, studies, common sense would ever change their opinions and they will always rigidly stick to the philosophies of DD and BJ. This type of attitude is more akin to cult-like, religious behaviour which completely damages the professions credibility because no regulatory board has the wherewithal to punish this and limit this type of practice.

Marcbronson 16:20, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Dematt,

Of course Canadian Chiropractic schools are not teaching SMT just for low back pain. They are teaching Chiropractic care for NMSK issues. Soft tissue therapy, exercise prescription, ergonomic advice, electrial modalities are also taught. SMT is used when there are specific joint findings (not just a joint restriction/fixation alone).

As for the culture of Chiropractic in Canada, and trends emerging -

From main page - In 2003, 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases.

From the Biggs et al. article you linked, which surveyed Canadian Chiropractors in 1994 - only 30% on Canadian Chiropractors agreed with the statement 'The subluxation is cause of many diseases'. Strangely enough, 68.1% believed that most diseases were caused by spinal misalignment. I see two huge limitations of this study being used to assess the culture of chiropractic in Canada. Firstly, it was done over ten years ago, and secondly, it doesn't appear to have internal validity. How can 68% believe that most disease are caused by spinal misalignment, but only 30% believe that subluxation is cause of many diseases? Also within that study, even in 1994 Canadian Chiropractors who attended an American Chiropractic college had higher scores on the philosophy index than if they attended a Canadian school.

DigitalC 17:10, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Marc and DigitalC,

I agree 100% with everything that both of you have stated and it is a pleasure to work with you. Keep in mind that this is not "my article", but a collaboration of many. The link you notice does not accurately make that statement and that shoul dbe fixed. We can do that when we settle the way we want to handle your concerns.

Now, with your definitions above (each are different in the same sort of way) can you tell me if either of the your definitions are not entailed in the WP:verifiable ACC definition of subluxation as stated by the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (which is the ONLY document recognized and signed by ALL chiropractic colleges in the USA and Canada[which, btw, is the first on the list])[2]:

• "Chiropractic is Concerned with the preservation and restoration of health, and focuses particular attention on the subluxation.
• A subluxation is a complex of functional and/or structural and/or pathological articular changes that compromise neural integrity and may influence organ system function and general health.
• A subluxation is evaluated, diagnosed, and managed through the use of chiropractic procedures based on the best available rational and empirical evidence."[3]

Also, can we say that there is a difference between Joe Flesia's 5 components of subluxation, who I think we can all agree was an ultimate straight chiropractor.

My point here is that yes, these are old concepts, but they are also meant to be metaphors to explain what we do. I agree with you that we are on the tip of the iceberg and that, the more we learn about the nervous system, the more we will find that DD's original theory that the nervous system plays an important role in health, not just pain. Does this make the straights wrong? Well first we need to find out what straights are saying and why. I submit to you that, if they are saying the same thing you are (only using the term 'Innate Intelligence' to be used as a vitalistic metaphor to explain an emergent process that we can't reduce to the molecular (or smaller) level because it is too complicated) then it is just a matter of semantics. But if they think that there is a Higher Power that uses the nervous system, then that is a different story that is now in the philosophical realm of Vitalism vs Mechanism then that is different. That is not something that we are going to solve with this article. It won't be answered till we either prove that there is no Higher Power, or there is. I suggest to you that the only difference between what all chiropractors are saying has more to do with whether "Innate Intelligence" is a metaphor to use to describe the emergent functions of the nervous system, or whether it is a Godly power that has nothing to do with physical phenomenon. When phrased like that, I am sure that 95% of chiropractors are on the same page. The question is, how do we put that in the article. I think we need to work to bring "how we explain what we do" from the word "subluxation" to "(whatever other name you guys decide is the sate of the science)", but we need to make clear that we are all still talking about the same thing, only some continue to hold to old "definitions"(not to be confused with failed concepts). Anything else would not include the entire field of chiropractic. I have no problem with explaining that this is happening in a effort to bring the theories of chiropractic more inline with current scientific and medical thinking, but it needs to be verified with reliable sources. There is plenty out there. What do you guys think? Also, I know I haven't addressed all your thoughts above, but if I did, we would all get lost;) Please feel free to bring them up again if you think we need to address them better, as will I. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:56, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I fear we may be heading towards just general discussion on the topic, and not maintaining discussion on how to improve the Chiropractic wiki, but I am new to wikipedia so I will let someone else decide that later. The ACC paradigm does not fit the model of Chiropractic that I was taught. Although we we learned of the ACC paradigm, and the President of CMCC was the President of the ACC at the time (I believe), Chiropractic does NOT focus particular attention on the subluxation. I focus on the patient, and the patient's chief complaint. I would agree with Keating when he says that even a stubbed toe seems to meet the ACC's definition of subluxation. Further, a subluxation CANNOT be diagnosed, because a subluxation (joint restriction) is a finding, not a diagnosis.

I am not sure what you wanted to differentiate Joe Flesia's 5 components of subluxation from.

DigitalC 19:51, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

The lead

DigitalC is correct. I could go on forever but that would not accomplish much. Let's see what you do not like about the lead? I don't think we say that chiropractors diagnose subluxations specifically. Can you think of a better way of saying that?

Chiropractic is a complementary and alternative health care profession with the purpose of diagnosing and treating mechanical disorders of the spine and musculoskeletal system with the intention of affecting the nervous system and improving health. It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health. Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well. In contrast, the term subluxation as used in conventional medicine is usually associated with specific conditions which are a direct consequence of injury to joints or associated nerves. It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory; notably schools in Canada , Denmark and the United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of an evidence-based framework

Chiropractic was founded in 1895 by DD Palmer, and it is now practiced in more than 100 countries. Chiropractic's history includes conflicts within the profession and attacks from those outside the profession.

There are four main groups of chiropractors: "traditional straights", "objective straights", "mixers", and "reform". All groups, except reform, treat patients using a subluxation-based system. Differences are based on the philosophy for adjusting, claims made about the effects of those adjustments, and various additional treatments provided along with the adjustment.

My concern is the comment that Canada, Denmark and United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of evidence based framework.

• It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory; notably schools in Canada , Denmark and the United Kingdom have rejected the subluxation model in favour of an evidence-based framework

I think this is better:

• It should be noted, however, that not all chiropractic institutions subscribe to the vertebral subluxation theory and have altered their curriculums in favour of an evidence-based framework.

--Dēmatt (chat) 01:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

My only comment about your idea on the change of chiropractic institutions subscribing to subluxation theory is it then doesn't give the impression that there are geographic differences.

Geographical differences for school curriculm should be easy to find, but we have to watch out for creating WP:OR. We need to find something that says it specifically. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:17, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

As for what I don't like about the lead, here it is:

It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.[2] Treatments typically include spinal adjustments to correct the vertebral subluxation, though some may use other holistic interventions as well.

1) Would everyone be satisfied with "spinal joint dysfunction" instead of spinal "joint misalignment"? I do not believe that a joint can be misaligned, without it being orthopedically subluxated.

I prefer spinal joint dysfunction, but I am concerned that the average person won't know what we mean by it. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

2) I don't believe in "interference" with the nervous system, or that a joint dysfunction leads to different conditions of diminished health.

You must believe that a joint dysfunction always results in altered mechanoreceptor "chatter" that fascilitates nerves at the very least at that particular level of the spine. By design, altering mechanoreceptor function results in altered muscle tone in the region. This is less than optimal function. Granted it is not much, but it is a measure of diminshed health. However, I don't have any problem with "diminished function" either. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

3) Treatments often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well. I don't aim to correct vertebral subluxation, and some of my interventions may not be holistic. There is only such thing as a typical treatment if you are treating a typical patient. Tennis elbow? Ankle sprain? Subacromial impingement? Treatment for these conditions is not "typically [going to] include spinal adjustments".

Good point. I agree, how would you word it? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:13, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

DigitalC 01:36, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

I would word it as above, "Treatments often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well."

DigitalC 01:07, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I'm okay with that. Do you have any problem with us including:

• "Chiropractic treatments vary depending on the patient's condition and the type of approach taken by the particular chiropractor. They often include spinal adjustments, although other interventions are used as well."

Then, further down in the "approach to care" section, we can expound on the types of treatment that are given... ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:02, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Any input from others? DigitalC 02:19, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

I am trying to catch up on this article while "fighting other battles". Please give me another day to review this. --Otheus 18:04, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Hello Otheus and all. I had a good look at the chiropractic page and I'd say it could be a lot more positive in outlook. There's a lot more I could say about it for starters. And I think folk have let things slide too much on those negative comments. Mostly I'd say they are really unfair. Chiropractors have helped a lot of people through a large manner of strife over the years. That doesn't seem to be in the article at all. Sincerely, Arlen

Hi Arlen, I appreciate your input. Anything in particular you would like to see addressed? (don't forget to sign you name with the four tildes (~~~~) so that it puts in your name and time). -- Dēmatt (chat) 20:04, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

I also went ahead and put the sentence in about treatment so we don't get too many tangents going. If anyone has a problem, we can revisit it. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 21:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Dematt. Well the article seems to be quite limited in scope for starters. Theres a lot more that chiropractic can do for folks. My own experience as an assistant and recent training has shown me that chiropractic is good for all manner of problems. From skin problems to breathing, to general composure. And practitioners have been helping people for so many decades. The track record speaks for itself. I'd like to see a lot more positive said about the subject. I don't mind criticisms. But there are answers to a lot of it that don't seem to be quite there yet. Arlen Wilps 16:27, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Arlen, you do make the counterpoint that I was describing to Marc above. You might well know that there are so many types of chiropractors out there, it is hard to fit them all into one article (it is already over the size limit). I would like to see this article branch out into the concepts that you are describing, that would be considered "subluxation based" chiropractic and the type that Marc is talking about. The question is whether his article covers all the concepts, then you can create new articles that link to this one - maybe from the Chiropractic approach to care section. I agree that chiropractors as a whole treat basically everything, yet one individual chiropractor may treat only musculoskeletal problems while another treats "general health issues". I also agree that it could probably all be improved, but we need to take it slow and we need to be abel to back up what we say with WP:ATT sourcing. Do you have something specific you can think to change? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:06, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

"My own experience as an assistant and recent training has shown me that chiropractic is good for all manner of problems." Wow. I get blown away every time I see this kind of claim. I've seen chiropractic advocates claim that it will cure diabetes, help with epilepsy, and now helps with skin problems. This is so completely different from the chiropractic that is taught in Canada it isn't funny. In fact, its disgusting from my point of view. We need to be evidence based to move into the future. DigitalC 03:07, 10 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't disagree with you about the evidence based. But I do hope you see that they are both chiropractor POVs, and this article has to include all of you. Does it? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:10, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

I reverted an addtion to the lead made by User:65.102.152.234. There was certainly a point there, but it probably didn't belong in the lead, nor was it very well written. Who's Alan Korn? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:36, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

One of the children I assume ;) He made a good point, but I think it is all in the article already. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:04, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DigitalC. I myself have had witness to a diabetic patient being made virtually normal through chiropractic. The research also shows some real good results http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=62500. Chiropractic is a great stablizer. But thats just the tip of the iceberg. There's cold hard evidence for a lot of chiropractic treatments. And that translates to hope for so many sufferers. Of course they should be listed. Right now they're not there at all. I really don't think chiropractic is being given the credance it deserves in the article. Its been a great help to so many for so long. Its only fair to show all the benefits as noted by so many good chiropractors. Arlen Wilps 04:40, 12 April 2007 (UTC.

The article you linked to states that "the patient also received nutritional and exercise guidance". Thus, no effects can be attributed to the adjustments. This is likely why the author of that study stated that "it is unclear how much impact chiropractic care might have" on patients with diabetes. This is a poorly conducted study, and as such, the evidence is still lacking for treatment of non-muskuloskeletal disorders. The patient may have gotten the same results if you had simply tapped his forehead. In addition, this is what we call anecdotal evidence. It should NOT be used to guide or defend practice behaviour. That applies to the patient who you allege was made normal through chiropractic. We don't know what other confounding variables may have been responsible. It is only fair to show all the benefits that quality research has been able to attribute to SMT.

The only way to include all viewpoints in this article is to be deliberately vague. As it is, I still do not agree with the article because it states that "[chiropractic] is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health." This is exclusionary, as well as historically inaccurate.

DigitalC 02:32, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

Hi DigitalC. I don't think people are getting the article deliberately vague. Its more likely a problem of conflicting views. I see there have been plenty here. But I accept that there may be some views excluded and that may want fixing. For my part I only want to make the article clearer on what is believed to be possible through chiropractic according to a lot of practitioners (eg, plenty of help for clients with various problems). I don't think I need to present science evidence for it, though evidence does show up on a lot of studies. I just need to show that some chiropractic sectors have that view. I'm sure all you need to do is show evidence for anything you feel is excluded also. Arlen Wilps 05:09, 17 April 2007 (UTC) PS, here's a link on at least one good source for psychology and chiropractic http://www.medicalnewstoday.com/medicalnews.php?newsid=14354. Arlen Wilps 05:28, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

The problem with making the "article clearer on what is believed to be possible through chiropractic according to a lot of practitioners", is that it makes the article exclusionary to those who don't believe that is possible. Although, I guess if stated that only some chiropractors support those beliefs, it would be ok - but certainly not in the lead. DigitalC 20:16, 17 April 2007 (UTC)

I think you both have some good things to say that can improve the article. I agree with DigitalC that probably the lead is not the place to start. Find an appropriate section to add to (without taking anything out yet) then see if it can be copy edited to flow nicely. After that, we change the lead accordingly. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:00, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the lead isn't the best place for this material. Also, please note that the resource above is coverage of a single case study. If we are going to cite studies, it would be better to find research that draws upon a pool of subjects. These studies are given more weight in the scientific community than case studies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:14, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Good point Levine, as usual. Remember, any claims that are introduced will be scrutinized with a microscope and justly critiqued for sure. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 00:21, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Sorry I perhaps should post my comments in other sections. I didn't intend the detailed info for the lead bit. I don't think it would exclude anyone else's view though even if it was in the lead. My point is the article should really show what a lot of chiropractors know about chiropractic - they view chiropractic from their own experience as being beneficial in some really great ways. Its that view that chiropractic has been helping people for so many decades in so many ways that really does need proper airtime by Wikipedia guidelines. That shouldn't exclude any other views of course. Arlen Wilps 05:33, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

So, I still take issue with this line in the lead - "It is based on the premise that a spinal joint misalignment, which some chiropractors call a vertebral subluxation, can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health."

Chiropractic is not based on subluxation, as many chiropractors do not believe in subluxations/joint misalignment, and the concept of subluxation came after the first "Chiropractic" adjustment by D. D. Palmer. However, as stated above, I would be happy enough with it if 'spinal joint misalignment' was changed to 'spinal joint dysfunction'.

DigitalC 04:04, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with the term change. A lot of folk do call it subluxation though, no matter the term, so the rest of the line should stay I think. Arlen Wilps 04:56, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I don't have any problem with that. I am not sure if the general public will know what dysfunction means, but I'm all for that change. Do you think we should go on to define dysfunction? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:15, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I made my change. What do you think? Does that pretty much cover everybodies concerns? Feel free to take it back out if it doesn't work. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 03:38, 26 April 2007 (UTC)

Looks fine to me Dematt. Please excuse the tardy reply. Arlen Wilps 07:08, 7 May 2007 (UTC)

Ref problem

Refs 13 and 14 are blank, rather than take the time to look and see where tey are repeated from I thought I'd just notify. Quadzilla99 08:18, 4 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Quadzilla, fixed it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 04:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

NACM

The ICA has this to say of the group:

...an all but non-existent group for chiropractic services since this supposed organization does not publish its membership lists and is reported to consist of only a tiny handful, perhaps less than 100, of the more than 50,000 doctors of chiropractic active in the United States alone... [4]

The WCA says:

...the NACM is extremely small...[5]

I will look for more, but it would be nice to get an independent third-party source to confirm the weight/notability of this group. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Good point, good to see you use it. The sources above are usually (since they're already in the article presumably due to consensus) reliable regarding chiro orgs so I personally wouldn't need other sources. The NACM info in the quoted WCA articles looks reliable and neutral to me. From the sources I conclude that (1) the existence of the group is verifiable (which means these sources found it notable enough to discuss) (2) there is enough background to place this group in context - maybe add something from the ICA quote above? AvB ÷ talk 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

If it is not notable and the group is obviously in a minority we leave it out. If they are representative of that minority viewpoint that is in the article, then it is relevant (for that minority viewpoint) and hence it makes sense for it to be included. However without a V and RS, it probably is mute. Shot info 02:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This is an established minority viewpoint of some chiros. Let them have their voice. Some chiros don't like the significant minority. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 03:35, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have asked repeatedly for proof of what the beliefs of NACM's members were as claimed by those like fyslee who seem hell bent on it's inclusion. All I ever got back was blank stares. It was removed long ago and just recently put in, so the edit war is on the part of those who are submitting original research. The burden is on them to back up their statement.

If you can give us something like names of members, the financials, when are meetings, what seminars have they conducted, what research have they carried out, when are elections, and minor things like that which are easily found out for legitimate organizatioins, then we would have something to go on.

The big red flag for me is that three of the four links at the end of the one-page website, leads one to websites that are privately owned and operated by Stephen Barrett <once again removed per WP:BLP, this is not a reliable source and you're quoting it out of context. It's also nonsense copied from Bolen et al.>

So I question the legitimacy of this 'organization' and his connection with this group due to the presence of his links on their webpage as his links solicit donations for his personal use.Steth 03:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

They are a legitimate group. No reason not to include. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 04:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Prove it. :)--Hughgr 08:06, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It's verifiable. AvB ÷ talk 08:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I've added what we know from a reliable secondary source (on chiropractic): it's small. Feel free to replace with something like "extremely small according to x in 1992" AvB ÷ talk 08:30, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

AvB, just pointing out that you say that this content is verifiable using a two WCA articles as secondary sources.[6] I also want to point out that NACM is a chiropractic adversary of the WCA, much like Barrett is a chiropractic adversary of the WCA. So let me get this straight. According to you, even though WCA is adversarial with NACM, it can still function as a reliable secondary source (for content where there is no primary source ). But also according to you, since WCA is adversarial with Barrett, it can't function as a secondary source (for content where there indeed is several primary sources all verifying the content). Common sense? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:36, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Checking out if I missed something. AvB ÷ talk 08:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I see what you mean. Explanation: I'm considering these sources on a page per page basis (just like I consider Quackwatch pages). These two articles come out quite OK as RS in my opinion. WCA is used as a source elsewhere in the article so I figured the WCA site has other reliable source pages on chiropractic, according to consensus among the regulars here. Your comparison, by the way, does not work for me. NACM claims to be a chiro org. That means other chiro sources are potential RS. Barrett does not claim to be a chiro (org). AvB ÷ talk 08:50, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

NACM is chiro org fueled directly by Barrett. Why do you think the one page website for NACM link externally only to several Barrett websites? NACM is in the back pocket of Barrett's "chirobase.org", Barrett's chiropractic org. So yes, Barrett is essentially a chiro org. ChiroBase represents the same exact views as the NACM - that chiropractors are just glorified physical therapists and that anything beyond that is bunk. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

That's what you and I think. But we need reliable sources saying so. AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Common sense plays a vital role here. I think most people will agree that the NACM info in the WCA articles I quoted is neutral and balanced, if only because it gives both sides in the form x says, we respond ... AvB ÷ talk 08:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 2 - Before you ask, please note that this information is presented in the article in the same context as in the sources. 08:58, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

It is in defensive context with Slaughter defending the size of membership. About the same context as the Board Certification is presented by Barrett. The difference is: people doubt whether NACM even exists, but no one doubts that Barrett is not Board Certified. Common sense would say to include only verified content in an encyclopedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Old argument, already refuted on Barrett talk page. AvB ÷ talk 00:00, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 3 - This might be different if there were a response from the NACM somewhere which contradicted the info that it's a tiny organization. Is there? I didn't check. At any rate, I thought that those editors on the chiro side of the debate would want to emphasize the small size of this minority of chiropractors, which actually follows from the small size of NACM - a reason to include this group, not to exclude. The less important the more weight. AvB ÷ talk 09:22, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Note that there isn't a response from Barrett contradicting that he isn't Board Certified. In fact, his response is one of confirmation. The last compromise was to even include Barrett's contextual explanation - that it didn't effect his career as a psychiatrist. Why you claim that we don't have the proper sources to say that - verified content (but we do have proper sources to say that a possible non-existant organization "tends" to represent the Reform chiropractors) is beyond me at this point. I see you bending the policies to suit your views rather then applying neutrally without passion or prejudice. (BTW, where does it say in any source that the Reformers "tend" to be members of NACM?) -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:53, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Non sequitur. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I have clarified my concern regarding the legitimacy of NACM and my concern about the three of four links on NACM's only webpage are for websites owned and operated by Stephen Barrett, the retired psychiatrist who failed his psychiatric boards. See above.

IMO any group that holds no meetings, has no elections, holds no seminars, conducts no research, doesn't reveal membership is suspect. There is no way to verify what it's members adhere to since we have absolutely no proof that there even are ANY members. It's tiny membership is based on nothing but pure speculation by someone who has no idea about the actual numbers and are only guessing themselves. Steth 12:18, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Opinion of an editor. Interesting to inform discussion here, but in the article we need to base ourselves on sources. There are sufficient secondary sources to see that NACM is notable in this context (including the comments and suspicions of certain others as also apparent in secondary sources, see the NACM article). AvB ÷ talk 13:27, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, will you ever realize that the board certification thing is only interesting in the eyes of Barrett's most rabid detractors? More than anything else, your insistence to copy Bolen's signature attack (a very specific string of personal put-downs of Barrett) whenever you write the name Barrett shows how blind you are to the fact that it gives you away as an extremely biased editor who is trying to infuse the encyclopedia with extremely biased ideas because he thinks they're neutral. That string of put-downs is not neutral. It's an attack due to its contextomy and emphasis. I'm leaving the one above in since it's offset by my explanation. (It's sort of unexpected to see how you have replaced "delicensed" of Bolen's original misguided put-downs with "retired". But you're still managing to make it sound negative.) AvB ÷ talk 13:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your opinion, but it works both ways. IMO, Barrett apologists come across with a wierd sort of 'true-believer' protector of the emporer and his NO CLOTHES type of mentality. SB is OK with the notion that he was unable to pass his boards, even getting off the throne to appear here to say so. But for some reason, a sort of protectionist cabal scurries about to hide this fact (board failure = no clothes = rear-end exposed)afraid of anything that they feel sounds negative about the boss-man. Oh, well. There are two sides to every coin, eh, Avb? Steth 16:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I wouldn't be too confident about my opinion of Barrett if I were you, Steth. AvB ÷ talk 23:55, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

PS If you feel I want to keep the BC information out of the encyclopedia, think again (and read the compromise I posted on the Barrett talk page). I'll want to include it when convinced (based on common sense arguments or secondary sources) that it has sufficient weight (or notability if you will). Lacking that, I'm still willing to discuss my compromise. It illustrates my general stance in such cases, firmly rooted in Wikipedia's mandatory NPOV: if we say something, it must be in the context of the source we use. In this case our only reliable sources are Barrett's own publications and his contributions on WP talk pages that are intended to provide such information for WP articles). Obviously, that's exactly what editors debating on the side of Barrett's detractors are trying to prevent here. They want to say he isn't/wasn't board certified, but they don;t want to tell the readers what this means. After all, responses and background info make Bolen's BC criticism look pretty empty. Just like his (now retired?) de-licensed mantra. AvB ÷ talk 13:31, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS 2:I've copied some of the above which looks somewhat off-topic here to Talk:Stephen Barrett. AvB ÷ talk 13:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Reform Chiro Tidbit

They tend to be represented by the small National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM).

If it is not to your satisfactory we can reword it. It seems odd to leave this out of the article. Are there chiros editing this article? This could be a conflict of interest because they are eager to delete information on a minority of reform chiros. Are there mainstream in the majority chiros who are against the minority of reform "scientific" chiros? Hmmm. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:31, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

None of these references are up-to-date and none declare or even hint that reformers "tend" to be members of NACM. You might be able to say that the NACM represents the views of reformers, but you'd have to show that they even still exist. Have they done anything of note in the past 5 years? Has anyone written about anything they've done in the past five years? (I am being arbitrary with five years, but it seems reasonable.)

Side note: It is interested that a Barrett source and WCA sources are being used by QuackGuru to support a statement about an adversary of chiropractic. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:39, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Read this carefully. As I said, you can word it however way you want. As noted, this article is not about a person, thus BLP does not apply here. It seems Levine2112 is still confuses, policy-wise. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:46, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope this can be carefully written to satisfy all parties. This should be simply. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 17:49, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I read it. Where does it say that they tend to be members of NACM? Please quote for me. I understand BLP all too well. You are looking for a reliable secondary source and have said that the WCA doesn't qualify as one; yet when it suits your needs the WCA does qualify as a reliable source? To say something that the source doesn't even say? To say something that even the primary source doesn't even say? Yet, when we have the WCA saying exactly what Barrett is saying - that he is not Board Certified - then you say that the WCA isn't a reliable source? Hypocritical? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:51, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You are still confuses. BLP does not apply to this article. You can reword it anyway you like. Do you understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:01, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

The references (to verify the text) are referring to a group and not a person. This article is about the subject chiro and not a person. Do you get it? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:04, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Same reference source, same reliable source policy, smae subject matter. If WCA can be considered a reliable source of chiropractic adversary NACM, then is can be considered a reliable source for chiropractic adversary Stephen Barrett. Get it? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:21, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

BLP policy does not apply to the small National Association for Chiropractic Medicine reform statement. The confusion by Levine2112 confirms he is still misunderstanding BLP policy. Again, you can write the reform chiro tidbit anyway you like using the sources provided. Good luck. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

No confusion on my part, but nice try to make it seem that there is. I am not discussing BLP. I am discussing reliable sources. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:45, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

There are three references of your choice. You can write it up whatever way you want using the refs. Again, do you understand? :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

According to your standards for reliable sources, you have yet to show us reason why any mention of NACM should be included in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:38, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And what standards are those. I never mentioned standards or questioned the reliability of the sources here. You are not making sense. "Levine." Try to focus. Thanx. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 20:57, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You have stated clearly that WCA is not a reliable so for an adversary of chiropractic. This was in regards to Barrett (an adversary to chiropractic). So how can it be that you consider the WCA a reliable source for NACM (another adversary of chiropractic). It seems you like to bend the rules to suit your POV. I can't spell this out any clearer, so if you feel that I am not making sense, perhaps it is you who needs to try and focus. :-P -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:00, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

This confirms you are confused and do not under policy. In regards to Barrett, it falls under the umbrella of BLP policy. As uses in this article, BLP does not apply to an organization in this context. Have a nice day! :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:07, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You keep trying to turn this into a BLP debate. It isn't. It is a matter of reliable sources. BLP depends on reliable sources. If WCA is a reliable source for NACM, then it is a reliable source for Stephen Barrett. So which is it? Is WCA a reliable source for NACM and Barrett, or isn't it? You can't have it both ways. Sorry. Have a nice day too! -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:13, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not write the policy. Articles on a person does fall under BLP. It is a BLP debate. Thus, BLP is for Barrett. This chiropractic article does not fall under BLP when referring to the reform bit. You seem to be confused to what policy falls under which articles. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 21:32, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

You know it shouldn't be this difficult. Let me help Quru/Guru to focus:

If I told you about an organization that holds no meetings, elects no officers, gives no seminars, does no research, and I won't/can't tell you who the members are or if there are any, and I then tried to use this as a reliable source, well then, what would you do with that? Well I am sure you would grind it up and spit it out if I tried to use it here at WP as a reliable source and it would last two seconds, right? Oh yes, and then I told you at the end of the one -page website are links to someone who solicits donations at his privately-owned website, then what would you think of me and this 'organization'? See what I mean? There you have it. It doesn't pass the smell test as I have said numerous times in the past year or so. Thanks Steth 22:29, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

And your sources are? AvB ÷ talk 23:56, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello? Steth? Pending question above. Please answer at your earliest convenience. You may want to distinguish between (1) information on NACM provided by sources you seem to view as reliable in all of their secondary source publications (sources that I view as reliable in some of their secondary source publications, i.e. on an article-by-article basis and mainly when writing about anything that claims to be chiro-related), and (2) information sourced in an NACM publication (which is what your argument above opposes, if I understand it correctly). Thanks. AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

PS Do your "smell test" edit summary and text above represent your personal opinion, or are you quoting a reliable source? If the former, this does not make it seem like you're about to collaborate in order to "write articles with the tone that all positions presented are at least plausible, bearing in mind the important qualification about extreme minority views. We should present all significant, competing views sympathetically." (From WP:NPOV). A "bad fish" attitude usually makes me very hesitant to view an editor's activities here as intended to help us build an encyclopedia. (AvB visualizing users pushing barrowloads of fish they believe is fresh.) AvB ÷ talk 12:51, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I see you guys have reverted my edit without a consensus on the talk page. You're most welcome to pushing your barrow. I have no time for this. Leaving this article in disgust. It's sort of rewarding to see a chiro article, no, the main chiro article, owned by the likes of you. I have no opinion on chiropractic but I'm not impressed at all by those who are defending it. AvB ÷ talk 00:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I thought that without consensus, you leave things out? Am I mistaken? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:18, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You're not mistaken about this when dealing with (possible) BLP violations due to unsourced or poorly sourced BLP material. The problem here is quite different: you removed sourced non-BLP material which is not allowed without refuting the reasons given by the adding editor and/or reaching a consensus on the talk page. <irritated remark removed by Avb> AvB ÷ talk 00:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I was just asking a question. Your incivility continues. You fail to assume good faith and frankly you are rude. Now then, we have no consensus to add this material. We have no references that support the content as written. Now I am all for the WCA being a reliable source for the NACM, but that also means then that the WCA is a reliable source for Stephen Barrett. Regardless, the content under dispute here is that Reformers tend to be members of the NACM. What source do you have to support this claim? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:47, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Already answered before you asked. As usual. On AGF: Once again, I will assume good faith with you again when you have earned it. Also note that I have never found a reason to think you have ever assumed good faith with me. On being rude for once: this was due to your behavior. Any reasonable person would be irritated. You even managed to upset Crohnie. Anyway, I've removed my irritated remark. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

More incivility. This is getting old. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You were acting as if you did not understand my anger, so I explained, still irritated. I've removed the irritated words but kept the explanation. AvB ÷ talk 11:25, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Wait a minute. According to Levine the sources are reliable. If you, Levine, (or anyone) is not satisfied with the wording then reword it instead of being a you know what on the talk page. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 00:54, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know what you'd want it to say. The sources certainly don't support anything about the membership tendencies of reformers in relation to NACM. But if you want to draw something else from the WCA sources, then you have to be willing to conceed that the WCA is a reliable secondary source for chiro detractors such as the NACM and Barrett. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:59, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

WCA is suited for this article and not BLP against Barrett. Levine, you still have problems understanding policy. You seem to know a lot about chiros. I assume you are a chiro. Read the refs and write how you think it should read. After all, you have conceeded the refs are reliable. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 01:05, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nah. I don't know what you want to say using those refs. Sorry. Barrett's ChiroBase and NACM are equivilent (they are basically the same voice from the same machine). If WCA is good enough for you here then it has to be good enough for you for Stephen Barrett. The WCA article says nothing untrue about Barrett (and what it says about his lack of Board Certification has been verified by Barrett himself). So you have three courses to choose from now: 1) Drop this. Move on. Continuing is only weakening your arguments at Stephen Barrett. 2) Continue pushing the issue here hypocritically in contract to your position at Stephen Barrett. 3) Conceed that the WCA source is reliable for Barrett and continue with your position here free from hypocrasy. Your choice. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:14, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Already answered before you asked. As usual. The quoted articles on the WCA site are reliable secondary sources regarding the NACM. Expanding that to (1) the entire WCA site and (2) to all chiro detractors? Certainly not. AvB ÷ talk 01:26, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks like your chose option #2. Pity. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:55, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

No, I ignored your options for QG, if only because they contained a full-blown personal attack on QG ("hypocritically", "hypocrisy"). Instead, I repeated an earlier explanation you might have missed. Only to find you extending the same personal attack to me as well. AvB ÷ talk 21:24, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

It seems like Levine is not interested in helping to improve this article. It is best for Levine to help or leave this article. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 07:19, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I am improving this article by keeping completely unsourced statements out. You are making it worse by engaging in edit wars, being uncivil, and pushing for content with absolutely no sources to back it up. It's not like you even have a primary or an unreliable secondary source saying that Reformers tend to be members of NACM. You have nothing. Find something or move on. In either case, more civility from you would be a good start to improving the Wikipedia community as a whole. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 09:27, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Nope. You can improve this article by reading the sources which are reliable according to you and write a sourced statement. This tidbit is verifiable. You can discuss and reword it as you see fit if it is not to your liking. You can help or leave this article. Its that simple. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:41, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

You can help or leave this article. Its that simple. applies to Mr.G too.--Hughgr 19:49, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to merge "Reform" into "Mixer"

Yoo hoo, I'm down here, AvB!! I'll answer AvB here even though I was responding to Quru, it is curious as to why you feel challenged. Never the less, I don't understand why I need sources to use a hypothetical to demonstrate a point. I said "if" an organization exists without elections, dues, seminars, meetings, etc. and I won't reveal it's members or if there are any and then asked you to use it as a reliable source, what would you say? Yes? Not likely. Yet that is exactly what we are being asked to do by the NACMers. They hold no meetings, elections, collect dues, have seminars, write nothing, contribute nothing, won't reveal the members. They do however have a one page website that seems as if it hasn't been changed since Windows 3.1 was 'new' with an address that is likely (just my guess) the home of someone named Murray Slaughter.

And, oh yes, it has the seal of approval of retired psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, long-time avowed anti-chiropractic extremist. Now one doesn't have to be an Einstein to recognize that if three of the four of the only links at the bottom of the page go straight to his anti-chiropractic websites where he solicits donations where his history shows that he has create new attacks to besmirch chiropractic and inflict as much damage as a retired psychiatrist could whip-up from his home made laboratory in his Pennsylvania basement, well that's a problem with this whole kettle of fish called NACM. See what I mean? So the whole thing just smells so, so, bad. Barret you may recall failed his psychiatric boards, which to me, sends up a big red flag, too, but that's just my opinion and it's been discussed at length at the SB talk page.

Now why would ANY chiropractor support a so-called "organization" with no meetings, seminars (chiropractors love seminars, you know) publications, elections, etc. etc.? Now here is the question: Why would any chiropractor support a group, connected/affiliated with/influenced by a retired psychiatrist with a mental-case like insane hatred of chiropractic who envisions a world without chiropractic in his lifetime when his goal is to have every chiropractor seeking another occupation? Who in their right mind would support a group that is trying to put them out of business??!!!?? See what I mean?

Another thing. This "reformer" thing. When did it become an official category? It seems to me that it is a made-up term by the radical anti-chiropractic fringe. If chiropractors don't reinvent themselves to the image created by the anti-chiropractic cabal/fringe/extremists, then they are not "reformers" and are now classified as a sub-species since they are the embodiment of evil in their eyes, and must be destroyed, yes? What kind of crap is that!? See what I mean?

So AvB/Quru/Guru/flysee/Ronz/KV if you really would like to impove the chiropractic article, and I am assuming good faith that you would like to do this, and I don't think you would appreciate the suggestion to go hang out at other articles, then the article will be much improved by leaving out an "organization" that no one can put their finger on. See what I mean?

I propose that "reform" be merged into mixer, since I am sure there are more who don't subscribe to the subluxation theory and focus on musculoskeletal problems only who are NOT NACMers and who DO belong to the ACA, an organization with thousands and thousands of members whose names are available on the internet (can the NACM claim that?), hold seminars, elections, collect dues, supports research, publications and many other characteristics of a legitimate organization. See what I mean? Steth 03:24, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I did not feel challenged; you said something that seemed based on your personal opinion so I asked for your sources. It doesn't matter that you were responding to someone else.

You did not give any sources for that so it is your opinion only. Thanks for giving a full explanation of your reasoning regarding the existence and/or notability of the NACM. It was, however, not necessary since I had already understood this from your previous explanation. That's why I did not ask you to explain your reasoning. Now you are of course entitled to your opinion, which I summarize as the "trojan horse" POV. It certainly makes some sense to me. However, it remains your opinion, and most of all, it remains your opinion that there is no such organization and that it should not be mentioned in the Chiropractic article. You have not convinced me of the latter.

You also argued what boils down to the position that there are no "reform chiros". However, that is not an argument to remove NACM (which according to you - if I understand you correctly - is one of the inventors of the concept). It is an argument to remove the entire reform category from the article but keep the NACM reference (with a note that it's a failed attempt to create a new category of chiros (in the real world)).

However, in both cases your opinion is not found in any reliable sources. The sources we have acknowledge the existence of the group, and they say it's extremely small, in the low hundreds. I have seen the edit summary comment that the sources "do not give weight", but such a blanket statement does not convince me and I believe I have sufficiently explained that the mere fact that the reliable sources discuss the NACM in some detail makes them notable. Such a short mention in the right context in such a large article is exactly the weight I think it merits. I have also read the edit summary comment that the sources (article) are old, but they're all we have. That's a reason to mention the date of the estimated membership in the article. Other things mentioned in the reliable sources can also be said in the article, perhaps summarizing the suspicions or criticisms of the NACM from the main chiro groups/orgs.

I have also seen the edit summary comment that the information has not been in the article for a long time, and I trust that when it was in the article it was due to a consensus of sorts. But consensus is ephemeral: it can change at any time for many reasons. Many arguments don't go stale, of course, and it's perfectly legitimate to point editors to arguments provided earlier. However, when the arguments have been provided in discussions where one or more of the current editors were not present, one cannot expect them to chase through two entire histories to piece them together. They need to be provided in the form of diffs or repeats. So, if you have more arguments, please provide them and I will adjust my opinion if I find them convincing; if not, I will tell you my concerns.

I changed the disputed text originally written by Levine2112 ("tend to ...") to accommodate the criticism that it was not found as such in the sources. I reinserted, as a compromise, a text that does follow the sources quite closely (diff). You removed it (diff). Since I'm practicing 1RR and am opposed to edit warring, I've not reverted. But I need to point out that your edit removed sourced material from Wikipedia, which as explained above is not allowed without refuting the arguments of the adding editor and reaching a consensus. There is no consensus. Hence the information should stay.

Your turn to visualize an editor - this time eating a $2000 raw herring for breakfast - straight from the sea, they don't come any fresher. Thanks, AvB ÷ talk 08:01, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Not really sure what $2000 herring is for AvB, plus I can't read that language so a translation would help. My concern with the NACM is the last thing I've seen from them is 1993, so are they even in existance anymore? Also the fact that of the 4 links on their website, 3 go to web sites of S Barrett. Seems odd to me. I guess what I'm saying is that if they aren't active anymore, then any mention of them should go in the Chiropractic history article. --Hughgr 18:31, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Please move this conversation

Hi all, since most of the conversation is concerning NACM, perhaps you could move it over there where you can use the arguments to build something productive. This is unproductive over here. Over there, you can actually write things in the article about them. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:51, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I am all for that. I think legitimate concerns have been raised, not just by me. Who says they represent reform or anything else? Can it's WP advocates come up with a membership list? Has this so-called "organization" even breathed in the last five years? We may be kicking a dead horse here.

No one wants to come up with a membership list to prove there is any life in there. Meetings? Nope. Seminars? Nope. Elections? Nope. Research? Nope. Links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises (where donations are gladly accepted to put chiropractic out of business!) Yup! Three!! No problem there. No brainer? Duh! Steth 15:06, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

This discussion is about content in this article. Therefore it belongs here. The conclusion that it is unproductive seems a non sequitur to me. The discussion is not over and policy-based arguements have been ignored instead of refuted.

Steth, I hope you don't mean me with "it's WP advocates". It is factually untrue and sounds like a personal attack. You may have more success addressing arguments instead. Please also note that your request for a membership list sounds like a call for OR to me. Perhaps you can get a reliable source to write something new about it. For now, we have to make do with the sources we have. AvB ÷ talk 16:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think Steth's concern needs to be addressed. Perhaps a current membership list doesn't have to be found, but it would be nice to have a reliable secondary source which demonstrates that this association still exists in any sort of notable form worthy for inclusion in this article. If it does not, it shouldn't be included here; but perhaps be relegated to Chiropractic history. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:42, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine and Steth, are you claiming it is highly likely that the NACM no longer exists? If so, you are reversing the burden of evidence. As opinion goes, my opinion is just as good as yours here. For all we know, based on the sources we have, including the NACM's website, it still exists. It may have grown a bit from the low hundreds mentioned by the sources. Or perhaps you're right and it has no members. Not different from the situation where the sources wrote about it. So editor opinion does not help us resolve this. For that, we need sources. If you want to use a dearth of very recent sources as a reason to keep sourced though somewhat dated information out of the article, you need to provide reliable sources reporting it no longer exists. Not the other way around. You need sources you don't have. I have already provided mine. Just ask yhourself if we would move the NACM into Chiropractic history, what should we mention as date of its demise? To whom should we attribute that information? AvB ÷ talk 18:12, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

It would be best for those wanting to include this content to show its notability and weight by providing reliable sources discussing the existence of the NACM in recent times. If this burden cannot be met, how can we show the weight of this content? If this organization still exists and is notable, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources discussing it fromt he last five years. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:20, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be missing the point. Please reread my arguments above and address them. And please answer my questions. If you have any specific questions about anything I say that you do not understand, feel free to ask. AvB ÷ talk 18:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I understand what you are saying, but it is incorrect. The burden for showing notability/relevence of inclusion lays with you. Please provide a reliable source which demonstrates the significance of NACM. Currently, the sources provided date back to the late 80's and early 90's. This doesn't show enough significance to be included in the article in the manner which it is included. If this organization still exists and is notable, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources discussing it from the last five years. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:34, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

"I understand what you are saying" --> does not demonstrate understanding

"but it is incorrect." --> does not refute the argument which therefore still stands.

"If this organization still exists and is notable, then it shouldn't be hard to find sources discussing it from the last five years." --> Please don't make your own policy-like rules.

I am not prepared to proceed with this discussion unless someone addresses my arguments and answers my questions in a meaningful way. Once you've done so I may be prepared to resume the discussion. The ball's still in your court. Please play it or concede. AvB ÷ talk 19:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

To answer your question: No. I am not saying that it is highly likely that NACM doesn't exist. What I am saying is that no one has provided references to show current notability/weight/relevance of the NACM. That's all. So your argument that it is up to "us" to demonstrate that NACM doesn't still exist is moot. It is rather your reponsibility (or anyone else's who want this content included) to provide references which shows the current notability/weight/relevance of NACM in terms of chiropractic. Lest you say that I am making up my own policy like rules, please read WP:V: The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I've asked a question on WT:N. Lets wait and see if anyone responds. AvB ÷ talk 19:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think WT:N is the wrong place to post this as this isn't a WP:N issue. WP:N doesn't limit content of an article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:33, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You were clearly making a notability/weight/relevance argument. Where would you ask this? But please note that this is my question, intended to get some opinion regarding your novel argument, just in case others think it has merit. Feel free to ask the same or a different question elsewhere, as long as it is not intended or used to campaign or forum-shop. Responses are just that, and not votes or expert contributions to our discussion. AvB ÷ talk 20:15, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

You lack of good faith is startling. I was not clearly making a WP:N argument. If you don't view the responses as expert contributions, then why solicit for them? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote. And please don't start AGF accusations. Totally uncalled for. As to your question - I am not looking for experts like you were. I am not looking to add "votes" to the discussion. I simply want to know how others feel about this. Touch base with the very people that helped me acquire much of my knowledge regarding notability and weight. My alternative was to attract the attention of an admin. AvB ÷ talk 20:35, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to get an admin here. I will certainly listen to their advice. BTW, at Stephen Barrett, we have heard from 4 or 5 admins now all in favor of adding the content. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:40, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Per Dugwiki's comments on WT:N, I feel that any NACM past notability doesn't imply current day relevance to Chiropractic, and in order to keep this article focussed it might be useful to trim out the NACM information which likely isn't useful to a solid enyclopedic discussion.

A small group called National Association for Chiropractic Medicine is an attempt to organize reform-minded chiropractors.

Perhaps "was" an attempt might be more apropos. Without any current sources, we have no way of knowing if NACM is still just an attempt, if it is legitimate, or if it is defunct. If it is a legit and notable organization of reform-minded chiropractors, then certainly it can be in this article. So far, no remotely current sources have been presented which demonstrate this however. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:21, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Something tells me Dugwiki intended the comment to be general and not to be applied here without discussion. Dugwiki was saying that it is good to look at (and discuss) the existence of a subject from time to time, which is what we did here. Not that the result of such scrutiny should be that NACM information likely isn't useful to a solid enyclopedic discussion. In the presence of sources indicating its continued existence and especially the absence of reports of its demise (which would be reason to rejoice and probably gloat for certain partisan sources) it makes sense to stop speculating about how the article should look if the organization were no more. AvB ÷ talk 10:24, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Big, small or non-existant, it is such a secret that everything about this is speculation. Therefore, I would think it is unverifiable and doesn't belong anywhere. I have tried to restore the article to the way it was without it but I get sharply clubbed and get accused of being disruptive. (uppity?)

Concerning to me also, are the three links on the page to Stephen Barrett Enterprises where donations are always gladly accepted. Hadn't an editor recently gotten himself into quite a mess for ejaculating gooey links for SBE througout Wikipedia? Steth 02:52, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Actually, an editor recently got blocked for a while for removing links to quackwatch. (Oh, that was you. Sorry.) I don't recall an editor getting into trouble for adding links to quackwatch. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 04:05, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, actually, I wasn't blocked because the links were quackwatch, (although some may like WP to adapt a rule like that ;-)sorry, but it may have been because I should have paid more attention to the rules of WP.

But I was questioning an admin whom I feel is more concerned for protecting the image of Stephen Barrett and may have lost his ability to have an impartial view when it comes to carrying out Wikipedia guidelines. (Wait was that you Artie? No! Yes? Get out! Oops, sorry. Oh my!)

Yes the editor I mentioned above was put through the mill for sprinkling dozens and dozens of links to Stephen Barrett Enterprises whom he had an association with. I think it was very emotionally trying for the poor chap. The concern was that it was a conflict of interest type thing. I agreed with that since it likely generated income for SB through his solicitations for donations which apparently he uses to pay himself or any other way he sees fit since he owns the sites. I still think it is a concerning issue. (Oh, wasn't that Fyslee? Apologies.)  :-o

That's why I was surprised to see him insisting on including a link to NACM where three of the four links on the 'site' are direct links to pages for Stephen Barrett Enterprises where donations are encouraged. To me this is a red flag and fails the smell test, although others seem OK with this. Just my opinion. Steth 23:42, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

He was "put through the mill", but basically found "not guilty" of any infractions after his first month. The only other insertions of the QW links he did were reverting apparent vandalism which reinserted the links. There was an ArbCom finding that he should not insert unreliable QW links, without any indication of which QW links were unreliable. And NACM has an article, and there have been no attempts (that I can see; many of the editors are making multiple consecutive edits for no apparent reason) to put QW links into this article. Whether the QW-affiliate links are appropriate at the NACM article are matters for discussion there, not here. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 00:08, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification, Artie. Sorry, didn't mean to get you bent out of shape, but I wasn't the one who initiated the actions against Fyslee, nor was I responsible for his run-in with the WP law. So don't shoot the messenger. ;- ) Steth 03:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

NACM's current status is a straw man here

This situation is identical to any other situation where one describes and compares POV. If we were talking about four different schools of philosophical thought, it would be totally irrelevant if the main persons who represented the schools of thought were alive or not. This is Levine2112's straw man diversionary tactic and such a discussion only has relevance at the NACM article. (There is good evidence that it is mentioned and it's POV is still referenced and mentioned in newer literature. That evidence can be added to the NACM article if the article is challenged. That article can certainly be strengthened and enlarged using V & RS, if I feel the need to do so.)

Even if the NACM had been a long dead movement in the chiropractic profession, it's POV is still held by some chiros and it is still mentioned by friends and enemies alike as a representative of the "reform" school of thought. (Luther has been dead for a long time, but he is still mentioned as a representative of the Protestant school of thought. Precisely the same situation here.) The mention of NACM is certainly relevant here.

A bit of context is needed here. The situation involves descriptions of various chiropractic "practice styles and schools of thought." That is the focus, not actual membership in various organizations. The widely differing philosophical schools of thought are represented by various competing organizations (often lambasting each other and attempting to steal members from each other), and those chiropractors who share those schools of thought naturally tend to sympathize with the organizations which advocate such philosophies, even if they are not members of those organizations.

Thus actual membership (and even the organizations themselves) is not the main topic. The topic is the schools of thought, and to help readers we supply the names of the organizations that support those philosophical schools of thought. That's the context. Thus the actual current status of the organizations is totally irrelevant. If their schools of thought have been known and published (and they have), and chiropractors openly sympathize with them, then those sympathies can be mentioned, thus establishing the existence of these various schools of thought, which we have divided into four groups with widely varying degrees of influence, often totally unrelated to their actual membership numbers in organizations.

To show the ties of sympathy between chiropractors and organizations sharing their POV, these statements have been added to each section:

1. Traditional straights tend to share the viewpoints found in the International Chiropractors Association (ICA), as well as the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
2. Mixers tend to share the viewpoints found in the American Academy of Chiropractic Physicians, the American Academy of Spine Physicians, and/or the American Chiropractic Association (ACA), and all the major groups in Europe are also members of the European Chiropractors Union.
3. Objective straights tend to share the viewpoints found in the Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (F.A.C.E.), the Federation of Straight Chiropractors and Organizations (FSCO) and the World Chiropractic Alliance (WCA).
4. Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine.

The shared expression is "...tend to share the viewpoints found in..."

The fourth section is the one being questioned, simply because a few chiropractic editors don't like the organization and its philosophy, which are considered heretical in mainstream chiropractic circles. Such hatred of an organization and its POV are not good Wikipedia editorial motivations. That is also the reason the organization is not open about its membership numbers, since such chiropractors risk harassment and threats, yet the organization exists (quietly), has members, and even sympathizers in the scientific arena outside of chiropractic, since it is the only group that openly distances itself from the key unscientific foundational beliefs of traditional chiropractic. Its school of thought is shared by actual members, and by chiropractors who are not members. They exist and the school of thought exists, and that is undeniable, and since the school of thought is so radically different and challenges the very foundations of the profession, it has gained much greater notability (notoriety!) than one would expect considering the actual numbers of chiropractors who hold it. So in spite of it being a minority position, it is quite significant. The massive opposition (here and elsewhere) to it and its POV makes it clear that it exists and has an impact.

The fourth section's wording has since been changed to something else that is even less satisfactory. The version above maintains a uniform format for all four sections and is worded so as to be undeniable and so much a part of common sense and knowledge as to be an uncontroversial statement that needs no special documentation, in the same sense as stating that most people who speak Norwegian share the same language as the citizens of Norway (and making the same type of statement for three other countries). Such statements are simple statements of fact and the uniform format is worded so as to be undeniably true. Now Levine2112 and a couple sympathizers want to wikilawyer in an attempt to remove mention of the organization (and even the fourth category), even though it is notable enough to have its own article at Wikipedia! Should dislike (and in the cases of Steth and Levine2112, their editing history shows actual hatred) of an organization and the philosophy it represents govern editing here?

Let's axe Levine2112's straw man and see the tactic for what it is, an attempt to avoid mention of a very real school of thought and the organization that most clearly represents that school of thought. Personal dislike for a POV and school of thought is not a legitimate Wikipedia excuse for practicing such unwikipedian and unNPOV deletionism and suppression of opposing POV.

Let's restore the nicely worded uniform format that serves the purpose so well. It makes for a good section, is only a slight mention (thus getting little weight), and then let's move on to other things. -- Fyslee/talk 08:43, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. AvB ÷ talk 10:16, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Here is the problem with Fyslee's assessment. He is mistaken NACM for a movement. The movement is the Reform movement. The Reform movement is small but seems to be very much alive. NACM is/was an organization which may have aligned itself with the views of the Reformers, but we don't know to what extent and if it is currently even in existence. This doesn't make NACM notable enough to mention. What we would need to know is two-fold: 1) Does NACM still exist in any sort of notable form? (i.e. Is it more than just a one-page website?) 2) If it does exist, does it represent a notable amount of chiropractors? (For all we know, there is a more significant organization which represents Reformers.) Basically, there are 70,000 chiropractor world-wide. The last figure we have (from 10-15 years ago) says that NACM has members in the low-hundreds. So if their memebership numbers haven't grown (and I suspect they have done quite the opposite), then NACM only represents less than one-fifth of one percent (0.2%) of all chiropractors (or 99.8% of chiros are not members of NACM). Now that's hardly worth mentioning. . . no, that isn't worth mentioning. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

There are a number of problems with that analysis:

1. Straw man fallacy: "Movement" or "school of thought" - so what?! Don't change the subject. We're talking about a "school of thought" here;
2. Original research: No evidence for any real preexisting reform "movement";
3. Original research: Historic revisionism involving the sudden speculation (without sources) of some mythical "more significant organization which represents Reformers";
4. Straw man fallacy: Membership numbers are irrelevant here;
5. Straw man fallacy: Whether the NACM still exists, is active, or is growing or dwindling, is all totally irrelevant - that school of thought exists. Even if it was an extinct organization a couple thousand years ago representig a reform "school of thought," it would still be relevant, just as Freud is still relevant when describing psychological schools of thought.
6. Unwikipedian conduct: editorial POV suppressionism and obstructionism that violates NPOV and is uncollaborative;
7. Refusing to accept established sources: We do have sources that document both the "school of thought" and an organization that is best known for representing that "school of thought," which is the subject of the section. Even the mainstream profession always refers to the NACM when it complains about reformers and other such "heretics" who point out its weak spots, and the best sources proving the irritating impression the NACM and reformers have made are from the mainstream (in fact this discussion - thank Levine2112 for making it necessary - indicates the NACM article is in need of many more of those available sources to make the article much stronger). I suspect the chiropractic profession will have less than positive thoughts about Levine2112's obstructionist role in making a mountain out of a molehill, and thus making that molehill more noticeable;
8. Speaking from ignorance: All proposed by an editor who (by his own admission) before coming to Wikipedia didn't know about reformers, didn't know about the NACM, and didn't realize (and still doesn't believe) that the profession even needs any reform. What he knew or didn't know, and whether the profession needs reform or not is actually irrelevant right here - we have sources and a long history that shows the school of thought exists and that the NACM is best known for representing that school of thought. We are mentioning a school of thought in an NPOV manner, not deciding whether it is legitimate or not;

None of us knows it all, and I would suggest that Levine2112 allow those who know more about this particular area of chiropractic politics and history to do their work without obstructionism, rather than imposing his own ignorance on the article. We all come with our various angles and POV, our dífferent areas of knowledge and experience, and our particularly specific knowledge of certain available sources. Together we can add various bits of information and build an article that more completely covers the subject of chiropractic than any one of us can do alone. We can best do that if he (and Steth) is not allowed to prevent others from adding other bits of information on this subject, causing the article to duplicate the hole in his knowledge base. Let other editors who know something about that hole "fill in the blank(s)." All we need is NPOV mention of the existence of the POV. A uniform format for each section is already proposed and works just fine for that purpose. -- Fyslee/talk 18:25, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

An important reason why the NACM is notable per WP rules are the very responses from other chiro orgs. I also note that you fail to address (and seem to concede) Fyslee's arguments under NACM's current status is a straw man here AvB ÷ talk 18:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC).

Very simply: We have no sources that support the suggestion that NACM represents the Reform movement in any notable way. So how can we say the Reformers are represented by the NACM? I mean, sure we can say that, but we don't have any references to support that. Even historically. All we know from the given sources was that NACM was an attempt to organize the Reform movement 15 years ago and that then it only had roughly 100 members (or < 0.2% of all chiropractors). We don't even know if it is still an attempt to organize the Reformers or if it is big enough of a minority view to even be mentioned. For instance, there is a movement in chiropractic that only focuses on the top two vertebrae (atlas/axis). They believe that this is all that needs to be adjusted. Yes, their numbers are small (probably in the low 100s). Where is their representation in this article? They tend to be members of NUCCA and IUCCA. Why aren't these organizations mentioned here? Truthfully, I have no problem with them not being mentioned here (or any of the many , many other relatively small schools of thought in chiropractic and the associative organizations). This topic is big and our space is limited. Broad strokes here. Save the details for their specific articles. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:56, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Another interesting straw man argument created by the use of the word "represent". Nowhere in the whole section under discussion is that an issue. We just name organizations known for holding or advocating the various phílosophical schools of thought and the practices that entails. Maybe the multiple possible meanings for "represent" are confusing the issue, so let's be sure we stick to something that's obvious and uncomplicated. The proposed uniform format avoids such problems.

The later change to "...attempt to organize reform-minded chiropractors....." is undeniably true, but does not use the uniform format that works so well with the previous three schools of thought, and it only adds problems and therefore should be reverted back to the "tend to share the viewpoints found in ..." version. That does work. The change was a compromise that was unnecessary and only complicated matters. Let's get back to the previous version and leave it at that. -- Fyslee/talk 21:27, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Now that I am thinking about it, perhaps "Reform" isn't big enough of a movement within chiropractic to warrant it's own section at all. It seems that there are many, many movements within chiropractic, most of which are much larger than the reform movement (upper cervical, activator, Gonstead, et cetera). But overall, there is really just two or three major schools of thought: Straight and Mixer (or if you want to break Straights up into the two sub groups, that's fine too). To make a comparison (and Fyslee, I am sure you will like this comparison as you ofter compare chiropractic with religions), there are many schools of thought to Judaism and thus its article lists out the major ones (Orthodox, Conservative, Reform, etc.) To make a direct comparison, the Reform movement in Chiropractic is not equivalent to the Reform movement in Judaism, because the Jewish Reform movement doesn't denounce the core belief of Judaism. Whereas, the Reform movement in Chiropractic denounces the central belief of Chiropractic. An apt comparison for the Chiropractic Reformer movement (in terms of Judaism) would be to the Jews for Jesus movement. Just as having the belief that Christ is the Messiah seems such the antithesis to the Jewish faith making it controversial for Jew who believes this to really call him or herself a "Jew", a chiropractor who doesn't believe that verterbral subluxations exist seems controversial in calling him or herself a "chiropractor". (BTW, I have no problem with people believing in whatever they want in terms of religion, chiropractic, or whatever. If you're causing no harm to anyone else, you're all right by me.) Now you will notice that in the enormous article that attempts to summarize Judaism, the Jews for Jesus movement is only given a brief, one-sentence mention. And this for the movement - the school of thought - and not for any organizations which may represent the Jews for Jesus movement. And know that at least with the Jews for Jesus movement, you can do a Google search and find out much of their up-to-date recent activity as a movement. Given this perspective, I think perhaps we shouldn't even list "Reformers" as a major school of thought, as it isn't. It truly is a minority view and is given too much weight as a movement as is in this article. Adding the questionable NACM detail to it, even throws the weight of this minority group even further out of whack. Again, I would venture to guess that the upper cervical movement in chiropractic and the Gonstead movement and the Activator movement all have a bigger following that the Reform movement, yet these are unmentioned in this article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• Endorse. We endorse the inclusion of the reform chiro bit. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:07, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

• REJECT the inclusion of the shadowy chirpractic bit.

"I would suggest that Levine2112 allow those who know more about this particular area of chiropractic politics and history to do their work without obstructionism, rather than imposing his own ignorance on the article." "That is also the reason the organization is not open about its membership numbers, since such chiropractors risk harassment and threats, yet the organization exists (quietly), has members, and even sympathizers in the scientific arena outside of chiropractic, since it is the only group that openly distances itself from the key unscientific foundational beliefs of traditional chiropractic. Its school of thought is shared by actual members, and by chiropractors who are not members."

How do you know this? Without any facts, I would tend not to believe you. Nothing personal. How is it that you know this 'inside' information aobut this "organization"? Are you connected with this 'organization' in some way? Do you have some 'special knowledge'? If you have this "inside" information, then it would behoove you to back up your 'just believe me I know more than you know' arguments with some simple facts like things about the membership (who/how many?), elections, research, seminars, is it registered anywhere. You know, things that would be easy enough to answer of a ligitimate organization. Withholding this data would be a big red flag in my estimation.

Apparently, you are not connected with the chiropractic profession, not a chiropractic doctor nor any other type of doctor. You have posted that you are a member of ...(another health profession). Are you involved in United States chiropractic politics? My understanding from information you have made available is that you live in (another country). I don't know, flysee, I think your judgement is clouded and your 'reasoning' has a few holes in it. Perhaps you are too close or too vested in this organization to be able to judge it fairly or accurately. You know when you hold a hammer, everything suddenly looks like a nail.

Comparing a dead person (Luther) to a dead organization that may or may not even exist except as a webpage is comparing apples to oranges. Luther existed, no question. The actual 'existance' of this 'organization' has always been questionable. Even if it ever did exist, there is no proof that it represents any one or any thing just because it's webpage says so. It may be just a dream on the part of someone with some marketing skill.

As I and others have pointed out before, the three links at the bottom of the "site" has three of the four links directly to a former employer of yours, Stephen Barrett enterprises where donations are gladly accepted to pay for activities that will negatively impact chiropractic. So which chiropractic "school of thought" wants chiropractic eliminated?? See what I mean?

"Often lambasting each other and attempting to steal members from each other" "A few chiropractic editors don't like the organization and its philosophy, which are considered heretical in mainstream chiropractic circles. Such hatred of an organization and its POV are not good Wikipedia editorial motivations" "That is also the reason the organization is not open about its membership numbers, since such chiropractors risk harassment and threats, yet the organization exists (quietly), has members, and even sympathizers in the scientific arena outside of chiropractic, since it is the only group that openly distances itself from the key unscientific foundational beliefs of traditional chiropractic. Its school of thought is shared by actual members, and by chiropractors who are not members. "

WOW! All of this has the makings of a good spy novel! I never heard of roving bands of chiropractors going around with sticks and clubs, harassing and threatening others.

"In the cases of Steth and Levine2112, their editing history shows actual hatred."

Now wait a minute! That's your opinion. Please keep your emotions out of this. I guess after looking at your history here, websites/blogs/internet responsibilities/associations, etc. I guess it can be said your hatred is clouding your perspective with hatred of all that is chiropractic. Steth 12:18, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Believe it or not, I have heard of an arrest here in Southern California for harrassment of one chiropractor by group of chiropractors. Unfortunately, I can't recall the group or alignments of the chiropractors. The reasons for secrecy are quite plausible.

I'd replace "actual hatred" by "intentional refusal to follow Wikipedia policies and guidelines to support (mainstream) Chiropractic", but it's otherwise accurate. "Hatred" requires a medical conclusion. Perhaps Barrett could weigh in? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 14:33, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Endorse - BUT! Only if you actually include all the relevant views. OK, I know I've chipped in only a little over the last months so you can assign me whatever weight you want to. The reformers do have their point. I can respect that. I do think they are on the wrong side of the tracks, and that is my view. I am a straight man! Thats my stance. You can take it or leave it. I think we can make the reformers view plain enough. But there are some weighty things missing from the straight point of view I believe. There is a world of positive regard towards what straight chiropractors do that I feel isn't being shown right. Just the other day, I met one patient who was put right mentally and physically through good alignment and powerful practitioner intervention. So all with the right proportion please. I hope you understand my intentions here. Lets get it right and be fair to good folks. Arlen Wilps 15:11, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Reiterate REJECT inclusion of questionable 'Association'

"The reasons for secrecy are quite plausible." Er, based on one incident that you can't recall anything about?? Thanks for the help. Good old Artie.

Arlen, thanks for your view. Let's just look at this a little closer, OK? Is it really a 'school of thought' in the chiropractic profession? According to the 'website' of NACM, if a chiropractor disavows all that has to do with chiropractic, then you can be a member of NACM! Yipee!! (Remember, the 'M' is for MEDICINE.) So, IOW, give up BEING a chiropractor, then you can be a member. Now what chiropractor wouldn't fall all over himself/herself at the chance to become a member of NACM and actually subscribe to this school of thought? See what I mean? It is not actually a school of thought within the chiropractic profession. Outside of chiropractic, perhaps. There are a few disgruntled, old MDs and a chronic chiro-hanger-on malingerer (other profession) living out of the country who would love to see chiropractic crash and burn and you handing out French fries at a drive-up window. It is their 'school of thought'perhaps. Is it any chiropractor's 'school of thought' that you know of? Likely not.

Then what is it? Well it seems to be owned or controlled by a retired psychiatrist named Stephen Barrett, since three of the four links at the bottom of the one-page NACM 'site' goes to anti-chiropractic sites owned by him where donations are solicited and gladly accepted to fight the chiropractic menace and eliminate it. Well, what kind of school of thought is that!? For chiropractic, that means school is out!

Again, who would subscribe to that school of thought in the chiropractic profession?? This is definitely a medical/psychiatric 'school of thought'. So someone who got himself a one-page 'website' and a little PR know-how suddenly has a 'school of thought'? So that makes this is a chiropractic 'school of thought'?? What do you think, Arlen? Ready to reverse your vote yet?

So until fyslee can come up with some names, numbers, facts like registration of this 'association', seminars it has ever held, research, elections, etc., etc., it will remain just an apparition, a bogus 'school of thought' and should be removed from the article and stay out permanently as it has been for a long time until just now.

It is just a shadow, a recurring wet-dream of a few life-long chiro-haters who are hard-fisting their views up our behinds and into this article with a few other henchmen blindly running interference for them, hiding behind WP's policies and guidelines to further their agendas, forcing personal POV, and in the process perverting what WP stands for. Just my thoughts. Steth 17:31, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, if you remove the unscientific part of chiropractic, you get the reform point of view. Are you saying there is nothing scientific in chiropractic? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:15, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

Good one, Artie. I think I see the fallacy you are laboring under. You are assuming that NACM represents ‘science’. That is a false assumption. More likely, it is a political –type of creation, likely operating under the influence of retired psychiatrist Stephen Barrett, since three of the four links are hooked up to his donation box. I don’t feel it is a trustworthy arrangement because as you may recall, or for those who may not be aware, he failed the neurological portion of his psychiatric boards, yet held himself out as an expert in legal proceedings. Here is a story about this found on Yahoo just yesterday:

Barrett admits board failure Steth 22:08, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

No, actually, I'm not assuming anything. NACM's stated position represents the established scientific position that subluxations, as defined in chiropractic, do not exist or do not have any effect on health. Whether NACM is scientific or just anti-straight is irrelevant. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 23:24, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

That brings up a good point. It is a pretty strange statement for "established 'science'" to make; subluxations do not exist or subluxations do not have any effect on health. I wonder which one they meant. I don't think you can have both. I wonder what their defintion of health is? Or is it that "established 'science'" is covering all the bases? Makes you wonder who "established science" is, doesn't it? Just a thought. Keep going. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:17, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Also makes you wonder why Fyslee avoids answering how he has received his 'special knowledged' about NACM and why we should believe him when he won't cough up any verifiable facts about the lack of any membership, elections, seminars, research, where it is registered, etc., etc. Yet it seems to be OK with an admin. I seem to have to go through Arthur Rubin before we get to see who/what's behind the curtain. Just a thought. Steth 02:31, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I have never seen Arthur use his admin powers here. Aren't you just a regular editor here, Arthur? -- Dēmatt (chat) 02:36, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm pretty much an ordinary editor in regard this article. I see I did use the "revert" button a couple times, but "undo" is easy enough these days. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:44, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Reform -school of thought? Well whatever you want to call it, its definitely a movement in chiropractic. I think its wrong, but its there. I will still emphasize that straight is best. Why? Well why do people see chiropractors? Why do they benefit? Why do they feel they benefit in ways far beyond the science meter? There's a lot of power in the straight way. Its not just a matter of just belief also. Look at alternative medicine in general. OK science says it could be all wrong. But science doesn't get to force folks into all-science medicine. So its not just belief and its not a religion. Its part of the fabric of society. Not just in the West, but also as it connects with ancient wisdom. OK it also connects to Christian belief. But chiropractic is real powerful because of society's knowledge in the power of healers in their group. So I'd say that reformers are there and mentionable, but should be presented in a context that shows all the various benefits of chiropractic - as given by society, not just as dictated by scientist consensus/convention. Arlen Wilps 07:44, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112,

Just perusing over the talk and you mentioned the reform wing was smaller than Gonstead, Activator, etc. and maybe should be mentioned. While I don't doubt that may be the case in the USA, the reform movement of chiropractic from an educational perpective is alive and very well in the UK, Denmark and Canada. All schools there do not teach "fundamentalist" chiropractic and have adoped an EBM perspective. Just sayin'...

Cheers, Marcbronson 00:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good. Are any (some, most, none) of the reformers in the UK, Denmark and Canada members of NACM? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:46, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Will we ever learn the facts about NACM?

I have asked Fyslee if he could back up some of his statements (see below) about the legitimacy of NACM. He seems to have ignored my questions. I would feel more comfortable with its inclusion if he could reveal to us how he came about his 'special knowledge' about this organization as I have requested above. IOW, what is his relationship/connection, if any, with NACM that would allow him to make these statements and how does he know this to be the case.

I am only asking this because he seems to have an intimate knowledge about NACM and seems to be the only one who can provide actual data about them. He has made some significant claims, yet asks us to go on nothing more than his statements as a source. Perhaps other editors would be more comfortable, too, if he backed up some of his statements. I am assuming good faith that he will provide something we could put our fingers on like the actual membership numbers, names, what seminars they have held for the profession, when are the elections of officers, when are any meetings, etc. Basic information that any organization can provide when asked. Any information he can provide will be appreciated. Thanks! ;- ) Steth 04:21, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

"Such hatred of an organization and its POV are not good Wikipedia editorial motivations. That is also the reason the organization is not open about its membership numbers, since such chiropractors risk harassment and threats, yet the organization exists (quietly), has members, and even sympathizers in the scientific arena outside of chiropractic, since it is the only group that openly distances itself from the key unscientific foundational beliefs of traditional chiropractic. Its school of thought is shared by actual members, and by chiropractors who are not members. They exist and the school of thought exists, and that is undeniable, and since the school of thought is so radically different and challenges the very foundations of the profession, it has gained much greater notability (notoriety!) than one would expect considering the actual numbers of chiropractors who hold it. So in spite of it being a minority position, it is quite significant. The massive opposition (here and elsewhere) to it and its POV makes it clear that it exists and has an impact."

See Talk

Yes I have been ignoring you as your motivations (which are open for everyone to read) and tone towards me (and Barrett, the NACM, and reform efforts) have been devious, antagonistic, and disruptive. You contribute nothing positive here, only baiting, attacks, and BLP violations at every single opportunity. You are a broken record stuck in one track and show no signs of willingness to engage in following NPOV by inclusion of opposing POV, as required by policy here. You are uncollaborative. Since you obviously show no signs of good faith, I have no obligation to act like a blind and naive idiot and deny reality by AGF towards you. You have no right to demand information of me and which is not relevant to the situation.

(Anyone who doubts what I write above can just read Steth's incredible track history for themselves before accusing me of a personal attack by telling it like it is. It is amazing he hasn't been site banned a long time ago. He has very improperly been given as long a rope as User:Ilena was given, being allowed to continue a long and unbroken series of policy violations and personal attacks without anything happening to him. He should get banned just like she was.)

Your ignorance of this subject tells me at least two things: you are either not a chiropractor as you claim to be, or you are ignorant of the conflicts within the profession which have involved the NACM. Those conflicts have been very public and written about in chiropractic publications for many years. Their influence has been considered so dangerous that Don Petersen, editor of Dynamic Chiropractic dedicated a year of Dynamic Chiropractic to opposing the President of the NACM, who was appointed by the VA to the VA Advisory Committee as NACM's representative on the board that made chiropractic inclusion possible as a veteran benefit at VA hospitals. The ACA and NACM voted on the same side and got it included, in contrast to the ICA and WCA (the WCA is a publishing company front which doesn't reveal its membership, but is estimated to be about the same size as the NACM). You can read about the anti-Duvall campaign here:

"To begin this campaign, we are dedicating every issue of Dynamic Chiropractic and all 50,000+ pages of ChiroWeb.com to speaking out about DuVall's removal. From this moment forward, the front page of DC and every page of ChiroWeb will feature the following banner: [the paper edition, which I have, showed the banner/button - Fyslee] We are asking every chiropractic association, college, company and individual that has a publication or website to add this banner on the front page of their publications, and on every page of their websites....." [7].

Of course Petersen's hatred was unfounded and counterproductive to the interests of the profession, and the ACA representative (and then chairman of the ACA Board) had these words of praise for Duvall:

"And finally, Charles DuVall Jr., DC, who also served on both VA committees. That's right, Chuck DuVaIl of NACM fame! While Dr. Duvall's committee appointment was opposed initially by both the ACA and Dynamic Chiropractic,3 my private conversations with him totally convinced me that he was much more interested in veterans than his own agenda or the agenda of his organization. As a result of those conversations, a "gentleman's agreement" was reached in that I would work to stop opposition to his appointment if Dr. DuVall would not do any media interviews while a member of the VA committee. While colleagues warned me that Dr. DuVall could not be trusted and would not keep the agreement, he did. More importantly, I want you to know that during the three-year advisory process, Dr. DuVall represented mainstream chiropractic admirably and voted with the majority each and every time." [8]

The chiropractic profession can thank the NACM for their role in getting chiropractors a right to practice in the VA system.

The NACM has been significant enough that only a non-chiropractor, or a chiropractor who has no contact with the profession, would not know about them. So if you really are a DC, you are woefully ignorant and your ignorance is not my problem, nor should it be Wikipedia's problem. It would be best for you to be silent about editorial matters of which you are ignorant. I certainly don't get involved in editorial disputes on subjects of which I am ignorant, and there are plenty of such matters. I stick to matters I know something about.

I have used a few of the available sources that meet V & RS criteria to strengthen and enlarge the NACM article. Needless to say there are more, and many, many that do not meet Wikipedia's inclusion criteria, but which nonetheless would inform your ignorance and help you to understand what is going on. Just start at Chirotalk: participate there and read the loads of information there. As an inactive admin there I have access to the member list information and can see that there are, IIRC, over 1300 registered users and many of them are NACM members, sympathisers, chiropractic professors, leaders, researchers, etc. Most are incognito for good reason, and I'm not about to violate my confidence by revealing anything to you. Intolerant, antagonistic, and hateful people like yourself make secrecy necessary. The threats they get aren't small things, and your conduct here doesn't exactly engender a feeling of trust as to your motives or what you might do to them. I consider their safety to be endangered by people like you, so no more info to you.

Since the section on "Practice styles and schools of thought" is not about membership or numbers, only mentioning sympathies and shared POV, such information is irrelevant and your continued badgering is simply improper and childish. -- Fyslee/talk 06:48, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, first, "Levine chiro family"? What does this even mean? Are you suggesting that I am part of a chiropractic family? Or have a family clinic? Or what? Wait, don't even answer that. As someone who is concerned about your real-life identity, you really are in no position to even postulate about who I am (and if I may be so bold, to even cast guesses about who Steth is either). As you well know, this is a blockable offense. This is just plain uncivil behavior that I don't believe is ever warranted - but in this case, have I said something that would provoke you in this manner here?

Second, we still would be helped by having a reliable secondary source which shows that NACM is notable enough of an organization to even be worth mentioning in this article. Have you found one? I am not asking you to reveal your super secret contacts or anything. I am just saying that if NACM is still notable, then certainly there must be some current secondary sources to provide us with much needed WP:WEIGHT here. Your anecdotal evidence about the members of a discussion board which you aren't even active in doesn't qualify as a reliable source. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 07:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about the confusion (again!). I wasn't referring to you at all. The Levine chiro family has a number of members and one of them sounds alot like Steth, therefore the mention. That member has previous attacked me viciously, and Steth's behavior mimics that DC.

As far as NACM notability, the NACM article has plenty of sources showing that, and its current status is irrelevant to the section we're discussing here, since it is only the shared sympathies that are relevant (as with the other groupings and their shared sympathies with other organizations). This is a non-issue. The NACM could be a long-dead organization from the last century and it and its POV would still deserve mention in keeping with the uniform format which helps readers place these various schools of thought in context.

You can't have it both ways - to claim non notability (based on your own ignorance) and yet the profession uses so much effort and protests so loudly against the NACM. The profession itself has shown that it takes the NACM very seriously, as (to them) notably notorious(!), which in this case also adds to the case for meeting Wikipedia's "notability" criteria. No, you can't have it both ways. The profession's attitude and published record trumps your own personal ignorance of this issue (which ignorance you have admitted), and even the VA invited the NACM to participate on a par with the ACA in the two-year long process of getting chiros approved for VA access and without the NACM the WCA and ICA might have blocked it! I see your continued obstinacy in forcing your ignorance of this issue on Wikipedia as disruptive. Please drop it. It is't relevant in this case anyway. -- Fyslee/talk 08:27, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

First, I am curious about this Levine family of chiros who have attacked you. Please let me know the details. I am sure that I am not related, but am curious to know more. If you don't feel it is appropriate to discuss here, please email me. But again, please refrain from even postulating who Steth is here. This is a blockable offense.

Second, as far as NACM is concerned: if there was another organization which also reflected the views of the reform movement but was much more notable (more memebers, more involvent, more public awareness) than the NACM, would you agree that it should be in the article in place of NACM? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:44, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

It was only one of them and it was several years ago. There hasn't been any problem with said person since. As far as some other organization, if there were such an organization (that would be OR, since no other organization has been described that way or claimed to go against the mainstream in an attempt to reform it in a scientific direction), it could be named along with the NACM, just as is done in the other groupings. There we have multiple organizations mentioned under one subheading. But attempts to keep mention of the NACM out of this article are just more attempts to hide its existence and the existence of the school of thought. Such actions would violate NPOV and be very unwikipedian. -- Fyslee/talk 19:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. I am questioning the weight of NACM in comparison to this article. If it is but a tiny minority, it may not warrant any mention whatsoever. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:26, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Since the number of members (as well as current activities and status of the NACM) is irrelevant to the section, the point is moot. We are trying to describe chiropractic in all its many facets, and the reform school of thought is but one of those facets and should of course be mentioned, otherwise the article would be incomplete. All this discussion is what's giving it more attention and weight, which to me (looking at this situation from the mainstream POV) seems like you are creating a Pyrrhic victory for their position. That's not necessary. The quiet and small mention we have now is nearly zero weight and serves the purpose fine. If you leave well enough alone, you can also achieve that there will be little more mention of the whole matter, organization, and school of thought, here on the talk page. From your POV that would be wise. Sometimes silence really is golden. The article should describe everything about chiropractic, not just the mainstream POV. -- Fyslee/talk 21:16, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I don’t know Fyslee, I think you are too emotionally invested in chiropractic and have elevated your own self-importance when it comes to who is qualified to judge chiropractic matters and edits. But it is my pleasure to be able to help you work through your unresolved conflicts. My conclusion is that you are suffering from a bad relationship with your motherboard.

Perhaps in the past I could have been a little less confrontational. But that was a while ago, I have acknowledged that to others and I believe I have been quite civil since then.

You, on the other hand, seem not to have learned anything about civility, despite your run-in with the WP authorities. You have insulted me with your insinuations (”devious, antagonistic, and disruptive. You contribute nothing positive here, only baiting, attacks, and BLP violations”) --Fyslee. And all because I don’t agree with your edits and methods and I challenge you to back up what you claim with some reliable sources? How rude is that?!

“Your ignorance of this subject tells me at least two things: you are either not a chiropractor as you claim to be, or you are ignorant of the conflicts within the profession which have involved the NACM.” --Fyslee

So you seem to like figuring out who editors are and then you judge them worthy or not to comment on anything? So you are not a chiropractor, as you have indicated in the past (and I won’t reveal your identity as you have requested due to fear of personal safety and I will respect that). So, why are YOU the authority/clearinghouse on all chiropractic edits?

As for DuVall, he is not responsible for chiropratic being available to the veterans, no matter how he voted or how strong your wishful thinking may be. The Veteran’s Administration needed to include chiropractic, no thanks to the shell ‘organization’ NACM, and they wanted to determine in exactly what manner and how it shall be utilized. Up to that point, NACM was likely opposed to the whole notion. So the VA convened a panel representing several views and organizaitons. Somehow DuVall wrangled an invitation to the party. My opinion: DuVall’s invitation had nothing to do with NACM which is a shadowy front with nothing tangible to show for itself. Rather some pull from an old anti-chiropractic crusader MD with some influence somewhere. Afterall, there are three links to Stephen Barret’s anti-chiropractic attack sites (where donations are gladly accepted!) at the end of NACM. Isn’t that a ‘red flag’? That’s why I feel this doesn’t pass the smell test.

All that others and I have asked is that you produce some reliable sources other than your imaginative anecdotes. Without elections, seminars, research, public membership, I am skeptical that NACM represents anything or anyone noteworthy, is nothing more than another exhaust pipe for the anti-chiropractic propaganda machine and it’s presence here is specious. That’s my opinion. Sorry you don’t like it. Steth 23:08, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I have explained that NACM is/was a shadowy sham of an 'organization' that has no elections, seminars, meetings, members (secret!) research, etc. I have explained that they are not responsible for chiropractic being included in the Veteran's Administration, but were last minute party-crashers after all of the ground-work had been done. I have explained that reform minded chiropractors and any so-called "reform" associated with NACM are not the same thing. I have explained that three links at the bottom of NACM's page go directly to rabid anti-chiropractic Stephen Barrett's donation box to be used to create a world without chiropractic which is a big red flag in my view, not to mention creates a big stink on the smell test-o-meter. And yet fyslee, who is the only one qualified enough to speak for NACM even though he is not a chiropractor nor connected with chiropractic in any way, says it should be included because he says so and can't reveal the information or chiros and their families will be attacked. In my estimation that is poor Wikipedian behaviour. Steth 02:56, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There's been little reason to list NACM, but none of this analysis weighs against those few reasons. We would need a WP:RS indicating their importance, just as we do for the "straight" organizations. No such source has been forthcoming for any of the chiropractic organizations mentioned in this article. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 05:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

While not subscribing to any, I regularly receive info and what have you from the ACA, ICA, WCA, and the FSCO. But I have never once received anything, not a peep from the NACM. Hence my question about them even being in existence. Guru's refs in the article are from 1988 and 1993. Earlier AvB found a ref that mentioned them from 2007, so I suppose we have to assume it is still in existence. But for all I can tell, from AvB's ref, is that there is only one guy at the switch.--Hughgr 06:12, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Also note that the 2007 reference which AvB presented refers to NACM not in 2007 but from 2000. I share your concern Hughgr. I feel it would be relativelyt simple to verify the current existence and good-standing notability of the ACA, ICA, WCA, and the FSCO. Might I suggest that the presence of the NACM here seems largely publicity driven. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:22, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

One interesting way to confirm the relative importance of these organizations is to check them out on The Congress of Chiropractic State Association (COCSA)website. This is a nonprofit org dating back to the 1960's with a mission to bringing together the major chiropractic organizations for the promotion and advancement of the chiropractic profession. Throughout the site's archives you will see the ACA, ICA, WCA, and the FSCO discussed in great detail. However, I have yet to find any mention of the NACM, either in the past or present. I also suggest looking at Congress.org where you can perform searches on each of these organizations. Once again, you will find lobbying efforts as recent as this year from the ACA, ICA, WCA, and the FSCO. However, I was unable to find any mention of the NACM. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I loathe Wikipedia and this is precisely why... agendas everywhere... NACM is a front organization that only exists in name only these days... keep it off of Wikipedia! TheDoctorIsIn 00:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I for one love Wikipedia, and I would appreciate some more input on this matter. Over at BLS I noted that they include info on several major chiropractic organizations - ACA, WCA, ICA, - but nothing from NACM. I really don;t think we have anything which shows the WP:WEIGHT here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:11, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I have repeatedly said it is a fake sham front. Three links to Stephen Barrett's privately owned sites (where donations are gladly accepted!)where one can read all the things a retired psychiatrist hates should be a big red-flag tip-off. With no elections, seminars, meetings, and won't reveal anything about the so-called 'membership', and the only 'expert' on NACM won't tell us anything for fear of being injured by an angry, club-wielding mob of chiropractors, the blind-following of protecting and restoring it IMO has no place on Wikipedia and should stop or be the subject of an investigation itself. Steth 02:52, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Feel free to start an investigation then. BTW, you might want to talk to I'clast about the "red flags" and usage thereof. Apparently using that term is a no-no. Shot info 03:02, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Shot info. I have seen enough of NACM in my readings and in discussion with other chiropractors to say that its notable. I do disagree with their stance for the most part. I think they are totally limited in vision. There's a whole world of benefits to be got from aligning body, mind, and spirit. I feel I have to say this because I don't want other editors here to give you the impression that all chiropractors are dishonest, trying to hide something, or part of some sort of a cult. I think NACM can be mentioned and I see the references are strong enough, but I reiterate: I would like to see they kept in the right context. Fairness is all I ask. Chiropractors of all quarters all have their beliefs and I would like to see that they are respected at least by Wikipedia. Arlen Wilps 05:37, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Arlen, you said you've seen enough of NACM in my readings. Just wondering what you read and what are the dates of the publications. --Hughgr 06:26, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, just a little search pointed me to Skeptic Enquirer which is peer reviewed - Homola talks of NACM there in 2001. Theres Christopher McDougall. Men's Health 2001 also talks of NACM as being a big deal. The web is full of stuff on NACM and folk are talking about it in various perspectives. A couple of co-students of mine talk of it like its a significant threat. I cannot deny that its notable. I dislike the group but I have to be truthful and say its of note. Arlen Wilps 07:33, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Arlen, I appreciate your honesty and understanding of NPOV. I respect the fact that you don't agree with the NACM and it is your right to do so. I wouldn't expect anything less of an honest person who holds a different position on the wide scale of varying schools of thought in the profession. What I appreciate even more is that you don't allow your POV to motivate you to suppress opposing POV and make the article less representative of the real world, which is much greater than our own limited spheres of influence and our own personal POV. I just wish others were as respectful of NPOV as you are. Anyone who really wants to learn about the NACM and about reform POV (regardless of mention or lack of mention of the NACM) can find it easily, and they can start with the article here. From there they can do a little searching for the key names of well-known reformers such as Homola, Mirtz, Duvall, etc.. Then they can start doing what they must have been neglecting, and that is to read Dynamic Chiropractic, other chiropractic journals, and participate in chiropractic discussion groups, all of which I do. The NACM and its influence is often referenced, usually in less than glowing terms! It isn't just notable, it's notorious, and thus (just by the weight of the attacks) is a notable organization.

BUT, keep in mind that the actual status of the NACM (even its very existence) is totally irrelevant to this discussion. It's a straw man. It is the school of thought that is the subject, and just as with the other schools of thought, there are organizations who promote a school of thought, and there are chiropractors who share that school of thought. That fact is totally independent of the number of members or status of the organization itself. A continuation of the line of argument promoted here by Levine2112 and Steth is a diversionary maneuver, used by them to distract from the real issues and to fill this page with their personal hatred for reform chiropractic and the NACM, which is a misuse of Wikipedia and this talk page, and a big violation of NPOV. You, OTOH, state your disagreement with them, but don't allow that to interfere with your editing policy. Respect! -- Fyslee/talk 08:41, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh I see what you mean. Yes I would hereby like to encourage all other editors here to avoid jamming other editors up with irrelevant issues. I see that happening on other more culty articles and I don't want to see it happen here. I think its harmful to chiropractic because everyone in the world can read whats happening here long term. I'd like to see any straights such as myself being as non-judgmental as possible. I think thats a cool attitude for any proponent. If someone is critical of a particular group (myself included) and its notable, then its cool to have it in the article if its sourced properly. And if there are any views on the broad benefits of chiropractic, and its notable, and well sourced then that should also be there just as it says in the NPOV instructions. I know the science view is tops in Wikipedia, but other views are allowed also and I want to work with you on making sure all those views are heard in correct order. Arlen Wilps 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I've done some OR on NACM for our benefit. Googling NACM gives two different addresses for NACM; 15427 Baybrook Drive Houston, TX 77062 and 1527 Baybrook Drive Houston, TX 77062 with a phone number of 281-280-8262. This could be a simple enough error, but we need to know if this address is real. Googling this phone number does not reveal NACM but a person who lives close to Baybrook Dr. [9]. This number, however, also shows up on several web sites advertising chiropractic directories for different citieswhere it is called ASSN. of Chiropractic Medicine,East Meadow, NY,Montclair, NJ,Vallejo, CA, and 22 other sites. I could be wrong, but it appears that it is a practice building organization under the guise of an association and it is using Stephen Barrett to gain credibility. Thoughts? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:01, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Which brings me back to my assertion that the NACM's presence here is largely publicity driven. I really resent Fyslee telling us that 1) I hate the reform movement and 2) That I am trying to supress a POV. These are both false and very unWikipedian. I will repeat this statement: I am not a chiropractor. I don't work for a chiropractor. I am not a doctor or an alternative medicine practictioner. I don't work in the health sector at all. I don't participate in blogs or forums dealing with these topics at all. Fyslee, on the other hand, has his own chiro-skeptic site, contributes as an admin to reform chiro forums, has served as the listmaster for Stephen Barrett's anti-chiropractic emails, and is generally active in the promotion of the Reform chiropractic movement. So please don't lecture us about NPOV, when you have a large conflict of interest here, specifically with the NACM issue. Dematt's research has shown us even more what a dubious organization NACM is. All I want to see is something notable that the NACM has done in the past 5 years. I have asked this from the beginning and nobody has been able to find one thing they've done of note. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Dematt, I am surprised and disappointed. This type of OR and conspiracy theory is beneath your dignity. A more logical interpretation (as indicated by the heading on each of those Yellow Pages, where it says "Featured advertisers") is that this is a paid advertisement that the Yellow Pages simply puts in all their listings, similar to Google ads. Maybe the ACA, ICA, and WCA should do the same thing. I can imagine this would work by them referring anyone who phones that number to a local chiro who is a member of the NACM. (Not all of them are listed at Chirobase's Chiropractic Referral Directory, which also includes non-member reformers.) See also the related Chiropractic Referral Directory Guidelines.

Now I'm not sure of this interpretation, but it's a good and extremely logical possibility, a more charitable interpretation, still OR, and thus we can't use it for anything.

Even if we could, it would still have no bearing on the subject, which is "schools of thought", the organizations that happen to promote them, and the chiros who tend to share those POV, regardless of membership status or organizational status (existence - past or present, size, visibility, etc.). That tendency to shared POV has already been established for the NACM and reform POV just as surely as stating that most people in Norway speak Norwegian (for which no reference or documentation would be necessary, since simple logic suffices). -- Fyslee/talk 19:30, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

From my talk page

http://www.acatoday.com/content_css.cfm?CID=250

http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/2007/may/b.htm

http://www.chiropractic.org/index.php?p=news/advisory_committee

AvB ÷ talk 15:37, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Wow, they were mentioned as recently as 2007. [10]. I stand corrected, even though they are just mentioned in the article, I still wonder if they have "produced" anything themselves in a long time. Hence my position. Thanks.--Hughgr 17:27, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

You will note that they are mentioned in context to the year 2000. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:00, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Well, I'm convinced. Here's an additional sampling of my reasons: (1) I don't agree we need sources for this (2) If I would agree to that, I would not agree with your 5-year cut-off (3) If I would agree with that cut-off, two of the sources refer to August 2002 (4) One of these three sources, published in May 2007, reports events from 2000. It then proceeds to indicate the same issues are still alive, and it does not say "Fortunately the NACM no longer exists". The fact that no chiro source (or any other source) has said that means something. Hughgr, their existence has certainly produced responses in mainstream chiro sources. But that's not the issue here. AvB ÷ talk 18:18, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Five years is arbitrary. But I would think that a notable organization worthy of mentioning in this article the way we are mentioning it should be active and doing something in the past five years. Otherwise it is yesterday's news and perhaps belongs on the history page - unless you want to load this page down with other historical organizations which used to claim to represent some group of chiropractors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:05, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please address the main points I made. AvB ÷ talk 20:58, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Again, again, and yet again, you are getting the (a) subject wrong and now you're even getting the (b) cart before the horse. The subject is not the NACM but the (a) reform school of thought. Many of those who hold the reform school of thought naturally tend to share the POV of the only organization that dares to promote itself as a reform organization. (b) Whether that organization is alive or dead is just as irrelevant as when a psychiatrist claims to share the Freudian school of thought. Freud is dead, yet he is named, and no one would question that use of his name. Get over it and get on with other things in life. Stop beating this dead straw man of your own devising.

When you can document, using V & RS, that the NACM has closed its doors and has no more members, then you can state it, but that will still have no impact on this section or its mention of the NACM and the reform school of thought.

Thanks to you (with a bit of help from Steth) the NACM has never (since the Veterans Administration in 2002 invited the NACM to participate for two years) gotten so much free publicity (in a very little forum....;-). You give the expression "a Pyrrhic victory" a whole new meaning. Maybe someone should write an article (maybe somewhere else so the chiropractic profession could "thank" you, or likely hunt you down....) It could be entitled: "How Levine2112's Pyrrhic victory did so much damage to the profession that it will take years to recover." And don't thank me for all this discussion. It is all thanks to you.

A gracious and simple following of NPOV would have served you and mainstream chiropractic better (since it still refuses to drop subluxations). Neither I nor anyone else would have been involved in this discussion if you hadn't insisted on making a mountain out of what you claim is a molehill of an organization. You yourself prove by your vehement opposition that its notability is much more than is warranted by its size, but in that sense you are only repeating what the profession has always done. The NACM would never have existed if the ACA board had heeded the appeal given by the founders before they even got the idea to start the NACM. That appeal was rejected and that was the reason the NACM was born. Instead of quietly burying a troublesome appeal to elevate the scientific standards for the profession, the ACA created a troublesome source of internal criticism. That is all historical fact. You just need to learn that sometimes silence is golden. Only speak out on issues of which you are well informed and stop before the losses are greater than necessary. I certainly didn't wish this to happen, and would gladly roll this back to quieter days. The NACM is noted for not responding to criticism and living a very quiet existence, and I would rather have followed the same path here. -- Fyslee/talk 21:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Please Fylsee, this is not a blog. We all know your POV, you don't need to keep spewing it out over and over. Back on topic, you said, Whether that organization is alive or dead is just as irrelevant, to which I ask, then why do we need a history section? Or, when should something be put in the history section? And please don't say when we need secondary sources because most things in the chiro history article will not have those kind of sources. For the record, I'm not against mentioning the NACM, I just wonder if they play a role anymore? If the only mention of them anymore is one guy, doesn't that make it a super minority view and thus not include-able? Which, by the way, I'm all in favor of including in the history article in case you forgot.--Hughgr 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

If Levine2112 (and yourself) would drop this issue it would get no comments from myself. History is history, and at Wikipedia it is only documentable history. In fact everything we write here is history, otherwise it's OR, and OR won't do. As far as the NACM, that's not the subject of the section. Just read what I've written above. -- Fyslee/talk 23:17, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

let NPOV prevail

More irrelevant arguments from Levine again. Dematt's research is also irrelevant. Dematt is also a chiro. Anyhow, Levine has already admitted he is a chiro. He said in part: As a chiro, I'd appreciate your input. According to Levine, he claims NACM is a dubious organization. So what. That is your opinion. The issue at hand is the factual statement. Basically: Reformers tend to share the viewpoints found in the NACM. Very simple. The fact that there is recent talk among mainstream chiros about NACM is evidence for their inclusion in this article. Manistream chiros oppose the minority group. There is a section in this article for the reformers bit. Every section has mentioned the organization or organizations which tend to share the same viewpoints of each chiro belief. Now then, why are chiros coming to this article and want to exclude the minority viewpoint. Because they have a pro-traditional chiro belief. They want to silence the minority voice. This is against NPOV. And it is against the spirit of Wikipedia. :) - Mr.Gurü (^talk/_contribs) 18:40, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I am not a chiropractor. Please read the statement you are quoting again. TheDoctorIsIn is (or at least claims to be) a chiropractor. Your behavior is disgusting, QuackGuru. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:03, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Jeeze Quack, learn to comment on the contributions, not the contributor.--Hughgr 22:08, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

QG, I believe the concept here is that, as a chiropractic physician, I carry no more (and no less) weight than an ignorant contributor. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:01, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Question about NACM

The NACM would never have existed if the ACA board had heeded the appeal given by the founders before they even got the idea to start the NACM. --Fyslee

Fyslee, I would be interested in knowing more about how the ACA board was involved in the formation of NACM. When/where did the ACA board rejection take place? Thanks Steth 03:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

That's easy for anyone who knows a bit about chiropractic history. If you had read the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine article and its sources you would know, but we may as well put this very relevant information here so others can benefit as well:

First, the National Council Against Health Fraud (NCAHF) was writing a Position Paper on chiropractic and asked Dr. R. L. Slaughter and the father and son team of Dr. Charles DuVall, Sr. and Jr. [all chiropractors - Fyslee], to review their work. These Doctors responded to the NCAHF, after review, that the information was accurate, but no remedy was suggested to criticism given nor was any attempt made to show the value of manipulative procedures. The NCAHF responded by inviting these Doctors and others of their choosing, to write this part of their position paper. They did, and this was incorporated into the final paper. These Doctors felt this was a major victory for scientifically oriented reformer chiropractors for a number of reasons.

The final paper, approved and published by NCAHF Board of Directors, February 14, 1985, specifically stated exactly what "A scientific chiropractic will" and "A scientific chiropractor will not:" do. It further made "recommendations" to consumers, insurance carriers and third-party payors, legislators, basic scientists, academicians and educators, attorneys and law enforcement agencies, medical doctors, dentists, and other scientific health care providers and to reformist chiropractors. The value of applied science manipulative procedures was recognized. It was proposed that chiropractic training be incorporated into State supported university colleges leading to a degree in "chiropractic medicine", and to "permit Doctors of Chiropractic Medicine to utilize prescription drugs suitable to the limitations of their practices." Had the chiropractic profession followed these recommendations "chiropractic" today would be a viable "mainstream" health care profession. Instead, the chiropractic profession vehemently attacked the NCAHF and the authors of the paper and continued education and practice based on the disproved/unproved chiropractic hypothesis.

The second factor prompting formalization of the NACM, was the response of the fourteen Board Members of the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) to a presentation made to the Board by Dr. R. L. Slaughter in New Orleans in the mid 1980’s. Dr. Slaughter asked the American Chiropractic Association Directors to work toward the abandonment of philosophy as a basis of practice and to work toward an applied scope of practice. Clearly, no desire existed in this body toward the reformation of the profession from a philosophical base to a scientific base of practice. In conclusion, to the Board, Dr. Slaughter promised that if the ACA would not lead the way to a consumer protected profession a way would be found to do so.

With the assistance of the Senior and Junior Dr. Charles DuVall’s, Doctor Mark Davis and Dr. Anita (Denson) Gilbert, Dr. Slaughter chartered the NACM as a non-profit Corporation in the State of Texas shortly thereafter. The membership of the NACM has, steadfastly, continued to work for the reformation of the chiropractic profession along the lines of the recommendations made by the NCAHF. Membership has assisted the news media, State and Federal government agencies, the insurance industry, the medical profession and the legal profession, when applicable, toward these goals to this day and will continue to do so. - Source: History of the NACM (emphasis added - Fyslee)

Is that clear enough? -- Fyslee/talk 11:44, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello All again, sorry to pop in and out, hope you understand. Fyslee, Steth, Levine, Hughgr, and now AVB, please know that I am interested in getting this right, not for any personal reason, but because I think the history of chiropractic is so colorful and interesting - I just want to get it right - as if we were watching it unfold before our eyes. We don't know how or where this profession is going, but we have an obligation for being the reporters of our time (and unfortunately we have to dig into the past because WP was not around 100 years ago). If NACM deserves credit for the direction of the profession, then great, THANK YOU!!!, but if not, then let's let them have their history, it is not ours to rewrite. Fyslee, I think you know this to be true as well. Having said that, I did some more OR and called 1-281-280-8262. The number is disconnected. Is it perhaps possible that these people are now part of the ACA? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Disconnected phone number. Bad mailing address. No reports of doing anything since 2001. I think we can close the book on NACM. It no longer exists and thus cannot share the views of any group of chiropractors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:31, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

No reason not to include it as an historical organization, even if everything you say is true. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 21:30, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Historical is fine. How it is included now makes it seemt hat it is still active and currently representing the views of the reform. This is misleading. Move it to Chiropractic History. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:56, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Fyslee for clarifing that point for me. Here is how I see this whole thing based on your retelling above:

The NCAHF, which is not really a 'National Council' meaning nothing to do with a regulated body but is fully owned and operated from the basement of a psychiatrist who is now retired, Stephen Barrett, took it upon himself to write his manifesto of what he thinks chiropractic should be. It was then allegedly presented to the board of the ACA who didn't embrace it with ecstatic enthusiasm. Keep in mind that now retired psychiatrist, Stephen Barrett, has a long history of anti-chiropractic antagonism. As far back as 1979, he took it upon himself to fly to New Zealand and declare that chiropractic was the devil incarnate, for which his testimony was declared biased propaganda by the very astute New Zealand Royal Commission. Is it any wonder why the ACA, if they really ever did meet with NACM, would soundly reject the recommendations of Stephen Barrett, who you will recall, failed his certification boards yet testified in courts as someone who has expertise in his field.

So NACM supposedly represents the viewpoint of "reformers", but it really represents what Stephen Barrett thnks chiropractic should be. IOW, there is nothing to show that it represents anyone other than the views of a retired psychiatrist. Especially since there are no meetings, elections, research, the alleged membership is a secret and the links at the end of the site go directl to Stephen Barrett's privately owned sites. Should there even be a separate article devoted to NACM? Even the history seems like a big smokescreen, an illusion or a shadow. Steth 23:37, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Excellent example of OR and why WP has a policy about it. Shot info 23:43, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

As MarcBronson said, in Canada and the UK, the reform movement is quite active. I am split on the issue of using NACM as an example of our thoughts though. Although being reform minded, I would never become a member of NACM (which I don't believe is anything more than S.B.). While we may 'tend to share the viewpoints found in the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine', I would argue that we only tend to share SOME of the viewpoints found in the NACM, and although I have no way of verifying it, I doubt many "reform-minded" (aka evidence-based) Chiropractors are members of the NACM. 24.85.239.105 03:31, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you anonymous user, I agree with you, although I suggest that it is active in the US as well. The question is, although the NACM was active at some point, is there anything that verifies that the NACM exists today and is it sufficient to include it here.---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:12, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot to login when I posted that. I do not believe there is anything to suggest that NCM still exists today. A quick look over at chirotalk finds this - "I've been reading a little bit about the NACM and Orthopractic on the internet but have heard rumours that they have disbanded. The websites do not look too active and my e-mails to Dr. Katz and Dr. Slaughter arn't being received. Are these organisations still accepting new members? Anyone who can share any info on this...it would be appreciated." followed by this response "I haven't heard much out of those organizations in a long time, and have no idea if they are still active... I emailed NACM years ago with minimal response (I think they said they were reorganizing or something). After that, I heard nothing else.

"(http://www.chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi?board=careerchange&action=display&thread=1179876891&page=1) DigitalC 19:43, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

That is what I thought, too. At this point, it would look as though we might consider integrating NACM more into the history than here. I know this is a touchy subject and would entertain any thoughts to the contrary. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:41, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

These are all interesting speculations, but they are OR and useless for affecting any edits at Wikipedia. The current status of the organization is also irrelevant to the way it is being mentioned in the "schools of thought" section. It is the ideas and not membership that is the focus, just as Freud is still mentioned when discussing psychiatric schools of thought, even though he is dead. -- Fyslee/talk 08:29, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with those points. I am also concerned that to leave them out totally is to leave out a significant part of chiropractic history. Maybe we could place a paragraph within the "schools of thought" section that says something like:

• With the advent of evidence based medicine in the late 1970s, a small group of chiropractors worked together with the NACHF to define chiropractic in a manner that they felt would move the profession more in line with scientific medicine and allow for chiropractic to integrate into the mainstream of healthcare rather than compete. The group became known as the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine (NACM). Before the group was able to gain a foothold within the profession, word began to spread that the NACM was working to build a new profession called "Orthopractic" that would market itself as the only safe way to use manipulation. The group was quickly ostricized and never gained the support of the profession. However, whether influenced by this small group of doctors, CCE advancements in chiropractic education, or the growing need to prove medical necessity in order to get reimbursed, a growing percentage of chiropractors began to support the move toward reforming chiropractic by confirming its efficacy through scientific methods.

I know at this point this is OR as I am writing from memory. If it looks like something that we could incorporate into the article, we can work out details. I think the point is that the NACM - whether it was influencial toward reforming chiropractic directly, it was there during that time. It is quite possible that they did more damage than good at the time, especially when they were building 'Orthopractic' to compete with chiropractic. That is when they gave their fellow chiropractors a black eye on 20/20 and Consumer Reports. No wonder chiropractors were upset with them. Comments? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:33, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

That seems accurate to me, Dematt. Two problems though. No sources, at the moment; and it reads like it would work best in the chiropractic history article.--Hughgr 07:07, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Good points, Hughgr. I can dig up the references if we decide to use it. You might be right about it being more of a history section piece. I'll go with the consensus on this. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 17:30, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm in favor of it being moved to history. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 23:42, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

It should not be "moved", as the history is irrelevant to the current use in the section in question ("schools of thought..."). If you're going to write about it in the history section (a very good idea, since it has made plenty of very notable waves in the profession), then do that, but keep that issue separate from this one.

Dematt's proposition sounds pretty good. Which way to interpret it is currently a matter of OR, but I suspect (based on the many sources showing a great lack of understanding and sympathy from the profession) that they would be seen by the profession as doing more harm than good, but the historical record also shows they have sympathizers in high places and have been responsible for making chiropractic look better than it is, mixed bag that it is. I consider their role to have been (in the DVA situation) as a sort of Trojan Horse, paving the way for acceptance of chiropractic as a whole (including the worst quacks and scammers in the profession, whom most chiros are ashamed of) among chiroskeptics in government, medicine, and science. By opening the doors to what they saw as sensible and science based chiropractors (having just met the NACM members who denied the vertebral subluxation hypothesis), they inadvertently forgot to incorporate screening at the same doors to keep out the rest of the profession with its various factions who advocate everything from anti-vaccination/anti-medical/anti-science propaganda, homeopathy, Rife devices, colonics, ionic foot baths, Hulda Clark Zappers, claims that adjustments can heal everything from cancer to Parkinsons and AIDS, etc.. Thus the Trojan Horse analogy. Whether the profession likes it or not, the NACM's influence has spurred various reforms and a tendency to be more self-critical. -- Fyslee/talk 08:19, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I realize that we are only supposing here, but if we really look to go to verifiable and reliable information, we are looking at NACM playing a historical role as either a major player in moving toward the scientific re-evaluation of chiropractic or a fly in the ointment of a process that was already beginning, depending on the source. We may not be able to determine the difference because it most certainly depends on the POV of the source. IOWs, assuming we could find sources from the NACM, their claims would be as exagerated as the ACAs or ICAs claims about their worth or lack of worth. So as editors, we can only place both POVs in the article I think. I believe they belong in the history section of this article as well as a perhaps expanded section in the Chiropractic history article most certainly. I still don't see any sign of a current status for the NACM, though agree there is a reform school of thought. Maybe we can just say, "these doctors tend to follow the concepts set forth by the now defunct NACM in that they don't use the subluxation and innate intelligence model of disease and confine their practices to the diagnosis and treatment of musculoskeletal conditions." If we do both (accept that NACM is part of history and accept that NACM is not really a defacto organisation anymore) then I think we will actually have a more accurate article. Not a compromise, but rather one step closer to the truth. Am I making sense? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The section is about the Practice styles and schools of thought and not NACM. Describing NACM in the Practice styles and schools of thought section is obviously weaseling. There could also be room in the chiro history if there are references available. Understand?  Mr.Guru  talk  21:17, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Dematt, I am quite surprised that you admit this is OR, and yet you are proposing to include it in the article. Right now we have something that works, is a uniform format, and violates no rules. "If it ain't broken, don't fix it." -- Fyslee/talk 21:23, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

merge with Doctor of Chiropractic

I took off the merge tag because this article is too long and has been shortened several times. In fact, the information for that article was likely in this article at one time. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:36, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

You're right. Several other articles were developed as spin-offs for the "excess baggage" here when this article got too large. They should remain as separate articles where there is room to do justice to the subjects. -- Fyslee/talk 08:22, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Lead Changes

I did a couple of changes the the first paragraph. Most notably the first sentence, I took out the comp/alt part because there is a big box to the right that shows that. It was repetitive. Also, I split the paragraph for better flow and composition. Finally, the last sentence was moved down to the vert. sub. part of the article because it is more directly related to that. Directly above it says Others have dropped this concept and concentrate mostly on the musculoskeletal components of spinal injury and rehabilitation of the spine. making the moved part redundant, although it was still relevant thus just moved down and not deleted.--Hughgr 06:21, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I removed a redundant 'with' and took out a 'still' which seemed to assume the reader already knew what VS was. -- Dēmatt (chat) 12:33, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks D-man. It was getting late for me. :) --Hughgr 17:15, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Wow. That reads a lot better. I still take some issue with this sentence though. "It is based on the premise that a spinal joint dysfunction can interfere with the nervous system and result in many different conditions of diminished health.". While factually it is correct, a 'reform' chiropractor probably would take a much different meaning of this than a straight chiropractor. For example, spinal joint dysfunction can cause pain, and pain signals are carried by the nervous system, thus spinal joint dysfunction interfere with the nervous system - however this is NOT what a straight chiropractor means when they are talking about "nervous system interference". DigitalC 04:54, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

So, what you are saying is that all chiropractors agree with that sentence, right. In other words, are you asking us to consider qualifying the meaning in another sentence that might differentiate the two? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 02:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, in retrospect, I would think that reform minded chiropractors would disagree that a spinal joint dysfunction could result in different conditions of diminished health. However, I don't have a reference to back that up, and the opionion of a WP-editor is not sufficient to change it. DigitalC 04:51, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I know what you are saying.. particularly that reform minded chiropractors don't believe that whole subluxation = disease concept, yet they do understand that pain diminishes quality of life. The question is whether they believe that pain can effect health. I think there are plenty of studies that show the relationship between chronic pain and chronic pain syndrome that result in depression, alientation from family/work, etc.. Then there is the effects on sleep patterns that can effect health in adverse ways. These are all medically accepted facts, in fact they are the rationale for medical treatment for these conditions (albeit medication). So I would think that it would be considerate to qualify that reform minded chiropractors do believe it diminishes health (or words to that effect), but not in the same way that straights believe that it does. Am I making sense? ---- Dēmatt (chat) 13:04, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

The reform understanding is essentially the same as that held by MDs, DOs, and PTs. The only difference is that reformers are still DCs and have been influenced by their training (which places so much emphasis on adjusting and less on other techniques) and still have a tendency to use joint manipulation more than MDs, DOs, and PTs.

Otherwise they believe, just like the rest of the mainstream healthcare system, that joint dysfunctions can cause local problems that can also influence biomechanical functions in related parts of the body. They don't believe that joint manipulation can effectively treat or prevent visceral diseases, cure cancer, Parkinsons, MS, diabetes, allergies, infantile colic, otitis media, etc. Nansel and Szlazak (both chiropractic professors) punched a hole in those ideas back in 1995:

• Nansel, D., Szlazak, M. "Simulation of Visceral Disease Brought About by Somatic Pain Referral and Common Associated Reflex Patterns: A More Plausible Explanation for Presumed Chiropractic “Cures” of True Organic Visceral Disease." J. Manipulative Physiol Ther, Volume 18:6, 1995.

The straight concept of vertebral subluxation embodies a vitalistic belief subtly expressed by the president of the World Chiropractic Alliance:

• "The subluxation has neurological, muscular, and skeletal components," explained Dr. Rondberg. "Yet it is distinct from neuromusculoskeletal conditions such as sprains, strains, radiculopathies, etc. It is a common denominator for increasing the level of worldwide wellness." [11]

He is expressing that the straight VS is more ("distinct") than the medical subluxation. It contains a distinct belief in what amounts to a fundamental pantheistic aspect of vitalism, an impersonal universal life "force". This is something more than the body's own inherent recuperative powers. -- Fyslee/talk 20:30, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Ernst

I've reverted the insertion of the Ernst review. I think if its included, it should go in the science section and not where it was placed. That way, the critique of his methodology can be inserted. Please see this to see what I'm talking about.--Hughgr 22:33, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

The Ernst review was NOT added - it was already in the article. It was the conclusion of the review that was added. The reason I added the conclusion is because the reference was misrepresented in the article. Clearly you don't like the conclusion, but that is not a reason for removing the review.

Considering that it is a review of reviews and was done by a reputable scientist (he is the person who is basically in charge of validating alternative medicine in the UK) I think the review should stay. It seems there are some people here who don't like the conclusions of the review, but that is not a good reason for removing it.

I have added it again. Please discuss here BEFORE removing it, thanks. If you want to add the critique, feel free, but don't remove the review.

--Sciencewatcher 02:49, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Clearly you don't like the conclusion, but that is not a reason for removing the review. Please comment on the contributions, not the contributor. I am suggesting that it belongs in the more appropriate science section. Agreed?--Hughgr 04:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, it probably would be better in the science section. Feel free to move it (and add the critique). I have noticed methodological problems with Ernst before, so it wouldn't really surprise me if this study did have some problems. --Sciencewatcher 14:32, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Research making such definitive conclusions that themselves may have methodological problems are the exact kind of misleading sources which Wikipedia recommends against using. Further, a while baack we had agreement that the only research which would be valid here would be those which study chiropractic and/or the chiropractic adjustment specifically. This one seems very generalized to dealing with a whole host of other pratitioners' spinal manipulation. Given that this generalization has been purposefully misused and misattributed to chiropractic, I think we should exercise caution and not include a chiropractic specific study. Finally, to say that the chiropractic adjustment offers no benefits from a study (of other cherry-picked studies) which says that spinal manipulation in general offers no benefit is a violation of WP:OR and specifically WP:SYN. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:39, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to make two comments: all of the references for chiropractic have methodological problems because they do not have valid placebo controls. Do you want to remove all the references? If that is the case then there is no evidence for chiropractic at all. As I stated in the revert comment: the studies are about spinal manipulation which is the actual medical technique used in chiropractic. It should not matter what the practitioner calls himself - what is important is the actual treatment. Although the study may have problems (I haven't verified this myself) it is the best independent review of chiropractic treatment there is, so the study should stay. And as I pointed out before, I didn't actually add the reference - I only added the conclusion. You are breaking the wikipedia guidelines by removing this reference without discussing it first. Please refrain. --Sciencewatcher 20:01, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Placebo is not the only valid way to run an experiment. It that were the case, any surgeory would be considered clinically unproven as you can't set up a placebo group for, say, heart surgeory. There is a vast difference between spinal manipulation and the chiropractic spinal adjustment - more than just intention. Chiropractic, as a rule, delivers the most precise movement when compared to other forms of spinal manipulation. Chiropractic uses very different techniques than a D.O., P.T. or whatever other practitioners were included in this and many other studies. I truly think we should limit the research included in this article to just that of chiropractic specific analysis. Remember, statistics about spinal manipulation in general has been seemingly purposefully misattributed to the chiropractic adjustment. In one poor study, manipulation performed by Kung Fu blackbelts and Indian barbers were grouped with "chiropractic adjustments" seemingly just to make chiropractic look bad. I think we should be very selective with the kind of sources we are referencing and we shouldn't assume that any one is the "best" study. Again, let's set a cap and only include research that studies chiropractic specifically and not spinal manipulation in general. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

That would essentially be a separate section regarding straight chiropractors, since they are the ones who insist that there is a great difference. It would also be a section containing only research performed by them, and thus we'd be dealing with self-published sources that naturally would never utter a word of negativity. This particular study includes "what chiropractors do", regardless of what they call it. -- Fyslee/talk 14:31, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Actually, no. There is plenty of research out there not done by chiropractic organizations that are specifically about chiropractic or the chiropractic adjustment. Certain studies that cover spinal manipulation make a distinct point to separate procedures performed by chiropractors from those less qualified. These are the kinds of studies which will be most beneficial to the article. However, I definitely think that should we decide to keep the Ernst study, it should go into the science section with the rest of the studies. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good because that kind of research is what we need here. Now....where is it? Please provide us with some independent research.

I suspect that there are some things we will find:

1. The research made by such independent ("not done by chiropractic organizations") sources about "what chiropractors do" (which is therefore relevant to this article, regardless of terminology) will not be very careful to distinguish between a chiropractor providing a manipulation (even if that chiropractor privately calls it an "adjustment"), and a chiropractor providing an "adjustment" and publicly calling it an adjustment. They will most likely just call it all "spinal manipulation" or something like that.
2. That's because chiropractors (except the small group of ultra-straights) are not consistent in their terminology. When speaking to non-chiropractors and when involved in research of "what chiropractors do," they themselves often refer to their own practices as "manipulation." Even a superficial knowledge of the existing research and scholarly articles written "by chiropractors for chiropractors" and "by chiropractors for others" reveals this failure to make the distinction in actually what is physically done when performing an adjustment. It's only the intention (emphasized by ultra-straights in their esoteric literature - like in the Journal of Vertebral Subluxation Research) that makes a psychological difference in actual practice. Making that distinction is an important part of so-called "patient education," thus having a great psychological impact on patients in getting them to think they are getting something more.....
3. If you want to get independent research exclusively devoted to "adjustments", you'd be hard put to find it, since independent researchers do not recognize the existence of the "chiropractic vertebral subluxation" lesion in the sense (metaphysical) meant by ultra-straights. Only ultra-straights research it.

That is because no independently recognized methods have yet been devised to research the "consequences of an intention" to correct a metaphysical lesion not yet proven to exist. Even top ultra-straight chiros still admit it is a theoretical thing (*), but in practice they all talk about it as if it was real. The "physical" difference between identically performed manipulations performed by identically trained reform chiros and ultra-straight chiros is the intention. So far any claimed physical difference is unmeasurable. OTOH, the psychological difference is immense in its marketing, branding, and sense-of-identity values.

(*) Tedd Koren, DC, and the ultimate marketer of super straight chiropractic ideas (and so far the winner of a case where Barrett sued him for libel) says this:

• "The vertebral subluxation cannot be precisely defined because it is an abstraction, an intellectual construct used by chiropractors, chiropractic researchers, educators and others to explain the success of the chiropractic adjustment." [emphasis added by Fyslee]

So yes, please provide us with some independent research because it would be good for this article, regardless of our personal POV. You believe one way, I another. I'm fine with that. The article requires both POV and this would strengthen the article. The ultra-straight POV exists and therefore deserves some mention.

As far as the Ernst study goes, I'm glad we are in agreement that it should be moved to the science section. It doesn't belong where it is now. Let's let Dematt do it. If he doesn't respond soon we can begin to work on how to do it here on the talk page, rather than trying to do it in the article, with the resulting edit wars that will inevitably ensue. -- Fyslee/talk 08:45, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

This is actually a rather old discussion which was settled a long time ago. This study includes the chiropractic research and references chiropractic sources. Since, as we know, probably 95% of all spinal manipulations are performed by chiropractors, they are certainly covered completely by this study. There is no indication that the inclusion of anyone else in the study (it could only be a very few) influences this study negatively for chiropractic or for manipulation, beyond what would have been the case anyway if it had been only chiropractors.

This just shows what we already know, that V & RS offer differing conclusions regarding spinal manipulation/adjustments, and this article should reflect that fact. The current version is worded to show there is both positive and negative evidence, IOW we are not totally clear about all these aspects yet, which should be no surprise to anyone. This is about as NPOV a version as can be expected, and there will be no risk of accusations that chiropractors have succeeded in whitewashing this part of the article. -- Fyslee/talk 20:29, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Moving it

I agree with the sentiments for moving the quote (and related parts in that paragraph) to the "Scientific investigation...." section. It is not a logical part of the "History" section. It belongs in the first part of the "Scientific.." section, and since that section is quite long, it deserves a subheading labeled "Effectiveness: conflicting conclusions".

I would suggest that this is a job for Dematt. He is a chiropractor whom we can trust to ensure that NPOV is preserved and that all parties will be satisfied. Let's not do anything with it right now. Leave it as is and let him do it all. This will save a lot of time for the rest of us and avoid alot of edit warring. -- Fyslee/talk 20:51, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that is wise too. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:14, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Placebo Controls

In response to the comment above regarding placebo controls for surgery. Most surgery fixes physical problems that you can see the differences before and after. Before: a clogged up heart. After: a good heart. Before: a 25-foot tapeworm in the intestines. After: no tapeworm. In the past there has been some quack surgery: surgery on a part of the body to cure another problem. In one case I read about involving knee surgery to cure some type of pain problem (I can't remember the actual details), there was found to be no difference between sham surgery and actual procedure. Chiropractic treatment uses spinal manipulation to treat a distant problem, it does not fix a physical problem with the spine that you can see. Therefore it also needs placebo controls.

I have looked through the research and it seems that chiropractic only has a benefit for lower back pain. In looking for placebo controlled studies into this I found two: PMID 15750369 and PMID 15319761. Both studies are a reasonably large size (over 100 participants), but neither had adequate placebo control: in both studies, the participants correctly guessed whether or not they were having the actual procedure done. One study (the independent one) found no difference between the placebo group and the actual treatment group. The other study (done by chiropractors) did find a significant difference, but only in the pain scores (not in disability).

So, in conclusion, chiropractic seems to only relieve pain, and only when patients know they are receiving the treatment. The placebo effect is remarkably effective at reducing pain, and we know that in all these positive studies the placebo effect was a significant factor. An a neutral outside observer with no prejudice for or against chiropractic, it seems to me that the most likely explanation is that chiropractic is just an elaborate placebo.

Currently this article is very biased towards chiropractic, and this needs to be changed. --Sciencewatcher 15:19, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Just to add to the above: I found another reference (PMID 7644961) which claims that chiropractic treatment results in greater improvement in pain than a "manipulation mimic". There are many references on the web that give this as evidence that chiropractic is more effective than a placebo. They also claim to have addressed methodological concerns of previous studies. However the Ernst review states that PMID 7644961 did NOT find any statistically significant difference between the sham and active treatment groups. Also, I do not have access to the full article and the abstract does not give any information about whether the subjects were successfully blinded. Does anyone have any further details about this study? --Sciencewatcher 16:13, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here are the two sources for the full contents:

• http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/142/12_Part_2/1042
• http://www.annals.org/cgi/reprint/142/12_Part_2/1042.pdf

Let us know what you find. -- Fyslee/talk 16:28, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately those articles just reference PMID 7644961, and they don't really give much information about it. There doesn't seem to be a free full-text version of it anywhere. --Sciencewatcher 19:15, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Explanation Section

I've streamlined the flow of this section, and added more information on the relationship between chiropractors and drug prescription.

The entire "History of the Basic Premise" section could probably have its content merged in to other headings to make the entire article more coherent. - —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.127.60.18 (talk • contribs)

Good work on the prescription section. This is an improvement. -- Fyslee/talk 20:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Possible COI editing

No idea if this has been discussed before, so flagging up this note I found on kansaschiro.com -- see page 3, "Communications -- Wiki Who? Chiropractic Takes on Newest Online Encyclopedia Craze" Avb 15:39, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

What's your point? Could you be more specific? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:18, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

You of all people should understand the possible problem here. Please read the article so that we can discuss it. I don't want to copy it here since that would constitute a copyvio. Avb 00:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll try a fair use summary (bold text is my emphasis. Please note it would be better if interested editors would read the entire chapter): Chiropractic Takes on Newest Online Encyclopedia Craze Wikipedia, the popular online encyclopedia that any computer user can edit at any time, has had some high-profile exposure in the national media lately—not all of it positive. John Seigenthaler, an assistant to Sen. Robert Kennedy in the early 1960s, blasted the Web site (...) On the other hand, Peter Frishauf, the founder of the peer-reviewed Web site Medscape, recently praised Wikipedia as the newest wave in medical publishing. (...) ACA’s member listserv has been abuzz lately with members questioning the accuracy and integrity of the online encyclopedia’s chiropractic entry. In addition, my colleagues and I have received many personal e-mails from chiropractors, wondering what can be done to change the biased tone of the article. While ACA staff does monitor and edit the site on a regular basis, my answer has been for chiropractors themselves to visit the site, post their own edits, and to “just keep trying.” (...) When an “underdog” profession like chiropractic has to take on hundreds of thousands—perhaps millions— of Wikipedians who have been influenced by the medical establishment, it’s difficult to keep up with the objectionable edits that often appear. (...) believe it or not, it now seems like the chiropractic profession is beginning to make some strides to rid the chiropractic article of bias. (...) it appears the profession’s monitoring of the site and stick-to-it-iveness editing might be making a dent in Wikipedia’s medically biased armor. To register for the site and to begin editing, simply click here and provide the information indicated. Before you know it, you’ll have joined the ranks of Wikipedians worldwide and can begin working to portray chiropractic in an unbiased light.

Avb 01:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this article is a little old. And yes, at that point the chiropractic article was in terrible shape. Now, nearly two years later, the article is in excellent shape, thanks in most part to two editors here , Hughgr and Dematt. I still don't see what the issue is with the article you are linking to; COI or anything else. I guess you could use that new WikiScanner tool to do a search on the ACA range of IP to see just how many edits they account for, but even still I don't see what the problem would be. Overall, I think we have a very neutrally written article. It deals with criticism, but it isn't overwhelmingly biased. There are still perhaps some minor issues, and as this is Wikipedia, the article will always be in flux. Anyhow, if there is a specific COI issue which you would like to level, please make it clear. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:56, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

The report is dated February 2006. I expected you of all people to see at least one or two of the possible problems with this type of "call to arms". Earlier this year you argued during an RfAr against a co-editor that a similar call for members of a small discussion forum (which had, allegedly, taken place more than a year earlier, and in fact around the time this article appeared) had been canvassing and deserved an ArbCom remedy. Compare this with the bolded text above. At any rate, I simply floated this for the regulars here to consider. I have no opinion on the progress of this article over the years before I started contributing here, or any wrongdoing that may or may not have occurred during that time. Avb 11:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure it's a call to arms, but we don't know which, if any editors, responded and came here. The point is, there is not some organized group of blind supporters doing whatever they can to keep anything negative out of this article (as is the case with other articles where this kind of call to arms is a real problem). No, this article is actual close being completely NPOV and if anything is slightly slanted toward the critical side. I appreciate you alert us to this article from the ACA archives, but I don't think it ever caused (or will ever cause) any real problems here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:36, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of chiropractic

There is a lot of information out there about Criticism of chiropractic. It would be easy to fill pages of information on this topic. A new article titled Criticism of chiropratic would be an interesting read.  Mr.Guru  talk  19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Unneccessary. See WP:COAT. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:31, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Is this article too long? Sub-articles along the line of "Criticism of chiropractic" become necessary when the main article has grown too large. This rarely results in a coatrack article and somewhat more often in a POV fork. Both should obviously be avoided but neither constitutes a reason not to split overlong articles. Also note that WP:COAT is currently just an essay. (Like WP:HARM, I hope it will develop into/be adopted as a guideline at some point though.) Avb 00:14, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, a POV Fork would be a better reason to describe why "Criticism of chiropractic" would be bad article to start (as opposed to "Chiropractic schools", which isn't about a POV necessarily). -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:58, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

An obvious choice for a sub-article would be one from the "Scientific investigation of chiropractic" section. It's almost a third of the current article and requires a different application of NPOV than the rest of the article. --Ronz 22:48, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

Hi. I'd say a separate article on criticism might be a pretty good idea after all. A lot of the science is so restrictive and anal anyhow, I don't mind the negativity getting presented in one go. It'd also be good for moving some of the excess criticism from this article. The criticism is mostly from the science view folk anyway so it could be part of scientific investigation or vice verse. Anyhow, it may leave more room for showing more of the benefits of chiropractic on this article. To my mind the article is still on the stuffy-negative side and not all the flexible and positive views have been fairly shown. If you want to set up a critical article I don't mind spending a bit of extra time scrutinizing it. Arlen Wilps 04:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was pretty amazed that the article goes to such length to downplay the widely-held point of view that chiropractic is nothing but quackery. For example the statement in the lead: "The history of Chiropractic has been shaped by philosophical conflicts within the profession and by criticism from outside the profession. Eventually, these led to the scientific investigation of chiropractic, and an antitrust suit against the American Medical Association." - while technically true, seems tortuously constructed to hide the salient point - the reason there was an anti-trust suit was because the American Medical Association was critical of the unscientific basis of this mumbo-jumbo masquerading as a 'health care profession'. That is mentioned later in the article, but again, it is written from the POV of a chiropractor, not a NPOV. Dlabtot 20:26, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

You are quite right. A whole section is actually missing from this article, but there has been so much contention and protectionism involved, that to just get this far was good, and we can thank a great editor (and chiropractor) for doing much of the good work. The missing section is the long and tortuous past and present history of quackery within the profession. The opposition has not just been a turf war, but has been based on very real concerns that are still relevant today. That story needs to be included, but we just haven't gotten around to it. There is loads of information and documentation out there from good sources. -- Fyslee / talk 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

finance and science

1. Financial conflit between diff schools is a matter of record. It is not a biased statement. 2. To keep the statement that the various types of conflict led to scientific research in a causal manner you will have to provide a source or reword the statement. Mccready 14:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi McCready, thanks for stopping by. Financial conflict between schools resulting in the AMA suit is a strange edit to say the least. While obviously finances are involved in every factor of society, I am not clear if this is significant without a reference that says it was a big factor, but I am open to changing my mind. Otherwise, I agree with Arthur, that this is just a biased POV edit. I should be able to get a reference for number 2 above, so hang in there. -- Dēmatt (chat) 15:41, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

These are the two sentences in question:

• The history of Chiropractic has been shaped by philosophical conflicts within the profession and by criticism from outside the profession. Eventually, these led to the scientific investigation of chiropractic, and an antitrust suit against the AMA.

I do see some "leap of faith" that 'conflicts within the profession' 'led to an antitrust suit with the AMA', but not concerning 'the scientific investigation of chiropractic'. However, keep in mind that this is the lead, which is just a synopsis of the information to come. In other words, if you drop down to the history section, that is how the sections go. The mixer/straight philosophical debate raged on as some wanted to 'prove' what they were doing to become part of mainstream medicine while others fought the process to protect it. I think you are right that this comes down to financial incentives to keep chiropractic out of medicines hands, but it also means finances as medicine considered chiropractors a financial menace as well. This led to the NCA formation and the Chiropractic Research Foundation, the CCE, etc., etc., until we end up at the Wilk antitrust suit. This directly led to the antitrust suit, right? I've got a picture from the time that we can use (I have permission from Keating) that pretty well sums it up. [12]-- Dēmatt (chat) 16:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

unsourced changed

I made a small revert to dispose of some unsourced changes. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 15:47, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

survey

"In 2003, 90% of chiropractors believed the vertebral subluxation complex played a significant role in all or most diseases.[5]"

90% of surveyed chiropractor /= 90% of chiropractors

In this case I believe they are american chiropractors, a subset of global chiropractors

202.134.253.55 13:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Anonymous user, based on the source and interview of Dr. MCDonald (the author of the survey), I do believe it is more accurate to say North American Chiropractors.[13]

• JACA: Why does the survey include DCs from three countries-Canada, Mexico, and the United States?
• Dr. McDonald: Many doctors of chiropractic have historically crossed the borders of the three nations that make up North America to attend chiropractic college, for continuing education, and to set up practice. And, after all, chiropractic started out as a North American profession because D.D. Palmer was Canadian.

I think the other issue with this sentence is exactly what each school of thought defines as a 'vertebral subluxation complex' which can be anything from sprain/strain to visceral effects. That is the fallacy of a survey. Thanks, -- Dēmatt (chat) 16:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

RfC alert

I figure a number of editors here might be interested in this:

• Link to RfC at alternative medicine.

-- Fyslee / talk 19:59, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Ernst refutation

Moved to talk page. It was published 2 weeks after submission, so was NOT peer-reviewed, even if in a peer-reviewed journal. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:34, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

How do you know it wasn't peer reviewed? I think you may be jumping to conclusions here. 2 weeks is plenty of time to have a paper peer-reviewed before publishing - especially in an online journal setting. Please restore. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 16:40, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's even more difficult in an online journal than in a "traditional" journal to determine whether an "article" is a letter, a short proofread review, or a fully reviewed article. The 2 weeks suggests we should assume it's one of the former unless we can find independent evidence of the latter. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You are making assumptions. All we know for sure is that this review was published in a known peer-reviewed journal. All we can do is assume the best, unless you have an independent source specifically about this piece which says it wasn't peer-reviewed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:07, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Why does it meet WP:RS? I'm still not convinced. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:10, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

May I butt in and answer this? It is simple really. It is published in a scientific journal. That is more than what even Wikipedia requires in a source. TheDoctorIsIn 19:19, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

You're always welcome to "butt in", Doc. And I agree with you here. You are exactly right. Being published in a peer-reviewed journal is one of the highest forms of reliable sources according to Wikipedia's WP:RS policy. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that you're always welcome to "butt in", but not everything published in a peer-reviewed journal is peer-reviewed. It appears "objectively", to be a "note" rather than an "article", and the fact that it was published 2 weeks after receipt suggests that the peer review was not much more than proof-reading. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:46, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm not familiar with that journal, but I could probably get a letter published in, say Phys. Rev. Letters, which is sometimes considered a peer-reviewed journal. (I don't know much physics, but I recall a letter posted in 1985, dated 1995, thanking fellow researchers for there work in tachyon physics.) We just don't know.

I think we need to leave this refernce with some questioning tag, until all the details can be worked out. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 19:50, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Arthur, you are basing your actions off blanket assumptions. You are assuming that this review of Ernst's review is a letter or a note and you are assuming that it wasn't peer-reviewed. Nowhere does it say that. We have to take the research on face value unless you have a reliable source stating otherwise. This review waw conducted by several reputable researchers and was published in a notable peer-reviewed journal. Please remove the (RS) tage which you just inserted. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 20:18, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I cannot ethically remove the tag, as I think it justified. The limited peer review period and the limited content to be reviewed make it clear that any review must have been cursory, more-or-less based on the reviewers trusting the authors. We do not have to trust that trust; only if we trust the authors is the article (or note, or review) a WP:RS.

Having read the editorial policy, there are a number of types of articles (from http://www.chiroandosteo.com/info/about/) which we could not accept as reliable, even if reviewed: Commentaries, Debate articles, and Hypotheses come to mind. This looks more like a commentary than anything else, so we need some evidence that they (the Journal) call it something else. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:32, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Yep, Commentary it is. It clearly reflects only the views of the authors, even in the opinion of the editors. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:33, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Quoting that about page:

Commentaries: short, focused and opinionated articles on any subject within the scope of the journal. These articles are usually related to a contemporary issue, such as recent research findings, and are often written by opinion leaders.

(emphasis added) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arthur that this is a commentary, or opinion piece in a peer reviewed journal and should be stated as such, a commentary. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 20:48, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, that's fine with me. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 20:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) I will butt in with my 2 cents. The article is a "Review" (a "review of reviews" at that). It is not a letter, essay, or commentary, but it is also not an original research article disseminating the results of empirical research. It is a systematic review in which the methodology was explicitly laid out. It involved a simple literature search and tabulation of results. This type of article would not necessarily receive the same level of peer review that original research or even a meta-analysis of the same data would have, simple editorial review for blatant errors would have sufficed because a "review" does not make any new assertions or draw any original conclusions of its own. It is merely a summary. This could explain the quick turnaround time. Also, the submission guidelines hint that they follow "Vancouver" (i.e., NEJM) protocol, which would generally indicate a masking procedure was employed in which the editor would not know the identity of the submitting authors, so the journal was unlikely to be influenced by the author's "status".

Reviews are generally not contentious because they are just ammassing data that is already out there for anyone with an internet connection to see. But the fact that this is a simple literature review also has some downsides. The author did not consider the quality of the reviews he was reviewing (and many of those reviews were based on case studies rather than experimental data). The author could have conducted a meta-analysis on the data, which would have pooled the studies together and analyzed them statistically as if it was one large study. In the process, the "quality" of each study (i.e., methodolgical soundness, external validity of results, reliability, generalizability, etc.) would be statistically weighted accordingly, so that well-constructed double-blind controlled trials would factor much more highly in the final analysis. Also, in a meta-analysis, case studies would generally be excluded. So, the journal is definitely a reliable source. The journal is catalogued in PubMed and articles cited in many other journals [these are both good rough estimates of a journal's status]), and the article is a reliable review, but reviews are inherently limiting in terms of the conclusions that it is appropriate to draw from them. Anyone could do what the author did (he explained his methods)and refute this review if it were incorrect or left out significant data. That is why reviews are generally not contentious and don't require rigorous vetting. But, this review is by no means any indication that "spinal manipulation is dangerous" unless it is supported by experimental data or even well-controlled correlational and quasi-xperimental studies. That said, it is certainly a WP:RS as long at it is referenced in a fair and NPOV way. — DIEGO ^talk 21:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Diego, just checking. I think you are talking about the actual Ernst and Cantor review of systematic reviews. I still agree with Arthur that the Chiropractic and Osteopathic review of Ernst and Cantor is a 'response' or 'commentary' on the review of reviews by Ernst and Cantor. Neither are peer reviewed and neither require such. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 21:17, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. I was clearly confused. I was referring to Ernst, not the refutation. Yes. That article is critcal commentary explaining the "problems" with the Ernst review. I agree. — DIEGO ^talk 22:43, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No problem, and for the record, your description is an excellent summary of a review of systematic reviews. Even Systematic reviews and reviews of systematic reviews are not perfect. Good explanation. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 01:07, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

Text moved from article

The first review was critically appraised and refuted in a chiropractic and osteopathic journal, stating, "The conclusions by Ernst and Canter were definitely not based on an acceptable quality review of systematic reviews and should be interpreted very critically by the scientific community, clinicians, patients, and health policy makers. Their conclusions are certainly not valid enough to discredit the large body of professionals utilizing spinal manipulation."

Fundamentalist chiropractic defenders

I seek to have the following update included in the article and three editors who often remove criticism of chiropractic on this and other pages have decided it is either not from a peer reviewed journal (please provide proof of the allegation), gives undue weight, or is covered already. The point is that it is peer reviewed, it is an update and belongs. Please discuss.:

A 2007 report in the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine concluded:

"Spinal manipulation, particularly when performed on the upper spine, is frequently associated with mild to moderate adverse effects. It can also result in serious complications such as vertebral artery dissection followed by stroke. Currently, the incidence of such events is not known. In the interest of patient safety we should reconsider our policy towards the routine use of spinal manipulation."[14]

Mccready 16:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

No objection on my part, but it should be next to Ernst 2006 (and converted to a better cite and a cleaner URL). But I only removed it once, not noticing it was different from Ernst 2006. (I'm considered by some to be a fundamentalist chiropractic attacker, though.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 16:52, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

After reading that review, I'd say this belongs in the spinal manipulation article. The authors state "Moreover, this review is aimed at evaluating the risk of an intervention (spinal manipulation) and not that of a profession (chiropractic)". While a majority of spinal manipulations are performed by chiros, the review included ALL spinal manips. And it looks like Mccready hasn't changed after his 30 day topic ban.... "fundamentalist...." good lord --Hughgr 17:02, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Move it. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:06, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

It's been deleted from here, but it's not there. Put it there, or bring it back here. (And I see no evidence that Mccready has been topic-banned for more than 30 days, or blocked for more than a week at a time.) — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 17:55, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee has added it to Spinal manipulation recently. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:34, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

You owe me an apology hugh. As often you are wrong. The year ban is an utter figment of your imagination. Chiro is, is it not, spinal manipulation? The cite belongs in both articles. I'll replace it. Mccready 16:09, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

No apology from Hugh. Why am I not surprised. Instead he just rewrites his earlier entry. Like rewriting history and rewriting science on chiro. It's not that simple Hugh. The fact that the ref has been "moved" is immaterial. It happily belongs in both articles and no one has argued otherwise. I suggest you look up the definition of fundamentalist. I will replace the text. Mccready 14:43, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

I moved the text in question to a reference for the 2006 study which made the same conclusion since it is made by the same author just one year later. Since he is the only one saying it, it seems to be a minority position so it does not require the first sentence in the section. We could leave the quote out altogether and just cite the reference, but out of respect for McCready's POV, we can leave it in. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 15:21, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Dematt's solution is clearly the best way to handle this. McCready outted a certain editor in his edit summary on the article. When I did that once upon a time ago, I got blocked. TheDoctorIsIn 14:21, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Has anyone reported this "outting"? McCready, you might want to apologize to the party who you outted and promise not to do it again. That is usually how these issues get resolved. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:40, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

I brought up the issue at WP/ANI and they deleted (or "oversighted") the edit summary where the offense was made. No harm, no foul. McCready, please be warned however that this editor doesn't want us to use his first name anymore. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:19, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine, I appreciate that. Thanks. -- Fyslee / talk 02:30, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Reverts of Ernst 2007 data

Regarding this most recent revert: here

Particularly the edit summary, "The current discussion shows no consensus to include such material. the Ernst data is invalid for chiropractic and thus has been placed on Spinal manipulation".

I certainly respect any consensus that has been reached regarding this source, so I'll refrain from further enabling User:QuackGuru in his crusade by restoring his edits. But I hardly think the data is invalid for chiropractic. It covers all forms of spinal manipulation, including chiropractic. It does pertain to chiropractic, just not exclusively to chiropractic. I would imagine that the majority of spinal manipulations are performed by chiropractors (albeit with with increasing competition from osteopaths, PTs, and physiatrists), so that would indicate that any findings regarding spinal manipulation in general would certainly apply to chiropractors, if they constitute a majority of the professionals actually performing spinal manipulation. The study authors did point out that they were careful to confine their results to the intervention itself, and not draw any damning conclusions pertaining to the profession of chiropractic, but that does not mean that the data is invalid for chiropractic. In fact Ernst notes that while spinal manipulation is occasionally used by osteopaths, physical therapists, and physicians, it is the "hallmark treatment of chiropractors". In addition, a significant number of the manipulations he reviewed (out of those which mentioned the field of the practitioner) were performed by chiropractors. So, if you want to continue to exclude Ernst 2007 for whatever reason (and I respect consensus), please know that continuing to exclude it on the basis of "the data is invalid for chiropractic" is not really a valid reason. Thanks. — DIEGO ^talk 23:32, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Diego, you show good judgement. The issue is more about weight, as this article got way too long and had to be pruned. In the interest of NPOV, to add a source that basically says the same thing by the same person only needs a second reference and we added the second date. Our other option is to take out the 2006 quote and use the 2007. There are other additions to the science section that were kept out from the other POV. If someone finds something that says something different from either POV we can evaluate it and make adjustments accordingly. I do appreciate your common sense. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. — DIEGO ^talk 02:14, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I think I am at 3RR

QuackGuru, I'm not sure, but I think I am at 3RR. The article is all yours. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 23:46, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

I find it dishonorable that QuackGuru is engaging edit warring pushing to include material against consensus and claiming that it is because no one is discussing the passage which he keeps inserting and why it keeps getting removed all the while there has been a great deal of discussion on this very topic in which QuackGuru has not participated in one iota. QuackGuru, please participate in the discussion and stop your edit warring. Thanks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:20, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I want to highlight for QuackGuru that the information which he/she is trying to get includes is already included in the article. So there is no reason to keep pushing to get it in. :-P -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:36, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

safety dispute

Please include the study that was published in Spine this past week. This was a Canadian study that indicated that there was no increased risk of chiropractic treatment and stroke as compared to regular visits to a family doctor. Patients were no more likely to suffer stroke following chiropractic manipulation than they were from a regular visit to a family doctor. The study found that the condition that caused the stroke actually preceeded the chiropractic visit because it led to neck pain and so it was not the chiropractic adjustment, per se, that caused the stroke. This was a large land-mark study and was not done by chiropractors but by members of the medical community. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mpr765 (talk • contribs) 03:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree, Mpr765, that it is probably the most important study to illustrate that line of thinking and see no reason why it should not be included in any discussion of stroke on the Chiropractic page and maybe on Spinal manipulation as well. -- Dēmatt (chat) 03:34, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to the study which claimed that it was impossible to estimate the number of serious complications from the reports, because 100% of serious complications found from other sources were not reported? — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 06:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is it this one?:

Spinal manipulation: Its safety is uncertain

"One gets the impression that the risks of spinal manipulation are being played down, particularly by chiropractors. Perhaps the best indication that this is true are estimates of incidence rates based on assumptions, which are unproven at best and unrealistic at worse. One such assumption, for instance, is that 10% of actual complications will be reported. Our recent survey, however, demonstrated an under-reporting rate of 100%. This extreme level of underreporting obviously renders estimates nonsensical." - Dr. Edzard Ernst, British professor of complementary medicine

That was an excellent study that revealed serious lacks in the reporting system. Very active attempts by the profession to bury and deny this problem have also been documented here:

Prime Time, Thursday, 5 May 2005, Presented by Donagh Diamond

"Dangers of alternative medicine". Donagh Diamond explores the fascination with alternative medicines and the dangers of chiropractic therapy.

Hagan McQuaid, International Vice-President of the Chiropractic Association of Ireland, does his best to deny, deny, and deny. -- Fyslee / talk 06:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

What is more interesting is the Terrett study which conclusively showed in my opinion that - like Fyslee - these "researchers" involved in the safety studies were just truly out to give chiropractic a bad name:

The words chiropractic and chiropractor have been incorrectly used in numerous publications dealing with SMT injury by medical authors, respected medical journals and medical organizations. In many cases, this is not accidental; the authors had access to original reports that identified the practitioner involved as a nonchiropractor. The true incidence of such reporting cannot be determined. Such reporting adversely affects the reader's opinion of chiropractic and chiropractors.

So if any sources here are dubious thay are the ones claiming that chiropractic is dangerous. That said, I am going to remove the "dubious citation" tag. Dubious? Indeed. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:10, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

You've convinced me the entire section should be removed until the reliable anti-chiropractic papers have been included. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:22, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The answer to your question Arthur is in the archives. It seems that it was moved to spinal manipulation when we had to cut out most of the article.[15] ---- Dēmatt (chat) 18:29, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

The two studies referenced for specific injury rates also fail to distinguish between chiropractic adjustments and spinal manipulation. I'm not sure about the WHO memo, but that's not exactly peer-reviewed. Perhaps the entire safety section should be merged into spinal manipulation#safety. — Arthur Rubin | (talk) 18:34, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Good point. It is the procedure that is evaluated for safety, no matter who performs it. So I guess we would either have to put it in all the professions that use it, or put it in the spinal manipulation article. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 19:17, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Levine2112's obvious failure to AGF is again duly noted. That's a pretty malicious slur when other and more obvious explanations suffice perfectly well, but he chooses to keep up his personal attacks on me here and other places. There are many sides to the story and Levine2112 has made it his job to keep this particular side out of view at all costs for an awful long time, even declaring at one time (here in these talk pages) that he was here to protect the profession. This matter has a long history in the archives of these talk pages where his denialism is quite obvious.

I'm on the side of the public and against any coverups. I have repeatedly stated (both here and on my websites) that the risk of injury is very low, but the potential danger (when it happens) is catastrophal and sometimes fatal. The Terrett study (funded by the chiropractic industry insurance agency NCMIC, and now curiously unavailable) did find a small number of cases (was it five or so?) of misattribution, out of 255 cases. We're talking about so small a percentage that it makes no practical difference. By far the most cases of injury and death are caused by chiropractors (proven in much better studies), simply because they are the ones doing most manipulations/adjustments. It can't be any other way. On my blog I warn all professions (including my own) against it. My concern regarding chiropractic is that they are the ones in denial and the ones who are circling the wagons instead of saying: "Okay, there seems to be a problem that needs to be understood. Even though the risk is very low, we want to understand it and reduce it. How can we do that in the best manner?" I don't see that happening. Instead Levine2112, the profession, and especially the straights (ICA and WCA, but also the ACA to some degree) are concentrating on damage control. They are obviously more concerned for the reputation of the profession than for protecting patients.

I have also stated many times the same thing that Dematt is essentially saying above: It is the safety of the procedure that is the issue, no matter who performs it. That includes PTs, MDs, DOs, etc.. The statistics clearly show that it is not the degree of expertise that is making the difference, because DCs still "lead the pack." High cervical manipulations/adjustments have a risk/benefit ratio that makes their use totally unwarranted for any profession. The neck and related problems being addressed can be treated in other ways more effectively, with longer lasting results, and with fewer risks. That's why I stopped doing it several years ago. Because the problem is so predominantly a chiropractic problem for many reasons (especially because of denialism), it is highly applicable here and should be addressed, not hidden or covered up. It should be addressed in the spinal manipulation, spinal adjustment, and chiropractic articles, as well as any others where these techniques are a significant ingredient in the profession's "toolbox".

There is plenty of excellent research on the subject from independent (non-chiropractic) sources, so a COI is not a confounder in such research. It can be trusted reasonably well. Research from the profession is notoriously influenced by COI, damage control, and other factors that render its reliability quite uncertain. Its criticism of existing studies is likewise fraught with the same problems. -- Fyslee / talk 04:49, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Your diatribe is supportive evidence of the very "slur" which you find so offensive. You have a clear bias against chiropractic - this is undeniable - as you have been out to smear chiropractic since you first arrived at Wikipedia. So I am going to stop trying to convince you, "the scientific skeptic", to actually look at the peer-reviewed evidence and recognize that we don't need to dedicate any space in this article to save the hypothetical 1-in-5-millionth person from getting an upper cervical neck manipulation. This is trivial, possibly fictional, purely political and a considerable waste of our time. Yours especially. If you were really on a mission to save lives as you claim, statistically your time would be better served warning people of the dangers of lightning storms. Yes. Really. This is clearly such a phantom blip (possibly planted) on the chiropractic safety record radar that giving it any attention in this article at all would be statistically less appropriate than discussing Gossypiboma on the Surgeon article.

What we are dealing with here is a WP:Weight issue and probably a WP:Trivia and WP:Soapbox one as well. That it has been in this article for so long is a travesty to Wikipedia policy and to the Chiropractic profession as a whole. Bottom line, an unsupported 0.00002% possible chance of a risk - a figure derived by questionably biased researchers - does not even come near the same ballpark as meeting the inclusion criteria of Wikipedia.

I am sorry for calling it like it is above, and please know that do I hold you in the highest regard, even though you have called me a "kook" and an "crazy extremist" on more than one occasion. :-) I do think this article is in excellent shape and I know that your cooperation has helped to get us this far. I want to let you know how much I appreciate it. Now come on, this tiny hypothetical risk bologna is pure political garbage which the anti-chiropractic brotherhood has been trying to sell to the world since the AMA got that ass served by Wilk. Anymore discussion here about seriously including this is insulting to the Wikipedia Community; especially from someone with your level of experience here. Let's move on. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 08:16, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Fyslee, you said: High cervical manipulations/adjustments have a risk/benefit ratio that makes their use totally unwarranted for any profession. The neck and related problems being addressed can be treated in other ways more effectively, with longer lasting results, and with fewer risks. That's why I stopped doing it several years ago. I believe the research says that even the examination and certainly mobilization (just stretching) of the neck can cause a stroke in these same susceptible patients (a patient with specific types of soft tissue conditions that affect artery wall integrity - such as Lupus). What method do you use that is less dangerous? Certainly we aren't talking about medications, the risks are even worse for normal people. I think what Ernst is saying is risk vs benefit, and the accusation from Ernst is; since he doesn't believe that there is benefit, the risks (which are minimal) are then not worth it. Of course others disagree, suggesting that there are benefits, so the risks are worth it. If there are no benefits, then of course there is no use for spinal manipulation, mobilization, or even examination that moves the neck - just give them an MRI and pain medication (or nothing at all - or whatever else - acupuncture?) and wait it out. Of course then we deal with the side affects of the medications - so we have to look at risk/benefit there as well. If there are benefits, then the challenge now is to identify those patients that are at risk to minimize the occurrance and I think that research is being performed as we speak. I would think that you and I both agree that there is benefit to both manipulation and mobilization. Regardless, most VS and R sources indicate chiropractic as one of the safest forms of treatments for musculoskeletal conditions and that would be what we would have to report. ---- Dēmatt (chat) 14:02, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Dematt, maybe it's the language thing again, my rusty English and all, but what's the difference between "risk/benefit ratio" and "risk vs. benefit"? I pretty much agree with Ernst, but have to factor in my experience, which is no doubt somewhat different than his. He is an expert at manipulation, as am I, and as you. We all have used it in our practices. I have developed my own way of dealing with these problems without the use of manipulation, but using - among other things - gentle mobilisation, which the research indicates has fewer risks than manipulation, and even chiropractic researchers agree on that point. Not "no" risks, just "fewer". Medication is another story and neither you nor I use them in our practices. My concern here is simply that a lot of research from V & RS is not being mentioned or covered, and is obviously being actively discounted by certain persons, of whom you are not one. That's all. -- Fyslee / talk 04:09, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

Just an update for those interested: The benefits outweigh the risks for patients undergoing chiropractic care for neck pain: a prospective, multicenter, cohort study: ...the benefits of chiropractic care for neck pain seem to outweigh the potential risks. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:45, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

While we should naturally be cautious about industry supported research, at least the participation of Charlotte Leboeuf-Yde is a positive factor. She is an outstanding researcher who has reported both positive and negative effects, which is rather unusual from chiropractic sources. She is one of the researchers who has documented deaths from cervical manipulation performed by Danish chiropractors, deaths which were the tip of an iceberg widely rumored in medical circles in Denmark. This is an exceptional citation which speaks of a total treatment situation and says little regarding specifics and reports what we would expect from such a setting involving a mixture of interventions.

Based on that the title is probably accurate but doesn't address the concerns addressed in much larger numbers of studies involving much larger groups over longer time periods which count precisely identified adverse events and identify which precise techniques were involved and which professionals were involved. Another picture then becomes apparent, but which does not contradict this study for a smaller number of patients. One's chances of lethal effects are small, but they do exist and are clearly documented, including which techniques to be wary of and what percentage of which professionals are responsible for which injuries and which deaths. -- Fyslee / talk 06:55, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree. A good study, obviously not addressing the severe side effects, but documenting benefits. It does counter Ernst's conclusions of 'any risk with no benefits = don't suggest doing it'. This documents benefits. I think our article says similar things, but not quite. We could add this one after Ernst as part of the general science discussion. -- Dēmatt (chat) 00:59, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

An interesting juncture. We currently have the article reading with regards to Ernst's meta-analysis that "Collectively these data do not demonstrate that spinal manipulation is an effective intervention for any condition. Given the possibility of adverse effects, this review does not suggest that spinal manipulation is a recommendable treatment". But now we have the Rubinstein/Leboeuf study and the Hawk/Khorsan research which suggest just the opposite of Ernst's findings: 1) that chiropractic care for a variety nonmusculoskeletal conditions can be effective indeed 2) that the benefits of chiropractic care do seem to outweigh any minor potential risks. So the question is for us: What do we do with the conflicting information? Do we insert these newer studies as further rebuttal of Ernst or do we simply remove Ernst's statements altogether until more conclusive evidence about the matter is determined? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:58, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Well, you make a good point. It seems that Ernst is the only one saying there are no benefits, therefore any risk is unacceptable, but he does it with a systematic review of a systematic review. Other researchers have suggested that his inclusion criteria were flawed for the systematic review (even using one of his own studies in the review) and his conclusions were unfounded. Now we have a systematic review suggesting that there are benefits to spinal manipulation which would make his conclusion moot. I think we are certainly heading in the direction that Ernst's study is not worth mentioning, but I don't think we are there yet. Since the reader may have heard of Ernst's POV, then it would be remiss for us to leave it out until everyone has had the chance to read the follow up responses from other researchers. I say we leave it in, but add the new stuff. I can try to write something NPOV up if everyone is okay with it. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:40, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Go for it, Dematt. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:54, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Of interesting note is that the Hawk/Khorsan research was published in "The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine" which is the official journal of the International Society for Complementary Medicine Research and Edzard Ernst is lists as one of the ISCMR's international advisors. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 03:47, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I say go for it! You should be able to find citation for the good and the bad. After our chats,[via and email], you helped me calm down and understand what this Chiropractor was saying about the options. So Yes I think Dematt would give a fair and honest NPOV. Now there are bad Chiropractors, but there is honest and great one too. I had experience with this kind of things. (Dematt, I will try to get you some of the films you requested)--CrohnieGal^Talk 13:17, 22 October

2007 (UTC)

The Rubenstein, Leboeuf study from 2007 was cited above as concluding, "The risk of cervical manipulation is outweighed by the benefit" (paraphrase). When I scan the abstract, I am more alarmed than reassured. It seems there were only 569 patients and 4,891 treatments. This would not, of course, be likely to pick up the rare vertebral dissection. There was no control group who received a different treatment or no treatment. A staggering 56% of patients had adverse events after three treatments, 13% "serious in intensity" and 1% were "much worse"! Regarding the patients who were better at the end of the study; who is to say they wouldn't have been better without the chiropractic treatment? I become more worried about cervical manipulation the more I research the studies.

Safety

It is dishonest and misleading to put all of the information that chiropractic is unsafe in other articles, while leaving only the information saying it is perfectly safe. RogueNinja_talk 17:03, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

It's a matter of weight (and we are not taking anyone's life lightly here). But the article you supply as a reference is a single case study describing someone with a prior adverse condition which chiropractors are trained to detect before cervical adjustment. Calling chiropractic "dangerous" as a response to this is a gross overstatement indeed. We are literally talking about an unsupported 0.00002% possible chance of a risk. Incidents of Gossypiboma are much, much higher but you wouldn't expect to see that on the Surgeon article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:24, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

The article on surgeon doesnt have a section saying how surgery is extremely safe. RogueNinja_talk 00:08, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps because it isn't? People die all the time from surgery. Is that discussed in that article? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:03, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Roger Ninja, would you please give me URL on the surgery article. I have many had surgeries and would like to see what the article reads. Levine sorry but I think that information, the good and the bad, should be in this article. --CrohnieGal^Talk 13:33, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

There was no article discussing surgery. The only time surgery was brought up was in comparing the Surgeon article and its lack of mention with regards to safety. Chan Yin Keen | Talk 13:53, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Chan Yin Keen for taking the time to answer me. I appreciate it. Happy editing!--CrohnieGal^Talk 16:36, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Here is another study attempting to shed some light on the cervical manipulation risk. The authors recommend against "rotary cervical manipulation".Complications of spinal manipulation: a comprehensive review of the literature Journal of Family Practice, May, 1996 by Willem J.J. Assendelft, Lex M. Bouter, Paul G. Knopschild Results. We derived 295 complications of spinal manipulations from the literature: 165 VBAs; 61 cases with disc herniation or progression to CES; 13 cerebral complications other than VBAs; and 56 other types of complications. The average age of patients with VBA was 38 years. Vertebrobasilar accidents occur mainly after a cervical manipulation with a rotatory component. Estimates of VBA range from 1 per 20,000 patients to 1 per 1 million cervical manipulations. The incidence of CES is estimated to be less than 1 per 1 million treatments.Conclusions. It is difficult to estimate the incidence of SMT complications, as they are probably underreported in the literature. Most non-VBA complications can be prevented by excluding patients with contraindications for SMT. Patients who develop complications such as CES should be treated as soon as possible. VBAs, however, are difficult to prevent and treat. Referral for SMT should not be made to practitioners applying rotatory cervical manipulation. Information about the risk of VBA should be included in an informed consent procedure for cervical manipulation with thrust techniques. Journal of Family Practice, May, 1996 by Willem J.J. Assendelft, Lex M. Bouter, Paul G. Knopschild CynRNCynRN (talk) 05:15, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Effectiveness for various conditions

Chiropractic care for nonmusculoskeletal conditions: a systematic review with implications for whole systems research.:

Evidence from controlled studies and usual practice supports chiropractic care (the entire clinical encounter) as providing benefit to patients with asthma, cervicogenic vertigo, and infantile colic. Evidence was promising for potential benefit of manual procedures for children with otitis media and elderly patients with pneumonia.

Thoughts about including this data? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:53, 19 October 2007 (UTC)

Interesting. This basically tends to confirm the position that chiropractors take; that spinal manipulation is only one part of the chiropractic encounter and that when looking at the evidence base the efficiency of that encounter is what counts. In other words, when looking at spinal manipulation for colic, there is no immediate measurable effect, but counting the number of days of reported crying is cut in half. Is is the adjustment? Is it the one on one care? Is it the placebo effect? Is it really working. The point is that we don't know for sure, but EBM is now looking at outcomes more than procedures and this is one study that looks at outcomes. I do think we need to consider that the source might be biased, but certainly no more than Ernst. At this point, I think we can certainly use it as a reference for the parts about non-musculoskeletal conditions, while staying vigilant in watching for more information. -- Dēmatt (chat) 01:53, 20 October 2007 (UTC)

Credibility in Editing

You have been exposed, GQ. You have blatantly deceived all the editors on the chiropractic and other CAM pages you edit by suggesting that you did not write, insert and try to maintain your original research. Your practice styles section is a direct text dump from many sites. You even admitted to authoring it yourself on your chirotalk forum.

http://www.chirotalk.proboards3.com/index.cgi?action=display&board=scuhs&thread=1201943337&page=1 (see reply #6)

Your profound ties to quackwatch, chirobase and Stephen Barrett leave little room for you contribute in an honest and constructive manner on the chiropractic page. Many experienced editors have questioned your ability to work towards a consensus, and your continuous attempts to cite quackwatch and stephen barrett as scholarly equivalent research is disingenius to say the least. You continuously delete any constructive criticism on your talk page and falsely accuse me of deliberately violating copyright. No one has agreed and there is no consensus to revert safety section. I would appreciate if you would please work constructively with us here. Thanks. EBDCM (talk) 02:46, 13 February 2008 (UTC)