Talk:Chiropractic

Semi-protected edit request on 13 August 2020

Please fix this page to be more accurate. I am concerned with calling it a pseudoscience when DO and DPT are now performing manipulations. Unless you are also willing to call those professions pseudoscience for practicing that. The first sentence of this page is an old mindset, incorrect, and is the reason we still have so many discrepancies between healthcare professionals because most people don't understand chiropractic and when they look it up that is the first thing they see. Please just remove the word. If you would like any more information on chiropractic please contact me. 198.102.161.2 (talk) 14:06, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

The sources in the article support the assertion that it's pseudoscience. I don't know what DO or DPT are, but without presenting any sources to challenge the description, we can't action this request. GirthSummit _(blether) 14:08, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

Girth Summit, DO is Doctor of Osteopathy, the offshoot of chiropractic / osteopathy that decided to take up reality-based medicine. DPT is, I assume, doctor of physical therapy. Both do indeed perform manipulation therapy, but neither supports the bullshit subluxation theory, the idea of "innate", or any of the other signature facets that define chiropractic. Not least because a regulated medical practitioner who performed the chiropractic neck twist would lose their license to practise. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:20, 13 August 2020 (UTC)

JzG Your assertions regarding osteopathy are completely false. In the United States, many DO's become osteopaths because they applied to DO school as a backup when applying to MD programs. Many osteopaths ignore joint manipulation when they choose their medical specialty. But osteopathic joint manipulation is indeed a central tenet of their profession and is taught in DO school curricular. The profession of osteopathy in the United States is still very much steeped in joint manipulation and "osteopathic holistic philosophy. They are like chiropractors with Rx pads, scalpels, and high malpractice insurance premiums. 2601:240:C400:B280:F904:4757:AEEC:14C5 (talk) 11:53, 8 February 2021 (UTC)RationalGuy

JzG What about cervical traction? Not all spinal manipulation is based around subluxation, and some modalities are widely accepted amongst the broader medical community as effective and evidence-based. Describing the entire field of chropractic as 'pseudoscientific' is completely out of line here, and an egregious violation of WP:NPOV. I'd have no problem with several related topics being labeled as such, such as subluxation, innate, etc., but labeling the entire profession as pseudoscientific when a significant proportion of what chiropractors do is evidence-based is totally out of line. A large portion of chiropractors - especially new graduates - run completely evidence-based practices. They order and interpret blood work and labs, x-rays, MRIs, do orthopedic testing, neurological testing, physical examination, etc. This stuff is all in line with the generally accepted standard of care, and completely evidence-based. Some chiropractors receive a DACBR post-doc and practice as bona fide radiologists, alongside MD and DO radiologists. Clearly they are not practicing pseudoscience. The pseudoscience verbiage has no place in the first sentence of the article. I'm as much for fighting against pseudoscience as the next guy, but this is really egregious, and clearly a violation of WP:NPOV. I think there is a large subset of the population who believe that chiropractors all believe in subluxation theory, and only crack backs. Not true, and it is wrong to represent the profession as such.Esoteric10 (talk) 06:10, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, there is a Venn diagram, there is a small overlap between defensible reality-based treatments and chiropractic, but it is small, and in most cases the chiropractic version is a cargo-=cult imitation.

Caveat: mixers (like Samuel Homola) are more likely to be reality-based and accept the limits of their knowledge and scope of practice. But most of the ones we see here are straights. Guy (help! - typo?) 11:26, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree that the pseudoscience label is laughable - I can find one reference like this article has (from one book) with the same degree of veracity, to prove that the moon is made of green cheese. It's a ridiculous argument that some one person's opinion in one book is enough to condemn an entire field of medicine in the opening sentence. I'm a physicist and as much as I support evidence based articles, this hatchet job is no good. Polymath uk (talk) 20:35, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

POV issues

Some editors of this article seem to be pushing opinion labels like "pseudoscience" and the adjective "pseudoscientific" wherever possible and as high up in the article as possible. The references cited for this are often opinion based websites or non-medical journals. The statement that people consider Chiropractic to be "pseudoscience" is undeniable fact. The use of the label as a definitive descriptor of the practice is opinion. Neither Harvard Medical School, the NIH , nor The American College of Physicians use "pseudoscience" or any of the related terms to describe chiropractic treatments. It is extremely important for the wikipedia article to mention the debate, and to cite detractors of spinal manipulation and chiropractic treatments, but it is un"wiki" to constantly hammer and promote one side of a debate frey (talk) 15:31, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

References

OK, show me the empirical proof for innate, and an objective way of testing subluxations, or any objectively demonstrable effect of said subluxations sufficient to offset the risks of vertebral artery dissection and full-spine X-rays. Or, to put it another way, straights are quacks, and mixers are either physical therapists (like the excellent and trustworthy Samuel Homola) or quacks in denial. Note in passing: "as good as NSAAIDs for chronic lower back pain" is semantically equivalent to "does not work for chronic lower back pain". Nothing does. Guy (help! - typo?) 16:00, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

The last "yellow" intro section at the top of this page says ...

"The Arbitration Committee has authorized uninvolved administrators to impose discretionary sanctions on users who edit pages related to pseudoscience and fringe science, including this article.

Provided the awareness criteria are met, discretionary sanctions may be used against editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process."

Fellow editers would be well-advised to think about it. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 17:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Roxy the inedible dog ., FYI, I agree with your distaste for pseudoscience, I do however take issue with someone removing valid links to multiple national medical organizations terminology and definitions of the subject at hand. I feel that it is extremely important for Wikipedia to cover the subject of pseudoscience and the dangers associated with pseudomedicine, but you can’t simply erase references to national licensing standards to win your argument frey (talk) 17:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Are most of you editors in favor of censoring any reference to the fact that the profession is licensed in many contries? I am mildly surprised by how many of you come out of the woodwork to hide that fact. I don't even think we would disagree on the value of the profession. I don't want anyone touching my spine, but I feel like obfuscating governmental facts about the occupation is going a bit far, don't you? frey (talk) 18:05, 20 August 2020 (UTC) Ideas? pepperbeast(talk) , McSly , Roxy the elfin dog . ... You all seem opinionated about the subject. Do you really want to eliminate references to various national regulation and licensing of the profession? frey (talk) 18:13, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Your update on licensing is probably not lede worthy, though if you update the body first with reasonable content we can discuss it. It it is certainly not DUE in the first couple sentences. Also one editor disagreeing with many is not a POV dispute its just one user disagreeing with consensus.AlmostFrancis (talk) 18:24, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

thank you for joining the conversation. I remain bothered by the tone of the lede, but I have other things to do with my life than fight this battle. It remains that I believe the tone of articles such as Herbal medicine maintain a more neutral stance than this one, but perhaps other wiki editors will come to see my perspective and take up the issue. If not, then the article will remain, in my eyes, biased. I was extremely offended by the fact that Roxy the elfin dog . removed my first comments on the talk page, but as long as the discussion stays open, I will admit that nobody else sees the tone the way I do and just move onfrey (talk) 18:42, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Thats the job of Big Pharma is too discredit anything that doesnt promote their medication or doctors. Of you disagree you support pseudoscience or you are a conspiracy theorist.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 20:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

No, it's the other way around: you are a conspiracy theorist because you accuse those who disagree with you of being in the pocket of Big Pharma. Discussion with conspiracy theorists is not possible because they will dismiss any reason that contradicts their position as coming from people who are part of the conspiracy. As you just did.

Please use factual reasoning instead of blanket ad-hominem. Or leave the page to people who do. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:10, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Fruitloop11, oh the irony. The first entry at the disambiguation page Big Pharma is Big Pharma conspiracy theory. Which you just promted. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:18, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

• The term "pseudoscience" is supported by sources. You present sources that don't use the term "pseudoscience", however, your sources also don't make any claim that the field is scientific or is not pseudoscientific. They don't address this issue, one way or the other. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:11, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

  Swarm, this is correct. Pseudoscience means a thing which is presented as science but is not. Chiropractic meets the definition perfectly. The sciencey-looking terms, the obsessive use of the honorific "doctor", the gadgets, X-rays and the like, the walled garden of journals, the whole nine yards. I have not seen any remotely reliable source that claims it to be a genuinely scientific endeavour. Guy (help! - typo?) 08:21, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Funny in the Soviet Union and Germany anything that was against the states views was considered a conspiracy theory or a lie to endanger people. I guess you are trying to makethe same accusations here. Calling a practice you have to go to school for pseudoscience isnt just illogically wrong it is morally wrong as well because it hurts the people who worked hard to become chiropractors. Alternative medicine is the most repectful way of putting it. End of comment.--Fruitloop11 (talk) 11:52, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

See the Courtier's reply (and Godwin’s law). Brunton (talk) 12:15, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

That wasnt the point. I wasnt comparing anyone to hitler. I could have went with Soviet Union and communist China instead of Germany--Fruitloop11 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

It's unclear what you're comparing an authoritarian government to in your metaphor. Please, enlighten us. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 13:16, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Or rather, just stop it. We already get enough people who think they have to complain about their favorite pseudoscience getting called pseudoscience. It never works because they never have any reliable sources to back them up, just random accusations of dogmatism and censorship, comparisons with Soviets, Nazis, and inquisitors (you forgot that one), conspiracy theories involving Big Pharma, Bill Gates, or George Soros, and so on and so on. Or actual pointers to studies which turn out either to be abysmally bad or to say the opposite of what they are claimed to say. Whatever you plan to give us, it is highly likely that we already heard and refuted it dozens of times. --Hob Gadling (talk) 17:07, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I'm interested in hearing who or what Fruitloop is implying is the equivalent of an authoritarian communist or fascist state. This is the kind of thing that's relevant to understand in a DS area. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 08:20, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

• Swarm The term "pseudoscience" is supported by sources in relation to specific practices, not in relation to the entire profession, which is the subject of this article. Yes, I had to put this in bold, because this fact has apparently been lost here. Yes, label subluxation as pseudoscience. Label applied kinesiology as pseudoscience. This article relates to the entire profession of chiropractic. This includes, among others, people who go through residencies and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MDs. Quick reference here: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are they not practicing evidence-based medicine when diagnosing an aortic aneurism on a plain film x-ray? Labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is a clear WP:NPOV violation, and unfortunately it seems even 'neutral' third parties are susceptible to ignoring this fact when it fits their own bias. Esoteric10 (talk) 07:30, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

100% agree that this article is biased against chiropractic. I have no axe to grind either way but I went elsewhere to find out about the subject after reading the first sentence. In the UK for example there was a law passed to create a general chiropractic council to regulate practioners in the same way as medical doctors (who by the way do not have doctorate degrees). I suppose the UK government must also be psuedoscientific too. Polymath uk (talk) 20:40, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

About the reference #24 "History and overview of theories and methods of chiropractic: a counterpoint"

While reading the entry about Chiropractic, I stumbled upon this article, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_note-DeVocht-24, referenced at 4 places, and read it. As someone who is new on Wikipedia, I'm interested in what is the consensus about the usage of references in an entry and if the usage of it on this specific article is ok. Here's what catched my eye:

1) About the second reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_ref-DeVocht_24-1, following this sentence:

"All but one of the chiropractic colleges in the U.S. are privately funded, but in several other countries they are in government-sponsored universities and colleges."

This is directly taken from the referenced article itself, p. 245, sub-section "Education and Licensure", which says

"In the United States, all but one of the chiropractic colleges are privately funded, but the colleges in Australia, South Africa, Denmark, one in Canada, and two in Great Britain are located in government-sponsored universities and colleges."

This sentence, for its validation, than refers directly (a reference numbered #29), to another article "Chiropractic: A Profession at the Crossroads of Mainstream and Alternative Medicine". When reading this article however, the only related statement is

"Unlike in the United States, where all but one college are privately funded, chiropractic education in Australia, South Africa, Denmark, one college in Canada, and two in Great Britain is provided at established government-sponsored universities and colleges." (p. 218, Chiropractic Traning and Licensure section).

But this same sentence does not provide any other reference or details. No words about what are these government-funded institutions or colleges in these countries, which kind of program they provide, or anything.

I therefore find this statement dubious, since no directly verifiable information is provided for it veracity, and I'm here asking if it would be ok to remove it.

2) About the fourth reference, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chiropractic#cite_ref-DeVocht_24-3, following this sentence:

"Chiropractic remains controversial, though to a lesser extent than in past years."

Excluding the fact that it is a wide statement, it however directly refers the subject of the referenced article, but I think it is maybe not precise enough. The article referenced primarily establishes this statement by referencing two studies that boil down to the fact that chiropractic could help lower back pain. The referenced article does not provide any other references or original research about other possible claims.

I would therefore maybe suggest to modify this sentence to add something about the fact that chiropractic is less controversial than before, but specifically on its efficiency to treat lower back pain, but I'm uncertain about how it could be formulated. Suggestions are welcome.

Tleilaxi (talk) 06:22, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

I'd say no, because a chiropracter would say that, wouldn't they? -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:37, 18 October 2020 (UTC)

Pseudoscience

To label chiropractic "pseudoscience" in the first paragraph is very rude and disrespectful of chiropractic. This should be removed. It should not be in the first paragraph, but further down it could be mentioned that "some people consider chiropractic to be a pseudoscience." That would be a more fair and reasonable statement, although I question whether it should be in this at all, because chiropractic is covered by most major insurance companies and is therefore a legitimate and recognized healthcare service. It may have once upon a time been marginalized, but in modern and current times, it is mainstreamed and widely used by a significant percentage of the population of the United States, with excellent user ratings. For this reason, Nebraska Totalcare, a Medicaid Insurance Provider, has recently increased chiropractic from a limited number of visits a year to unlimited, because chiropractic has been shown to reduce surgeries in people with chronic back problems. And surgery is much more expensive to pay for than chiropractic visits.

There are unknowns in any field of healthcare, which is why research continues in all fields of care. Some aspects of chiropractic may be better understood than others.

In summary, chiropractic is not a pseudoscience but a healthcare treatment that is now mainstream. Medicaid, medicare, and major health insurance companies are not in the practice of paying for "pseudoscience". And the reputation and reliability of wikipedia is tarnished by labeling a mainstream healthcare practice that is covered by health insurance as pseudoscience.

Furthermore, I have read but don't currently recall where I saw, that recent studies show that patient satisfaction with the results of chiropractic treatments are higher than in any other field of healthcare. That is apparently and presumably because it works and helps a lot of people reduce pain. Back pain is a common problem. While chiropractic may not be the right treatment for everyone, for many it clearly works.

Thanks.AHolisticView (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed too many times. Please read the discussions above and archives of this page (see links in the top section). Thanks. Retimuko (talk) 00:45, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

Chiropractic was once considered a pseudoscience, but is now a mainstream healthcare service in the United States, used by millions of people suffering from back pain, and is covered by Medicare, Medicaid, and many major insurance providers. Sources: Medicare.gov (Medicare Part B (Medical Insurance) covers manual manipulation of the spine if medically necessary to correct a subluxation when provided by a chiropractor or other qualified provider.) https://medicaid.ncdhhs.gov/providers/programs-services/medical/chiropractic-services'https://www.bcbs.com/the-health-of-america/articles/when-opioids-arent-the-best-option https://healthy.kaiserpermanente.org/health/care/consumer/center/!ut/p/a1/hVBLT4NAEP4tPXCEHUAe9QaLbQAVmxqLezELWSlx2d0sa5v-e4HGxIPGSSaZSb7HzIcIqhER9NR31PRSUD7vJHzbFPsqTd0EqqAKIH8ItusifPQAR-iACkQ6LpsF_Ho0Rt1aYMFZqVYKw4Rpp2baAkSuk6ADQzUbFJcXxmzFqRj_pVJt-pZPPBwB3mRxbOMwzGzXvfPt1M18G2MIbrLEjRIvmNUS0fhxh4hm70wz7Xzq6b7ZYrx6nM9O04vOaeUw6f9COMrRoPonbvqVLHGAn--WOLZPIUAel8_ly7r0AbxvwB-VAFJDfPH56Z4d7I9dslp9AezW4G8!/dl5/d5/L2dBISEvZ0FBIS9nQSEh/ AHolisticView (talk) 01:00, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

There does not appear to be an actual request in amongst this lot. -Roxy the inedible dog . wooF 06:16, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Not physiciand

This is patently false. Klsinternational (talk) 16:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

What is false? Please clarify and point to reliable sources. This is not a forum to express your personal views. Retimuko (talk) 16:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Physician Status

In the lead, should we mention that even though they are not considered physicians or medical doctors, they graduate with a D.C. degree and that many governments, either state or federal recognize them as physicians? I feel that this would clarify this a bit. I'm not saying they are medical doctors, but I feel that this should at least be mentioned as well as the validity of the D.C. degree. Even reliable sources that debunk chiropractics practices mention the programs and recognition.2603:8081:160A:BE2A:6460:EB74:4175:FD5C (talk) 20:56, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

It's discussed later in the article and is not necessary for the lead. Read WP:LEAD. Sundayclose (talk) 20:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Re the 'governments recognize' stuff, terms are definied in laws and government regulations with respect to those laws. The fact that social security reimburses care by Chiropractors does not mean that the government recognizes them as physicians - you would need a source that actually says that. They still can't write prescriptions or treat infectious diseases or most of the other things physicians are qualified to do. - MrOllie (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I can see that. Wouldn't physician be essentially synonymous with medical doctor?2603:8081:160A:BE2A:6460:EB74:4175:FD5C (talk) 22:20, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement regarding physician status is not a matter of opinion. Two government websites (Federal, and the State of Illinois) are cited and clearly indicate that chiropractors are recognized as physicians. These citations are irrefutable and the government agencies clearly state that they are recognized as physicians. https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm and https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1309&ChapterID=24%7Curl-status=live%7Carchive-url=%7Carchive-date=%7Caccess-date=%7Cwebsite=Illinois%20General%20Assembly}}%3C/ref — Preceding unsigned comment added by Malcolm217 (talk • contribs) 19:15, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Those are primary sources, not secondary, and neither of them establishes what you're claiming they establish. PepperBeast (talk) 19:26, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

pepperbeast Meanwhile, a blog post remains the source in the article for the "chiropractors are not physicians" claim. You can't be serious about rejecting government sources in favor of a blog post. Esoteric10 (talk) 21:32, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

"For purposes of this Act, the following definitions shall have the following meanings" - the laws you're citing are deliberately limited in scope, they do not apply in other contexts. I agree with pepperbeast - secondary sources are required here. - MrOllie (talk) 19:45, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Sundayclose Why is it ok to put the misleading verbiage in an opening paragraph, only to correct it later in the article? Many jurisdictions do recognize chiropractors as physicians. The statement that "chiropractors are not physicians" is objectively false, as it implies to the reader that they are not considered physicians by any widely accepted definition or by any governmental body. The citations for the claim that they are "not physicians" are two opinion articles from the same blog, one of which is now a broken link. However, here is a source I found in 30 seconds of a state government listing "physician" among "legally accepted terms for chiropractor": https://directory.fclb.org/LicensingBoards/US/Idaho.aspx. Come on guys, I'm all for fighting against pseudoscience, but this is way over the line. Esoteric10 (talk) 06:38, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Let's not entangle the issues of pseudoscience and use of the term physician. There are a number of healthcare occupations that are not physicians, but that doesn't make them a pseudoscience. Those issues should be determined separately. As for the issue of using the term physician, please provide reliable sources that "Many jurisdictions do recognize chiropractors as physicians", not just the website of one regulatory board. Additional issue: do most jurisdictions allow prescription privileges for chiropractors as does every jurisdiction (in the USA anyway; I'm not sure about other countries) for physicians? I can't claim to know the answer for every jurisdiction, but I do know that many do not. By "prescription", I am not including OTC meds. That is an important distinction. Sundayclose (talk) 18:21, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2021

Chiropractic is not pseudoscience. They take very real science classes, the same as medical doctors and their philosophy is based on science. Please update this incorrect information and correct it to science. Mel23073 (talk) 21:22, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry, there are no reliable sources (see WP:MEDRS) to support your suggestion, so we cannot. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 21:24, 16 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog What a lazy response. The issue at hand here is that Chiropractic, the topic of the article, relates to an entire profession. This profession includes chiropractors who, for example, go through an extensive residency and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MD radiologists. One quick example I found: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are they practicing pseudoscience when they are diagnosing a bone cancer? The profession also includes practitioners who are legally capable of ordering and interpreting blood work and other lab reports, xrays, MRIs, performing orthopedic exams, neurologic exams, physical exams, etc. All of the aforementioned practices are generally accepted as the standard of care by the broader medical community. These practices do not differ from practices performed by other practitioners that are generally considered to be practicing evidence-based medicine. The citations for the pseudoscience claim relate to particular aspects that are commonly found in chiropractic practice, which may be justly labeled as pseudoscience. There would be little debate about these various related topics being labeled as pseudoscience, such as subluxation theory, applied kinesiology, etc. However, labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is completely out of line, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. As to your assertion that there are "no reliable sources", what exactly are you talking about? There are no reliable sources that show that chiropractors can and do practice evidence-based medicine? really? Esoteric10 (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Tough beans. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 07:20, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog Listen, I agree with everything on your talk page, but even if we are pro-science, that doesn't give us permission to violate wikipedia standards.Esoteric10 (talk) 08:00, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Does that mean you are going to stop? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:02, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Roxy the happy dog Stop what? Crusading against pseudoscience? No. But this page isn't about pseudoscience, it's about Chiropractic, which is a profession with many practitioners who happen to believe in pseudoscience, and many who do not. It is not a pseudoscience itself. Articles about specific pseudoscientific beliefs should be labeled as such, but not the entire profession itself, I'm sorry.Esoteric10 (talk) 08:11, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

It is not a pseudoscience itself If that is the case, isn't it weird that several reliable sources say it is? Isn't it also weird that you cannot give us reliable sources that say it isn't? Instead you just claim it isn't. Wikipedia is based on reliable sources and not on unsupported opinions of Wikipedia users. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:19, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

Reliable sources claim that certain practices that are performed by some chiropractors are pseudoscience, but this article isn't about subluxation theory or applied kinesiology, it's about chiropractic, a practice which is far more broad and should not be blanket labeled as a pseudoscience. It is not even a philosophy in and of itself. Esoteric10 (talk) 09:36, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

chiropractic [..] should not be blanket labeled as a pseudoscience If that is the case, why don't you give us that source which says it isn't? --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:41, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 January 2021

I'm requesting the removal of the word "pseudoscientific" in the opening sentence, and hoping to get fresh eyes on this as opposed to people who, for example, literally admit that they are biased on their talk page, e.g. Roxy the happy dog .

The issue at hand here is that Chiropractic, the topic of the article, relates to an entire profession, and not a specific philosophy, doctrine or belief that may be held by some of its practitioners. While the profession surely includes many practitioners who hold pseudoscientific beliefs, the profession includes chiropractors who, for example, go through an extensive residency program and practice as bona fide radiologists alongside MD radiologists. One quick example I found: https://proscan.com/physician-resources/proscan-reading-services/radiology-team/. Are these chiropractors practicing pseudoscience when they are diagnosing a bone cancer on an x-ray? No. A majority of chiropractors also perform a multitude of procedures which are generally accepted as being within the standard of care accepted by the broader medical community as evidence-based practices. This includes performing venipuncture, ordering and interpreting blood work and other lab reports, xrays, MRIs, performing orthopedic exams, neurologic exams, physical exams, minor surgery, physiotherapy, etc. The citations for the pseudoscience claim relate to particular beliefs that are sometimes held by chiropractors (but not always), and should be labeled as pseudoscience, e.g. Applied Kinesiology and Vertebral subluxation (which, strangely, is not even described as a pseudoscience until the end of the article). There would be little debate about these various related topics being labeled as pseudoscience, however labeling the entire profession as pseudoscience is completely out of line, and a clear violation of WP:NPOV. Esoteric10 (talk) 08:27, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

See the last of the large yellow boxes on the top of this page, just before the "contents" section. You could also learn something by reading WP:NPA as it relates to your attacks on me above. Thanks. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:49, 23 January 2021 (UTC)-Roxy the happy dog . wooF 08:47, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

1) It's not a personal attack when I'm pointing out the fact that you are not qualified to speak to issues related to NPOV when you literally admit on your talk page that the entirety of your involvement on wikipedia is to push a bias, and to "resist NPOV pushing of lunatic charlatans". I happen to share your bias, but also have enough integrity to realize when it crosses the line. Labeling the entirety of the chiropractic profession as pseudoscience in the first sentence of the article is about 5 miles over the line. I am switching this to unanswered, and will revert if you try to switch it again, especially without addressing the substance of the points I made above. Maybe you should also take a look at the last yellow block on the top of the page. Esoteric10 (talk) 10:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

If that isn't a personal attack, then neither is this. Stop being foolish Don't be a plonker all your life. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 11:33, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

• @Esoteric10: I have the same userbox on my page, it's literally a reference to a statement Jimmy Wales made about how the basis of neutrality is science, and that neutrality is not a "middle ground" between science and pseudoscience. If you perceive that as a bias, then our community's collective response would be yes, we are biased. Saying that userbox disqualifies you from speaking about NPOV is admitting that your views are contrary to what NPOV actually means. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 03:29, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Totally agree with that statement, but it's not black and white here. The vast majority of what chiropractic practitioners actually do in real life is evidence-based. The aspects that are not should be labeled as such, but the entire scope of chiropractic practice cannot be defined as pseudoscience. In fact, it doesn't even represent a single philosophy. Labeling chiropractic as pseudoscience is akin to labeling podiatry as pseudocience and citing reflexology. I know many editors policing this page think they're doing the flying spaghetti monster's work, and I probably agree with 99% of the work that is done in that vein, but a line has been crossed here.Esoteric10 (talk) 10:55, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Then quit making personal attacks and arguing from anecdote. I can follow your argument here, it isn't crazy or anything, but your personal opinion is meaningless. You need to provide sources. ~Swarm~ ^{sting} 07:17, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

Swarm Citing sources here is a futile effort. I saw someone post sources form government websites stating that chiropractors are officially recognized as physicians, and it was disregarded because it's primary and not secondary. Meanwhile, a blog post remains the source for the claim in the first paragraph that chiropractors are not considered physicians, and the statement "chiropractors are not physicians" remains in the article without even a caveat. Likewise, I could cite sources about evidence-based practices that chiropractors engage in, the rift among chiropractic practitioners as to what philosophies guide their practice, chiropractors doing residencies and practicing as radiologists, etc, but there will be an army of policemen here ready to cite subluxation theory as their justification for blanket-labeling the entire practice of chiropractic as pseudoscience. Passion for (or against) a subject shouldn't get in the way of being able to write an unbiased article. This article, however, is an NPOV shit show. I don't think it's appropriate to take Jimmy Wales' words about pseudoscience as permission to run roughshod on any article even tangentially related to pseudoscience.Esoteric10 (talk) 21:24, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Esoteric10: Could you please identify which government source(s) were ignored? Did it refer to one or two state websites, or a national website, such as Medicare? Sundayclose (talk) 21:31, 27 January 2021 (UTC)

@Sundayclose: Here's the medicare website that was referenced. It includes chiropractors under the definition of "physician": https://www.ssa.gov/OP_Home/ssact/title18/1861.htm (ctrl+f for "chiropractor"). Also, there are several US states which define chiropractors as physicians. Here are two that I found: https://legislature.idaho.gov/statutesrules/idstat/Title54/T54CH7/SECT54-703/, https://www.ilga.gov/legislation/ilcs/ilcs3.asp?ActID=1309. I think these sources should take precedence over a blog post, but what do I know. I will be starting a separate edit request for this. Would you mind taking a look? Esoteric10 (talk) 09:17, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, please do not misuse the "edit request" function. It should only be used for totally uncontroversial content, IOW no need for any discussion. Instead, what you can do is start a new thread, but only if you have substantially new arguments, sources, or reasoning. Otherwise you may get accused of bludgeoning or IDHT behavior. -- Valjean (talk) 17:51, 31 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10 The subject of the article isn't the profession, it's about the practice itself, and the assertion that the practice is pseudoscientific is well-sourced within the article. We aren't applying a label to the people who practice chiropractic; if they also practice other stuff, that activity isn't in any way tainted by the pseudoscientific nature of chiropractic. Please don't make comments about other editors on this talk page, it is inappropriate - comment on content, not contributors. Please do not change the edit request parameter again - it's not an decision that a single editor could make anyway, it would need substantial discussion, probably an RfC, and some very solid sourcing.

Roxy the dog please don't up the ante on the PAs by using words like foolish, plonker or whatever - it's just going to increase tension, which nobody needs right now. GirthSummit _(blether) 12:53, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I'm sorry. Now, are you going to do anything about them? -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:34, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

I think that depends on what they do next. They made an edit request, it's been responded to. I have asked them not to make any more personal comments about other editors, I hope they'll honour that request. GirthSummit _(blether) 15:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

We'll make a diplomat out of you yet. -Roxy the happy dog . wooF 15:44, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The subject of the article is the practice of chiropractic, which is extremely broad and is not limited to the pseudoscientific aspects referenced as sources for the pseudoscientific claim, as was pointed out in the OP. The topic is far too broad to put the blanket label of "pseudoscientific" in the first sentence, regardless of whether even a majority of the practitioners have some pseudoscientific beliefs. One test for this would be whether there is evidence showing that one could visit a chiropractor, describe symptoms that would indicate a musculoskeletal ailment, and receive an accurate diagnosis. I imagine this would be true 95%+ of the time, and true more often than would be the case with other evidence-based practitioners such as physiotherapists and nurse practitioners. I will have to gather some sources and make a proper RfC, however I do think the general distaste for pseudoscience among wiki editors and the number of said editors actively monitoring a page like this is tipping the scale way too far here, and placing something that is largely evidence-based in its modern form into the same category as astrology and homeopathy. Wikipedia is a neutral platform. There are plenty of articles that I'd love to slap a derogatory label on in the first sentence, but we are doing the site and readers a disservice. Esoteric10 (talk) 21:37, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

The test, for our purposes is how reliable sources describe it. Any argument you want to make here should be based on what sources say, and how we should summarise their content. General observations about the subject aren't constructive. GirthSummit _(blether) 00:10, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Girth Summit I'm aware of how sourcing works, and above I gave an example of a type of source that may be relevant here. It also seems that general observations are indeed constructive here, as the vast majority of the editors here seem to have no idea about the topic at hand, and are apparently ok with a blog post being sourced for a claim in the first paragraph that chiropractors are not physicians, while disregarding sources from government websites stating the opposite because they're just "primary sources". I do feel like I need to inject some much needed balance to the discussion here. This type of chicanery would not fly on a less contentious article, but apparently it's ok here. Who will watch the watchmen?Esoteric10 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, That's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. The 99% of charlatans definitely do give the 1% of reality-based practitioners a bad name, but we're writing about the subject as it is, not as you wish it to be. Guy (help! - typo?) 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Guy The real problem here is that I'm pretty sure most of the people actively policing this article actually believe that there is a 99% to 1% ratio of pseudoscience to evidence-based practices within chiropractic, when in reality the vast majority of what chiropractors do is evidence-based. I've worked with them and two MDs who have taught them, and the vast majority of chiropractors today are not learning or practicing pseudoscience, I'm sorry. No, this is not an anecdote, I could source their board exams. Maybe 5% of their curriculum covers spinal manipulation, and they are essentially being trained in general medicine with an emphasis on orthopedic evaluation and management / physiotherapy. There are spinal manipulation modalities, such as cervical / lumbar traction, that are evidence-based and generally accepted among the broader medical community as an acceptable modality for the treatment of certain conditions, particularly of those involving vertebral compression, e.g. sciatica and other radiculopathies. Yes, there are practitioners who still adhere to subluxation theory, but they are marginalized and represent a minority of practitioners today, as opposed to decades ago. Still, though, if you were to walk into their office with a rotator cuff tear, they would diagnose it correctly and either send you for PT or rehab it in their office. Lumping Chiropractic in with homeopaths, faith healers and psychics is disingenuous, and deep down I think you know this, unless you are completely mistaken about what chiropractors actually do within their scope of practice. Esoteric10 (talk) 09:07, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Esoteric10, the 99:1 ratio certainly applies on this taslk page, and my (not inconsiderable) reading shows that most chiropractic schools are increasingly vehemently anti-reality. Discussion in the press is dominated by trying to arm-wave away the risks (e.g. VAD) and whataboutism over NSAIDs. At this point it's fair to say that chiropractic works as well for chronic lower back pain as NSAIDs do, chiros punt that as hard as they can, and forget the corollary finding that NSAIDs don't work. Nothing does., Including back-cracking. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:12, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

The assertion that there is no data regarding the safety of chiropractic manipulation is demonstrability false. Medical malpractice liability insurance premiums for chiropractors on average are 5% of those paid by medical doctors (which vary greatly among specialties) . Insurance actuaries and underwriters have no bias when they assess risk and formulate insurance premiums. They are not in the business of offering liability policy limits of liability of $1,000,000 per incident and $3,000,000 per year to over 70,000 full time practicing chiropractors in the United States alone for an average of $370 a year when these 70K+ chiropractors each routinely perform dozens of cervical manipulations per day. This article clearly misrepresents and overstates the risk associated with being treated by chiropractors. Cervical manipulation is the one procedure (among many) chiropractors perform that are associated with serious risk. Although the risk is indeed legitimate, the statistical incidence extremely low. A number of documents cases of vertebral artery disection involved incidences in which the manipulation was performed by a practitioner another health care professional other than a chiropractor and some by laypersons attempting cervical manipulation. Chiropractors are licensed and trained to perform the same procedures that physical therapists do. Many chiropractic patients opt not to have their cervical spine manipulated. The vast majority of practicing chiropractors in the US reject the early incorrect hypotheses of their profession, just as MD's and DO's have regarding their respective counterparts from the 1890's. Full disclaimer: I am not familiar with the weird tedious cryptic idiosyncratic Wikipedia procedural and form posting requirements. I am aware that my contribution to this discussion may very well be unceremoniously censored by the overzealous wiki editors with strange irrational vendettas against the chiropractic profession. I'm hoping someone else with the patience to deal with the nonsense they perpetuate has the time to research and post actuary data on the safety of chiropractic. Perhaps I'll do it myself when I have time. In the interim, can any of the staunch anti chiropractic crusaders respond substantively to the points I have made? 2601:240:C400:B280:D44D:414C:41D0:1E79 (talk) 11:34, 8 February 2021 (UTC)RationalGuy

There is no usable data because there is no systematic adverse incident reporting. Insurance premiums are irrelevant - when you're not supposed to deal with people who are actually ill, you'd expect lower rates of insurance claims and in any case victims of alt med cults have a long history of excusing away the abuses they suffer. Many things chiros do - notably including whole-spine X-rays - carry non-trivial risk for zero provabnle benefit, but we don't have figures around these things because they lack the reporting and data colleciton frameworks of ethical practice. Guy (help! - typo?) 12:58, 8 February 2021 (UTC)

References

Section about views on vaccination

These sentences don't fit with the article. They're not focused on chiropractic, and the citation is not a systematic review. Greenriverglass (talk) 03:21, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

It seems to me that most, if not all, of the information in the article about vaccination focuses on chiropractic. And at least two of the sources present a historical review. Please explain further. Sundayclose (talk) 05:11, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

I should have said the sentences about vaccination don't fit with the Wikipedia article on Chiropractic. The first reference takes one source as representative. The second reference is a historical review, which is not the same as a systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions on vaccination. Even that historical review says in the abstract that a majority of chiropractors don't object to vaccination. If opinions on vaccination are even relevant to the wikipedia article, they should be moved to a different section and the text should make clear that most chiropractors are not against vaccination.Greenriverglass (talk) 20:45, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

Can you tell us how many "systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions" about any topic exist? I suspect not many. And please explain what's wrong with the historical review. Could you please give us a quotation from "the abstract that a majority of chiropractors don't object to vaccination"; I couldn't find that information. Did you read the entire historical review or just the abstract? And did you read beyond the lead in Chiropractic? Sundayclose (talk) 23:16, 16 February 2021 (UTC)

How does the lack of systematic reviews, or published research support keeping the section? The two sources cited are not even good. From the first one: "We have elected to focus on a Letter to the Editor of the Burlington Post (Ontario, Canada) (May 12, 1999), written by a chiropractor and clearly advocating against immunization programs. The following are excerpts from this single letter, but we feel they illustrate claims that commonly recur in antivaccination chiropractic writings." They just feel that it is representative. Second source is just a commentary and historical review. Part of it refers to another paper, which might be a decent citation if it's even relevant that one third of a bad sample size don't endorse vaccinations. "To determine the prevalence of antivaccination attitudes within the chiropractic community, Colley and Haas29 conducted a mail survey of ∼1% of randomly selected US chiropractors. Although the validity of the study is compromised by the low response rate (36%), approximately one third of the 171 respondents believed there is no scientific proof that immunization prevents disease, that immunization has not substantially changed the incidence of any major infectious disease in this century, that immunizations cause more disease than they prevent, and that contracting an infectious disease is safer than immunization." But the bigger question is, why even include opinions on vaccination in the wikipedia article in the first place?Greenriverglass (talk) 00:15, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

Which "first source", the one in the lead, or the one in the main body of the article? Did you read beyond the lead?

Let me repeat two of my questions: Can you tell us how many "systematic review of research on chiropractor opinions" about any topic exist? And please explain what's wrong with a historical review.

Where did I say that "the lack of systematic reviews, or published research support keeping the section?"

As for your question "why even include opinions on vaccination in the wikipedia article in the first place?": for the same reason that the opinions of any healthcare professionals about vaccination are important in a Wikipedia article about that profession. Is there a reason such information should be withheld about any healthcare profession if the information is available? Or is is just chiropractic that you think the information should not be presented? Sundayclose (talk) 00:50, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The two citations are 27 and 28. I see now they are also referenced in the section on public health with the same conclusions. I doubt there are any systematic reviews on chiropractor opinions on public health; that's one reason the Wikipedia article should be very cautious about making claims on those topics. I think my points about the two sources are compelling. If they are to be used, then they should be fairly represented in the article. If there is actually quantifiable, researched, significant disagreement between chiropractors on the topic, then it can be explained. Same goes for other articles.Greenriverglass (talk) 04:37, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

The point is that crazy ideas tend to keep company with other crazy ideas. The crazy idea of "subluxations" can only be held by someone who rejects the scientific explanations for diseases (which include germs). Anti-vaxx beliefs are clearly associated with the same basic science-rejecting worldview. Scientists have indeed noted anti-vaxx noises coming from chiropractors, and it is highly plausible that chiropractic beliefs and anti-vaxx beliefs are not only correlated but ideologically connected. That is worth noting, and therefore we note it. Yes, systematic reviews finding the correlation would be nice, but what we have is good enough. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:09, 17 February 2021 (UTC)

There is a pretty good systematic review published in the journal "Vaccine" with regard to chiropractors opinions on vaccines; "Complementary medicine and childhood immunisation: A critical review" [1]. Here is the relevant text: "Most studies focused on chiropractor attitudes on vaccination, and found significant disparity within this practitioner group. One study found that 56.2% of qualified chiropractic practitioners believed that vaccination was an important public health measure [13] whilst only 25.1–30% actively recommend vaccination [14,15]. Lee et al. [14] found that whilst 30% of chiropractors recommended immunisation, 63% felt it important not to make comments or recommendations to allow patient choice. Russell et al.’s [16] study of Alberta chiropractors found that the majority of chiropractors (63%) wanted to take a more active role in immunisation activity, with the most common form of activity being the ability to refer to nurses or medical doctors for answers to immunisation questions, and the ability to refer to government vaccination services and information sources. This support did not extend to ‘in-clinic’ activities such as displaying of pro-vaccination posters or displaying official vaccination pamphlets, though approximately one-third of chiropractors did express interest in these measures. Heterogeneity appears to exist even within discrete CM practitioner groups such as chiropractors, whose attitudes to vaccination appear to be influenced by philosophical beliefs (i.e. ‘straight’ versus ‘mixer’ chiropractic). ‘Straight’ chiropractors (those who believe vertebral subluxation is the primary origin of all disease; approximately one-fifth of the chiropractic population) are significantly more vaccine hesitant than ‘mixer’ chiropractors[13,15,17,18] (those who focus on musculo-skeletal conditions and interpret diagnosis and treatment in a biomedical model). Personal experiences were reported by vaccine opposing chiropractors as being more influential in determining opposition than professional norms [19]. CM practitioners seem open to non-CM information sources on immunisation. A Canadian study of chiropractors found that qualifications in research (PhD) or biomedicine (MD) were seen as more important than chiropractic qualifications for instructors providing vaccination classes [20]." 2001:56A:75CE:1700:EC0E:1D0B:D79A:E6F6 (talk) 07:39, 18 February 2021 (UTC)

The source from Vaccine seems better than the current citations. Wikipedia articles aren't supposed to cite original research. Aren't 27 and 28 both claiming to produce new knowledge? A historical review is not the same as a systematic review. As for the connection between beliefs and anti-vax opinions, we can't just note that without any citations. All the sources I've seen referenced here say anti-vax is a minority opinion. Surely the issue can be presented in a way that is closer to actual research on the subject.Greenriverglass (talk) 23:20, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

The Vaccine article certainly doesn't make a resounding case for "minority opinion", especially compared to other healthcare professions. There are distinctions between differences, statistically significant differences, and meaningful differences. That's basic science. Use of the term "minority opinion" is very misleading. Sundayclose (talk) 01:36, 22 February 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 February 2021

Chiropractic is the science, art, and philosophy of removing nervous interference from the nervous system. It is not a pseudoscience any more than western medicine. Revcharles9000 (talk) 15:50, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Hi Charles. I'm afraid that that isn't a request for anything. -Roxy the grumpy dog. wooF 15:56, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Original Research Source?

Russell ML, Injeyan HS, Verhoef MJ, Eliasziw M (2004). "Beliefs and behaviours: understanding chiropractors and immunization". Vaccine. 23 (3): 372–79. doi:10.1016/j.vaccine.2004.05.027. PMID 15530683. This is repeated as citation 225 and 226, but it's also original research. They conducted a survey and reported the results. Curious to hear if there are reasons to keep this source in the article.Greenriverglass (talk) 00:21, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Greenriverglass, Original research as Wikipedia defines it (WP:OR) refers to material that has no source - it originated with the Wikipedia editor who attempted to add it. When people who have nothing to do with Wikipedia conduct research and we then cite it, that is normal editing activity. - MrOllie (talk) 00:26, 27 February 2021 (UTC)

Oh OK thank you. So the duplicate citations should just be collapsed down into one.Greenriverglass (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2021 (UTC) Thanks to the person who fixed it.Greenriverglass (talk) 22:43, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 2 March 2021

Chiropractic is a SCIENTIFIC alternative medicine* 100.8.186.189 (talk) 20:15, 2 March 2021 (UTC)

There is significant consensus for the current wording. Please get consensus for the change before requesting the edit. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 20:27, 2 March 2021 (UTC)