Talk:Critical views of chiropractic

This should be titled critical views of chiropractic unless "chiropractic" is usually capitalized. Titles are lower-case. --Larry Sanger 17:29, 16 December 2006 (CST)

Please see quote from artocle below: "In line with a general philosophy of chiropractic to minimise use of medicines and drugs, 'traditional straight' chiropractors are opposed to childhood vaccination. Their main association, the International Chiropractors Association, is "supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws, providing an elective course of action for all regarding immunization, thereby allowing patients freedom of choice in matters affecting their bodies and health." This advice is contrary to the general belief of the medical profession that mass vaccination has enormous health benefits and is an essential part of a responsible public health policy.

"This is just the kind of thing that is couched so politely that it obscures it meaning. Whatever context it was in in tha journal article, it is inappropriate as the message o be given in the section on vaccination here. Nobody in the medical profession believes that the use of drugs should be maximized, every reasonable physician believes that medications and drugs should be minimised in children, and what traditional straight chiropracters actually advertise and write is that "vaccines weaken the immune systm' and "are dangerous". So this, especially in an article entitled "Critical views of Chiropractic" is completely misleading. It is an apology and a defense that couches the fact that a health care professional preaches against childhood vaccinations to mothers and fathers that consult him or her, with their child, which puts everyone at risk for epidemics of infectious diseases such as measles, is somehow just a reasonable part of a philosophy of minimizing medication.

criticism of tone

This is just the kind of thing that is couched so politely that it obscures it meaning. Whatever context it was in in tha journal article, it is inappropriate as the message o be given in the section on vaccination here. Nobody in the medical profession believes that the use of drugs should be maximized, every reasonable physician believes that medications and drugs should be minimised in children, and what traditional straight chiropracters actually advertise and write is that "vaccines weaken the immune systm' and "are dangerous". So this, especially in an article entitled "Critical views of Chiropractic" is completely misleading. It is an apology and a defense that couches the fact that a health care professional preaches against childhood vaccinations to mothers and fathers that consult him or her, with their child, which puts everyone at risk for epidemics of infectious diseases such as measles, is somehow just a reasonable part of a philosophy of minimizing medication.

There are several issues here, first this article is in development so feel free to expand, obviously this section was a stub and needs adding to.

There are problems here in that the official statements of the traditional straight organisation express support for individual waivers rather than oppose vaccination, so I haven't yet found evidence that opposition is a formal position of any chiropractic body. Obviously at least some and possibly many chiropractors do oppose vaccination, and the explanation of why they do is needed to understand why it is expected that many do in the absence of any clear evidence that I have seen that in fact they do. (I'm not doubting it, just haven't seen any survey data).

To see the wording as an apology or a defense, is something I can't see in the words. It's an explanation, and it seems that to neglect any explanation of something that raises an obvious question (why would chiropractors oppose vaccination?) would be an omission. I really see no reservation or hesitation at all in the words "This advice is contrary to the general belief of the medical profession that mass vaccination has enormous health benefits and is an essential part of a responsible public health policy." This seems to me about as clear a statement as can be made?

It seems to me that any further statements about this must be made in the form of quotations from notable authorities, and I'm sure we should be able to find those.

As far as tone is concerned, I think our tone must always be polite. We can quote others who are not, but although this is a criticisms article, we are still reporting criticisms, not making them ourselves.

My personal view is that compulsory mass vaccination is an essential part of public health policy, so I am not a supporter of allowing exceptions. That's my view, and it is a conventional scientific view that for vaccination to be effective as a way of controlling disease, there must be at least an 85% vaccination rate in the population, at which point for an individual, the risks become greater for vaccination than for avoiding vaccination. Because of this, the policy has to be compulsory to be fair, otherwise a few who avoid vaccination gain benefits at the expense of the majority, and if too many avoid vaccination this puts all at risk. That's the argument, and it's a complex one to follow, and really belongs in a vaccination article not here. So what else can or should be said here except adding quotes?

I don't think an argument is strengthened by expressing it more forcefully, and think on the contrary that rhetoric merely diminishes the case. That's not merely my style preference, it's also my belief that simple, direct statements that obviously avoid anything that can be read as hyperbole or rhetorical flourish, but which are based on a conservative reading of the evidence and are expressed politely, carry more weight. "This advice is contrary to the general belief of the medical profession that mass vaccination has enormous health benefits and is an essential part of a responsible public health policy" might seem like an understatement. But I think it's hard to read it and either misunderstand it, or doubt it, and hard actually for me to see what stronger statement can possibly be made that remains true. And if it's read and understood and believed - what else is there to say? We can be as rude as we like, it's not about chiropractors being upset but about whether a reader will simply be put off by what may seem like an opinionated rant. We have to trust the reader, let him see the criticisms, understand them, and draw his own conclusions; lead, not force.

I'm not suggesting we be either impolite or rant. But the official statement of the formal organization of chiropractors cannot be the only acceptable source here for evidence of what chiropractors do. No surveys are routinely taken of health care providers by the US government or any other agency, and the data you ask for is just not available. There are many ads from chiropractors that plainly warn against medicines and vaccinations. The whole reason vaccines work in populations is because a critical proportion of "the herd" is immune and that point must be nmade in order to criticze the idea that vaccination can be a personal preference and still safegaurd the public. To simply couch that "the medical profession" feels mass vaccinations are essential and leave it at that is not helpful when there is already a general acceptance that the "medical profession" is against chiropractors. The real point is that official organizations of chiropractors not only do not condemn the statements of members that warn that vaccines weaken the immune system, but instead argue that it's simply a matter of personal preference whether on not to vaccinate your children- or should be a matter of personal preference- flies against the advancements made in public health over the last century. Look at that statement made by the organization- in the US it is against the law not to vaccinate your children, so do they support the law - No- even the official group suggests that the law should be changed to allow personal preference. That statement cannot be criticized without imparting the knowledge that personal preference removes the public benefits of vaccination for everyone and does not simply affect the person choosing not to be vaccinated - let alone the fact that it is the child who foregoes the protection but the parent who makes the "personal preference".. I just read your (Gareth's ?-the edits are not showing up except in history) and here's a point to consider- it is misleading not to explain that vaccination only works with near uniform compliance (since not every vaccinated person will actually achieve immunity) and just assume that the reader will either already know that or will carefully study another article. A couple of lines must be placed here so that the statements that are here can be understood. When I have time, I will write just that-in polite terms that can be plainly understood. This is, after all-the critical view. I am not happy that my time has to be taken up so much over alternative medicine, I would rather write about other things, but this cannot be so misleading. The tone is so formal and indirect that it cannot be plainly understood by people who are not themselves experts- that's the problem, it's not that I'm advocating rudeness-I am advocating direct statements plainly understandable to laymen, that present the critical view of chiropractic.

You know, Gareth, in the United States there is no central government health service, it's not like Sweden where records are kept on each child and a public nurse shows up and vaccinates your kid if you, as a parent, do not seek vaccination. I don't know how it is in the UK, but I suspect it's more like Sweden than it is like it is here, it would be a mistake to assume that the USA operates in a similar way that you are used to. In most districts (States), children cannot attend public school unless there are records of vaccination -but there are private schools where this is not true and some people homeschool, and so there are populations of unvaccinated children here. Further, some public schools are not so carefully run that kids are fully checked out, especially if misrepresentations are made by parents. This is not just a philosophical matter of the "conventional scientific" view, this is a matter of public health and safety. That's why I feel so strongly that - anywhere on Citizendium that childhood vaccination is discussed, it has to be plainly understandable to a layman. There are popular beliefs that vaccinations cause autism, destroy immunity and this all feeds in to popular conspiracy theories of government control and financial gain by doctors that is capitalized on, not just by the extreme group of chiropractors, but by Christian Scientists, other religious and political groups. Isn't Citizendium supposed to be an expert and reliable source of information? The scientific view of vaccination is not just another opinion.

Here is the ACA's position statement of vaccination. It looks just like the ICA statement. The Assoc of Chiro Colleges didn't mention vaccination:

• VACCINATION

Resolved, that the American Chiropractic Association (ACA) recognize and advise the public that: Since the scientific community acknowledges that the use of vaccines is not without risk, the American Chiropractic Association supports each individual's right to freedom of choice in his/her own health care based on an informed awareness of the benefits and possible adverse effects of vaccination. The ACA is supportive of a conscience clause or waiver in compulsory vaccination laws thereby maintaining an individual's right to freedom of choice in health care matters and providing an alternative elective course of action regarding vaccination. (Ratified by the House of Delegates, July 1993, Revised and Ratified June 1998).

--

Exactly. Personal choice renders vaccination ineffective - if enough people choose not to immunize. That's not to say that there are not particular vaccines where the risk/benefit ratio is such that it is reasonable to make such a choice. But there have been cases of polio in the USA again because of that kind of thinking, and - since not every vaccinated person developes immunity as the result of a series of immunizations, it is not only the unvaccinated child who risks polio because of "personal preference". The vaccines mandated by law are not in the category of personal preference, and although that statement sounds so benign, it's not. Who could be against personal preference? Anybody who understands the biology of vaccinations- that's who.