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 Benjaminfreyart (talk | contribs) at 17:24, 20 August 2020 (Discussion of licensing and “pseudoscience”). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Vital article

Biased article

This article is littered with inaccuracies and an incomplete view of Chiropractic. While the history is largely correct, this ignores the decades of scientific literature available — Preceding unsigned comment added by Shaanrai (talk • contribs) 10:51, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for commenting. You are welcome to suggest changes and examples of the decades of scientific literature available on the subject, but first you should read WP:MEDRS. Cheers GirthSummit (blether) 10:58, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Science based medicine (the website) is not a good source. It’s loaded with POV and ad hominem attacks. It’s highly unprofessional. Many many highly regarded dr at places like Stanford hospital is hi aren’t alternative practitioners, some who even don’t like chiro, consider it to be a poor source.

The authors are heavily biased and only use work that backs them.

Calling it pseudoscience is POV. There are multiple types of science and medicinal practices (indigenous practices, eastern v western etc). Kizemet (talk) 14:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Kizemet 'science based medicine' isn't a source; science-based medical journals and textbooks are sources however, and they are what we base our articles on medicine on. WP:MEDRS gives more guidance on that. If you don't think that's the right approach for us to take, this probably isn't the right project for you to contribute to. GirthSummit (blether) 14:43, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
BUT, with apoligies to Girth, https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/ is an excellent source when dealing with nonsense masquerading as medicine, very appropriate in this case. -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 15:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, ah - gotcha, hadn't put two and two together there. That makes more sense - I wasn't sure how the entire field of science-based medicine could be loaded with POV and ad hominem attacks. GirthSummit (blether) 15:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That website (Science based medicine) is an inaccurate source-- its loaded with POV and bias. Anyone can make a domain "science based medicine" and make up what they wish. Plenty of well renowned hospitals and medical institutions (Stanford in Ca, Johns Hopkins, UCLA) consider chiropractic to be a valid form of medicine and will refer patients to chiropractors.

Science based medicine admits to their biases and demonizes any kind of alternative therapy and ignores scientific evidence. They benefit from Pharma-based medicine and rather than analyze source and information based on the evidence, they make blanket assumptions based on whether a practice at one point had harmful practitioners or has needed to make sweeping changes to be updated.


The below speak to evidence based studies on the impact of chiropractic: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3716373/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4591574/


The National institute of Health often cites articles and studies published by the health publisher Veritas whose site Spine-health com addresses chiropractic benefits/cons/uses.

Somehow it won't let me link to the website-- why is Spine Health blacklisted?

Kizemet (talk) 01:23, 31 July 2020 (UTC) Kizemet[reply]

As noted above, SBM is an excellent website with subject matter experts as contributors. -- Valjean (talk) 02:39, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Valjean, SBM is an excellent source of information written by highly regarded authors who are knowledgeable about this subject. It is absolutely not POV to call chiropractic pseudoscience since that's exactly what it is in reality. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 06:24, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

New source incoming (in December)

From Edzard Ernst, published by Springer.[1] This should be of great use to us. Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If it's being published by Springer, then editors with access to SpringerLink (i.e., through an academic affiliation) can probably read that book online or download substantial portions of the book. --Coolcaesar (talk) 17:30, 20 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Coolcaesar, I may have - ahem - a route to get a preprint. Guy (help!) 13:20, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Aren't Eddy's books under JK Rowling levels of security? -Roxy the elfin dog . wooF 13:28, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Roxy the dog, very much so, but that wasn't my only route ;-) Guy (help!) 15:10, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Worthy as they are, I suspect Ernst's books aren't quite the revenue-generator JKR's are ;-) Alexbrn (talk) 15:24, 22 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
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)[reply]

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[1], the NIH [2], nor The American College of Physicians[3] 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)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.health.harvard.edu/pain/chiropractic-care-for-pain-relief
  2. ^ https://www.nccih.nih.gov/health/chiropractic-in-depth
  3. ^ https://www.acponline.org/acp-newsroom/american-college-of-physicians-issues-guideline-for-treating-nonradicular-low-back-pain
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)[reply]
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)[reply]
Roxy, 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)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Chiropractic&oldid=974025755"