User talk:Dematt

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Chiropractic Caduceus

Archives
4/20 - 9/21 2006
2

[edit] Pubmed

Pubmed reference maker

{{subst:navpop}}

[edit] Links

[1] Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards FCLB History of Chiropractic Schools

[edit] Science and other stuff

Stuff I've seen: Brennan PC, Triano JJ, et al. Enhanced neutrophil respiratory burst as a biological marker for manipulation forces: Duration of the effect and association with Substance P and tumor necrosis factor. J Manip Physiol Ther 1992; 15:83-89.

^[1] ^[2] ^[3] ^[4] ^[5] ^[6] ^[7] ^[8]

Meeker WC, Haldeman S. Chiropractic: a profession at the crossroads of mainstream and alternative medicine. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2002;136(3):216-227.
Kaptchuk TJ, Eisenberg DM. Chiropractic: origins, controversies, and contributions. Archives of Internal Medicine. 1998;158(20):2215-2224.
Bronfort G. Spinal manipulation: current state of research and its indications. Neurologic Clinics. 1999;17(1):91-111.
Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, Ettner SL, et al. Trends in alternative medicine use in the United States, 1990-1997: results of a follow-up national survey. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280(18):1569-1575.
Wolsko PM, Eisenberg DM, Davis RB, et al. Patterns and perceptions of care for treatment of back and neck pain: results of a national survey. Spine. 2003;28(3):292-297.
Coulter ID, Hurwitz EL, Adams AH, et al. Patients using chiropractors in North America: who are they, and why are they in chiropractic care? Spine. 2002;27(3):291-296.
Vickers A, Zollman C. ABC of complementary medicine. The manipulative therapies: osteopathy and chiropractic. BMJ. 1999;319(7218):1176-1179.
Atlas SJ, Nardin RA. Evaluation and treatment of low back pain: an evidence-based approach to clinical care. Muscle and Nerve. 2003;27(3):265-284.
Pengel HM, Maher CG, Refshauge KM. Systematic review of conservative interventions for subacute low back pain. Clinical Rehabilitation. 2002;16(8):811-820.
Assendelft WJ, Morton SC, Yu EI, et al. Spinal manipulative therapy for low back pain. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2003;138(11):871-881.
Complementary medicine: fact and fiction about chiropractic. Harvard Health Letter. 1999;24(3):1-3.
The Council on Chiropractic Education. Standards for Doctor of Chiropractic Programs and Requirements for Institutional Status January 2003. Council on Chiropractic Education Web site. Accessed at www.cce-usa.org on June 16, 2003.
Eisenberg DM, Cohen MH, Hrbek A, et al. Credentialing complementary and alternative medical providers. Annals of Internal Medicine. 2002;137(12):965-973.
Agency for Health Care Policy and Research. Chiropractic in the United States: Training, Practice, and Research. Rockville, MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1998. AHCPR publication no. 98-N002.
Dagenais S, Haldeman S. Chiropractic. Primary Care. 2002;29(2):419-437.
Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, et al. Spinal manipulation for low-back pain. Annals of Internal Medicine. 1992;117(7):590-598.
Senstad O, Leboeuf-Yde C, Borchgrevink C. Frequency and characteristics of side effects of spinal manipulative therapy. Spine. 1997;22(4):435-440.
Hufnagel A, Hammers A, Schonle PW, et al. Stroke following chiropractic manipulation of the cervical spine. Journal of Neurology. 1999;246(8):683-688.
Jeret JS, Bluth M. Stroke following chiropractic manipulation: report of 3 cases and review of the literature. Cerebrovascular Diseases. 2002;13(3):210-213.
Haldeman S, Rubinstein SM. Cauda equina syndrome in patients undergoing manipulation of the lumbar spine. Spine. 1992;17(12):1469-1473.
Haldeman S, Rubinstein SM. Compression fractures in patients undergoing spinal manipulative therapy. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 1992;15(7):450-454.
Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, et al. A randomized trial of medical care with and without physical therapy and chiropractic care with and without physical modalities for patients with low back pain: 6-month follow-up outcomes from the UCLA low back pain study. Spine. 2002;27(20):2193-2204.
Cooper RA, Henderson T, Dietrich CL. Roles of nonphysician clinicians as autonomous providers of patient care. Journal of the American Medical Association. 1998;280(9):795-802.
Chiropractic regulatory boards. Federation of Chiropractic Licensing Boards Web site. Accessed at www.fclb.org/boards.htm on June 16, 2003.
Hsieh CY, Adams AH, Tobis J, et al. Effectiveness of four conservative treatments for subacute low back pain: a randomized clinical trial. Spine. 2002;27(11):1142-1148.
Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, et al. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. New England Journal of Medicine. 1998;339(15):1021-1029.
Bronfort G, Goldsmith CH, Nelson CF, et al. Trunk exercise combined with spinal manipulative or NSAID therapy for chronic low back pain: a randomized, observer-blinded clinical trial. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 1996;19(9):570-582.
Carey TS, Garrett J, Jackman A, et al. The outcomes and costs of care for acute low back pain among patients seen by primary care practitioners, chiropractors, and orthopedic surgeons. The North Carolina Back Pain Project. New England Journal of Medicine. 1995;333(14):913-917.
Pope MH, Phillips RB, Haugh LD, et al. A prospective randomized three-week trial of spinal manipulation, transcutaneous muscle stimulation, massage and corset in the treatment of subacute low back pain. Spine. 1994;19(22):2571-2577.
Triano JJ, McGregor M, Hondras MA, et al. Manipulative therapy versus education programs in chronic low back pain. Spine. 1995;20(8):948-955.
Meade TW, Dyer S, Browne W, et al. Randomised comparison of chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain: results from extended follow up. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):349-351.
Assendelft WJ, Koes BW, van der Heijden GJ, et al. The effectiveness of chiropractic for treatment of low back pain: an update and attempt at statistical pooling. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics. 1996;19(8):499-507.
Ernst E. Chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain. British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2003;37(3):195-196.
Ernst E. Chiropractic care: attempting a risk-benefit analysis. American Journal of Public Health. 2002;92(10):1603-1604.
Hurwitz EL, Morgenstern H, Harber P, et al. A randomized trial of chiropractic manipulation and mobilization for patients with neck pain: clinical outcomes from the UCLA neck-pain study. American Journal of Public Health. 2002;92(10):1634-1641.
Sran MM. Commentary on "Chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain." British Journal of Sports Medicine. 2003;37:196.

1. Janse J, Houser RH, Wells BF. Chiropractic Principles and Technic. 2nd ed. Chicago, IL: National College of Chiropractic, 1947.

2. Fisher TAG. Treatment by Manipulation. 5th ed. London, England: HK Lewis & Company, 1948.

3. Mennell J. The Science and Art of Joint Manipulation: The Spinal Column. New York, NY: Blakiston Company, 1952.

4. Homola S. Bonesetting, Chiropractic and Cultism. Panama City, FL: Critique Books, 1963.

5. College of Physicians and Surgeons of the Province of Quebec. A scientific brief against chiropractic. New Physician. September 1996. Available at: www.chirobase.org/05RB/CPSQ/06.html.. Accessed March 17, 2006.

6. Crelin ES. A scientific test of the chiropractic theory. Am Sci 1973;61:574-580.

7. Palmer DD. The Chiropractor. Whitefish, MT: Kessinger Publishing Company, 1914.

8. Association of Chiropractic Colleges. A position paper on chiropractic. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1996;19:633-637.

9. Christensen M, Kollasch M, Ward R, Webb K, Day A, Zun Brunner K. Job Analysis of Chiropractic. Greeley, CO: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 2005.

10. Rosner A. The Role of Subluxations in Chiropractic. Des Moines, IA: Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research, 1997.

11. Nansel D, Szlazak M. Somatic dysfunction and the phenomenon of visceral disease simulation: A probable explanation for the apparent effectiveness of somatic therapy in patients presumed to be suffering from true visceral disease. J Manipulative Physiol Ther 1995;18:379-397.

12. Nelson C. The subluxation question. J Chirop Humanities 1997;7:46-55.

13. Keating JC, Charlton KH, Jaroslaw PG, Perle SM, Sikorski D, Winterstein JF. Subluxation: Dogma or science? Chiropractic and Osteopathy 2005;13:17. Available at: http://www.chiroandosteo. com/content/13/1/17. Accessed March 1, 2006.

14. McDonald W, Durkin K, Iseman S, Pfefer M, Randall B, Smoke L, Wilson K. How Chiropractors Think and Practice. Ada, OH: Institute for Social Research, Ohio Northern University, 2003.

15. American Chiropractic Association House of Delegates. The ACA Master Plan, Ratified September 2000. Available at: http://www. amerchiro.org/about/policies shtml. Accessed March 1, 2006.

16. Shekelle PG, Adams AH, Chassin MR, Hurwitz EL, Phillips RB, Brook RH. The Appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain: Project Overview and Literature Review. Santa Monica, CA: RAND, 1991.

17. Bigos SJ, Bowyer OR, Braen GR, et al. Acute Low Back Problems In Adults: Clinical Practice Guidelines Number 4. Rockville MD: Agency for Health Care Policy and Research; 1994: AHCPR publication 95-0642.

18. Ernst E, Assendelft WJ. Chiropractic for low back pain: We don’t know if it does more good than harm. BMJ 1998;317:160.

19. Ernst E. Spinal manipulation: Its safety is uncertain. Can Med chiropractors, who can participate in joint-manipulation research that is free of bias and dogma. Assoc J 2002;166:40.

20. Assendelft WJJ, Morton SC, YuEmily I, Suttorp MJ, Shekelle PG. Spinal manipulative therapy for low-back pain. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004; Issue 1. Art. No.: CD000447. Pub 2. DOI: 10.1002/14651858. CD000447.pub 2.

21. Assendelft WJ, Bouter LM, Knipschild PG. Complications of spinal manipulation: A comprehensive review of the literature. J Fam Pract 1996;42:475-480.

22. Cherkin DC, Deyo RA, Battie M, Street J, Barlow W. A comparison of physical therapy, chiropractic manipulation, and provision of an educational booklet for the treatment of patients with low back pain. N Engl J Med 1998;339:1021-1029.

23. Pelletier KR, Astin JA. Integration and reimbursement of complementary and alternative medicine by managed care and insurance providers: 2000 update and cohort analysis. Altern Ther Health Med 2002;8:38-38.

24. Goetzel RA, Hawkins K, Ozminkowski RJ, Wang S. The health and productivity cost burden of the top 10 physical and mental conditions affecting six large US employers. J Occup Environ Med 2003;45:5-14.

25. Nelson C, Lawrence D, Triano J, Bronfort G, Perle S, Metz D, Hegetschweiler K, LaBrot T. Chiropractic as spine care: A model for the profession. Chiropractic and Osteopathy 2005. Available at: http://www.chiroandosteo.com./content/13/1/9. Accessed March 1, 2006.

26. World Federation of Chiropractic 2005. WFC Consultation on the Identity of the Chiropractic Profession. June 15, 2005. Available at: http://www.wfc.org. Identity Consultation. Accessed March 1, 2006.

27. Houston Chronicle. Chiropractic conference brings the nation’s top chiropractic physicians together to determine priority areas for the next 25 years. Available at: http://www.chron.com/disp/story. mpl/conws/3688886.html. Accessed March 1, 2006.

28. Institute for Alternative Futures. The Future of Chiropractic Revisited 2005-2015. Available at: http://www.altfutures.com. Accessed March 1, 2006.

29. Shekelle PG. What role for chiropractic in health care? N Engl J Med 1998;39:1074-1075.

30. Cooper RA, McKee HJ. Chiropractic in the United States: Trends and issues. Milbank Q 2003;81:107-138.

31. Homola S. Chiropractic: Conventional or alternative healing? Skeptic 2000;8:70-75.

32. Council on Chiropractic Education. Standards. Available at: http://www.cce-usa.org. Accessed March 13. 2006.

33. National University of Health Sciences. Chicago, IL. Available at: http://www.nuhs.edu/show.asp?durki=21. Accessed March 13, 2006.

34. American Physical Therapy Association. APTA Vision Sentence and Vision Statement for Physical Therapy 2020. Available at: http:// www.apta.org/about/aptamissiongoals/visionstatement. Accessed March 1, 2006.

^ Lynch M, Elgeneidy A (1996). "The role of sympathetic activity in neuropathic orofacial pain.". J Orofac Pain 10 (4): 297-305. PMID 9161234.
^ Evans R (1992). "Some observations on whiplash injuries.". Neurol Clin 10 (4): 975-97. PMID 1435666.
^ Suissa S (2003). "Risk factors of poor prognosis after whiplash injury.". Pain Res Manag 8 (2): 69-75. PMID 12879136.
^ Hurwitz E, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski G, Belin T, Yu F, Adams A, Kominsky G (2002). "Second Prize: The effectiveness of physical modalities among patients with low back pain randomized to chiropractic care: findings from the UCLA low back pain study.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 25 (1): 10-20. PMID 11898014.
^ Sorensen L, Stochkendahl M, Hartvigsen J, Nilsson N. "Chiropractic patients in Denmark 2002: an expanded description and comparison with 1999 survey.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 29 (6): 419-24. PMID 16904487.
^ Byfield D, McCarthy P (2006). "Systematic review of spinal manipulation: Flaws in the review.". J R Soc Med 99 (6): 277-8, author reply 279-80. PMID 16738362.
^ Vernon H, Dhami M, Howley T, Annett R (1986). "Spinal manipulation and beta-endorphin: a controlled study of the effect of a spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels in normal males.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 9 (2): 115-23. PMID 2942618.
^ Briggs L, Boone W (1988). "Effects of a chiropractic adjustment on changes in pupillary diameter: a model for evaluating somatovisceral response.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 11 (3): 181-9. PMID 3392474.

[edit] Science table from NCCAM

Citation	Description	Findings
Hurwitz et al., 2002	Randomized clinical trial (RCT) of patients in a managed care organization compared chiropractic cared (with and without any of the following added: heat or cold therapy, ultrasound, electrical muscle stimulation) with conventional medical care (with and without physical therapy added). Participants (652) had acute, subacute, or chronic low-back pain with or without leg pain. Back-pain intensity and back-related disability were measured.	After 6 months of followup, the conventional medical care and chiropractic regimens were found to be comparably effective
Hsieh et al., 200225	RCT compared four treatments for subacute low-back pain (LBP): "joint manipulation" by a chiropractor, back school (program of counseling and exercises), myofascial therapy, and joint manipulation plus myofascial therapy. Participants (178) had LBP for either >3 weeks but <6 months in a current episode or >2 months within the preceding 8 months for recurrent LBP, and were evaluated 3 weeks and 6 months after treatment.	No statistically significant differences were found between groups at 3 weeks or 6 months.
Cherkin et al., 199826	RCT in an HMO setting of 321 adults aged 20-64 with low-back pain. Patients received either chiropractic manipulation, physical therapy (PT), or a booklet on self-managing back pain. They were monitored for 2 years and evaluated for bothersomeness of symptoms and level of dysfunction.	The outcomes for those who received manipulation or PT were better than those who received the booklet, but "only marginally better." There were no significant differences between the manipulation and PT groups. Authors note that manipulation and PT "may slightly reduce symptoms."
Bronfort et al., 199627	For chronic low-back pain, prospective RCT compared (1) chiropractic spinal manipulation therapy (SMT) plus trunk-strengthening exercises with (2) chiropractic SMT plus trunk-stretching exercises and (3) trunk-strengthening exercises combined with an NSAID (drug). Enrollees (174) were measured for low-back pain, disability, and functional health status at 5 and 11 weeks.	Each of the 3 regimens yielded a "similar and clinically important improvement over time that was considered superior to the expected natural history of long-standing chronic low back pain."
Carey et al., 199528	Prospective observational study on the outcomes of care for acute low-back pain by chiropractors, primary care practitioners, and orthopedic surgeons, including how long it took to return to functional status. Participants (1,633) had acute pain of less than 10 weeks' duration.	Time to recovery was "essentially the same," regardless of which provider provided the care.
Meade et al., 199531	RCT of 741 patients who came to chiropractic and hospital outpatient clinics in 11 centers, for low-back pain. Participants were randomized to receive either chiropractic or hospital-outpatient management. Outcomes were measured mainly with a pain disability questionnaire, at 6 weeks, 6 months, and 1, 2, and 3 years.	Chiropractic was found to be more effective, especially for those with "short current episodes, a history of back pain, and initially high [pain scale] scores." Benefit was less evident at 2 and 3 years than earlier. Authors noted that further trials are needed, e.g., on specific components of chiropractic.
Triano et al., 199530	RCT comparing chiropractic spinal manipulation, sham manipulation, and a back education program. Participants (170) had low-back pain (lasting 7 weeks or longer or consisting of at least 6 episodes in 12 months) and were evaluated for pain and activity tolerance at enrollment, after 2 weeks of treatment, and after 2 weeks of no treatment.	Greater improvement was found in the manipulation group than in other groups. Pain relief continued to end of evaluation period.
Pope et al., 199429	Prospective RCT compared chiropractic spinal manipulation for treatment of subacute low-back pain to massage, use of a corset, and TMS (electrical muscle stimulation). Patients (164) were treated for 3 weeks and evaluated through various standardized instruments and examinations.	Various improvements were seen in all 4 groups. The manipulation group had the most improvement in flexion and pain. However, authors concluded overall that none of the changes in physical outcomes measured was significantly different between groups.
Assendelft et al., 2003	Meta-analysis of 39 randomized clinical trials of treatments for acute or chronic low-back pain in adults. The trials compared spinal manipulation (by chiropractors and other health care providers) with another treatment or control condition (including no treatment, conventional medical care, pain-relieving drugs, physical therapy, exercise, and back school)	Spinal manipulation was more effective than sham therapy, but no more or no less effective than other treatments. Authors found that the specific profession of the manipulators (including chiropractors) did not affect these results.
Ernst, 2003	General review of the scientific evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain (this review is not limited to low-back pain studies).	Author noted there has been only one systematic review of chiropractic spinal manipulation exclusively (Assendelft et al., 1996, see below), and that, since that study, emerging trial data "have not tended to be encouraging…. The effectiveness of chiropractic spinal manipulation for back pain is thus at best uncertain."
Assendelft et al., 1996	Systematic review of 8 RCTs of chiropractic for acute or chronic low-back pain.	Authors stated that all studies analyzed had serious flaws in design, execution, and reporting. Studies could not be pooled to reach statistical conclusions because of insufficient data and data quality problems. Authors summarized the available data narratively; concluded they "did not provide convincing evidence for the effectiveness of chiropractic for acute or chronic low back pain"; and noted that better-executed trials are needed in future.

here,

here,

here, and

here.

[edit] Project page?

Well Dematt, Fyslee and myself have nominated you to start the page. :) I think it would be a good idea so the main page doesn't get f'ed up in the process. It'll take a lot of rearranging of info, but it is entirely possible. What do ya think?--Hughgr 21:59, 22 September 2006 (UTC) BTW-I'm joking when I sprinkle Dematt should do it here and there. You deserve the barnstar of neverending dilagence and vigor! Cheers, and have a great weekend!--Hughgr 06:49, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Go for it!

Just do it. -- Fyslee 14:33, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] something to consider

Relating to the first paragraph in the history section - After reading DD's writings, and comparing what was commonly thought about physics at the time in which he discovers chiropractic. In 1895, matter and electromagnatism were still seperate. It wasn't until 1904 that Einstein had his "big year" which culminated in the E=mc² equation uniting energy and matter. And another four years before it started getting accepted by the physics community. My point is that DD frequently talks about "energy moving the matter" vs. the knowledge of the N.S. today. Even BJ compared the brain to a dynamo generating the energy of the body. What do you think? Am I getting to far out on the limb? :)--Hughgr 18:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure I'm following all of it. Give me a little more of what you were thinking and maybe we can work it through. --Dematt 18:25, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm guessing that DD was using what was thought at the time, mainly that energy and matter were seperate things. So it seems to relate to how he describes "life". IOW matter (the body) was seperate from energy (II).

There was a great Nova episode this weekend and they covered past and current thinking related to E=mc². Current thought is that after the "big bang", matter was created from energy. Pretty wild! Cheers!--Hughgr 20:50, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I just remembed, from reading about the Palmers history, the controversy surrounding the sale of PCC and the BJ murder charge were both related to the UCC in Davenport. Wouldn't these events the be the first volleys in the straight mixer battles? More to come, but wanted to write it down so I wouldn't forget. Also, do you know who Dr. Carver is? Was he involved with the UCC?--Hughgr 17:56, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the first volley, Langworthy would have been the first, but Carver was an attorney who referred DD a patient with tuberculosis. The patient died and that was when the coroner decided not to accept DD as a signature on the death certificate and he was brought to court. Directly after that, DD was arrested for practicing without a license, and the rest is history. Carver went on to become a chiropractor and started the Carver Denny school in Oklahoma (I think). He tried to get DD to come work with him after he quit PSC, and DD may have done a short stent. Carver was definitely a mixer and wanted DD to start teaching Suggestion(a type of hypnosis) along with chiropractic, but DD said no way. After DD's death Carver would become BJ's biggest nemesis. The two battled for students and patients and there was a lot of public name calling about whose philosophy of chiropractic was correct. The profession was being pulled apart. BJ and Carver testified against each other as expert witnesses against other chiropractors causing all sorts of hard feelings within the profession for each of them. Then Schultz, from National stepped in and basically pointed the profession toward science with the introduction of the NCA's education and research division headed by John Nugent. When they set the high standards for chiropractic education, both Carver and BJ had other things to worry about. BJ fought to keep the standards low, while Carver joined the effort to increase them, but he fades away after that.

That's my take from Keatings notes, but the green books probably have a different POV. What do they say? --Dematt 18:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

In relation to the sale of PCC, Willard Carver wrote an article, “History of Chiropractic—Chapter No. 8" in a paper called “Chiropractic Record” (July 1913 edition)(Was this a paper printed by the UCC? I think is was...) in which he accused BJ "That, behind this was a purpose, viz.: to get his father behind bars that he might systematically rob him of all interests professionally, scientifically, financially, etc." and more importantly after DD's release from jail, "That, D. D. and Mrs. D. D. Palmer were compelled to leave Davenport with a paltry $400 that they had saved; this was all they possessed when they left the city." In other words, misconstrued facts of the sale of PCC to cast BJ in a bad light. This led to a charge by BJ against Carver for libal, etc, (STATE OF IOWA ss. COUNTY OF SCOTT Case No. 13249. B. J. PALMER vs. WILLARD CARVER) after which Carver lost and was forced to write a retraction of his editorial. The accusations are still being repeated today apparently (Fyslee). Then the UCC was involved with the murder charge of BJ. Again there are "shady" agendas within this story as well. And this all makes for a great story. ;)--Hughgr 19:34, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not sure about the "Chiropractic Record", but do know that UCC started over a fight with Loban at PSC. Loban moved across the street with a lot of DD supporters. There is mention about BJ kicking somebody out of school that same day. Apparently it was a bad day, something about somebody being called a murderer (not about DD - this was before DD died). I was thinking somebody died at the school and Loban was very upset about it. DD was in California in July of 1913. He only came back at the invitation of someone at Palmer for the Lyceum (or something special). That's when the parade happened. I'll look into the Chiropractic Record and get back to you. --Dematt 20:07, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Found this in Keatings notes for UCC. You can find anything in them;

1910 (Sept 2): postcard (Asworth papers/CCC-KC) from "Hazel" at "Palmer College" Davenport addressed to "Mrs. S.L. Ashworth, 1021 L. St., Lincoln, Nebr." reads: Got here one hr. late. Things are awful here. Loban has sued B.J. for 20,000 for calling him a murderer. B.J. expeled a student yesterday. A traitor. Lots are here and there is going to be an awful fight. Write you later about it.

--Dematt 20:16, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Not really sure what you're getting at now. :) --Hughgr 23:22, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry - That is from Keatings notes talking about that day I was talking about earlier. That is an exerpt from a letter he found in Palmers archives. I was supposed to give you that link with it, but had to get to work:) You'll be able to find anything you want about UCC there, also everyone and everything else! I did a search for "Chiropractic Record" and found nothing. --Dematt 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Have you seen this? [2]--Hughgr 00:09, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Hey - we did pretty good! I'm going to steal some of that jail stuff;) --Dematt 00:31, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Barnstar

I have awarded you another barnstar! Your efforts are very much appreciated. -- Fyslee 19:23, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow! Thanks! Much appreciated. I always know that in your hands all POV will get a fair shake and be treated with respect. You are a master at "editing for the enemy," and that is certainly a mark of a good Wikipedia editor and of an honorable person. -- Fyslee 19:35, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal to merge Stephen Barrett, Quackwatch, and NCAHF article

I have started three separate proposals to merge these three articles. The discussion for each amalgamiton of the merge begins here. I would appreciate you taking the time to give your thoughts for each proposal. Thanks. Levine2112 00:42, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Testing, testing...:)

I've been checking out Gleng's test and came across this article. Very interesting and enlightening, also rather amusing :) "Relativists attribute the bending of starlight passing near the sun mainly to space curvature. At Jupiter’s distance the bending would be just 0.00078 arc-seconds – and we’re supposed to believe that this minuscule deformity of ‘spacetime’ can cause a planet the size of Jupiter to orbit the sun!" Gleng will be sorely missed. :( --Hughgr 00:59, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

I liked your edit but I feel it works better in the DD section, it relates more to him...but excellent writing! :) --Hughgr 05:08, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] No gravestones please

Just to reasure you; I feel no ownership on the vitalism article and had Jeffire made his comment first on the Talk page (and the issue wasn't intertwined with KV nonsense edits), I'd have taken it out myself like a shot, saving him the embarrasment of doing it, because the section isn't necessary. I only added it to make it clear that the status of reductionism itself in modern science is far from clear; and that's only important if there's any attempt to imply that reductionism=science and that what is not reductionism is pseudoscience. That is just such piffle.

As for the article, nobody would be happier than me to see an article on vitalism that is stronger and better than the present one, and if I recognise nothing in it, you will all have my profound respects for that, and I'll be absolutely delighted. Gleng 15:31, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Understood. Don't worry, the reason I'm holding on to it is because it is a good start with good information to build on. It would take me a year to put anything like it together again! No graveyards here; garden's more like, now we have a place for planting seeds. --Dematt 16:23, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] References

(Please Keep at Bottom of Page)

^ Lynch M, Elgeneidy A (1996). "The role of sympathetic activity in neuropathic orofacial pain.". J Orofac Pain 10 (4): 297-305. PMID 9161234.
^ Evans R (1992). "Some observations on whiplash injuries.". Neurol Clin 10 (4): 975-97. PMID 1435666.
^ Suissa S (2003). "Risk factors of poor prognosis after whiplash injury.". Pain Res Manag 8 (2): 69-75. PMID 12879136.
^ Hurwitz E, Morgenstern H, Harber P, Kominski G, Belin T, Yu F, Adams A, Kominsky G (2002). "Second Prize: The effectiveness of physical modalities among patients with low back pain randomized to chiropractic care: findings from the UCLA low back pain study.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 25 (1): 10-20. PMID 11898014.
^ Sorensen L, Stochkendahl M, Hartvigsen J, Nilsson N. "Chiropractic patients in Denmark 2002: an expanded description and comparison with 1999 survey.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 29 (6): 419-24. PMID 16904487.
^ Byfield D, McCarthy P (2006). "Systematic review of spinal manipulation: Flaws in the review.". J R Soc Med 99 (6): 277-8, author reply 279-80. PMID 16738362.
^ Vernon H, Dhami M, Howley T, Annett R (1986). "Spinal manipulation and beta-endorphin: a controlled study of the effect of a spinal manipulation on plasma beta-endorphin levels in normal males.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 9 (2): 115-23. PMID 2942618.
^ Briggs L, Boone W (1988). "Effects of a chiropractic adjustment on changes in pupillary diameter: a model for evaluating somatovisceral response.". J Manipulative Physiol Ther 11 (3): 181-9. PMID 3392474.

[edit] From: MyPresentCPUisTooSlow ; I have an anatomical question about the spinal discs.

Friday, 9-29-06 Portland, OR 10:40am Pacific Coast Time

From: MyPresentCPUisTooSlow, new registered user since 9/06

It's a good thing I had the foresight to get a printer copy of your answer to my question on herniated spinal discs; Was your existing "User talk" subject listing dumped? Why? Was it for lack of space?

As I stated in the above new subject heading, I have an anatomical question about the spinal discs: Are you familiar with the anatomical part known as the "bursa"? As I understand it, the bursa's primary purpose is to reduce accumulating friction of repetitive joint movement. The structure of the bursa consists of a glycol-protein and synovial fluid for plyability; Is this structure the same for the spinal disc? If not, then what does the disc's structure consist of?

--MyPresentCPUisTooSlow 20:27, 4 October 2006 (UTC)MyPresentCPUisTooSlow

[edit] questions about your editing style

Can you explain why you made this reversion with no edit summary? Also, what is the point of "edit summaries" such as "Begin writing for the enemy"? --JWSchmidt 13:11, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Palmer and osteopathy

Here's an interesting account, but unfortunately from a private practice site (and possibly not a reliable one (wiki def of "reliable"):

As his success grew, Andrew realized he needed to train people in his methodology and so, on October 3, 1892, at the age of 64, he started the American School of Osteopathy in Kirksville, Missouri with the help of William Smith, M.D. The first graduating class was a 1-year program which included 21 students- 5 women and 16 men, including three of Still's own children. One of the students, a man named Struthers, returned to the school in 1893 with a Canadian gentleman who was very interested in Still’s work. This man’s name was Daniel David Palmer, who was practicing healthcare in Davenport, Iowa. Palmer came specifically to take treatment from Dr. Still and his students and had many conversations with Dr. Still over the next few weeks. D.D. Palmer returned to Iowa and in 1897, started his own school of manipulative therapy that he called chiropractic. Palmer realized early on that Still faced a growing conflict in his own school by the staff of M.D.’s, from the very beginning, wanting to bring medications and drugs into osteopathy curriculum. Very few American osteopaths today in the 21st century practice in the traditions of Dr. A.T. Still. However, Dr. Palmer’s vision of manipulative therapy has actually stayed truer to the fundamentals of Dr. Still’s vision of osteopathy than osteopathy itself by staying drug-less in their practice of chiropractic. In 1917, at the age of 89, the "old doctor" passed away, leaving behind him a legacy of over 3,000 osteopathic physicians at that time. The osteopathic training is now a 4 year program just like allopathic medicine. [3]

Another one, from a highly reliable and notable source (but still uncertain of its own information):

Osteopathy and chiropractic share a common origin. Their roots can be found in folk traditions of "bone setting," and both were systematised in the late 19th century in the United States: Daniel D Palmer, the founder of chiropractic, is said to have met with Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of osteopathy, before setting up his own school. The therapies remain relatively similar, and many textbooks and journals are relevant to both. The term "manipulative therapy" refers to both osteopathy and chiropractic....

Sometimes chiropractors are referred to as "doctors of chiropractic." This is purely a courtesy title and has been used since chiropractic began. [4]

(Historically, the chiropractic profession was started by D.D. Palmer, who was a student at the first osteopathic medical school in Kansas. He left his osteopathic training before completing it and went to Davenport, Iowa, where he started the chiropractic profession. While chiropractors receive extensive training in chiropractic manipulation, they do not learn medicine.) [5]

Osteopathy was “discovered” in 1872 by Dr Andrew Taylor Still, an American doctor who grew disillusioned with orthodox medicine after his wife and three children died from spinal meningitis.

Many accounts of the history of osteopathy mention that one of Dr Still's early students was Daniel David Palmer (D D Palmer), who founded chiropractic in 1895. Palmer reportedly studied with Dr Still for only about six weeks.

However, the association between Dr Still and Palmer is usually not mentioned in accounts of the history of chiropractic. [6]

One thing one can state in an NPOV manner is that osteopaths claim that DD Palmer attended Still's school before founding his own school and profession. -- Fyslee 19:57, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sci invest.

Well, I've been thinking about the next para for the sci section in the VS art. and I was wondering about the timeline. I am assuming that around the Wilk case was when a "major" change occured, ie, prove specific conditions which can be shown to have benefit. And I thought, Dematt will know the answer and be able to help! :) What I'd like to explain is how and when there was a change in this effect. Was it due to Wilk? Or partly due to the difficulty in measuring "health", which is also an ambiguous term. Or both, or other....lets discuss. Cheers! --Hughgr 18:38, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there was some renewed sense of urgency about that time, but keep in mind that AMA pretty much kept research money away from chiropractic as well as researchers themselves would probably not be caught dead doing chiropractic research - it would be professional suicide. The ICA was able to get the first important piece of research out performed by an oriental guy (I forget his name - starts with an I). That was important. But remember, BJ was probably not interested in proving it either because he did not trust medicine thinking they would steal it from him. So after he died in 1961, things started to happen, not to mention AMA committee on Quackery starting in 1963. In 1972 (or close) the government began looking at manipulation and set up the council to study how to study it and then the JMPT out of National started calling for research and PSC got behind it, too. Then Wilk's, Florida workers comp, New Zealand report, Manga, Rand and the rest is history. --Dematt 18:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Although, keep in mind that that was all related to spinal manipulation. Vertebral subluxation was studied a lot during the early years, but nothing that would be considered strong research in today's terms. However, there were some initial studies with injections into facets and discs and noticing pain patterns, etc.. A lot of that research may still be able to be found from a historical POV that could illustrate early work. You'd have to do some digging and the green books would probably have some reference to some for sure. --Dematt 19:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

So would you say that at about that (?) time that interest in vs research waned while interest in SMT increased? Also, wouldn't there be some overlap with SMT and VS? On the nerve side that is. I've also been thinking that "admitting" that there is a connection with the nerves, that that would open a bag of worms in deciphering what that affect would entail? IOW, the previous chiro talk page discussion about "organs function fine with no nerve supply". The role of the NS above consciousness, etc. ...--Hughgr 19:58, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Also, you wrote, "BJ was probably not interested in proving it either because he did not trust medicine thinking they would steal it...", which is partly accurate, AFAIK. He didn't trust the idea of mixing for that reason, but he did seem interested in further investigation. Besides the Palmer Research Clinic, I remember reading in one of the green books how he went to (some european country?) to challenge the notion that the IVF allowed "ample room" for the nerve. He noted how nerves shrink ?% 4 hrs after death and the "ample room" was based on a study done 8 hrs after death...so he went to ? country and did an autopsy on a condemned prisoner(?) and after a quick freeze immediatly upon death, "proved that the IVF is completely filled" if I'm remembering correctly. I'll have to look that one up. :)--Hughgr 20:07, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I think all that will make the article interesting no matter whether anyone thinks it is science or not. Sure, it may be a primary source and not peer reviewed etc.. but, as long as you write it in such a way that does not make any judgements about what is stated, it will be fine. I.e. "According to (Green Books), when faced with the accusation that the IVF was too large to "pinch" the nerve, BJ travelled across to Denmark? where he dissected a freshly frozen corpse of a prisoner who had recently been executed and found that "the IVF was full."<citation> See what I mean. You can say it, just make sure you aren't stating it as fact. All of that is good stuff. Also remember that the green books are from BJ's POV and there is information out there that may contradict and it should be in here somewhere as well. --Dematt 20:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I feel ya. I found it, in vol 25. Do you think I could paste it onto your other page so as to not clutter up this page. That way you could see what I'm looking at.--Hughgr 21:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Lets move it to User talk:Dematt/Vert Subl --Dematt 22:24, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Hehe, I just made a page, check out [[7]] and happy reading. Also notice where he mentions vitalism. Then let me know what you think.--Hughgr 22:48, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

OK, what I've done is put some info in my [[8]], and we can use your page to make some cohesive sense out of this section. ;) Whatdoyathink?--Hughgr 23:52, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Pseudoscience

Thanks for the reference, I think we'll have to see whether it has any consequences for the article. --Iantresman 09:45, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Preserving Our Vitalistic Philosophy

Hi Dematt. Here's an interesting and fun "project" for you. If you use Google Toolbar it works best. Go to this article

Preserving Our Vitalistic Philosophy - Joseph B. Strauss, DC. Straight chiropractic philosophy

Then search the page for these words (at the same time), using your Google Toolbar:

vitalism vitalistic biotheology innate universal

You'll get a colorful page and an interesting read. THIS is really straight philosophy!

Here's another good one:

The Specter of Dogma - Joseph C. Keating, Jr., PhD

Have fun. -- Fyslee 17:44, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] You are missed!

Where are you? -- Fyslee 18:24, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I was wondering the same thing, what happened to Dematt?!? I feel stagnated...--Hughgr 19:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

We first really value a person when they are missed. Dematt is a voice of reason in the sometimes turbulent waters here. It is in very large part thanks to him that the chiropractic article has developed so beautifully. He has a larger vision than any of us would have hoped for alone. He truly understands NPOV and balance, and presents all POV in a truly fine manner. He's also good at dealing with disputes between other editors. DEMATT, COME BACK! -- Fyslee 19:37, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You forgot to say, "PRETTY PLEASE WITH SUGAR ON TOP!!!" :) --Hughgr 20:12, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

And maybe a good shot of cognac or Scotch? -- Fyslee 20:32, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Or snooker and cigars? LOL Come on Dematt, we miss you!!!!!!--Hughgr 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

What happened to the hookers? I was looking forward to the hookers. Indian Giver:)--Dematt 02:23, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

LOL I didn't want to seem to foreward. :) Good to see you back!--Hughgr 04:59, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Comment here

Hi Dematt,

You may wish to comment here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:William_M._Connolley#KrishnaVindaloo:_obstinate_and_uncollaborative

-- Fyslee 08:29, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Hi Dematt. I am seeking your aid in a collaborative (together with Gleng) edit here [9]. -- Fyslee 18:28, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

You continue to amaze me! My first reaction was "Oh, no. He's reverted even the previous versions to nearly nothing." But on further examination, you had simply boiled it down to the essential part. The vitalistic element still needs to be in there, since it is intimately connected with the original subluxation belief, and we are talking about those chiros who hold those beliefs, not all chiros. BTW, you should enable your email. You can trust me to keep a confidence. -- Fyslee 20:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I hear you. I've been going around with that one. Maybe you can help me. What do you think it is about the vitalistic part that makes it PS? --Dematt 23:55, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

How about this? --Dematt 23:54, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

My new joint manipulation article is being vandalized. -- Fyslee 23:17, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, Fyslee. What exactly constitutes vandalism? I am making the article smarter. Why be so specific and repeat so much information which can already be found on Spinal Adjustment? Let's keep "your" new article more general and use the space to discuss joint manipulation in general rather than get into one piece of safety specifics about spinal manipulation with an occurence so tiny that you have a better chance of getting struck by lightning. Levine2112 23:24, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

The information is relevant to all professions, not just to chiropractors. Since you won't allow coverage that implicates non-chiropractors as well even on the chiropractic article, then it belongs in the general article for the benefit of non-chiropractors. Now you're trying to bury the information completely. It is well-sourced and you have not provided a single wikipedia policy for your deletions. This is an excuse for POV deletionism. I'm taking this discussion to the article talk page. -- Fyslee 00:16, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? This information is clearly stated on the Spinal Adjustment page (where it makes sense). Levine2112 00:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vitalism, chiro, and PS

I hadn't noticed your last question above about vitalism, chiro, and PS. You ask "What do you think it is about the vitalistic part that makes it PS?" Okay, here's the short version:

(1) Basically, any practice that claims to be scientific automatically comes within the range of PS possibility. (At this point it could be tagged with both the science and PS cat tags.) That's the big picture (big ring with smaller rings within it), which includes both legitimate and illegitimate practices. That's a basic to the definition of PS. Any practice that makes no claim to scientific legitimacy is not PS, which applies to most religions. Christian Science and Scientology are notable exceptions, and certain ideas often associated with some religions as well, such as creationism.

(2) Any such practice that then also combines unscientific, antiscientific, or metaphysical elements (vitalism is metaphysical) in its practice or philosophy moves the practice somewhere within the PS part of that picture. It is now proper to label it, or at least those aspects, as PS.

(3) Any such practice that is based on or has such aspects as a foundational or central part of its practice or philosophy places itself solidly in the PS part of the picture. It is now proper to label it, and those aspects, as PS.

(4) If such PS aspects have been a part of a profession's beliefs, and it has not publicly distanced itself from them, it has only itself to blame when it is accused of PS. Here the difference between American (not European) osteopathy and chiropractic is interesting.

(5) How various individuals in such professions relate to these problems can be as different as night and day, and thus one must be careful about labelling them. That can be done on a case-by-case basis. DD Palmer, BJ Palmer, Sid Williams, Tedd Koren, Terry Rondberg, Joseph Strauss, ICA, WCA (chiropractic), and Joseph Mercola (osteopathy), to name a few, are about as PS as they come.

That was my two-bits, IMHO. Does that make sense to you? -- Fyslee 09:57, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

I don't think we are far off. What is it about vitalism that makes it PS and then what it is about VS that makes it vitalism. If it is just that vitalism is defined as not reducible to physical or chemical, then VS is not PS, because VS has a physical and chemical explanation. It may be wrong, but it is still scientific. Unless you are one that believes that innate is spiritual. Then the person is a vitalist. If you believe that innate is a metaphor for the physical and chemical phenomina, then are you a not a vitalist. Is that the way you see it? --Dematt 13:31, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow am I delayed on this one! I hadn't noticed it until now, and then just by chance. I basically take vitalism and innate for what it has always been - a spiritual concept. That some people use it metaphorically is unfortunate, and the ensuing confusion leading to them getting mistakenly "branded" is of their own doing. They need to stay away from using spiritual terminology. Palmer wasn't using the concepts metaphorically, and some of his followers aren't either. Their websites are "interesting" reading. The body's own self-healing properties have long been recognized in medicine without resorting to vitalism, even when it was at its highest. I happen to have discovered who originated the term "self-limiting diseases" in 1835. A very interesting little book from 1858. -- Fyslee 21:13, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] 'Twas a mistake

Thanks for catching it and letting me know. --ScienceApologist 00:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] QW edits undone

Thank you for your kind comments, but I have reverted the page to its pevious conditilon, sincve I have begun to feel unwell and my concentration is at present wanting. I'll get back on it when I feel better. Robert2957

[edit] anti science

Here, not on PS pages, as I am elsewhere now. Feyerebend is certainly not anti science; rather, his position is anti authoritarian. He holds that arguments should be based on reason, not on authority, and that reason is the province of every thinking man. He, like Kuhn, asserts that scientists often act as "closed groups" to exclude outsiders, and that they resist paradigm change by means that are not solely based on the scientific and rational principles that they espouse. In particular, he argues that they use arguments from authority to deny the legitamacy of those outside their groups. He argues that this makes them resistant to recognising weaknesses in their own fields, and that this is what is damaging to science itself. Nothing from him, or Kuhn, or Medawar, or Lakatos, or McNally for that matter is a defense of hucksterism or bad science; instead they are attacking, or at least commenting on, the weak scientific thinking of scientists. Feyeraband I think never used the term pseudoscience, to do so would be paradoxical, because to use the term in a scientific sense would mean to say that you can have an operational definition for science - which is exactly the issue debated by Popper, Lakatos, Bunge, Thagard etc etc - and Feyeraband's view was that not only is an operational definition not possible, it is not even desirable. I repeat, nothing is a defence of bad science; the assertion rather is that there are useful distinctions, between good and bad application of scientific method, between reason and dogma, between honesty and fraud, between the verified and the speculative, between the testable and the untestable, between clear and obscure, - but to declare that something is pseudoscientific, in Feyeraband's view has no content beyond the expression of authority by one group against another. McNally, I think, and many others, would say that it might be meaningful when used to distinguish between arguments that relate to the same thing. Gleng 21:30, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

ANti authority! That's the word! That makes absolute sense and thank you for taking the time to clarify for me. That article was so enlightening for me. I am learning so much so fast that I have not yet developed the vocabulary to go with it;) It is good to know that someone who has spent so much time contemplating these concepts has reached such a conclusion. That is the piece of the puzzle I've been missing. You asked earlier - who were the real skeptics? I am beginning to see that they are few and far between. There seem to be lots of parrots though:) --Dematt 00:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Images in History section of Chiro article

Now there are too many pictures. Maybe two of them can be moved to the new article? -- Fyslee 14:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hey

I thought I'd take a little wikivacation. It's been nice. :) --Hughgr 22:56, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

That's what I did and I have to admit, it was much needed! I'm glad your back, we need some humor around here:) Did you bring my hooker back with you? --Dematt 22:58, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No, she took off with Levine. :)--Hughgr 02:26, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Was just thinking, should we have an article explaining what "dis-ease" means. I've just noticed its used in various articles without further explanation. Historically its been confusing because the reader might think it was an editing error etc. --Hughgr 19:55, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back Hugh! Good vaction? Get any hunting done? As to DD's and BJ's spelling peculiarities, it could be interesting to make a section with some of their good ones. The dis-ease one has been corrected sometimes by unwitting editors. Maybe those spellings should be tracked down and enclosed in quotes with a reference note. -- Fyslee 23:17, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

Good point, a foot note is all it would take.--Hughgr 01:14, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Hey, party at my place! Anybody bring the beer? --Dematt 02:03, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

And what kind do you like? Have you tried Tuborg or Carlsberg, two great Danish beers? -- Fyslee 15:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Heck, you know how long its been since my last beer! Remember, I'm a father of four and a scoutmaster; I have to keep my wits about me! That's why I am so much fun at a party, one beer and I'm under the table:) But, I would love to try a Danish Beer! Which would you suggest? --Dematt 15:55, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually either one, since one of them bought the other. Now it's just one big company. Otherwise just give me a Bud. Most of the time I'm a wine drinker, especially a good California Zinfandel:

"Popular grape in California. Those on intimate affec-tionate terms always call it 'Zin'. Those seriously affected actually suffer from original Zin."

"To err is human, to Zin is divine."

Some good producers: Ravenswood, Talus, Beringer, Ironstone, Kendall Jackson -- Fyslee 20:35, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Now your talking my language. If its dinner, its the white zinandel, otherwise its bud or miller, but I'm a Earnhardt Jr. fan so I pretty much have to stick with Bud! --Dematt 21:12, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] I did my best

I finally revamped the Safety section starting here. I'll probably get crucified for doing it, but I think patient safety comes first. The section is well-sourced and arranged in a logical manner. At least I tried, and I hope I don't disappoint you too much. -- Fyslee 23:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image help

I need help to upload an image. I've never done it. What should I do? -- Fyslee 20:58, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

First make and name the image file and place it somewhere on your computer ( I usually go with the desktop).

Then go to the page that you want to put the picture in (i.e. User talk:Dematt) and type Image:The name of your picture.

It will bring up a page and warn you that it better not be copyrighted:), scroll down and it will bring you to the upload page.

Click on Browse to go to the place you saved the file. It will automatically put the name of the file in (you can change it if you want).

Then you have to tell WP that it is public domain by putting in the {{pd-whatever it might be(US if before 1923 or -user if your own work}}(I can help you with this after you put it in)

Then find the same thing in the drop down box.

Then click on upload file.

There you go!

Now you have to put it in your page by using the Image:Whatever on you page. It should find it.

The most important thing here is to NAME THE IMAGE LINK THE EXACT SAME THING OR YOU WON'T BE ABLE TO FIND IT:) It happens to me everytime. If you lose it, just do it all again.

Let me know what happens. I usually have to do it a couple times till I get it right! --Fyslee 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks so much for the instructions. Now I just need to follow them! -- Fyslee 21:18, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

Successful upload! [10] Thanks! -- Fyslee 23:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Great! Awesome picture, too. I knew it was southern California below Big Sur, but that's as close as I can get. I love photography and have been watching to see what new camera I might want. How do you like that Canon? Is it an SLR digital? Would you buy the same one again, or want something different? --Dematt 14:30, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I already have a Canon EOS 300 (SLR analog) with a 28-300mm lense. It's a good camera, but too large to be handy on such a vacation trip. It's my second one. The first one was a gift my wife gave me when we lived in Greenland. It was too cumbersome to take on hunting trips, which means I don't have more than a few pictures of me with all the 16 reindeer I have shot. The camera was later stolen during a burglary of our home. Someday I may buy a digital body to use with that great lense. -- Fyslee 21:28, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

The bottom of the image page has loads of technical details about the camera and picture, including extended details. There is even a site here for the camera. (The model name is the European name.) We bought it before our vacation and we have been very happy with it. It's an easy to use compact with a large screen and great software. Easy to carry in your pocket, which was very practical in Disneyland and other places. The California coast is so varied and beautiful. We have a 2 GB card and an extra battery, so we never had any troubles. We had a laptop along and traveled around for three weeks in a 25 ft. RV, so we could download our pictures everyday. A great way to vacation! -- Fyslee 16:09, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that does sound great! Do they rent RV's or do you know somebody here that let you use it? I would love to do that! --Dematt 19:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Actually my wife is pretty good at using the internet. The last time we were in the states (2000) she did all the ordering over the net: round trip tickets with different starting and ending points (I didn't even know that was possible!), car rentals, etc.. This time she found an RV rental place a few miles from where we were going to be starting and ending our trip. It was great. We had never driven one before, and we can recommend it highly. There was plenty of room with great facilities. [11] We made a 2,000 mile tour: LA, Disneyland, Universal Studios, Joshua Tree, San Diego, Sea World, Tijuana, Hwy. 1, redwoods, SF, Napa Valley, Beringer Winery, Sacramento, Lake Tahoe, Mt. Whitney (not up it! I did that in 1975), Death Valley, and back to LA. A great trip without any accidents or injuries, though some close calls. It was great to visit family and old friends. -- Fyslee 20:37, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disambig

I've tried to follow along on your's and Hugh's edits on the Spinal adjustment article, and you guys are really improving the article. It's looking good. There is one edit I question, simply because it isn't the common practice here: [12] Disambiguation links always go at the top so people who stumble onto the wrong article can immediately find their way to the right one. -- Fyslee 21:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

You are absolutely right. Thanks for keeping me on track:) I've never been good at noticing things like that. I'll fix it. --Dematt 23:17, 7 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Old def of chiro

Is there any way this excellent definition (made so by your skills) of original chiropractic can be used in the chiropractic article or other related articles?:

Chiropractic's original vitalistic assertion that vertebral subluxations block the ability of Innate intelligence (when used as non-reducible spiritual entity) to heal the body of all diseases.

It should naturally be accompanied by some statement mentioning its role as a historical definition. -- Fyslee 21:46, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Amputated lead

Ever since this change, we have had an amputated lead that doesn't fulfill the requirements for WP:LEAD. In essence, the lead was too long and got split up, which placed most of it after the TOC, which isn't proper. Could you make a try at picking out the essential points from each section and making two or three (or four....;-) paragraphs that summarize the whole article? -- Fyslee 19:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I can take a shot at it. It will take some thought so I'll check back this evening. --Dematt 18:17, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Welcome back! -- Fyslee 19:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Edits today

I have just seen your edits on the joint manipulation article. I'm not sure what you were thinking about, but it looks to me like they would have been more appropriate on the spinal adjustment article. They significantly changed, and even eliminated, some meaning that was appropriate there. IMHO. -- Fyslee 20:00, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

I looked over Dematt's edits and I disagree with Fyslee's assessment. I don't see any significant changes or elimination of meaning. Nor do I see any edits in particular which would be more appropriate for the Spinal adjustment page. I see good simplification and overlooked format fixes. Fyslee, can you detail and describe your thoughts above so we all can better understand your opinion? IOW, give us the specific edit and tell why you feel they were inapproriate or what kind of significant change or elimination you are noting. Thanks. Levine2112 20:07, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I was really just trying to clean it up and simplify it. The Indian barber thing definitely complicated things. It wouldn't hurt my feelings if you were able to reword that part or take it out. --Dematt 20:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Licensing issues hadn't been mentioned at all, nor are they relevant to Indian barbers (who provide manipulation as part of their services) or bone setters (who are now left out completely). You have rearranged it "according to % usage and licensing". We know that, but the reader is now deprived of the information about the usage %. Before there was used "some", "many", "all", which provided valuable information for readers as to usage %.

This sentence is also gone:

"Regardless of the profession involved, there are questions related to its effectiveness and safety, especially as related to manipulation of the upper cervical spine."

That has been shortened quite a bit. One of the things that sentence attempts to make clear, is that the risks are not strictly or only a chiropractic issue, as some critics imply. They are an issue for everyone who does it. I simpy think it's improper to place the blame on chiros, when it's the technique (applied in that region) that's the primary problem.

The other edits are fine. -- Fyslee 05:47, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I think the licensing information is more accurate than saying the unspeicific "some", "most" and "all". Maybe they are even two divergent points. Regardless, why not include the licensure info?

Also, as Dematt worded it, I certainly don't think any special blame is put on chiropractic implicitly. His wording is quite clear and doesn't place "blame" anywhere... instead it states more accurately that there is a debate concerning its safety. Levine2112 07:24, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

(1) I am not saying that licensing information cannot or should not be included. I haven't addressed that matter at all, because, as Levine2112 legitimately puts it, they are divergent points. It's a both/and situation, rather than an either/or one. Licensing issues are more complicated and can be dealt with in the body of the article. That would of course get into the relationship between manipulation and adjustment, as chiros are (only or primarily?) licensed to adjust for correction of the vertebral subluxation. If you want that issue discussed here, let's talk about it here, but I don't think it's necessary in the article, since this article is primarily about the non subluxation-based practice of manipulating joints.

(2) Dematt certainly hasn't placed any blame at all. It is critics who risk placing blame only on chiros. That would be very wrong. That's my point, and my wording is designed to head off that misplaced accusation, without even naming chiropractors. It's done in a very NPOV manner. -- Fyslee 08:20, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand where the problem lies. Again, I think it is the Indian Barber thing that is complicating it. We wouldn't include your next door neighbor on a ist of people who supply amphetamines. Though it might be correct, but that's really not what the article is about. Besides, do we really know that Indian Barbers provide a skilled SMT for their clients? It just seems to denigrate the article to the point of being borderline ridiculous. --Dematt 15:09, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree Dematt, I think the Indian barber part should be removed. As I read it, it seems like a distraction.--Hughgr 18:46, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

I certainly have no burden for having the Indian barber profession included. It was likely included because Terrett discovered a case of an Indian barber who injured someone, and it was incorrectly attributed to chiropractic. It is true that they do provide such services, including tongue scraping. American and British barbers used to offer healthcare services in the "good old days." They were the first surgeons (in relatively modern times...). -- Fyslee 19:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Brilliant!

A great edit here. Actually the word "performing" isn't necessary there. Otherwise very good. -- Fyslee 22:08, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, I was a little concerned that I was off the mark after the last edits on SM:), but I figured once everyone saw what I was trying to do, it would make sense. It still needs some work, though, so jump in. --Dematt 22:23, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Attention

I have made several copy edits and additions, and one of them affects some of your wording ("...may be included as part of..."). I hope you don't mind, but if you do I understand. Feel free to edit it if you feel it is important to retain the wording there. -- Fyslee 13:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A tricky one...

This edit of yours ends with a wikilink. I've seen this type of linking before (from others) and am wondering about the purpose, if any. I know some chiropractic advocates would like to place all blame for risks on spinal "manipulation" as opposed to spinal "adjustments". What is your thinking on that matter? (Since I see a problem with all such treatment of the upper cervical spine no matter what profession, I basically see no good reason for the wikilink.)

The same problem is evident here, where the section has not only been sanitized of anything that might implicate "adjustments," it uses language that could appear to be designed to (only) implicate "manipulations" (and those who perform them, IOW non-chiros). I know you wouldn't attempt to do that, but we both know that others have done so many times on talk pages and in articles.

I understand and accept that it might be better to do most of the coverage of the safety issues in the "manipulation" article at present (some day another article can take care of the issue, since there is a huge amount of literature on it), but what's left behind is pitiful.

To solve the problem, I suggest some modifications (bold) to existing wording:

For more in depth discussion of relevant safety issues, see Joint manipulation.

and

As with all interventions, there are risks associated with spinal manipulative therapy (SMT), regardless of the profession involved.

These modifications would help to remove the suspicion that the chiropractic article is affected by whitewashing. -- Fyslee 13:46, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Okay, this is where it seems to be obvious to me, but you seem to have a different POV. This is the differentiation I am trying to make. Maybe you can help me do it more accurately:

Spinal adjustment and spinal manipulation are two different things. Spinal adjustments can be put in one of three different categories related to spinal manipulation:

those that are all spinal manipulation (i.e. straight/specific, gonstead, etc.)
those methods that do involve some type of joint manipulation as part of the adjustment, (i.e. Thompson drop table, SOT, etc.)
those methods that do not involve joint manipulation in any way whatsoever (i.e. activator, Logan Basic, Cox Flexion/Distraction, etc.) These techniques are not associated with the same risk or benefit discussions as SM.

This is why I keep trying to insert "in chiropractic, spinal adjustments may include spinal manipulation." It is more accurate. I don't see it as whitewashing, but building a more accurate article. IMO, to try and lump them all into SM is not an accurate assessment and is what is leading to some of the arguments related to safety and benefits. That would be like claiming massage and spinal manipulation had the same risks and benefits. That is why I do have a little issue with this change See what I mean?

So if we are going to have a seperate article for spinal manipulation, why would we include the safety issues for spinal manipulation on the spinal adjustment page (or massage page) when we can just put the link on the ones that apply (i.e. #2 and #3)? Which was my reason for the aforementioned link. Please notice that I also do not give SA the same benefit discussion as SM because the research is for SM only. Does that make sense?

Let's bring this to the SA page so we can all get together on this once and for all. --Dematt 01:15, 19 November 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../d/e/m/User_talk%7EDematt_7d4f.html"

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.