Talk:Activator technique

Untitled

This is an open request for an explanation as to how the "activator technique" works. It is not a request for personal claims of effectiveness or how it to be used or who invented it or how it's validity is measured by how many Chiro's use it. Simply: How does it work? "It moves tissues to their normal position" is not an explanation.

Be clear. Be precise. I look forward to lucid responses.

I'm not sure what your point is? WP:TALK explains how talk pages are supposed to be used. They certainly are not to be used as an open forum. How it does or doesn't work doesn't matter. What matters is what is WP:V that is verifiable by citation. --Anthon01 (talk) 16:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I see. I had assumed this was where actual verification could be hashed out prior to addition to the actual page in question. So I guess it is a request for citation/verification. This is my first attempt at this. I will adapt.160.94.59.3 (talk)flargnog dec14 2007 —Preceding comment was added at 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing in the article page that isn't verifiable. If you disagree then quote the text and paste it here. Then explain why you don't agree with it. Anthon01 (talk) 18:42, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm beginning to catch on. I am not to question or debate the validity of a device just the validity of the actual textual entries....correct? 160.94.59.3 (talk)flargnog Dec17 —Preceding comment was added at 16:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. That's all we can do here at Wikipedia. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Precisely. You can add text if your want but you need to have citations to support the text, especially if your text is provacative and likely to draw demands of proof from other wikipedians. The goal is to add verifiable text (WP:V) from reliable sources (WP:RS) written from a neutral point of view (WP:POV). For instance, you may want to add text that perhaps debunks "Activator Technique." Perhaps you are not sure of how to word it or of the value of the source you are quoting. The syntax and/or the value of the source could be 'worked on' with input from other wikipedians, on this page before adding it to the article. Sometimes it is done that way on contentious pages, as many alt-med pages are. Anthon01 (talk) 23:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

So now there is an ADVERTISEMENT on the page linking to a for profit page that still has nothing on it about how it actually works??? I looked hard and long...same fluff.Flargnog (talk)flargnog dec20 07 —Preceding comment was added at 20:50, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I removed the advertisement. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:38, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Activator technique. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522134120/http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid%3A7595107 to http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid%3A7595107
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110522134220/http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid%3A11441382 to http://lib.bioinfo.pl/pmid%3A11441382

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:11, 26 June 2017 (UTC)

Pro-Adjuster

I would like to see information about the Pro-Adjuster device added to this page; it seems like an appropriate place for it. About 20 years ago, my father and I saw a chiropractor who used the Pro-Adjuster as his primary technique. We would have our appointments together, and each of us would watch as the other received our adjustments.

The device is similar to the one currently described in this article, except that it has two prongs about an inch apart, and is also connected to a computer. The chiropractor first presses the device once on each vertebra, during which process the computer measures the relative response from the spring-loaded action onto each prong to determine that vertebra's alignment, and thus builds a "map" of the spine. This allows the chiropractor to identify which vertebrae are most severely misaligned, and then he can select an individual vertebra to manipulate, and the computer will determine the appropriate parameters for the device's motorized operation (such as frequency, intensity, etc.). Then he will hold the device against the chosen vertebra and it will deliver a series of controlled impacts, like a tiny jackhammer.

This method is the reason we were comfortable in using the chiropractor's services, as there was actual measurement and precision involved.

However, my knowledge is limited to my personal experience, and would not make for a good source, and I don't have the time to do the appropriate research, so I'm hoping that maybe someone else is interested. Perhaps it'd be better for someone else to do it anyway, as I might have difficulty contributing in an unbiased manner on this topic.

Thanks, Dansiman (talk|Contribs) 16:31, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It would warrant its own article instead of a spot on this page, as Activator Methods is a specific technique with no relation to the ProAdjuster technique that I can see. I doubt it would meet GNG as well. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 14:32, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

It seems pretty similar to this device. They may be different tools, but both involve low force impacts to the person, presumably causing Motor unit recruitment, no? Maybe a paragraph on this article with appropriate references. I also doubt it would meet GNG criteria. MartinezMD (talk) 20:15, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Going to have to disagree. This page is called Activator technique, not low-force instrumented-assisted chiropractic devices. The tool may look similar (though really, it doesn't), but the process, the technique, and the analysis don't share any overlap. The only similarity is that you hold both in your hand. The same could be said for a dozen other chiropractic devices (Integrator, Arthro-stim, Impulse, Erchonia, VF adjuster, etc..) The Pro-Adjuster would only fit in a "See Also" section as a wiki link to a new page. Putting it in this article would be akin to putting a note about Tylenol in the Ibuprofen article. Just my 2 cents as someone in the profession. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 12:43, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

I take your point. Perhaps that would have been the better article, chiropractic impact devices, then they could have included several that did not merit their own article but could be covered. MartinezMD (talk) 14:47, 16 July 2022 (UTC)

Luckily, we have a page for that. Chiropractic treatment techniques. SEMMENDINGER (talk) 21:48, 17 July 2022 (UTC)

Then I'd think that could be a good spot for it. MartinezMD (talk) 01:13, 18 July 2022 (UTC)