Jump to content

Talk:Chiropractic

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Valjean (talk | contribs) at 05:07, 19 June 2024 (→The section "History" could use an update: reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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]
In the 2010s the two groups were very much alive, with the Straights being very self-conscious activists (some schools are Straight schools) and Mixers not giving it much thought. The Straights are the "real" traditional chiropractors. You can look at Chiropractic treatment techniques and Spinal adjustment for examinations of treatment methods and techniques. Activator technique is "pure bunk". It was even banned by the province chiro association in one of the Canadian provinces. Applied kinesiology is another quack method used by many chiros. Most Straights still practice Palmer upper cervical [HIO], a belief that "adjusting" C1 will fix everything. HIO stands for Hole-In-One. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 03:35, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
GREAT feedback! What do you mean by "very self-conscious activists"? Do mixers not also advocate for their own profession? If I were to walk into any of the many chiro offices you see everywhere and ask if they're "straights or mixers", would they know which one they are?
I only could find one RS about the Activator ban in Saskatchewan which I added to the respective article , do you know how that all turned out?
Reading over the respective pages, it sounds like the "leg test" is total bunk but the activator itself "may be as effective as manual adjustment in treatment of back pain", just through the same mechanism as massage I presume?
It would be really good to add in modern descriptions of Straights vs Mixers, like the HIO thing you reference. I've never heard of that of course, but it sounds pretty important. Feoffer (talk) 04:46, 19 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I used to be very into this stuff, even leading a reform chiropractor discussion group, even though I'm not a chiro. I used to remember exact names, dates, everything, and was often in contact with Joseph C. Keating Jr., the historian for the profession. We had lots of good conversations, and he shared good stuff from the archives for my book....that I had to drop. IIRC, the ban was lifted after about a year. Activator taps the skin and bony prominences on the spine and other locations. It's so light a tapping that it can't really do anything other than psychological. It's bogus. Combined with the leg length test, it's a complete quack therapy scam system. The HIO technique idea is from B. J. Palmer. He was always figuring out new electrical instruments and quack methods to make more money, and he'd patent them. I don't know if it's discussed much anymore, as I haven't been in contact with that world for a long time. Activate your email. It would probably be well-known among the older generation. Since the ideas behind spinal adjustments are magical thinking (the "intention" determines the result), the same applies to only adjusting the top vertebra (C1) and believing the body will then heal all problems with just that one adjustment. It's a chiropractic hole in one! It works like magic! -- Valjean (talk) (PING me)

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]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&oldid=1229874054"