Talk:Chiropractic controversy and criticism
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Chiropractic controversy and criticism article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 14 days |
This page is not a forum for general discussion about Chiropractic controversy and criticism. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Chiropractic controversy and criticism at the Reference desk. |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Fluoridation
editWhat does fluoride have to do with chiropracty? Some will oppose, some will agree with it. But fluoridation has nothing to do with the spine, nor does the article mentioning chiropracty historically considering fluoride to influence the spine.
It may be a controversial subject; but it's like suggesting that that some chiropractors are vegetarians.Yeah, it's a health issue, but why is it here...? Artheartsoul1 (talk) 11:42, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Because chiropractors believe that all disease is caused by vertebral subluxation, the notion that fluoride prevents tooth decay and disease of the gingiva is unacceptable, because only spinal manipulation can cure human diseases. 68.115.235.85 (talk) 15:27, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
Well, according to that logic, then, the article ought to include chiropractic argument against every single treatment for every single disease that exists. Which if course would be ridiculous. I’m not only in favor of removing the “fluoride” material, but an attempt should be made to define some terms that are otherwise incomprehensible (to a layperson) in a standalone article. Example: “straights” and “mixers”? I came to the article cold from a Google search and those terms aren’t even wiki-linked. I’ll be back later to do some tidying if no one else wants to volunteer. Sugarbat (talk) 05:15, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- Sugarbat, we include what is supported by reliable independent sources. Chiropractors have a significant history of opposing routine public health interventions including fluoridation and vaccination, usually based on debunked or pseudoscientific rationale. Guy (help!) 11:51, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
- A "straight" is a chiropractic who does not use any non-chiropractic ideas, as opposed to a "mixer", who does. --Hob Gadling (talk) 14:18, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
Innate intelligence definition
editThis article includes the term 'Innate intelligence' several times without defining it. Even the 'Innate intelligence' section (which is linked from other pages such as Chiropractic) does not define the term but jumps straight to criticism. Is there an accepted definition? --Quantum7 08:23, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- An accepted definition of something that doesn't exist? - Roxy the English speaking dog 08:37, 5 August 2022 (UTC)
- Imaginary numbers can be defined, it should be easy enough to do the same here:
- (from the article)
- ...an undefined fifth force in the body that is otherwise unknown to science. Palmer believed he could influence this fifth force, termed Innate Intelligence...
- J Can Chiropr Assoc. 1998 Mar; 42(1): 35–41. 108.213.118.199 (talk) 02:15, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
- Imaginary numbers do exist. EEng 09:27, 21 June 2024 (UTC)
Wiki Education assignment: TCU SOM Wikipedia Elective Fall 2024 Block 6A
editThis article is currently the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 26 November 2024 and 7 December 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): NoodleMed (article contribs).
— Assignment last updated by NoodleMed (talk) 20:22, 29 November 2024 (UTC)
- I intend to add more citations to the claims about evidence for and against vertebral subluxation as well as chiropractic adjustments for non-musculoskeletal disease. I would also like to expand on the above discussion of innate intelligence and how it contributes to the criticism of chiropractic practice. The above discussion about fluoridation and straights vs mixers is already well-described in the article. NoodleMed (talk) 18:12, 1 December 2024 (UTC)