Jump to content

Talk:Chiropractic: Difference between revisions

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Content deleted Content added
Undid revision 1201548099 by 2603:3015:1FB6:200:6CB9:E320:40D0:D979 (talk) Time to remove bias from this talk page.
Tags: Mobile edit Mobile web edit
Line 46: Line 46:


- [[Special:Contributions/189.122.84.88|189.122.84.88]] ([[User talk:189.122.84.88|talk]]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)
- [[Special:Contributions/189.122.84.88|189.122.84.88]] ([[User talk:189.122.84.88|talk]]) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

== Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024 ==

{{edit semi-protected|Chiropractic|answered=no}}
Remove "based of pseudoscientific ides" as chiropractic is evidence based.

The anti vaccine remark is unnecessary. There is no link between chiropractic and anti vaccine sentiment. [[Special:Contributions/70.21.191.175|70.21.191.175]] ([[User talk:70.21.191.175|talk]]) 06:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)

Revision as of 06:21, 11 February 2024

Not pseudo science proven

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/16690380/ 2600:1008:B173:710F:A842:C57B:D428:CDD0 (talk) 15:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not proven for Wikipedia's purposes. Although multi-site, it's a primary study. --Tryptofish (talk) 21:05, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Indeed. See WP:MEDRS. Our sourcing standards for medical claims are stricter than those for medical journals. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The aspects of chiropractic that are labeled as pseudoscientific (note that some of the sources are from chiropractic researchers) are not the subject of scientific research as they are pseudoscientific/religious claims. If the chiropractic profession ever takes a public stance admitting that those things are pseudoscientific/religious nonsense, and also publicly disavows any belief in them and punishes any chiropractor who makes claims based on them (as subluxation-based chiropractors do), then the literature will reflect those facts and that can be added to all the chiropractic related articles here. Then the profession will have officially pushed such things into the "history of chiropractic" dustbin category. We aren't there yet, so even chiropractic researchers continue to debunk such claims by other chiropractors. The profession needs to get its act together. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 22:22, 16 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The section "History" could use an update

The section "History" could use an update if sources are available.

Looks like the most recent info in that section is from 10+ years ago.

- 189.122.84.88 (talk) 18:49, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 11 February 2024

Remove "based of pseudoscientific ides" as chiropractic is evidence based.

The anti vaccine remark is unnecessary. There is no link between chiropractic and anti vaccine sentiment. 70.21.191.175 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]