Editing Subluxation (section)

== Chiropractic ==

{{main|Vertebral subluxation}}

Unlike real subluxations, the [[pseudoscience|pseudoscientific]] concept of a [[chiropractic]] "[[vertebral subluxation]]" may or may not be visible on x-rays. Nor may it involve a significant displacement or even pain or clear dysfunction.<ref name="WHO_guidelines">{{cite book |title=WHO guidelines on basic training and safety in chiropractic |date=2005 |publisher=World Health Organization |isbn=978-92-4-159371-7 |hdl=10665/43352 |hdl-access=free |page= 4, including footnote }}</ref> [[Chiropractic#Straights and mixers|Straight chiropractors]] claim that vertebral subluxation has considerable health effects and also add a visceral component to the definition. Mainstream medicine and some [[Chiropractic#Straights and mixers|mixer chiropractors]] consider these ideas to be pseudoscientific and dispute these claims, as there is no scientific evidence for the existence of chiropractic subluxations or proof they or their treatment have any effects on health.<ref name=History-Primer2>{{cite web|title=Chiropractic history: a primer | author=Joseph C. Keating Jr. |author2=Cleveland CS III |author3=Menke M |url=http://www.historyofchiropractic.org/assets/documents/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf |year=2005 |access-date=2008-06-16 |publisher=Association for the History of Chiropractic |archive-date=19 June 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20130619204140/http://www.historyofchiropractic.org/assets/documents/ChiroHistoryPrimer.pdf |quote=A significant and continuing barrier to scientific progress within chiropractic are the anti-scientific and pseudo-scientific ideas (Keating 1997b) which have sustained the profession throughout a century of intense struggle with political medicine. Chiropractors' tendency to assert the meaningfulness of various theories and methods as a counterpoint to allopathic charges of quackery has created a defensiveness which can make critical examination of chiropractic concepts difficult (Keating and Mootz 1989). One example of this conundrum is the continuing controversy about the presumptive target of DCs' adjustive interventions: subluxation (Gatterman 1995; Leach 1994). |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name=Keating-subluxation>{{cite journal |journal= [[Chiropr Osteopat]] |year=2005 |volume=13 |pages=17 |title= Subluxation: dogma or science? |author1=Keating JC Jr |author2=Charlton KH |author3=Grod JP |author4=Perle SM |author5=Sikorski D |author6=Winterstein JF |doi=10.1186/1746-1340-13-17 |pmid=16092955 |pmc= 1208927 |issue=1 |doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal | author=Joseph C. Keating Jr. |journal=Skeptical Inquirer |volume=21 |issue=4 |pages=37–43 |title=Chiropractic: science and antiscience and pseudoscience side by side |year=1997 |oclc=203269785 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author= Phillips RB|chapter= The evolution of vitalism and materialism and its impact on philosophy|pages=65–76|title= Principles and Practice of Chiropractic|edition=3rd|veditors=Haldeman S, Dagenais S, Budgell B |publisher=[[McGraw-Hill]]|year=2005|isbn=978-0-07-137534-4|display-editors=etal}}</ref><ref name=Reggars2011>{{cite journal | author = Reggars JW | title = Chiropractic at the crossroads or are we just going around in circles? | journal = Chiropractic & Manual Therapies| volume = 19 | page = 11 | year = 2011 | pmid = 21599991 | pmc = 3119029 | doi = 10.1186/2045-709X-19-11 | doi-access = free }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |vauthors=Suter E, Vanderheyden LC, Trojan LS, Verhoef MJ, Armitage GD | title = How important is research-based practice to chiropractors and massage therapists? | journal = Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics| volume = 30 | issue = 2 | pages = 109–15 | date = February 2007 | pmid = 17320731 | doi = 10.1016/j.jmpt.2006.12.013 }}</ref>