Talk:Subluxation

Definitions

I understand that there are two different definitions of subluxation:

• one used by chiropracters
• one used by "standard" Western medicine

It might be good to state both of these definitions first, before examining arguments or claims about them. --Uncle Ed 21:38 Mar 25, 2003 (UTC)

There are two different categories of the word subluxation in use. The medical categories are used in relation to describing situations when bones are out of joint; chiropracters, unfortunately, have no one official definition of subluxation; rather, they have nearly a dozen different definitions of the term, many of which contradict each other. The field of chiropractic medicine has never agreed on what a subluxation is, or how one may be detected. This is one of the reasons that the reformer party of chiropractic medicine (see the section on them in the main article) holds that chiropractic subluxations can only be held as a religious belief. The best this article can do is summarize the different ways that people define this word, and try to explain why so many different definitions exist. RK

This article has too much info on the controversy about "chiropractic subluxation", and almost no info (besides a stub) about real subluxations. I have almost zero medical knowledge, so I can't do it myself, but I think the article should be fleshed up with a description of subluxations as understood by science, and move the rest to (or merge with) Chiropractic medicine, with a note to the reader. --Pablo D. Flores 14:58, 22 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you want to add information about "real" subluxations from a scientific, medical point of view, please feel free to do so. Make sure to Cite sources. Nonetheless, esential information can be into two articles. Many articles in Wikipedia share paragraphs, because many subjects simply make no sense as standalone definitions. Any article on subluxation needs to explain what the term is and how people have used it. RK 21:40, May 8, 2005 (UTC)

Calling them "real" subluxations isn't the best way to avoid accusations of bias from the chiropractic community. Perhaps a designation of orthopedic subluxation to distinguish from chiropractic subluxations would be less divisive. I'll agree the article lacks any sort of content regarding orthopedic subluxation. Without any genuine medical knowledge, however, I'm reluctant to add it myself. ----Llewdor 14:53, 16 June 2005

This should be a disambiguation page, not a factual treatment of both definitions. There is no verifiable empirical evidence for the existence of Chiropractic subluxations, so the only "facts" relevant to them are the opinions of both sides. 128.12.20.107 02:47, 23 June 2005

Subluxations can be fuzzier than commonly recognized medically in connective tissue disorders, too. RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 22:24, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Actually, on further reflection, I would posit that there are three kinds. First, the quack-chiropractor kind: just about everyone has subluxations that are giving them autism, etc. The second is the traditional black and white medical view: if you can't see it on an x-ray, it isn't there. Third is what I might call the mixed view: not everyone has subluxations and they aren't causing weird random stuff. However, they may cause pain and you may or may not be able to see them on an x-ray. Regardless, if it is there, you should see some improvement or at least change if you correct it. This is a view held by a number of physical therapists, for example. The standard definition seems to be that a subluxation is when a joint comes out of place but not completely out of the socket (hence SUBluxation, as opposed to luxation, more commonly called dislocation). Whether it shows up on an xray is sort of an arbitrary distinction in my opinion: what if we get better xrays? Anyway, I would suggest that this article define subluxation as a partial dislocation of a joint, which seems to be the main point, and then have a section that discusses different uses of the term. To some extent I think that naming who supports which view will speak for itself in terms of credibility.

Could also mention the gray areas, like slipping rib syndrome. I think this would be the most objective way to frame things and would focus the article on the main point rather than on one detail. RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 23:17, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Divide *and* merge

True enough, but both subjects should be covered in one article to avoid a fork (improper Wikipedia practice).

There are real "orthopedic" subluxations, and then chiropractic "Vertebral subluxations." The orthopedic ones could be covered very shortly (in fact they are so real that they don't even need an article, just a definition!), while the chiropractic ones will be a battleground, with never ending discussions, not only between chiropractic true believers and chiroskeptics, but between chiropractors themselves, since there is still great disagreement within the profession, with whole organizations devoted to different definitions, the ACA on one side, the ICA and WCA on another, and the NACM completely renouncing the metaphysical and theosophical chiropractic subluxation hypothesis (and thus in agreement with science and medicine):

The first and foremost requirement for membership in the NACM is that a Doctor of Chiropractic Medicine renounce the chiropractic hypothesis and/or philosophy; that is, the tenets upon which their scope of practice is based. The original chiropractic hypothesis, stated simply, is that "subluxation is the cause of dis-ease." Modern day chiropractic associations may have expanded and changed this simple statement for the public, but the reality is that this remains the backbone of chiropractic education and practice to this day. In clarification, the term "subluxation" has never been defined by the profession in a way as to have universal acceptance within the chiropractic profession. Chiropractic "subluxation" is not the same as medical subluxation, which represents a partial dislocation of joint structure and would be a contraindication to "adjusting" or "manipulating" the joint structures. Chiropractic "subluxation," not having universal definition, and, thereby, not having received universal scientific status of existence, has evolved into a metaphysical status. Further, the profession has neither defined nor outlined what disease or "dis-ease" that the correction of the "subluxation" might cure or affect. Because the hypothesis has found no validity in universally accepted, peer-reviewed, published scientific journals, belief in the hypothesis, then, is essentially a theosophy. Science has not found any organ system pathology which "adjustment" or "manipulation" of spinal joint structures has effect; that is, no disease or "dis-ease" process is affected.

For these reasons, members of the NACM renounce the chiropractic hypothesis as a basis for their scope of practice. NACM (emphasis original)

A summary: The NACM considers the chiropractic "subluxation" to be a "chiropractic hypothesis and/or philosophy" that has attained a "metaphysical status," such that "belief in the hypothesis, then, is essentially a theosophy."

Thus the suggestion of making a short disambiguation page isn't all that bad, but another solution might be better - simply use two existing articles:

• 1. One short one (this one) devoted to orthopedic subluxations. Since they are objectively confirmable and symptomatic, there is no dispute about their definition or existence.

• 2. Merge the chiro stuff into Vertebral subluxation, where it belongs. To maintain a NPOV, that page should then contain two sections representing the chiropractic claims and the chiroskeptic claims regarding the subject matter. Let them claim what they wish, as long as they label it a claim.

It's not certain that Wikipedia will allow this, since the scientific viewpoint is considered the majority viewpoint, and thus NPOV, while chiropractic's unscientific claims will have to be labeled as claims.

• End result: This article remains to represent the real orthopedic subluxation (since no one, including chiropractors, is in doubt about it), and the chiropractic content here (with only a link remaining) gets moved and merged into the Vertebral subluxation article. (Let the battles happen somewhere else than here.)

The only advantage to allowing them both to remain on the same page here would be for chiroskeptics, who would love to have everyone in cyberspace who seeks for information at Wikipedia for "subluxation," discover that chiropractic's dirty underwear is hanging on the same page. The quackery in chiropractic should be exposed for what it is.

"Vertebral subluxation" is an exclusively chiropractic term, one rarely heard anywhere else. Thus it is the proper chiropractic term for their mythical, illusory, and evasive "subluxation." Not being a concrete entity, they can never really "pin it down."

It differs from the orthopedic subluxation in innumerable ways, with a disproportionately large amount of chiropractic and chiroskeptic literature being devoted exclusively to its discussion. That's what always happens with fantasifuld metaphysical concepts. When free fantasy is allowed to do the defining, the definitions become myriad and controversial. No other subject divides the chiropractic profession more than discussions of "subluxations," nor provides more mirth to chiroskeptics when they observe these antics and exercises in creative and delusional thinking.

What's incredible is that this delusional belief in an illusory fantasy is the foundation of the profession, which is why it is categorized as a pseudoscience and intimately involved with quackery in many ways.

• More: Chiropractic's Elusive Subluxation

-- Fyslee 21:52, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

First off (and this is not an attempt to be contentious - just a point of etiquette) calling vertebral subluxations "mythical" in bold print (as you have done above) is not a very friendly way to begin what you are proposing. Following this route would surely lead to another page such as what Chiropractic has become: a confusing article that is essential a litany of point/counterpoint agruments in alternating sentences. I don't think a good Wikipedia article should be - as you describe - a "battleground". An article like "Vertebral Subluxation" should be written from the perspective of the people who know most about Vertebral Subluxations and work to correct them everyday - chiropractors. But I agree with you: the skeptics point-of-view should be entirely contained within a separate section. Keeping these point-of-views distinct from each other will prevent this from becoming another muttled hard-to-read article where every other sentence is: This-side-believes-this and here's their supporting reference while this-side-believes-the-exact-opposite and here's their supporting reference. Levine2112 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Is the argument that vertebra cannot sublux? I ask this because they can in fact sublux. For example, atlantoaxial subluxation is recognized in mainstream medical literature. So vertebral subluxation is a confusing term. RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 22:26, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Merging

I would like to take a shot at realizing the suggested merge. This would mean removing the chiropractic concept from this article and moving it to the vertebral subluxation article. I will attempt to retain everything in both articles, eliminating only duplicate paragraphs (there are two). I will attempt to refrain from adding any more material in the process. Once accomplished (and before any further editing begins) I would appreciate comments on whether I have accomplished the merge successfully. If so, then further editing can begin by whoever feels the burden. Any rearranging can be done then.

What do you all think of the idea? This is simply a merge, not a real editing of meaningful content, and I promise to be as fair and neutral as possible. -- Fyslee 23:17, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

If this is important to you and how you wish to spend your time, please, feel free. But you have already demonstrated that "fair and neutral" is a difficult concept for you, when it comes to chiropractic. Why would you suddenly be interested in this now? Is this another way to create more links and traffic for you and Stephen Barrett? Steth 00:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The idea of merging has already been aired....

I have always been interested in an accurate, rather than one-sided, presentation of these subjects:

Wikipedia's NPOV policy must not be misused so it becomes synonymous with revisionism, censorship, whitewashing, or political correctness. One must present both sides of any controversy. To leave out one side amounts to promoting the other side's POV. Wikipedia should include more information than other encyclopedias, not less.

One must:

• present the facts about each side's POV, but
• not present each side's POV as facts

IOW, just tell the story without taking sides.

When editing articles, it is improper to fight for one's own POV at the expense of another POV. One should simply ensure that both POV are presented (not preached) accurately.

One should:

• Not tell the truth (subjective & personal) about the subject, (selling)
• But tell the facts (objective & documented) about the viewpoint. (presenting)

This may well include documenting what each side thinks of the other side's POV.

As far as "links and traffic" is concerned, I'm not sure what you are referring to, since there is no money or personal gain in it. Provision of information is of course always important, and it applies to all parties and websites, so no one has a right to point fingers. Such accusations are like the internet users who accuse other internet users of wasting time on the internet. They seem to forget that it cuts both ways. Ad hominem attacks are a waste of time. While sometimes hard to resist, it's best to deal with documentable facts, quotes and URLs.

I'll proceed to make the merge. Please comment here on the finished result when it's in place. I'll write here when I'm done. -- Fyslee 00:31, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. To make it easy to compare the original pages with the new one, they are temporarily left as is, and a temporary merge page can be found here.

I have provided all the necessary links to make comparisons. You can open them each in separate windows and compare them. If you think all the content has been transferred correctly, please comment here. If I've made any mistakes, please tell me what they are and I'll correct them. Please don't begin to edit it until the other articles are altered and the new one is in place. -- Fyslee 00:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Looks like a good start. I suppose it's kind of hard to separate Chiropractic history and Vertebral Subluxation as the two are seemingly married. Levine2112 01:00, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

Very true. VS is the most fundamental brick in the foundation of chiropractic:

"Crelin showed that one of the bedrock principles of chiropractic - the hypothesis that the vertebral pinching of spinal nerves impairs nerve functioning - is almost certainly invalid. Chiro-practic without this principle is analogous to meridianless acu-puncture." -Craig F. Nelson, DC

-- Fyslee 01:53, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The merging of both articles is now completed. I hope the result is satisfactory. I have added a stub tag to the subluxation article, since it could easily be expanded.

In case you're curious about the difference between a chiropractic vertebral subluxation and an orthopedic subluxation, here are two searches. Orthopedic subluxations are rarely amenable to HVLA manipulation, in fact it is usually contraindicted:

• chiropractic subluxation

• subluxation (minus chiropractic)

-- Fyslee 02:08, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

The skeptical POV

Curious... what would the skeptical point-of-view be here other than some MDs, some researchers, and even a small handful of DCs don't believe that "Vertebral Subluxations" exist? What else is there to say after you argue something out of existence? Any scientific research mentioned in the article in support of the existence of Vertebral Sublaxation would obviously be rejected by skeptics. I would think that the sum of the skeptical point-of-view could be expressed in a small paragraph (if not a sentence or two) unless there is something else you would like to see in this article other than there being not enough scientific evidence to satisfy your defintion of "proof of existence". Is there any another points that you would like to express here besides that? Levine2112 07:35, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for removing "mythical". Now what about my final question above? Levine2112 03:14, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

It's still mythical, but I decided to expand it by quoting the understanding of the science-based chiropractors in the NACM.

As for your question, ever heard of debunking? While that wouldn't actually be necessary, it could be indulged in.....;-) Since verifiability is an excellent policy, it should be easy enough. Since true skepticism doesn't require disproof of extraordinary claims, simply requiring proof for those claims would normally be enough:

• "In science, the burden of proof falls upon the claimant; and the more extraordinary a claim, the heavier is the burden of proof demanded. The true skeptic takes an agnostic position, one that says the claim is not proved rather than disproved. He asserts that the claimant has not borne the burden of proof and that science must continue to build its cognitive map of reality without incorporating the extraordinary claim as a new "fact." Since the true skeptic does not assert a claim, he has no burden to prove anything. He just goes on using the established theories of "conventional science" as usual. But if a critic asserts that there is evidence for disproof, that he has a negative hypothesis --saying, for instance, that a seeming psi result was actually due to an artifact--he is making a claim and therefore also has to bear a burden of proof." - Marcello Truzzi, Zetetic Scholar, #12-13, 1987.

Other good quotes:

• "The brightest flashes in the world of thought are incomplete until they have been proven to have their counterparts in the world of fact." - John Tyndall (1820-1893), physicist

• "It is wrong always, everywhere, and for anyone, to believe anything upon insufficient evidence." - William Kingdon Clifford

• "A habit of basing convictions upon evidence, and of giving to them only that degree of certainty which the evidence warrants, would, if it became general, cure most of the ills from which this world is suffering." - Bertrand Russell

James Randi has put up a "One Million Dollar Challenge" prize for proof of the existence of many paranormal phenomena, including "Chiropractic Healing (beyond back/joint problems)."[1]

Since you're so certain (unlike many chiros) that correcting non-existent subluxations improves one's general health (beyond manipulation for back/joint problems], maybe you should claim the prize! Just provide the scientific proof. No one has succeeded yet. -- Fyslee 23:04, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

So what else do you want to express in this Subluxation article other than some people think it doesn't exist? You want to put the quotes and mention the Randi challenge? That all seems so tangetially related to vertebral subluxation that it would be imporper to put it here. The quotes have nothing to with vertebral subluxation other than providing philosophies for skeptics of anything (including subluxation) to follow. They would be great additions to the "skeptics" page, I would imagine. The Randi challenge doesn't directly mention vertebral subluxations either - just Chiropractic healing. That seems well suited for Skepticism section of Chiropractic. But here, it would be just a tangent that would shift the focus away from what this article is all about. Let's not turn this article into a battleground as you suggest. Let's keep it clear-cut and focused. So once again I ask, other than saying that there are specific people and organizations that are skeptical of Vertebral Subluxations, what else would you like to see be a part of Critcism section of this article? Levine2112 23:34, 13 February 2006 (UTC)

What I wrote above wasn't necessarily contents for the article, but an explanation for the thought processes behind possible debunking and skeptical viewpoints regarding whatever was posted on the Pro portion. The longer the Pro portion, the more stuff in the Skeptical portion. Each non-verifiable source, false concept, misused link to research, etc., in the Pro portion would need to be countered, either by demanding verification, or by debunking each point, as I did with some of your research links, where I showed that they weren't deserving of any respect as proof for your claims. Such misuse can be pointed out, or sometimes directly countered by better research.

Your sentence above is interesting:

• "So what else do you want to express in this Subluxation article other than some people think it doesn't exist?"

Keep in mind that the burden of proof is on chiropractors to prove its existence. They haven't done that yet, which is why they continue to argue about its definition, and can never agree on the location or treatment of subluxations. It seems to be a mental concept that can be manipulated at will by the use of words, which are then used in patient "education" (brainwashing, suggestion). That's why subluxations can be treated using so many modalities, including not even touching the patient.

One could say that each attempt to justify a belief in subluxations by the Pro side will provide more opportunity for the skeptic side to wash chiropractic's dirty underwear in public, so all can see how ludicrous it is. -- Fyslee 05:45, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Washing chiropractic's dirty laundry

Can you please explain why you interpret contributing to an encyclopedic article to be an invitation to wash dirty laundry? Steth 16:36, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

(What I write below also applies to the other chiro related articles you edit.....)

I don't consider it to be an "invitation," but rather a requirement for maintaining a NPOV, considering your own and Levine2112's intentions. Your planning and track record speak for itself. You are hanging "dirty" laundry in the article, and it needs to be "washed." At some point in time it will be deleted or edited, either by myself or someone else. If not now, maybe tomorrow, next month, or next year. If you want your edits to stand the test of time, stop selling and whitewashing chiropractic.

Just present all sides of the subject in a factual and neutral way, both the negative and the positive. That means the positive from the chiro viewpoint, and the negative from the skeptical viewpoint. It just needs to be labeled as such. Right now you even attempt to change the negative so it reflects the chiro viewpoint. Down playing one side is POV editing. The article currently contains too many inaccuracies, false claims, and POV.

Here's what I wrote to Levine2112:

"One could say that each attempt to justify a belief in subluxations by the Pro side would provide more opportunity for the skeptic side to wash chiropractic's dirty underwear in public, so all could see how ludicrous it was."

If you are both careful to not hang the profession's ludicrous "dirty" laundry in the article(s), then no problem (more later), but I have little hope of that happening. I doubt that Levine2112 (who isn't even a chiro, but maybe a CA(?)) could stick to a neutral presentation, but will continually attempt to "sell" and whitewash chiropractic. The history of your (both of you) edits reveals a systematic twisting of the article towards an old fashioned chiro true believer's POV (without NPOV qualifying statements or words), and systematic deletions or changes to reduce the chances of readers discovering that there are two opposing POV, that the criticisms are as widespread as they are, or that they are considered to be legitimate by the medical world and scientists. That's revisionism and extremely POV editing, when you don't allow factual statements to stand as is, or when you reword criticisms so they end up appearing to be exceptions, or even end up as endorsements instead of criticisms. (Okay, "endorsements" might be too strong a word......;-)

Only a few of the many serious criticisms have been presented, and they have been presented neutrally, and thus conformed to NPOV and should be left standing. When they haven't been totally neutral, they have been corrected, but when it's done by you or Levine, you go too far.

Both sides should be presented, but done in a NPOV way. You guys push your viewpoint relatively unchecked (I have other things to do besides this) and also systematically work at downtoning criticism and eliminating any critical links, using arguments that reveal a misunderstanding of standard and legitimate internet linking practices. If I were to apply those same arguments to the advocacy links, most of them would also be deleted.

"Washing dirty laundry" - in the sense I used it - refers to debunking of nonsensical or inaccurate information. When you guys add inaccurate or obviously biased information ("dirty" laundry) to the article, it will need to be "washed" (debunked). My expression meant nothing more than that. It's actually a pretty simple concept. It can be done by demanding verifiable sources, NPOVing, deleting, or addition of balancing content. That's what NPOVing is all about. If the subject were something non-controversial it wouldn't be that difficult, but as long as non-chiropractors - who aren't deeply involved in the controversies and understand both sides - are doing the editing, it seems to be necessary.

If you can stick to the best arguments (no wild claims) and use only the best documentation (no N=1 case studies), you'll have much less trouble. I could even make the pro side quite strong for you, but that's your job. If you screw it up, it's not just your problem, it makes chiropractic look worse than necessary, and that's what's happening. -- Fyslee 21:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

You have a very clear way in expressing what NPOV is, however I think you are going too easy on yourself and too hard on us. You have tilted the scales of NPOV balance way out of whack with regards to chiropractic. You insist on adding criticism and wild claims against chiropractic... I and others have tried to delete these for NPOV reasons but you jump all over us with wrongful claims of vandalism. So our next approach was to balance your negativity with more positive statements. This still isn't satisfying you. Clearly, the only view that you deem acceptible on Wikipedia is your own.

You have an anti-chiro agenda. You contribute, webmaster, and super-moderate many anti-chiro/chiro hate sites. Your hate for the profession is obvious and well documented. Well, Wikipedia is not one of your anti-chiro hate blogs or chatboards. It is a place for encyclopedic knowledge, not bickering. You accuse us of pushing our viewpoint when you clearly are the only bully here. Levine2112 00:44, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I second Levine's incredibly clear assessment. I couldn't have said it any better! Steth 05:37, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Um... actually, apparently there are more than "two" definitions of subluxation...

Hi guys:

I have been told, repeatedly, for the last thirty years, that I in fact have "subluxated" lenses in my eyes.

I don't need to cite any sources; I am the source. I can't see properly without thick glasses. And this is because I HAVE Marfan's syndrome.

Anyone who wants to dispute this may, but you will have to prove to me that I can see without said glasses. I know that some people think that I could see by using "eye exercises." That only works when you are talking about muscles that surround a healthy, properly-positioned lens inside of the eye itself. Sadly, in my case, the lens is almost completely out of the line of sight (between the pupil and the retinal wall).

I also have a cateract, at least one, in my right eye. (The left lens is still, thankfully, out of sight). Unfortunately for me, the right lens became dislodged in 2004, and is now a floater. It bounces around; depending on which way I'm looking, up, down, or sideways, I can see the lens. It is all but opaque.

You may find more about Marfan's by clicking on http://www.webmd.com, or by visiting http://www.marfan.org.

Thank you.

- Sammy James

I'm sure you will be pleased to see that our resident ophthalmologist has added this feature to the article. Thanks to User:AED! -- Fyslee 21:25, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

YES! Thank you. I really enjoyed reading that description. It is not only accurate, but also filled with medical terms that I am incapable of writing, because I'm not a doctor. Of course, it is "jargon," but hey -- I use jargon when I discuss music and audio engineering. It isn't a bad idea to learn medical jargon anyway, especially when you, like me, talk to lots of doctors.

Thanks again. Take care.

- Sammy James

You can also sublux vertebra. See atlantoaxial subluxation. There are also things that may or may not be classified as subluxation. See slipping rib syndrome, for example. RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 22:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Split into DAB page

Just wondering what people think overall for a subluxation disambig page: One with the medicine, one with opthamology, one with orthopedics, one with chiro. What do people think?

• Support --Deon555|talk 00:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. . Unnecessary, as it already functions fine in that way. Wikilinks can be added. The chiro part already does it. -- Fyslee 19:34, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

• Oppose. The ophthalmology and orthopedic usages of the term are simply specific applications of the general term. I like it as is. -AED 04:55, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Hyper- hypomobility

The sentence I had deleted was:

• "The chiropractic definition of a subluxation refers to joint hypomobility, whereas the medical definition of a subluxation refers to joint hypermobility."

That sentence is too simple (in two senses) to encompass the concept. The vertebral subluxation article is a better place to get into this, but for this discussion page I'll attempt a short explanation:

The chiropractic concept often includes hypomobility, but not always. The medical definition refers to position, regardless of mobility.

My apologies for not leaving an edit summary. -- Fyslee 22:15, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Whatever. You will of course insert something like that into the article? Moriori 02:35, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll let someone else do it if they think it's that important, but it includes so many imprecisions as to be a waste of (my) time to deal with it now. -- Fyslee 09:55, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

WHO ref

Why does opthamological def have a ref for who/chiro?--Hughgr 05:38, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

It doesn't. Maybe you're thinking of the medical definition? There the WHO reference is included because it clearly contrasts the medical and chiropractic definitions. The wording from the WHO quote is used and/or adapted to apply the relevant parts to the two definitions. I added the word "necessarily" because the chiropractic vertebral subluxation can (rarely) include real medical subluxations, and therefore be visible on X-ray at those times. On such occasions it would usually be considered (by MDs and PTs) a contraindication to the use of HVLA manipulation. -- Fyslee 09:53, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

Add hip joint

I'm working on the hip dysplasia {human} page and wanted to link here for subluxation. I was surprised that the hip was not mentioned under "medical" here. I don't want to stir too many pots, so if s.o. could please add a few words on subluxated hips I'd be happy. Lisa4edit —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.236.23.111 (talk) 14:45, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Why does it say "{{disambig}}"?

Why does this article contain "{{disambig}}"? Is it perhaps "left over" from some in the past when there were multiple articles about Subluxation? Should it be removed now? --Mike Schwartz (talk) 06:43, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

It functions as a Wikipedia:Disambiguation page. More information can be found at the respective articles. That's why the content is in summary style. The medical part contains the whole subject from a mainstream medical standpoint, and therefore there is no other article. An objective anatomical reality is easy to describe and requires no more, while the chiropractic version needs a whole article, since it is a controversial subject without any objective proof for its reality. -- Fyslee (talk) 05:25, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Chiropractic is medicine, just not conventional medicine

as per the cited sentence in the Wikipedia article alternative medicine, "In Western culture, the term 'alternative medicine' refers to any healing practice "that does not fall within the realm of conventional medicine".[1]" Orthopedic and Opthamalic medicine fall under Conventional medicine. I agree Chiropractic medicine should not fall under Conventional medicine - it is more Alternative medicine - but to say that Chiropractic is not medicine at all is POV. --stmrlbs|talk 02:08, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Miriam Webster Dictionary definition of Medicine:

Main Entry: med·i·cine

Pronunciation: \ˈme-də-sən, British usually ˈmed-sən\

Function: noun

Etymology: Middle English, from Anglo-French, from Latin medicina, from feminine of medicinus of a physician, from medicus

Date: 13th century

1 a : a substance or preparation used in treating disease b : something that affects well-being

2 a : the science and art dealing with the maintenance of health and the prevention, alleviation, or cure of disease b : the branch of medicine concerned with the nonsurgical treatment of disease

3 : a substance (as a drug or potion) used to treat something other than disease

4 : an object held in traditional American Indian belief to give control over natural or magical forces; also  : magical power or a magical rite

--stmrlbs|talk 02:24, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

There is medicine, and then there is that which is not medicine, but which can still be considered health care. We basically have two main sections, one dealing with medical health care, and one dealing with chiropractic health care. An examination of the medicine article makes it plain that chiropractic is not even mentioned as part of medicine, and it is not even classified as a subspecialty of medicine. Most chiropractors still object to the efforts of the National Association for Chiropractic Medicine to call their reform version of chiropractic "medicine". Likewise in Florida, where a school of chiropractic medicine has been attempted, it has created much controversy in the profession. When the profession officially classifies itself as a part of medicine, then you'll have at least some fringe (and controversial) support for your proposition, but you don't even have that much at present. In this regard you can't rely on a simple definition of the word, but must have a knowledge of the history, controversies, and traditions, in which the use of the word has been developed. Dictionaries don't usually include such things. Even if the chiropractic profession officially chose to name itself the "chiropractic medicine" profession, the profession of medicine doesn't classify chiropractic as a subspecialty, but as a separate form of health care.

Actually this issue needs to be cleared up in the medicine, alternative medicine and chiropractic articles, using V & RS, before applying the findings here. Starting here with such a fundamental discussion and issue would be doing things backwards.

If you're going to insist on this, then we'll have to create a subheading for Alternative medicine, with chiropractic as a very noticeable and embarrassing subsection. At present the distinction isn't presented so clearly, which is more comfortable for chiropractic, and thus a merciful way of dealing with this situation. I considered doing it long ago but decided not to do it. If you insist, the difference can be made plain, but I doubt that chiropractors will be happy with placing such a red flag beside their profession. BTW, have you read the vertebral subluxation article, and the sources used there?

BTW, you need to quickly self-revert your revert. That was edit warring. The WP:BRD cycle isn't intended to include a second revert, which yours was. What you did correctly was to at least start this discussion, which is commendable, but the revert was improper and should be reversed until a consensus is reached. If we can't resolve this, then an RfC will be necessary, but maybe we can work this out peacefully. -- Brangifer (talk) 03:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

BullRangifer, perhaps what can be called medicine and what can not would be something that should be discussed on the content notice board. Evidently, you don't agree with the Miriam Webster Dictionary definition or how medicine is defined here on Wikipedia. Even MayoClinic recommends Chiropractic in some circumstances [2], and they talk about it in terms of "conventional care vs chiropractic". So, my change to the section header is not inappropriate, but in accordance to how Chiropractic is viewed even by Mayo Clinic.

However, wouldn't a compromise and more NPOV way of presenting this subject be a general description of what a Subluxation is, then the differences between Orthopedics, Opthamology, and Chiropractic as 3 separate sections?

as for your saying that I am edit-warring, please look again at what I did:

1. [3] BullRangifer changes Chiropractic from a subsection of "medicine" to a separate section. Implication: Chiropractic is not medicine.
2. [4] I think, based on the definition of medicine from Miriam Webster Dictionary, and how medicine is described on wikipedia, to make the section more descriptive of what the differentiation is between opthamology, orthopedics, and chiropractic - hence the change of the first section from medicine to conventional medicine. This is not a revert
3. [5] You revert my change to make the section header more descriptive
4. [6] I revert you with an explanation of why I changed the header on the section from medicine to conventional medicine. This is my first revert. Not my 2nd.

--stmrlbs|talk 06:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

My first edit was to just restore the longstanding consensus format. It wasn't a bold change. Apparently some undiscussed changes, including vandalism, had occurred without being noticed, and I simply restored things, and I also fixed the vandalism when I discovered it. One of those undiscussed changes (which was not vandalism) was Levine2112's change of the heading level. You are both chiropractic supporters and wish to make chiropractic seem more accepted than it is. I understand that, but this isn't the way to do it. You apparently thought I was making some radical change, when all I was doing was restoring the longstanding consensus version. When you reverted me, that was your first revert. You later reverted me again. I am giving you the chance to revert your second reversion. We should have been talking before you did that and come to a consensus that the longstanding version needed to be changed. We hadn't done that yet. Please restore the longstanding version. When this discussion is finished, maybe you'll get your way.

The discussions about whether a chiropractic adjustment or a spinal manipulation can be an effective treatment for back pain are still ongoing. There is some evidence that it can be useful for that alone, but not for all the other dubious claims made for chiropractic adjustments. (Note that MDs, DOs, and PTs do not make dubious claims that spinal manipulation can heal all kinds of diseases.) Keep in mind that this article is only about a word, not these discussions for or against how to use adjustments. This really has nothing to do with the topic at hand. This isn't about a treatment method (adjustments or spinal manipulation) but about the word "subluxation". Chiropractic is still considered alternative medicine, not real medicine, and is not included as a subspecialty of medicine, nor mentioned in the medicine article. Get that fixed and you might be able to apply that here. If you succeed, the controversial differences between medical subluxations and the chiropractic VS will need to be more clearly explained here. I don't think that's a good idea. Keep this article simple and leave that discussion for the VS article.

The fact that chiropractors don't want their profession to be classed as a subspecialty within medicine is very telling. They have always maintained that chiropractic is not medicine. Many chiropractors have been arrested throughout the years for practicing medicine without a license, and their successful defense has been that they were not practicing medicine, but practicing chiropractic, which is not medicine. You've got lots of history, typical chiropractic use of the word "medicine" (they don't like it), and numerous legal precedents against you.

There are other very good reasons for not including VS under the same section as the medicine section, as it is a totally unrelated concept. It's a philosophical one and not an undisputed and proven anatomical reality, like the medical ones listed. It is a hotly disputed concept (especially within the profession) and has very little resemblance to any real medical subluxation. Even chiropractors, some of them leaders, admit it doesn't exist, that it is a dubious concept, and is an embarrassment to the profession.

This article has always been a form of disambiguation page, so the sections have been very simple and short. The full details of the controversial nature of the VS have been reserved for the main Vertebral subluxation article itself. Having VS in a separate section with a main heading that announces that we are now leaving medicine, and talking about alternative medicine, can be justified, but that would be overkill and not very nice to chiropractors. The discrete use of a different level was and is enough. This disambiguation article isn't the place to deal with the conflict, and your change will be doing that. It will require that the differences between real, objectively verifiable, and totally undisputed medical subluxations be constrasted with the dubious chiropractic vertebral subluxation, a controversial, unproven, and fictive concept. I think if you'll step back and look at the situation, leaving the original, longstanding consensus version is much more discrete, and doesn't use this article as a place for discusssing the controversies surround the VS. That is done (far from completely) in the VS article. Do you really want to draw more attention to chiropractic's dirty laundry here? I think not, and I have always chosen to keep it out of this article. That's my way of being kind to chiropractic. As a supporter you should appreciate that. Brangifer (talk) 14:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Please show me where consensus was reached about this. I don't see consensus reached on this page.

As for NCAM, I looked it up. It is a minority organization, and I couldn't even find a website for the organization, or an up-to-date phone number. Which leads me to believe you are quoting from a defunct organization. If you do have a website for this organization, why don't you add it to the NCAM article?

This is supposed to just be an encyclopedic article on Sublaxation, not an soundboard for your beliefs about chiropractic and whether it is "real" medicine or not. If you don't want 3 separate sections, as I suggested earlier as a NPOV way to present it, and if you want to present Chiropractic as being separate from the Opthamalogy and Orthopedic, then I think the Conventional Medicine is a heading that better describes the distinction. Like I said, even Mayo Clinic describes it this way. --stmrlbs|talk 18:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Why not simply replace the section with a hatnote:

For chiropractic subluxation, see Vertebral subluxation.

Despite the similarity in name, it is a vastly different concept, and this would remove the need to recapitulate all the explanations over at that article. - 2/0 (cont.) 23:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, that's an excellent suggestion. It's so different that it doesn't really belong here, but just like any other situation where similar words are used, a hatnote is provided for the convenience of readers. Let's do that and avoid confusing people. Brangifer (talk) 00:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type

Subluxations and dislocations are common; they may occur spontaneously or with minimal trauma and can be acutely painful.

Reference: Levy HP. Ehlers-Danlos Syndrome, Hypermobility Type. 2004 Oct 22 [Updated 2016 Mar 31]. In: Pagon RA, Adam MP, Ardinger HH, et al., editors. GeneReviews® [Internet]. Seattle (WA): University of Washington, Seattle; 1993-2016. Available from: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK1279/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.82.212.25 (talk) 21:48, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

Xrays

Is it really true that they can always be seen on xrays? Doesn't it depend on how obvious they are and the skill of the radiologist? RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 22:22, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Additionally, craniocervical instability is usually determined with an upright MRI. RareDiseaseWikiFacts (talk) 23:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would like to add to this by stating subluxation of cartilage as seen in slipping rib syndrome is not visible on x-rays. The sources used are outdated, the one from 2003 is a primary resource. I am interested in if there are any updates reviews or meta analysis on subluxations that challenge this claim. Jebbles (talk) 00:37, 16 July 2021 (UTC)