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 1229785165 by 2403:4800:7486:FF53:F4A4:D71D:1AB8:D45D (talk) perennial complaint, no sources provided
Line 39: Line 39:


- [[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)

:As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. [[User:Feoffer|Feoffer]] ([[User talk:Feoffer|talk]]) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (UTC)


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

Revision as of 03:21, 19 June 2024

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]

As perennial comments routinely remind us, this article really does need a lot of work, and with enough time I'll get to it, but I do hope someone else gets to it first. I'm pretty sure "Straights" and "Mixers" is a distinction from the 1920s, for example, so far as I'm aware, you won't find modern practitioners labeled as either. There's quite a lot of techniques that aren't mentioned in the article and we have no info on the relative strength of evidence for each: the 1920-style neurocalometer appears to be pure bunk, for example, while other techniques appear to be the exact same as those used by science-based providers. Ideally, we'd have a more detailed history of the various techniques and their relative merits. Feoffer (talk) 03:21, 19 June 2024 (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]

 Not done. No sources given, no prior consensus for change. Bon courage (talk) 06:25, 11 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Big problem is that chiropractic is not evidence based. There is no evidence of chiropractic efficacy. I also notice that this is missing the founding of chiropractic by D.D Palmer in 1895. D. D. Palmer who pushed magnet healing and some vague concept of 'subluxation'. Per D. D. Palmer the found on chiropractic on chiropractic 'we must have a religious head, one who is the founder, as did Christ, Muhammad, Jo. Smith, Mrs. Eddy, Martin Luther and other who have founded religions.'

Chiropractic is a cult pretending to be medicine, per the found of Chiropractic.

Please see the D.D. Palmer page which has the information about the founding of Chiropractic, which for whatever reason is missing from the Chiropractic page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Daniel_David_Palmer#Founding_of_chiropractic

Can we include this information on this page? 6cadc1f740 (talk) 14:07, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]