Talk:Chiropractic

Distinctions in types of chiropractors/chiropractic treatment?

I'm just getting back into editing Wiki for the first time in years, so I apologize if I mess up some kind of formatting here. I was going down the rabbit hole of the citations that explain chiropractic as pseudoscience when I discovered that there is a clear distinction provided on those links: Note that the "Science and Chiropractic" article specifically links to a "rational chiropractor" to discuss the realistic, medical-based benefits of the practice. Said article is at this citation.[1] Similarly, the linked "Cracking Down on Chiropractic Pseudoscience" only tackles the issue of chiropractors who claim that their treatments can cure autism or Alzheimer's or who discourage vaccines and the like. [2] The important issue seems to be whether the chiropractor is claiming to do anything other than treat the bones and muscles of the back. A chiropractor who claims to be your primary care doctor and who is going to handle most of your medical concerns via only adjustments to your spine and skeleton is someone who cannot be supported with any evidence; one who is only trying to assist with back pain is widely seen as legitimate medicine per this Time Magazine article. [3] This is further stated in recent Harvard Med School piece. [4] Beyond these sources, it becomes difficult to find one that doesn't have an obvious pro or anti agenda, so I stuck with the most reliable names I could spot. The bottom line is that if there is some kind of distinction between a form or type of practitioner with medical validity to it and some other form or type of practitioner who is highly dubious, we probably need to indicate as such up front rather than keeping that information only visible to those who examine the citation links. Bishop2 (talk) 22:06, 24 January 2022 (UTC).

The current article contrasts "straights vs mixers", but a far more relevant distinction for a 21st century audience is rational vs pseudoscientific. There is a LOT of room for improved clarity in this article. Feoffer (talk) 23:16, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

You are both right. There are a few modern chiropractors who do not claim that spinal manipulation does anything other than temporarily increase spinal mobility and maybe relieve some pain, and even fewer will acknowledge that spinal manipulation doesn't produce any better results than various physical therapy modalities and exercise. They are "mixers". Those who talk about treating "subluxations" are pushing pseudoscientific mumbo jumbo.

In light of that, if you can find ways to make this easier to understand for readers, feel free to try improvements. Be aware that this is a controversial topic, so radical and large changes may not be met with open arms. If in doubt, feel free to start a thread here and keep it on one specific topic. That way more editors will join the discussion and work out ways to implement your ideas without creating problems. -- Valjean (talk) 02:44, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Validity of source no. 4 questionable

Subject exhausted, so start a new thread if necessary.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The third-party source (no. 4) that claims chiropractic is a pseudoscience is a poor attempt to debunk the practice. It is a personal reflection at best and makes some rather extreme generalizations of the practice. The fact is chiropractic is integrated into the practices of physiotherapists nowadays. To claim it has nothing to do with anatomy is an obvious misunderstanding of the practice. I suggest the validity of this source is revisited. If the source is deemed reputable, so be it. If not, perhaps a more reputable source could be sought out. 84.250.81.26 (talk) 09:12, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Have you looked properly at "source number four"? It is a reference to seven separate citations, each of which is acceptable as a source. -Roxy the bad tempered dog 09:20, 6 July 2022 (UTC) Yes, check out those sources. Chiropractic is not "integrated into the practices of physiotherapists nowadays". The fact that both professions use some of the same techniques and methods is a natural result of their historical development. "Mixer" chiropractors do incorporate many PT techniques and methods, such as exercise therapy. When a chiropractor and a PT practice manipulation of the spine, they do it for different reasons, so we have different articles for them, for example Spinal manipulation (SM) (generic medical practice of ancient origins) and Spinal adjustment (chiropractic use of SM with pseudoscientific and religious underpinnings). This reflects the different paths of development for each profession, with chiropractic rooted in Daniel David Palmer's pseudoscientific and religious ideas, plus a generous dose of his antimedical and antiscientific prejudices, whereas PT practice is rooted in empirical and scientific research knowledge, with no religious ideas and a constant updating of practice according to newer knowledge and research. The lead summarizes the article, so its "It has esoteric origins[3] and is based on several pseudoscientific ideas.[4]" should be seen as a very short summary of content further down. See the sections Conceptual basis, Philosophy, Straights and mixers, Vertebral subluxation, Pseudoscience versus spinal manipulation therapy, History, and Controversy. There you will find much more detail and many more sources. Those sections lead to several other full articles on the subjects. The contrast between chiropractic ideas/practices and mainstream scientific/medical practices are dealt with in their own articles, such as: Vertebral subluxation (chiropractic concept) vs. Subluxation (medical condition) Spinal adjustment vs. Spinal manipulation & Joint manipulation Vitalism, Innate Intelligence (chiropractic religious ideas) Chiropractic controversy and criticism Keep in mind that D.D. Palmer said he "received chiropractic from the other world", (in a seance where he claimed to receive this knowledge from a long-dead medical doctor) and even considered making it a religion. Read his 1911 letter to another chiropractor. It's fascinating reading (that letter was found at the bottom of an elevator shaft). -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 16:05, 6 July 2022 (UTC) I can tell you about countless MD's that believe that there is an invisible omnipotent sky creature that controls the universe. Should that disqualify them from prescribing drugs and performing surgery? It's not really relevant. The reason D.D. Palmer considered making it a religion was to avoid legal persecution for allegedly practicing medicine without a licensed. 2603:300A:93F:9100:4D6D:E609:F805:AD2 (talk) 20:23, 21 July 2022 (UTC) Only if their belief in a god causes them to do stuff that's contrary to evidence and possibly dangerous. Fortunately, most doctors are capable of compartmentalizing and separating their science from their religion, and they can still treat patients in a rational and safe manner. They don't make false health claims based on their religious beliefs and charge for it. Yes, that was likely the reason he proposed making it a religion, but he did believe in talking to nonexistent ghosts. He believed in nonexistent energies that, if blocked, caused all diseases. He taught that chiropractors could prevent and heal literally ALL diseases by manipulating joints. That's all utter nonsense and a fraudulent basis for offering such treatment. The "profession" is a business based on fraud, and health claims made on that basis are also fraudulent. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 20:48, 21 July 2022 (UTC) I am a chiropractor who has always insisted on empirical evidence to validate claims for as far back as I could logically comprehend it. I bought into Santa and Jesus back when I was forced to endure the catechism indoctrination process as a child. But by the time I was in high school, I was a pretty harsh skeptic of anything that lacked proof. The extreme bias and blatant inaccuracies on this article are disconcerting. There are many statements made that are demonstrably false. One notable example is the false assertion that content our education is "mostly marketing classes". I spent many years studying biology, general chemistry, organic chemistry, physics, mathematics at a world class university alongside my MD/DO/DPT/DDS/D.Pharm/OD/DPM counterparts. These classes were required before I could even start chiropractic college. We all (MD's, DO's, DC's, etc.) take the same prerequisites. Prior to taking my basic sciences prerequisites, I was a pragmatic skeptic, but I was still scientifically semiliterate at best. I had originally set out to become a graphic artist. In high school, I did well in math and science classes but always took the bare minimum requirements because I found the classes to be boring and tedious. And frankly, I was pretty lazy when it came to applying myself in the repetition and memorization required to master the basic sciences. I suffered from scoliosis at the time, and was helped by chiropractic treatments along with bracing. I changed majors and decided to study to become a chiropractor. During undergrad, I was forced to challenge myself and complete all of the hard scientific coursework of the pre-health (AKA "pre-med") science curriculum. From that experience. I came to value science even more and I now feel that every person should study advanced math and science in their basic grade school education regardless of what career field they ultimately pursue. The Wikipedia standard for determining what reference sources are allowed to be used is not consistent. Some MD wrote an op-ed piece containing untrue assertions about how the DC curriculum consists of "mostly marketing courses", and that fit the biases a small minority that control edits on this page. Therefore that makes this demonstrably false statement affirmatively true by Wikipedia standards. This speaks to the larger widely known problem of Wikipedia's general lack of reliability. So, the years of advanced scientific and clinical coursework I completed in chiropractic college (I will list them all upon request so anyone can mathematically determine if it was "mostly marketing classes") and board exams I completed don't exist because a lying biased M.D. wrote an op-ed piece that appealed to the biases of the anti-chiropractic control freak editors with questionable scientific literacy. I am appalled by fraudulent or negligent practitioners in my own field or any other. I have had many patients over the years past and present who are MD's, PT's, DDS's, RN's and other people health professions. In my 20 year career, I have shared practices with MD's, DO's, and PT's. In the real world, the majority of MD's and allied health professionals do not share the biases, false assumptions, and hostility towards chiropractors conveyed in this article. When I see patients in my practice, I utilize physical therapy procedures (therapeutic ultrasound, electrical muscle stimulation, traction, stretching, therapeutic exercise, massage, heat, ice, dry needling, manual joint manipulation) to treat neuromusculoskeletal pathologies. I do it all from a Western science perspective. It is strange to see an anonymous ill-informed Wiki editor declare what I believe based on something somebody else wrote 130 years ago while speculating why joint manipulation helps alleviate certain health maladies. At that time, nobody knew that much about medical science generally. MD's were doing a lot of wacky clueless stuff back then. That's fine of you want to say that there are some chiropractors who believe pseudoscientific ideas and perform questionable procedures. There are goofballs in every profession. But most practicing licensed chiropractors do not fit into that category. We're just using joint manipulation to increase range of motion in joints that are stiff for various reasons. That is not a cure-all for all human disease as asserted by somebody who simply didn't know (at a time when MD's were utilizing leaches and morphine/ethanol/cannabis elixirs). But increasing the range of motion in stiff joints does have many secondary health benefits. I wish this article gave some deference to and did not censor input the many honest evidence-based practicing in 2022 rather than fixating of speculation of of someone in 1895. As for compartmentalizing voodoo from science which you attribute to MD's who are also members of religious cults... there are MD's who mutilate male neonate penises for profit every day because of some odd ancient religious cult tradition. Hospitals are run by mass religious cults all around the world and allow their religious cult precepts to influence reproductive medical protocols. MD's with religious cult affiliations and fanatical urogenital medical policies have always been prevalent in the field of medicine, just to give one example. MD's are not infallible, and DC's are not inherently corrupt. Many MD's routinely get treated by and refer their patients to chiropractors. 2603:300A:93F:9100:E8B6:6CF6:DC0A:9F5E (talk) 00:25, 22 July 2022 (UTC) (TL;DR)  I'm sorry but, are you proposing a change to the article here? If so, what is that change and what source are you citing to back it up? --McSly (talk) 01:13, 22 July 2022 (UTC) IP2603, you write: "The extreme bias and blatant inaccuracies on this article are disconcerting. There are many statements made that are demonstrably false. One notable example is the false assertion that content our education is "mostly marketing classes"." You're not going to get anywhere here with such charges and personal attacks on the myriad editors (chiropractors and others) who have worked together to create this article, especially when content is based on reliable sources, not editors' biases and/or opinions. The article deals with the "straight" pseudoscientific kinds of DCs, and the more modern sensible ones. Your defensiveness does not bode well. Even worse, your "notable example" is simply false. Nowhere does the article contain the phrase "mostly marketing classes". Your emotional presentation is causing you to engage in hyperbole. Here you must be very precise. What we do have is: "Chiropractors often argue that this education is as good as or better than medical physicians', but most chiropractic training is confined to classrooms with much time spent learning theory, adjustment, and marketing." That does not mean DCs don't study all the subjects you mention. Of course they do, and the article does not propose otherwise. It just mentions that fact about "theory, adjustment, and marketing" because they are not subjects taught to MDs or PTs (I'm a PT). Few MDs learn joint manipulation, and, depending on country, PTs may learn little or much joint manipulation, which is not the same as spinal adjustment. I am trained in joint manipulation, but didn't need to use it very often, and never for the reasons used by DCs. With few exceptions, they use adjustments at every treatment session, even in the absence of symptoms. That's one example of your faulty efforts. Now, since this is getting into WP:NOTFORUM territory (discussing the subject, not specifically article points), we shouldn't continue this thread. If you find truly false information, or content not backed by RS, then start a new thread for that specific and limited issue and we can deal with it. That's what we mean by proposing a change to the article and the sourcing to back it up. Do that and you will likely have success in improving the article. Seriously. You can do that. It's not hard to cause improvement. No article here is perfect or finished. -- Valjean (talk) (PING me) 02:15, 22 July 2022 (UTC) References