Identify each web page that allegedly contains infringing material. This requires you to provide the URL for each allegedly infringing result, document or item. I have a good faith belief that use of the copyrighted materials described above as allegedly infringing is not authorized by the copyright owner, its agent, or the law. I swear, under penalty of perjury, that the information in the notification is accurate and that I am the copyright owner or am authorized to act on behalf of the owner of an exclusive right that is allegedly infringed.
Your digital signature is as legally binding as a physical signature. If you use a digital signature, your signature must exactly match the First and Last names that you specified earlier in this form. This form does not constitute legal advice and nothing that you read or are provided on this web site should be used as a substitute for the advice of competent legal counsel. If someone believes in good faith that a Lulu Account Holder has infringed their copyright, they can request that we take down the infringing material by filing a DMCA Notice.
When a clear and valid Notice is received pursuant to the guidelines, we will respond by either taking down the allegedly infringing content or blocking access to it, and we may also contact you for more information. If you are not the copyright holder or its agent and if the content is clearly infringing the copyright of a well-known work, please select "Infringes a well-known work" from the dropdown menu. Lulu Staff has been notified of a possible violation of the terms of our Membership Agreement.
Our agents will determine if the content reported is inappropriate or not based on the guidelines provided and will then take action where needed. Thank you for notifying us. The page you are attempting to access contains content that is not intended for underage readers. In the eyes of certain organizations, chiropractic and its practitioners represent a major threat to the traditional healthcare model. I have always maintained that the beauty of chiropractic rests within the profession's practice objective.
The objective is so simple to understand that even a young child could comprehend how it works with the controlling laws of nature. After reading this book, I am hopeful that your understanding of healthcare will change.
Health Through Traditional Chiropractic
I'm sure we can come up with a truthful NPOV statement. In the meantime, I made an attempt to correct the phrase. Arthur Rubin reverted my edit with good cause. His note in his edit was: Partial revert -- "yet" is a violation of Crystal Ball, and "some" would have to be replaced by "most" to be close to NPOV. The way the intro had read was: Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain, however the existing research that supports other chiropractic claims have yet to satisfy some medical and scientific researchers.
Arthur deleted this portion: I think I understand the Crystal Ball violation with the word "yet". I suppose it could imply that sometime in the future chiro research will satisfy chiro claims. My intention with the word "yet" was to say that to date , the studies are not satisfactory to some medical and scientific researchers. Is there a better way to say this without using the predictive "yet".
As fas as the suggestion to use "most" over "some" I don't have data for that. Is it absoulutely true that most scientists and medical researchers are not satisfied by existing chiro research? I guess we need a study on that too then. This is really dicey here.
On one hand we want a short, tight intro. On the other hand, we want it to be a nice summary of a huge article. Please post suggestions here. Chiropractic , or chiropractic care , is a complementary and alternative medicine health profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of mechanical disorders of the musculoskeletal system , and the effects of these disorders on the function of the nervous system and general health.
There is an emphasis on manual treatments including spinal manipulations termed adjustments. Studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain [7] Further research is needed for other benefits. Under the circumstances, is it too much to ask that changes in the lead be posted to the talk page, and let sit a day or so, before implementing? The study was flawed for a number of reasons: In the main, the co-author Ernst only selected 16 research studies, out of a possible The study cited that 16, chiropractors were practising in the UK, in fact there are just 2, chiropractors in the UK, all of whom are regulated by the General Chiropractic Council.
Studies exist which clearly demonstrate that chiropractic treatment, including manipulative and spinal adjustment, is both safe and effective. In recent years, there have been three Medical Research Council funded research projects with results published in the BMJ. All clearly demonstrate the efficacy and cost effectiveness of the chiropractic management of back pain. Please read Anthony Rosner's analysis Steth Hi Steth, I don't agree with your proposal or your analysis. The 16 were chosen for quite valid reasons. That's how you do a meta-analysis , and you don't report original studies in full - that's not how a scientific paper is written - you give refs which has been done.
On numbers in UK, could you give your source? Even if this in error, that is not sufficient reason to remove the study. Do you have a source for the NeLH stuff? It looks to me like it may suffer the same flaws I've just outlined in your expectations. Did you read my comments above on your sources? The link you gave for Rosner doesn't contain his name. It is a media release. Was this media release the analysis you refer to? Well if Ernst states, "None of the reviews conclusively demonstrates that SM is ineffective. Since he has a strong history of anti-chiro bias, shouldn't that be noted as well.
While the journal it is in is highly regarded, Ernst, in my opinion, seems to be more of an anti-chiropractic spin doctor mouthpiece. This study, I feel, is given more weight here than it deserves and it should be so noted. Hi Steth, it would help if you quote the whole thing "We do, however, note that the absence of evidence is not the same as evidence of absence of an effect. None of the reviews conclusively demonstrates that SM is ineffective. The evidence you wish is in the article, but it is not strong evidence for the claims.
I think we need to avoid shooting the messenger. If we can show fault in this work, fine. You have yet to provide a link to the UK numbers issue. I have posted the above definitions for our reference. I really think we should attempt to answer those questions before adding information that gives the impression that all chiropractors believe those things. This survery , this poll , and this article are all I've found in my very brief search. The article currently states: I believe that citation indicated that Thoughts on how this should be changed?
I was hoping others would briefly comment below regarding on how much of this they are in agreement. Thanks AED, I've adjusted the lead. But we still need to say Cooperstein et al is disputed. As it now reads this is not conveyed. And we haven't yet captured the chiros who treat diseases for which there is no satisfactory evidence their intervention is effective, though Fyslee's version hints at this. We need also to capture the disagreement about subluxation and the fact that most scientists disupte chiro validity.
In any case that is irrelevant because we are writing an artilce here based on good sources, not proving anything one way or the other. This is about the third time I've asked, but has anyone seen or got a copy of the Cooperststein article. I'm still mystified as to why among thousands of links, it gets to be in the lead and we haven't even seen it.
The latest meta-analyis, if anything, should be in the lead. Levine, for starters the following are skeptical of chiro claims: As opposed to this I think there are three refs which support chiro: Therefore I think it accurate to say: Most scientists dispute the efficacy of chiropractic. Dispute over subluxation should also be in the lead. You would have seen the quote above from one of the leading believers in Australia, Ebrall.
Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 8
Not even he can convince himself to believe in subluxation. Now I understand the source of your confusion, Mccready. The reference was not about you, but about ex-psychiatrist Stephen Barrett who has long been the head cheerleader to free the world from the clutches of chiropractic. This is not about you. Chiropractic, a complementary and alternative medicine was founded in when Daniel David Palmer said he restored hearing to a man by adjusting his spine.
Palmer concluded that misaligned bones "subluxations" interfered with the body's expression of "Innate Intelligence" -- the "Soul, Spirit, or Spark of Life" that controlled the healing process. Mixers acknowledge that germs and hormones play a role in disease, but regard mechanical disturbances of the nervous system as the cause of lowered disease resistance. Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale.
Levine pls state in objective terms why you think my proposed lead is POV. JzG I think the current lead is inadequate for reasons stated above, but briefly, my preferred lead captures more of the history, captures the subluxation debate and introduces the different styles while also showing the scientific position. The current lead doesn't do this. The current lead implies that alleged mechanical disorders can be diagnosed treated and prevented by chiro.
Since the consensus is that this is not so, it doesn't belong in the lead of an encyclopedic article.
- Mr Chartwell!
- Chaucer.
- Anakyklosis - Der Kreislauf der Verfassungen im 6. Buch des Polybios (German Edition)?
- Techniques.
- Talk:Chiropractic/Archive 8 - Wikipedia.
- Love and Heartbreak Vol. 2.
The singling out of one study to try to give credence in the lead is POV so I'll replace it for the meantime with a phrase I hope we can all agree on There is no scientific consensus for the claims of chiropractic. Is the image the offical logo of an organisation the defacto logo of chiropractic or something else? I'll look into it and update it. Levine asked How is that not POV? Levine then claimed There is scientific consensus at least on some of the claims of chiropractic. Otherwise it is not POV, it is fact. Can we please have some evidence? Again I am taking the Cooperstein study out of the lead.
There is no encyclopedic reason for it being preferred over the Ernst study. No one has shown a link allowing us to check the full Cooperstein study. Pls provide it if you have it. The PMID link is not very instructive. I am hopeful that it will be one upon which we all can agree. Here's a very neutral definition of chiropractic that might please everyone note the source: A health care profession concerned with the diagnosis, treatment and prevention of disorders of the neuromusculoskeletal system and the effects of these disorders on general health.
Yes Levine calm down and assume good faith. Calling people liars is against WP policy. Please show me an example of this. The WHO definition is not acceptable for reasons already articulated by me and others: The musculoskeletal system [including its neuromusculoskeletal elements]is not the true focus of attention, but is only the tool used to attempt to influence the nervous system, and thus to unblock the flow of Innate Intelligence They aren't merely statements.
They actually are claiming that using adjustments to correct vertebral subluxations can influence the nervous system in such a way as to influence disease processes and general health, which is a major point of contention between chiropractic and the rest of the healthcare system including reform chiros. Those claims have not been scientifically proven to the satisfaction of the rest of the healthcare system. If you could calmly address this argument we might be able to move forward. You have yet to give a single example for why my proposed inclusion in the lead is POV Claims that spinal manipulation can remedy systemic diseases, boost immunity, improve general health, or prolong life have neither scientific justification nor a plausible rationale.
Hughgr left this edit summary "70, in the world is incorrect, there are 70k in the us. Please provide references for the actual numbers of chiropractors in the US and the world. The moon is made of blue cheese. Levine stated above So for you say that chiropractic claims have no scientific consensus supported them is completely POV. For I could just as easily there is no scienific consensus against chiropractic claims, but that would also be POV.
In science the onus is on those making the claim to show proof. Those saying the moon is made of blue cheese have to prove it. Put another way you can't prove a negative. Put another way, the statement Chiropractic claims are true is syllogistically equivalent to the moon is made of blue cheese. The burden of proof, in science and in writing encyclopedia articles, is on those making the claim. Levine, just one for each claim will do. You make your case by providing specific evidence, not by pointing to a website. Now is your big chance to show your stuff and shine!
Prove to Fyslee that you are a big boy and are able to understand what you read in journals. He is after all a physcial therapist who despises his word chiropractic and is so totally and fully devoted to eliminating you and your chosen profession, as is evidenced by his numerous self-appointed internet responsibilities and association with like-minded chiro-haters. So, prove to him and his lieutenants here that you are not vermin, but are a human with thoughts and feelings.
Perform for them, make them smile, make them laugh, make them proud - - before they, of course, discount everything you say as complete rubbish and knock you down again. But above all - - Assume Good Faith! Levine made this interesting edit "While there is evidence, there is no scientific consensus for more substantial claims. The existence of "research" is not being disputed by anyone. It is the quality of the "evidence" produced by that research that is contested. Is it good enough to be considered reliable and worthy of the label "evidence"?
Just saying "there is evidence" is pretty useless, since the research could just as easily produce evidence for or against a claim, or simply be junk science. Calling any research "evidence" isn't specific enough, and it's easy to fall into that semantic trap. Scientific consensus is usually established by scientists agreeing that the quality of the evidence in the research is good and reliable,. They think it's good, therefore they agree with it. If it's poor research, the "evidence" is viewed with suspicion, and they won't agree with it. The burden of proof is still on the claimant, who will then have to do better research in order to convince them.
URLs [42] [43] have been posted by Levine with lots of claims for many different conditions. Of course chiropractors will consider them satisfactory, or else Frank Painter wouldn't have placed them there. The research for each claim asthma, MS, allergies, etc. Now we'd like to see just one the best one for starters, to see if the research also provides good evidence for the claim, or if it's just a one patient case study, an uncontrolled study, a good quality controlled study, or something else. The best should certainly be something we can agree is good.
The posting of the URLs is far too broad shotgun approach to be acceptable as good evidence for any claim. The posting of individual studies rifle bullet for individual claims is another matter that can be examined. That's all we're asking for. If anyone can capture it in better prose, that would be great. This sentence does not say anything about whether the findings in the research are pro or anti chiropractic. It could mean that "skeptics that hate chiros" think the research is flawed in favor of chiropractic.
If you read it again, it could also mean that skeptics of "medical researchers who hate chiros" think the research is flawed against chiropractic. Just as a editorial note. It took more than years before the body of evidence in support of the germ theory was finally accepted after one more study by Pasteur that proved that fermented products only spoiled if exposed to air. That one study didn't convince all skeptic's inside and outside his profession overnight.
It was the body of evidence that preceded it and the evidence that followed that slowly created the shift until now - the consensus is that the germ theory is valid. That does not mean that it is true, only that it is the consensus that it is correct. That is the way it will stay until a very large body of evidence can prove otherwise.
The body of evidence for chiropractic is still building. While there is arguably enough evidence to satisfy some, it has not satisfied everybody - inside or outside the profession. The same can be said about the germ theory, but it currently has more who agree than disagree. All we can write here is the current state of the science of chiropractic. Whether we say it in the intro or elsewhere is up to us.
And it should be noted that science is still coming to grips with how to study and classify consensus for treatment protocols not only in chiropractic, but every sector of healthcare. When the dust settles, it should be an accurate assessment of the current science, art and philosophy of chiropractic.
BTW, we can have consensus among DC's that does not include other groups of people. Is there a "scientific consensus" that chiropractic can relieve headaches and back pain? If so, the why does the opening say "disputed"? If the research is disputed, then doesn't that just lump headaches and back pain relief into the group of "chiropractic claims with no scientific consensus". If the anti-chiro's are magnanimous enough to grant that a consensus for headaches and back pain has been reached, then certainly they can see to it to remove "Disputed" from the opening paragraph.
Dematt and Levine want evidence. Fair enough, since it definitely isn't just my POV. Here it is "backed up" from as inside the profession as one can get, and can be presented as his opinion:. Keating, Jr, PhD, chiropractic historian and professor, uses the following words to describe aspects of the profession when he analyzes chiropractic, its research, thinking, practices, and journals:. I expanded on the "pinched hose" in the intro to better clarify, it didn't seem to make sense the way it was written.
I also corrected the numers of chiro's in the intro too. Please review and post any concerns here.
To report this review as inappropriate, please complete this short form.
Thank you and good night. In the intro, Arthur Rubin wrote: Some studies suggest benefits in patients with tension headache and low back pain. Evidence for more substantial claims is inconclusive. At this point in time, I think that is perfectly stated. Next sentence for history section, continuing with Dematt's excellent work thus far. He examined the spine and found a misalignment in the area where the nerves supply the heart.
After improvement in that case as well, he states, "Then I began to reason if two diseases, so dissimilar as deafness and heart trouble, came from impingement, a pressure on nerves, were not other disease due to a similar cause. Thus the science knowledge and art adjusting of Chiropractic were formed at that time. The following is a quote for D. Shortly after this relief from deafness, I had a case of heart trouble which was not improving.
I examined the spine and found a displaced vertebra pressing against the nerves which innervate the heart. Then I began to reason if two diseases, so dissimilar as deafness heart trouble, came from impingement, a pressure on nerves, were not other disease due to a similar cause, Thus the science knowledge and art adjusting of Chiropractic were formed at that time. I then began a systematic investigation for the cause of all diseases and have been amply rewarded. What do you guys think?
Do I need to editorialize more, not sure, any input greatly appreciated. While DD Palmer clearly had many well-formulated and strong religious beliefs about chiropractic, his letter also indicates another motivation at that particular time in history -- he wanted to use Constitutional rights as a means of preventing interference with the practice of chiropractic:. Woven throughout these religious freedom arguments are his claims to be the "fountain head" of chiropractic in all its phases, including its religious phase, which he does in the private letter to another chiropractor.
Here he openly shared his opinions regarding his true role:. In his book The Chiropractor's Adjuster: It seems likely, however, that Palmer got his big idea from reading osteopathic literature and working with Andrew Taylor Still. The Journal of Osteopathy noted in a issue that "There is one fake magnetic healer in Iowa who issued a paper devoted to his alleged new system, and who until recently made up his entire publication from the contents of the Journal of Osteopathy , changing it only to insert the name of his own practice.
He also wished to regain control of the profession. First he lost it in a humiliating way to his own son, and then was pushed out in the sidelines even not practicing chiropractic for awhile and wasn't getting the attention he had been used to receiving, and which he felt he deserved:.
His later life was rather tragic, while BJ's life as a world traveller and millionaire was quite another. His last few months were bitter, with pain suffered after BJ ran him down with a car. Later lawsuits against BJ for attempted murder were unsuccessful.
I didn't mean to upset you. I'm just a stickler on references and feel that to change the wording you change the meaning and then you have misquoted the author and that could be a problem. I thought we had consensus on those first two sentences.
Techniques – Chiropractic Made Simple
Our job as editors is not the "removal of POV" we disagree with or POV we consider to be wrong, but to include and describe those POV without taking sides in the article If they are commonly known POV, they don't even need to be verified with specific citations. For example, it would be nonsense to demand evidence for the POV that most Norwegians speak Norwegian. For POV that are obscure unknown to most people familiar with the subject , references should be provided.
For chiropractic editors, an ignorance of the commonly held POV on the various sides of the chiropractic disputes leads to edits that reveal that ignorance. In such cases, it would be best to not make edits in the areas of which one has little knowledge. We all have limitations and it is helpful to know one's own limits. Without this understanding, such editing can only be done from one's own uninformed POV and wastes much time.
Navigation menu
I have been watching Dematt as he works. His edits don't waste our time. This guy is going to be a real expert who should be able to write articles and books after this experience! He delves into the subjects, works with them, seeks advice, learns to understand the various POV, presents them fairly, and all the while can maintain his own POV. Dematt is good at writing for the enemy , which is a mark of a good editor. His edits are fair and well considered, and demand respect from everyone. He is learning and gathering an enormous knowledge. He deserves our collaboration and respect.
We share a common goal -- to create the best article about chiropractic ever written. That's alright, but not here at Wikipedia. This one should encompass every significant POV. I've checked a few dictionaries and none list the word as colloquial. The intention is clear. The reader can judge for themselves. Thanks for the efforts with the history section. We have to be careful not to be captured by Palmer's POV. Again imagine, for the purpose of POV checking, replacing with "He examined the spine and found blue cheese".
Or if writing on the flat earth theory, "He examined the earth and found it flat. Perhpas the solution is to quote his exact words. Here's the next step in the history. I got it out a little earlier than I wanted, but Hughgr really seemed to be wanting it: I know it was a lot to put in there at one time, but there was a lot of information to try to digest into several short sentences.
Thanks to both Fyslee and Levine for the links.
There is some controversy in the next part between not only the straights and mixers but the AMA that I brought into this because it all defines the how and whys of chiropractic and american healthcare. If anyone has some input from other countries that they want me to look at, let me know.
I am going to work on the 's to 's next. Again, there is a lot of information to get through so don't hold your breath: If it looks like it is going in the wrong direction, let me know and I'll find something else to do: Otherwise, do your thing and make it all better, but please try to discuss your changes beforehand to avoid totally losing what we started with.
I'm looking forward to everyones input. He changed the lead again to "There is no scientific consensus for chiropractic's more substantial claims or for the effectiveness of chiropractic medicine. Anyone have a suggestion? I agree with you on the substantives above, excluding the ad hominems. I suspect there is greater consensus than there appears, but some residual hypersensitivity on all sides.
I think there is agreement that this article must not appear to offer medical advice i. People read different things into sentences, we see POV where none is intended and sometimes insert it without intending to either. I've always felt that when McCready makes an edit he has a point worth listening to, although I've sometimes disagreed , even when I think his edit is worse than the original, I think he's tripped over a real stone.
In this case I agree with Hughgr and Levine in that I think the cure is worse than the disease, but the original wording's not great. I've been struggling over how to balance a discussion about scientific evidence - especially how to go about acknowledging where there are weaknesses and possible different interpretations.
This report is about all CAMs and only incidentally about chiropractic; it is actually very supportive of chiropractic, which is virtually set up as a model for other CAMs to aspire to. But there is a balanced discussion about evidence base generally that is I think a good example of NPOV discussion. It'll be a few days still before I can do much here, but any thoughts that any of you have on this page or mine I'll listen to with gratitude. To be exact, I think McCready means to imply that there is no evidence to support a general claim for the efficacy of chiropractic ie any claim to cure most or many diseases but there is clearly evidence to support efficacy in specific conditions.
I've offered a rewording which may well be worse than anything Gleng Not sure how to re-word. Levine has some confusion over the Bureau of Labor and Statistics source that I would like to clarify. He says that the BLS source should be taken to support increasing utilization of chiropractic. It is outdated and has no source and therefore should not be relied on. Other more current sources show that chiropractic utilization has greatly decreased-most likely due to managed care restrictions.
Gleng, thanks for your contribution. It's POV to say something is "poorly understood" when many dispute its very basis. I think Jefffire made the same point when he reverted. You also quoted a report of a report - not a good idea. Have you had a look at the source you indirectly referenced Vincent, C. The problem with many govt reports is they are finalised by politicians who have been subject to lobbying. Although they can be used as a source, they may not be unbiased and should not be preferred over peer reviewed science. Dematt, Ashay and others - I can research whether the moon is made of blue cheese, but I'm not sure this entitles me then to say in an encyclopedic article that my research "currently lacks the sufficient quality to garner consensus".
I find the blue cheese analogy works quite well whenever I'm testing my own scientific ideas. I've tweaked the lead some more, including taking out the health profession phrase because it's much more than a profession, it's an alleged body of knowledge and technique. Fyslee will be able to tell us if my understanding of the reform chiros is correct. It isn't a minor amendment or slight difference of opinion, but a total break with the very foundational belief of the whole profession. Thus the reform viewpoint meets the notability criteria for inclusion in the article.
It amounts to the Protestant break with the Catholic church. The viewpoint can be presented not advocated using verifiable information from reliable sources. I just took BLS for their word. That would certainly help us all understand this report. I am stating this as a first hand witness. The information in BLS is older than the newer data which shows declining utilization.
Trends in use of complementary and alternative medicine by US adults: Altern Ther Health Med. Tindle's is a newer analysis. Assuming the BLS data is current and validated is a mistake that favors chiropractors over the truth. Maybe it's lying out of misrepresentation and ommission. The problem is using outdated data. The BLS section is quite old and needs revision. BLS's data was scruitinized by Barrett and found to contain many false and misleading statements Stephen Barrett.
Most chiropractic colleges use false advertising because the Federal Trade Commission doesn't regulate the advertising of nonprofit organzations http: The unsubstantiated Web site claims of chiropractic colleges in Canada and the United States. Journal of Chiropractic Education In fact, the chiropractic accreditor, The Council on Chiropractic Education, has been called to a hearing partly because of the false advertising of on chiropractic college, Life University in Marietta, Georgia. I think everyone is tired of misrepresentation by chiropractic trade groups and colleges and this is the true source of the conflict over this wikki page.
Chiropractors need a real scope of practice or just give up the ghost and merge with evidence based physical therapy and become Doctors of Physical Therapy. This false advertising and deceptive use of statistics is just embarrassing and the skeptics here are just trying to protect the public. If the clean up team isn't careful the wikki summary can very easily be tained with false information in the very same way that the BLS summary was ruined.
I am curious, is Fyslee a spokesperson for all chiropractors or groups within the profession? Is he the "Voice of Chiropractic"? Can he point to some numbers that back this up? It seems to me that he is passing off his viewpoints as fact. In certain situations, a patient might not be able to turn his head in a certain direction or he might be unable to assume a certain position on the adjusting table.
It is therefore necessary for chiropractors to know a wide variety of techniques in order to be able to accommodate the patients that enter the office setting. Keep in mind that there is not a special technique that chiropractors use to treat certain conditions in the body. There are however, a rather large number of dependable techniques that are very successful in correcting the one and only problem that traditional chiropractors address — the vertebral subluxation! You are commenting using your WordPress.
You are commenting using your Twitter account. You are commenting using your Facebook account.