Talk:American Chiropractic Association

Chiropractic Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chiropractic, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Chiropractic on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChiropracticWikipedia:WikiProject ChiropracticTemplate:WikiProject ChiropracticChiropractic articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Virginia Low‑importance

	Virginia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Virginia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Virginia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.VirginiaWikipedia:WikiProject VirginiaTemplate:WikiProject VirginiaVirginia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Organizations

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Staying on topic

I have limited content to stuff that is uniquely about the ACA. Other articles cover other aspects about the profession. As the main contributor has a clear WP:COI, I suggest that they proceed very cautiously and neutrally. The article must not sell the ACA, but neutrally describe it. Wikipedia's law of "unintended consequences" does apply here. A good, neutral presentation is what we need. -- Fyslee/talk 23:10, 1 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

article reads as if it was written by the ACA

anyone else notice its as if the ACA wrote this article?

2600:1700:7A51:10B0:7D11:60ED:AD62:6369 (talk) 23:31, 13 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Use of term 'pseudoscientific'

A user has edited the description of the ACA to include the term 'pseudoscientific'. As there is no definitive or objective definition of the term "pseudoscience", it is commonly used as a pejorative term, and the citation provided (to a 2008 blog post) is not to a peer-reviewed publication.

As the use of perjorative language is inconsistent with Wikipedia's NPOV policy, it seems as if it should be removed. How do others feel about this?

Note: this is not intended to start a discussion of the merits or lack thereof of chiropractors; this is simply a question regarding neutrality. Radmap (talk) 18:50, 25 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The term as well as the referenced blog post are clearly not neutral. I am in support of both being removed. Inn8user123 (talk) 18:53, 15 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have tried to remove the article several times and the user claims unless I could find an updated article elsewhere, it will remain.

Personally, I feel this to be a huge instance of bias. Bonewizard1 (talk) 15:14, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Your opinion is irrelevant. Only what reliable sources say is relevant. Read WP:RS. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing I left some reliable sources.

"Pseudoscience" is not a neutral sentiment. Especially in the face of evidence to the contrary. Bonewizard1 (talk) 14:28, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Pseudoscience" is not a neutral sentiment.

how, pray tell, is it not a neutral statement in this specific case? Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 15:17, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please define pseudoscience for me, then.

Because I need to understand how to show you how chiropractic uses the scientific method.

Pseudoscience is a pejorative term.

If you have issues with specific philosophies of chiropractic, that's one thing. But the actual practice follows healthcare policies and guidelines.

I'm going to infodump some articles for perusal.

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475411000686 (headache treatment)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475415001840 (DCs suited for back pain)

https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/2156587212458435 (DC effectiveness)

https://europepmc.org/article/MED/7666878 (Lower back pain outcomes same across medical specialties, higher satisfaction in chiro)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/36400393/ (meta analysis shows effective and low harm)

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/22213489/ (comparison of remedies with medicine for neck pain)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475407002084?via%3Dihub (improved respiratory funx in healthy adults)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475400900733?via%3Dihub (migraine improvement)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475409003169?via%3Dihub (manipulative therapy with medical therapy improve shoulder ROM and pain)

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0161475410003271?via%3Dihub (relief in patients with msk chest pain and acute coronary syndrome)

https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/1746-1340-16-5

Enhancement of in vitrointerleukin-2 production in normal subjects following a single spinal manipulative treatment | Chiropractic & Manual Therapies (springer.com) Bonewizard1 (talk) 00:59, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please define pseudoscience for me, then.

Well if you're the one saying it's not a neutral sentiment then you've already got a working definition. It's only prejorative when it's being used to mislabel something as an attack, which is most certainly not the case here. You're going to expend a huge amount of time and energy trying to change the status quo here and not succeed, because it's a pseudoscience, friend. Warrenᚋᚐᚊᚔ 09:09, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Only because you folks here have labeled it as such.

I'm having trouble seeing any worth in Wikipedia when this is the editorial response Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:11, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Editors aren't allowed to label anything themselves, that is against core policy and should be raised at WP:NORN. Rather, Wikipedia reflects reliable sources. What do they say about chiropractic and pseudoscience (specificall)? They say it is pseudoscience. Bon courage (talk) 13:20, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The first 2008 "reliable source" you've all been using for who knows how long never even calls chiropractic that.

Do you see why I'm frustrated? You're expecting me to fight an uphill battle here when every time I'll prove one article wrong, you'll find a new one. Bonewizard1 (talk) 13:24, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There are any number of sources characterising chiropractic as pseudoscience. Not sure why something so obvious and established should be an issue. There is no reliable source on the table that says otherwise. Bon courage (talk) 13:36, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

BW1, you mentioned sources that contradict SBM. What are they? Neither the CISA nor the WHO source make any comment on whether chiropractic is pseudoscientific, and the latter doesn't mention it at all. Support for SMT is not syonymous with support for chiropractic. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 14:53, 19 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You'll need to start by defining pseudoscience. If defined by "lacking the scientific method" then it seems the folks editing this page are doing so in bad faith.

CISA's article shows that chiropractic care was essential during the pandemic. How would a pseudoscience be essential? Naturopaths weren't. Acupuncturists weren't. And for the WHO - they work with the WFC (World Federation of Chiropractic) and while SMT is not synonymous, it is a major tool in the tool box.

So, I fail to understand what there is to prove.

It feels to me as if the editors here have a gross misunderstanding of chiropractic and are unwilling to properly educate themselves. Bonewizard1 (talk) 01:03, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"what there is to prove": that there are more recent, reliable sources that explicitly contradict SBM on chiropractic being pseudoscientific. Firefangledfeathers (talk / contribs) 03:12, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dismantling the SBM Article

First to note that Dr. Hall does not use a single source for her “evidence.”

Is Chiropractic a Science?

Science: knowledge or a system of knowledge covering general truths or the operation of general laws especially as obtained and tested through scientific method

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/science

Science Definition & Meaning - Merriam-Webster

Historical context of Palmer’s adjustment: Not relevant to this discussion. Because we can point at how AT Still treated headaches with the vascular method

Chiropractic is a science as it follows the scientific method.

One single meta-analysis for review (https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/28399251/

Association of Spinal Manipulative Therapy With Clinical Benefit and Harm for Acute Low Back Pain: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis - PubMed (nih.gov ))

And it uses the scientific method.

I fail to understand if referring it as a "science" means there's a lack of studies or what, but this claim feels reductionist.

Is Chiropractic based on neurology, anatomy, and physiology?

Palmer College - the founding school - requires students to have 270 hours of gross anatomy, 90 hours of spinal anatomy, 150 hours in neuroanatomy, and 225 hours in physiology.

https://www.palmer.edu/wp-content/uploads/2021/12/palmer-catalog.pdf

Palmer College of Chiropractic 2023-2024 Catalog

Regarding subluxation, the best current definition I can find is the following resource:

“We currently define a chiropractic subluxation as a self-perpetuating, central segmental motor control problem that involves a joint, such as a vertebral motion segment, that is not moving appropriately, resulting in ongoing maladaptive neural plastic changes that interfere with the central nervous system’s ability to self-regulate, self-organize, adapt, repair and heal.” (The Rubicon Group, May 2017.)

https://chiro.org/Subluxation/Definition_and_Position_Statement.shtml

DEFINITION AND POSITION STATEMENT FOR THE CHIROPRACTIC SUBLUXATION

Are chiropractors doctors of the nervous system?

No, and they don’t claim to be. Our methods do involve the nervous system, specifically that of the spine and spinal cord related issues.

Meta-analysis:

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S1360859223000244?casa_token=nYKgi-URdVMAAAAA:F34wm5Q2BoMj_nyk1rzrDxnhamAWRLcJG30yukvkUxDODHmN1cMPFwE8Z89p7trmP75QK57aXrY

Review of effects of spinal manipulative therapy on neurological symptoms - ScienceDirect

Literature Review:

https://www.frontiersin.org/journals/pain-research/articles/10.3389/fpain.2021.765921/full

Frontiers | Clinical Effectiveness and Efficacy of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulation for Spine Pain (frontiersin.org)

Does chiropractic improve health and quality of life?

Yes:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6324527/

Effect of Usual Medical Care Plus Chiropractic Care vs Usual Medical Care Alone on Pain and Disability Among US Service Members With Low Back Pain - PMC (nih.gov)

Conclusion:

I could continue to list the evidence against this article, but I want to note that firstly, Dr. Hall does not link a single article to back up her claims.

Secondly, she notes that those chiropractors who use different models of subluxation are worthy of respect.

And she further goes on to recommend where to find chiropractors and how to learn more.

I, once again, submit that these claims of pseudoscience be removed. Bonewizard1 (talk) 04:46, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see any of these sources addressing the pseudoscience question. As you know there are ample sources for this at the main chiropractic article. There is nothing to do here. Bon courage (talk) 05:51, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article in question never calls chiropractic pseudoscience. In fact, the word isn't used until the bio for Dr. Hall.

But this response is infinitely disappointing but not unexpected. Bonewizard1 (talk) 06:29, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's a fair point that Hall never explicitly mentions pseudoscience, even though there is a note which points to the abundant sourcing of the main article. I have therefore removed the Hall reference and provided an upgrade; see what you think! Bon courage (talk) 07:07, 20 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]