View source for Talk:Vertebral subluxation

{{controversial}}
{{Rational Skepticism|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{Archive box|search=yes|
* [[Talk:Vertebral subluxation/Archive 1|Archive 1]] <small>(April 2003–April 2008)</small>
}}
__TOC__
{{Clear}}

== Chiropractors and Vaccination: A Historical Perspective ==

I just [http://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Vertebral_subluxation&diff=315799116&oldid=315765517 restored] reference to [http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/cgi/content/full/105/4/e43 this source], as it appears to be on-topic, used [[WP:PROMINENCE|appropriately]], and [[WP:RS|reliable to the topic at hand]]. Is there any reason why this assessment is in error? - [[User talk:2over0|2/0]] <small>([[Special:Contributions/2over0|cont.]])</small> 22:49, 23 September 2009 (UTC)

== Deletion of legitimate EL ==

Please stop deleting the Chirobase link. You have no legitimate reason for doing so. If you're going to do that, you should delete the other links as well, according to your arguments on other pages. This is total BS and nonsensical. I'm really beginning to wonder if you haven't lent your account to Levine2112, as this behavior is more like his than your usual behavior. I expect better from you. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 23:00, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

: I agree that the other external links should probably be removed. [[User:DigitalC|DigitalC]] ([[User talk:DigitalC|talk]]) 14:01, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

:: Now my suspicions of you letting Levine2112 use your account are strengthened. This is exactly his tactic. He would do anything, including ripping valuable pro-chiropractic content out of articles, if it achieved the end of removing even a small bit of criticism. No, that tactic won't work. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 21:53, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

:::I'm sure that you're both carefully watching the clock and counting your reverts, but you could still be smacked for violating the intent if not the letter of 3RR. (With a little AGF on the side.) Is there a particular page that sums up the pro/con arguments for that EL? [[User:AndroidCat|AndroidCat]] ([[User talk:AndroidCat|talk]]) 15:10, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

:::: A very late reply here, but ''[[Lancet]]'' recommends Chirobase as "an excellent resource":

::::* "One may not agree with the spirit of the site, but it is still an excellent resource on this controversial discipline." [http://www.thelancet.com/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(05)74675-4/fulltext Click of the week: Closing in on chiropractic]. ''[[The Lancet]]'', Volume 355, Issue 9213, Page 1471, 22 April 2000. 

:::: That's a pretty good recommendation. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 05:58, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

::::: Another late response. Chirobase is basically the blog of Dr. Stephen Barrett. We don't typically use blogs in external links. [[User:DigitalC|DigitalC]] ([[User talk:DigitalC|talk]]) 15:09, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

:::::: ??? I suspect you're searching for some other word to describe it, because it hasn't the slightest resemblance to a [[blog]]. It's the internet's largest database of chiropractic material from a skeptical angle (but with lots of neutral and positive material), whether it's scientific research, original articles, reprints of articles, government reports, historical sources, etc.. It, like all of his websites devoted to special topics, is built up in the same manner as [[Quackwatch]], which isn't a blog either. He simply doesn't have a blog of any kind. He wouldn't have any interest in or patience for maintaining a blog. He's not that kind of person. Numerous individuals help him maintain and develop it. Even if it were a blog, when it comes with such a recommendation it would become usable in more situations than a blog without such a recommendation, but that's a moot point here. It's simply not anything like a blog.

:::::: The current chiropractic editor is second-generation chiropractor Samuel Homola, DC. Previously it was third-generation chiropractor Charles E. Duvall, Jr, DC, a co-founder of the [[National Association for Chiropractic Medicine]] (NACM). In 2002, when the mixed DVA committee was considering whether to give chiropractors access to VA hospitals, he is credited with thwarting the attempts by the WCA and ICA to force a straight-only form of access to VA hospitals. Here's one [http://www.galacticonlinealliance.org/Wrongbergletter3.htm source that very briefly mentions his role.] At the time I actually wrote to the secretary for the committee and she sent me a huge packet of material which they were using. It was very interesting to follow along in the process. He successfully presented a relatively unknown scientific face of the profession to the DVA committee, and thus changed opinion in favor of allowing chiropractors to gain access to the VA hospital system. At the time (2002), mainstream medicine only saw the straight face, since straights did (and still do) dominate the profession (by influence, not numbers).

:::::: Interestingly, Daryl Wills, the president of the ACA, was alarmed [http://www.todayschiropractic.com/issues/archives/nov_dec_02/nd2002_feature_vets.html] that Duvall had been appointed to the DVA committee, and named him, the ICA, the WCA, and the Federation of Straight Chiropractors, as divisive influences, but it turned out that without Duvall, chiropractic would likely have completely failed to gain any access at all. The MD, DO, and PT members of the committee could understand him, while the straights used their esoteric (understood only by chiropractors) language and terminology, with their odd ideas of fictional anatomy. They turned off the committee, but Duvall revealed that there was a legitimate way to use spinal manipulation that wasn't related to a belief in fictional "[[vertebral subluxation]]s". He used scientific terminology and showed that at least some chiropractors could be trusted to practice in an ethical manner. That broke down their resistance and the bill was passed.

:::::: Chirobase, Barrett, and the NACM have always supported the use of scientifically validated forms of chiropractic care. Their opposition has always been focused on unethical, unscientific, "deviant and questionable chiropractic practices", not the chiropractors who practice in a scientific and ethical manner. They are the best friends of the profession. Without such critics the profession would still be an exclusively straight profession, without a drop of credibility in the scientific and medical community. -- [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 15:36, 21 February 2010 (UTC)
::::::: Even if it were a blog (which it isn't, it's a RS) it would still pass muster as a expert's blog. <span style="font-family:Papyrus">[[User:Verbal|<b style="color:#C72">Verbal</b>]] <small>[[User talk:Verbal#top|<span style="color:Gray;">chat</span>]]</small></span> 15:00, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

== Study pans chiropractic's "subluxation" concept ==

Four scholarly chiropractors have concluded that epidemiologic evidence does not support chiropractic's most fundamental theory. Since its inception, the vast majority of chiropractors have postulated that "subluxations" (misalignments) are the cause or underlying cause of ill health and can be corrected with spinal "adjustments."  

After searching the scientific literature, the chiropractic authors concluded: 

* "No supportive evidence is found for the chiropractic subluxation being associated with any disease process or of creating suboptimal health conditions requiring intervention. Regardless of popular appeal, this leaves the subluxation construct in the realm of unsupported speculation. This lack of supportive evidence suggests the subluxation construct has no valid clinical applicability." - Mirtz TA ''et al''. [http://www.chiroandosteo.com/content/pdf/1746-1340-17-13.pdf An epidemiological examination of the subluxation construct using Hill's criteria of causation.]" ''[[Chiropractic & Osteopathy]]'' 2009, 17:13, 2009

This new source may well provide some interesting content. It is also evidence that modern reform chiropractors are making their mark in the chiropractic literature. [[User:BullRangifer|Brangifer]] ([[User talk:BullRangifer|talk]]) 06:16, 12 December 2009 (UTC)