Talk:Koren Specific Technique

Removal of sources
,, the current 4 sources listed are reliable and I found a fifth one [here, and the studies link shows that externals test showed the outcome was inconclusive, experimental and ineffective. My goal is to show this is notable quackery so people can get a better understanding of what they are paying for. I have also found another neutral source. However, I disagree with the sources removed and have restored for the purpose of writing from an [[WP:NPOV]], I believe we must first explain what the subject is and then what the science community thinks of it. There is no issue with using primary sources, they can not be used for notability, but can be used for information. Most reliable secondary sources are very negative against this technique, so I don't see an issue with using primary sources for a bit of background.

If you disagree I have no issues with a revert, however I think it is better to allow both sides to state their views. Valoem  talk   contrib  19:59, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I sympathize with documenting notable matters, including quackery, but we still must use RS. globenewswire.com is a PR website (like prnewsire.com) which anyone can use. You or I could publish anything we wanted there, with no form of editorial oversight or controls, but would it be proper to use that here? No. Self-published press releases aren't RS. Independent RS are needed. -- BullRangifer (talk) 23:46, 26 March 2016 (UTC)


 * fwiw, i kind of like the use of insurance company evaluations for alt med topics. insurance companies have a strong financial interest in only paying for stuff that works (their money is on the line) and they often review interventions where there are few or no reviews in the biomedical literature nor statements by major health authorities.  So in the absence of those two kinds of high quality sources, insurance company evaluations are, in my view, useful for independent discussion of the intervention. Jytdog (talk) 23:12, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Various names of the technique -- source
Currently, the article contains the sentence:
 * '"Koren has variously described it as an "analysis procotol," "healthcare protocol," and "healing protocol."'

But the source for "healing protocol" was Koren's website. Since the point of this sentence is to show the various claims that Koren has made, it seems appropriate to quote Koren. However, aggregating this into a sentence in the article could be considered original research. In an abundance of caution, I will remove the "healing protocol" quote from the sentence for now, unless others here think otherwise. Thanks. Chris vLS (talk) 22:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Misleading quote
At the moment, the article contains the following:


 * 'Aetna describes the technique as follows: "The KST allegedly opens up a new horizon on the analysis and correction of health problems by accessing the binary information of the holographic body, which supposedly enables a trained practitioner to access information about a patient's physiology that otherwise would not be available." '

This is misleading. Aetna is not doing the describing here, they are quoting allegations of efficacy that they have found no support for. Here's the full quote, with emphasis on the excluded sentence.


 * The Koren Specific Technique (KST) appears to be a new system of analysis in chiropractic. With the KST method, the adjustment is generally made with an instrument called the "Arthrostim" although finger pressure can also be used.  The KST allegedly opens up a new horizon on the analysis and correction of health problems by accessing the binary information of the holographic body, which supposedly enables a trained practitioner to access information about a patient's physiology that otherwise would not be available.http://www.headbacktohealth.com/Koren_Specific_Technique.html.  However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach.

Moreover, this quote is taken from a section that begins:


 * "Some diagnostic and therapeutic procedures are not considered medically necessary or essential to the treatment of an illness or injury and are not broadly accepted by the chiropractic profession."

I don't see any alternative but to delete this quote. Please comment if I'm mistaken. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 22:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I just want to clarify that I'm not accusing anyone of being intentionally misleading here. There have been a lot of edits. It's entirely possible that this made more sense in context when it was originally added and later changes left it unbalanced. Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 23:45, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The proper solution is not to delete, but to include the whole thing. -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Chrisvls, I would summarise this part only: "the adjustment is generally made with an instrument called the "Arthrostim" although finger pressure can also be used." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:30, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * User:QuackGuru, that section is a word-for-word copy of the description of the technique at the headbacktohealth source. I don't think that quoting Aetna quoting the practitioners' claims makes sense, when the purpose of the Aetna document is to state that Aetna is unconvinced of those claims. I think, User:BullRangifer, that the same rationale applies to including the whole paragraph. Also, if we include the Aetna language, why not the full quote from the other two sources that say the same thing? Better, I think, to summarize what all three say, which is what the sentence in the lede does. . . does that make sense? Cheers Chris vLS (talk) 04:25, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm just now noticing this thread a few hours after I made/re-made very similar revisions to ones that were specifically mentioned here. I can't tell which happened first b/c some time stamps are my local time and others are random time zones and I always have trouble figuring out which is which. Anyway, my apologies if this conversation happened first and I overlooked it. I'm guilty of making those edits after only skimming this talkpage, the AFD, and the article's edit history. I still stand by my edits though, but I wanted to acknowledge my mistake. I think quoting Aetna's description of KST, dubious tone and all, is appropriate and required for this article to have some semblance of NPOV. And I think it's a perfect example of why WP:SECONDARY sources are often preferable to primary sources. A secondary source provides an author's own thinking based on primary sources, generally at least one step removed from an event. It contains an author's analysis, evaluation, interpretation, or synthesis of the facts, evidence, concepts, and ideas taken from primary sources. Secondary sources... rely on primary sources for their material, making analytic or evaluative claims about them... Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if that has been published by a reliable secondary source. Insurance companies hire clinicians to make these kinds of decisions about coverage, usually MDs, not always, but even if it's not a doctor, the person will have a license and experience in a relevant field. For example, sometimes they use licensed clinical social workers to make decisions about mental health claims. Even then, there's always a medical director at the top of the chain of command to oversee major decisions (e.g. publications about said policies). Plus all 3 of the insurance companies we're citing (and I assume there are more, but I haven't checked) wrote very detailed explanations and cited sources as to how they determined which techniques warranted coverage. At least one of them went through each technique and wrote a mini meta-analysis of the existing research on each procedure. There's a lot of liability in denying medically necessary coverage. Insurance companies aren't just shooting from the hip when make these policies (whether or not they always follow their own policies in practice is an entirely different discussion). PermStrump (talk) 19:38, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

The current wording is good. Each source was summarised. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

MEDRS issue on insurance sources
I see that the sentence below is now tagged as a WP:MEDRS issue. I can see the point, but rather than get into an edit exchange, would like to discuss here. The sentence is:


 * Because of lack of evidence of efficacy,[unreliable medical source?] KST is considered experimental by insurers who cover other chiropractic techniques.  

I think this can be resolved through simple re-wording. The fact on offer here is that insurers consider it experimental because, in their assessment, there is a lack of evidence of efficacy and/or safety. Citing the insurers saying this is, I think, sufficient to prove that insurers say this. It would not be the subject of a ProMed article. It's a claim about insurer behavior.

But given the (my) inartful drafting, I can see how the first clause is tagged. So, I think a better sentence would be:


 * KST is considered experimental by some insurers that, while they cover other chiropractic techniques, have concluded there is insufficient evidence of KST's efficacy and/or safety.  

So, it's still not Shakespeare, but I believe it gets the claims in the sentence to match the sourcing. Thoughts? Chris vLS (talk) 04:43, 31 March 2016 (UTC)


 * What about this... "KST is not always covered by insurers that cover other chiropractic techniques, because some companies have decided there is insufficient evidence supporting KST's efficacy and/or safety."


 * I was trying to make the wording a little more direct without changing the "essence." It's hard to weave in the word "experimental" without making it clunky. I'm not sure that adds anything to the meaning of the sentence anyway. I think it makes sense to attribute this statement to the insurance companies anyway, but FWIW, MEDRS is not required when you're citing an otherwise reliable source that addresses the lack of evidence for a WP:FRINGE topic since a lot of times there won't be any sources that meet MEDRS standards. MEDRS would only be required to support a statement about the existence of evidence of efficacy/safety a fringe topic. I can't remember which policy talks about it, but maybe someone else will. PermStrump (talk) 10:57, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

"According to Aetna's policy..." fixed the issue. QuackGuru ( talk ) 20:26, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Violation of consensus
The unreliable sources were previously deleted, but the sources were restored against consensus.


 * Unreliable source previously removed per talk.


 * Unreliable source previously removed.


 * The source is a MEDRS violation and was previously removed.


 * The study was previously removed.


 * A practitioner's website was previously removed.

QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Per WP:NPOV, the version you had edited does not describe what the technique claims to do. An encyclopedia presents the proponents views and then the general views including criticism or praise, this is the purpose of an encyclopedia. Valoem   talk   contrib  21:25, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All the sources you restored were deleted by other editors. You have not shown how the sources are reliable.
 * http://globenewswire.com/news-release/2013/07/14/559851/10040160/en/Scottsdale-Chiropractor-Focuses-on-Chiropractic-for-TMJ-Patients.html A press release is unreliable.
 * http://pagosadailypost.com/2015/03/12/natural-health-awareness-event-this-saturday/ It is an online community magazine powered by WordPress. It is unreliable.
 * http://books.google.com/books?id=l5qFBAAAQBAJ&pg=PA111 The book is not a reliable source for a health claim. See WP:MEDRS.
 * http://www.mccoypress.net/jpmfh/docs/2012-1228_asthma.pdf The study is not a reliable source for the claim.
 * http://www.sunrisehi.com/kst-koren-specific-technique/ A practitioner's website is not a reliable source for the claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It is true that we should describe what the proponent's claim the technique does, which requires quoting them. Some of the recently restored language was edited because it was not getting this right (It is considered safe and gentle? by whom?, a "technique" doesn't claim or allege things). Also, we again are in a place where it sounds like Aetna is alleging that KST does something with the "holographic body," which they most certainly do not believe. Also, the recent additions pushed things out of the lead paragraph -- it is not accepted as having evidence of safety/efficacy -- and replaced them with more detailed descriptions of the technique that are less important. I think the article would benefit from three paragraphs. 1) A lead paragraph that briefly describes it and that it is controversial, 2) a paragraph with more description of how it is described by the practitioners, 3) more detail on the insurers.  I think this will make it easy to keep the claims -- and non-reliable sources that this paragraph will rely on -- clear.  Does this make sense?  Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 02:02, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The following sentence was deleted and has been restored, "The technique is considered to be gentle and safe. ." Unlike the other descriptions of the technique, this makes a claim of safety. The source cited offers no evidence or citation for the claim. And safety claims do require a much better source than this. Also, other sources clearly state that they have not found such evidence. I think the prior consensus was right and this sentence should go. Chris vLS (talk) 02:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm going to press ahead with these ideas, while the merge discussion continues. Chris vLS (talk) 04:22, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Selective merge

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Koren Specific Technique (KST) is a technique developed by Tedd Koren. While the technique is associated with chiropractic techniques, Koren has variously described it as an "analysis protocol" or "healthcare protocol". KST may use their hands, or they may use an electric device known as an "ArthroStim" for assessment and adjustments. Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational."

Comments on selective merge
The above text is what is proposed for the selective merge to Chiropractic treatment techniques#Techniques without the MEDRS violations or unreliable sources. QuackGuru ( talk ) 02:03, 9 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't know what the standards are for a merge, or for taking action when an AfD has failed to meet consensus. I voted in favor of the merge during the AfD, as anyone can see. It seems odd to restart the discussion just a couple days later. What's the standard here?
 * As for the text, it seems odd to me that each insurer is given a full sentence. If in six months there are 9 more, we wouldn't make the paragraph four times as long. And if it's going to be merged, it should be even shorter . . . I'd suggest the following (also caught a couple typos in the first sentence:
 * Koren Specific Technique (KST) is a chiropractic technique developed by Tedd Koren. KST practitioners may use their hands, or they may use an electric device known as an "ArthroStim" for assessment and adjustments. Although they cover other chiropractic techniques, several insurers exclude KST from coverage because they have determined that there is a lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy.  


 * I think the merge makes sense, but want to respect the (non-)results of the AfD. I think the above would work well in the article, as I have argued in prior sections. Just my two cents. Thanks Chris vLS (talk) 04:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * An AFD does not impose any sort of moratorium. It's fine to proceed with this discussion.  (There's also no deadline on merge discussions; this could stay open for years.)  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * No merge, per AfD and sources provided. This is notable and warrants a stand alone article. All issues regarding this subject can be fixed with proper editing. Valoem   talk   contrib  22:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Merge. I'm fine with the wording proposed by either or . PermStrump (talk)  02:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Please look at this source which states this is not chiropractics merely associated. Valoem   talk   contrib  23:59, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Ted Koren does not own the technique. There are others techniques that are performed by people other than chiropractors. No merge, per AfD? I beg to differ. User:Sandstein stated "Perhaps a merge proposal to some appropriate other article might be better placed to find consensus." There is no mention of it in the main article. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:08, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * That source says the World Federation of Chiropractic didn't buy his argument that it wasn't chiropractic and the authors also doubted on Koren's assertion that it isn't chiropractic. PermStrump (talk) 01:30, 13 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Merge (and redirect to the appropriate section) using Chris vLS's version. However, I think it would also be fair (in the NPOV sense) to include Koren's claim that it's not chiropractic.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:21, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:WhatamIdoing, User:Chrisvls's proposal contains OR and is too vague. I added While the technique is associated with chiropractic techniques, Koren has variously described it as an "analysis protocol" or "healthcare protocol".[1] QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:19, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * No, it doesn't contain any OR. It is not actually necessary for the source to say, in exact words, "This thing is chiropractic", for the whole point of the source to support that claim.  I realize that you lean towards the "if it isn't actually plagiarism, then it is original research" style of writing, but that's not what the policy requires. I agree that it is brief, and does not give you an opportunity to separately quote each of several sources from healthcare payers, but I believe that's an advantage.  That style is called an "encyclopedic summary", and it's what we're here to do.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:36, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * It does contain OR. For example, several insurers exclude KST from coverage because they have determined that there is a lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy.[3][4][5] is not found in any of the sources. There are only three sources at the end of the sentence and each one makes a very different claim. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 15:20, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand your position, but am not quite convinced. Neither the original WP:SYN nor the new one proscribe summarizing a group of sources that say similar things. Under the original WP:SYN, the sentence seems to fall under "nam[ing] prominent adherents" of a position. The new WP:SYN makes it clear that one shouldn't mix and match data to form a conclusion not found in the original sources. But that is clearly not that case here, the sentence is essentially "four sources say A." That is pretty tame compared to "Once source says A. Another says B. Thus we can conclude C," which is what WP:SYN is all about. Also, I think the ability to summarize in such situations makes common sense. Let's say we find three more sources. Are we then limited to either 1) no mention of the position or 2) including seven quotes? Lastly, these sources do in fact say the same thing, verabitm, emphasis mine.
 * OSU: "The OSU Health Plan considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational"
 * Leeds: "The CCGs consider s the following procedures experimental and investigational:"
 * Aetna: "Aetna considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational:"
 * North Dakota: "Not medically necessary services considered experimental and investigational chiropractic procedures are as follows:"
 * Also:
 * Leeds: "because of lack of evidence of safety or effectiveness in peer reviewed scientific journals"
 * Aetna: "Aetna "lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of this approach"
 * But don't take the length of my reply as non-sympathy. I see what you're saying. Clearly if we said "Three of the top five insurers" or some such, we would be creating a new statistic and going too far. Also, I feel like it's better to say "insurers" than the current "experts" in the text. (These are unsigned, I have a cite that they are insurers, but not one that they are experts.) (Oh, and it looks like the OSU cite above is new...) Thanks! Chris vLS (talk) 17:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Each source does not say there were "several insurers". Each source must say there were "several insurers" that excluded KST from coverage because they have determined that there is a lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy.[3][4][5] You are conducting your own review of the sources. The part "lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy" is misleading and inaccurate. It is "and" or it could be "or" (and/or) is not a summary of each source. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:35, 14 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I'm not claiming that one of the sources says "several insurers". I'm claiming that it is permissible to write a sentence that says "Several sources say A." You are clearly comfortable with the only option being to quote all four sources. It seems weird to me and undue weight is all. But like I said, it's tricky, am hoping other editors have seen something like this in the past.Chris vLS (talk) 17:46, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Since you are not claiming that one of the sources says "several insurers" then it is a WP:OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 17:53, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I shortened it without the OR to "Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational."[3][4][2][5]" If you don't like that I can reverse it and I can expand it. Do editors want the shortened version or long version? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 23:02, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I think it will be a good thing to put it in proper context of what Koren said vs what the WFC said when they ultimate sanctioned him for teaching chiropractic to non-chiropractors despite multiple warnings. This is all from the source that we're using to support the claim that KST isn't chiropractic. The WFC has published their correspondence with Koren for similar issues that arose in 2007 and 2008.

2007: In March 2007, WFC sent a warning letter (word doc) to Koren that said,

To which Koren replied (word doc) that Heilpraktikers or Health practitioners (HP)'s attending his seminar are a licensed and recognized profession in Germany and legally permitted to practice manipulation and that although KST is used by chiropractors, but not exclusive to chiropractic. He claimed that his seminar fell within WHO guideline that permits "limited training programs" to non-chiropractic clinicians if it's in the context of "introducing chiropractic" where no current legislation governing the practice exists." And he concluded by saying,
 * "The German health regulations allow MDs and HPs with proper training to do manipulations that fit as chiropractic under our laws. I feel obliged to comply with the legal structure in the foreign countries in which I present my KST information unless I am shown that doing so would be harmful to patients. So far I have seen no information that establishes that the German legal structure harms patients."

He went ahead with his seminar and the WFC, not agreeing with Koren's argument, said he couldn't participate in WFC sponsored events in the future until he gave them written reassurance that he understood and wouldn't do it again (word doc).

2008: Then in 2008, the WFC contacted him again about complaints they received re:flyers Koren was distributing in English and German for another seminar at the Berlin School (word doc). This time the WFC said:

Koren responded saying he didn't know it was being advertised that way and that he instructed the Berlin School to revise the flyers word doc). The final response from the WFC (word doc) basically says they think his claims are "hollow" and as evidenced by these quotes from Koren's website:
 * "the Berlin School is the only philosophical chiropractic school in Germany teaching chiropractic techniques. They are urgently seeking US teachers to learn the philosophy of chiropractic."
 * "we should work with those potential allies to teach chiropractic philosophy, science and art for the greater benefit of the consumer."

I'm trying to think of a clear way to contextualize that in the article. Does anyone else have a suggestion for wording? PermStrump (talk) 17:23, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This article is about the technique. You can expand the Tedd Koren page. I can't think of anything at the moment. User:Valoem or User:Chrisvls, do you have any suggestions? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:10, 15 April 2016 (UTC)


 * no merge seems to warrant its own article...IMO --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 09:31, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * User:Ozzie10aaaa, the article contains too many primary sources and non-independent that do not count towards notability. See . Please show me which sources count towards notability. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:01, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * QG, I see your point, though this could be used.....upon further review I therefore support selective merge,(I struck out prior opinion)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:02, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * All four sources say "experimental and investigational", including the source you mentioned. The article says "lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy". That is OR. The article contains mass OR. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 00:18, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * no OR simply synonyms of the original text. Quoting could also work but is not always preferred.--Moxy (talk) 02:00, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * If you think it is sourced them provide V for lack of safety. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:20, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * You missed the point. it is sources.....just not plagiarised. -- 23:14, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Opposes mergers Does deletion help - best to confront and explain problems of a fringe or alternative theory over leaving our readers to search the web for said information. Information on types of procedures should be consolidated. We now have a forked Bio for Tedd Koren who is famous for only one thing (we dont do this here)....should not make our readers have to go to many different pages  for all the info or make them search through a huge page to find minimal info on said topic. Readers will go to others websites to find consolidated info.-Moxy (talk) 13:21, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Comment: is talking some good sense here. PermStrump (talk)  16:05, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This page is about the technique itself. Specific information about Tedd Koren does not belong in this page. No editor has shown why this page is notable. There are few secondary sources on the topic. The main page still does mention the Koren Specific Technique. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:18, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The notability and prevalence  is apparent to anyone doing a basic  internet search or that understands what our  purpose  here is. As for the bio on Tedd Koren ...i am not sure a bashing article WP:BLPSTYLE on the guy only notable for one thing WP:SINGLEEVENT is what we are looking for. I am puzzled why anyone would not what to layout and link/source the best info on topics of this nature for our readers. How does deleting or merging a minimal amount of info in the parent article going to help educated anyone on the inherent problems.  We should be giving our readers an overview  and thus a  jumping  off point to reliable info.....not forcing them to search the internet and getting sub-par information.  Our goal is to facilitate learning and knowledge sharing... not leave people in the dark. -- Moxy (talk) 23:08, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Your points are well-made,, but there's no intention to remove one iota of information from Wikipedia on the topic of the Koren Specific Technique. The entire content of the stub article already exists as a short section of its own at Chiropractic treatment techniques and the present redirect at Koren Specific Technique points directly there. This debate is not about whether we cover the topic in Wikipedia; it is simply about whether it is better to cover it in a tiny stub article, or as part of a larger article where readers can compare and contrast it with other related techniques. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)


 * Support merge — here from AN/I. I wish to express support for the merge again, leaning strongly on the comments of various editors above. They make good points, and I have made numerous points here before, and can not take more time off my schedule to reiterate them in face of WP:NOTGETTINGIT by some users. Carl Fredrik  talk 19:39, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Support merge if somewhat belatedly. I believe it is better to cover the topic of 'Koren Specific Technique' as part of a larger article where readers can compare and contrast it with other related techniques. The tiny stub stand-alone article is better as a redirect to the relevant section of the overview article. I would like the closer to observe that, and I have each tried to implement the merger since this discussion stagnated, so you may draw whatever inference is appropriate from that. --RexxS (talk) 20:02, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose merge of Koren Specific Technique per my comments at Articles for deletion/Koren Specific Technique, where I provided sufficient coverage in reliable sources to justify a standalone article. Cunard (talk) 03:15, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The content is the same as the main article. See "If a page is very short and is unlikely to be expanded within a reasonable amount of time, it often makes sense to merge it with a page on a broader topic. For example, parents or children of a celebrity who are otherwise unremarkable are generally covered in a section of the article on the celebrity (and can be merged there)." See WP:MERGEREASON. It was given plenty of time to expand. What is the benefit of having a stub here when there is plenty of room in the main article? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 11:29, 19 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment, I stand by my opposition to merger in regards to all chiropractic techniques. Diversified technique has been covered by sources passing WP:MEDRS, Gonstead technique as well . I do not consider KST anything more than quackery, it should be a separate article, both Tedd Koren and the chiropractic community have debated whether or not KST is chiropractics. Sources provided by Cunard shows this "holistic treatment" is notable, but not medicine. It should not be mentioned at all at chiropractic treatment techniques.  Valoem   talk   contrib  16:06, 21 May 2017 (UTC)
 * The obvious merge is to the person., with a redirect. And, as a personal comment, I think it clear
 * 1. why the regular chiropractic profession does not want to be associated with this obviously far-fringe method.
 * 2. why opponents of chiropractic might want to say that it is, that it's no more absurd than the original claims for chiropractic itself.
 * 3. why insurance companies use euphemisms and general non-spectfic terms  DGG ( talk ) 03:53, 23 May 2017 (UTC)
 * Wouldn't it be better to redirect the person to the subject? I believe Tedd Koren is less notable than his idea. Valoem   talk   contrib  02:37, 25 May 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Unequal Weight
I feel like there is too much of a pro-koren bias here. I made edits to the last paragraph. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 16:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What a disaster. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:40, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I've just reverted the mess you made with the tag spam. For example, you tagged the sentence "Proponents claim KST is derived from the "Directional Non-Force Technique" and "Spinal Column Stressology."" as a WP:Biomedical information, rather than journalistic information.  Either "proponents claim" this or they don't, and it doesn't matter whether they're claiming that the common cold is caused by a virus or that the Moon is made of green cheese; whether or not they claim something is never biomedical information.
 * I think that you should stop editing this article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:41, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Good idea. A sandbox for the merge will do just fine. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 18:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Sandbox
See User:QuackGuru/Chiropractic treatment techniques. I will begin the merge. See User:QuackGuru/Chiropractic_treatment_techniques. Editors are can edit the sandbox. QuackGuru ( talk ) 18:09, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Original research and insurance companies
I know how feels, but this seems like a grey area to me so I wonder what other people think. Does this sentence seem like OR/SYNTH?:
 * Some insurers which cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because of lack of scientific evidence of safety and/or efficacy.

This is a previous version where I had written a breakdown of what each insurance company said. There was a time when I felt that was important for WP:BALANCE. When the article is in better shape without all of the primary sources, it seems better to summarize, but QG feels strongly that summarizing with this wording is OR and prefers to say:
 * Insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it to be "experimental and investigational."

All of the companies cited do have Koren on a list of "experimental and investigational" interventions, but personally, I don't love that because I think that "experimental and investigational" is basically a euphemism that the insurance companies are using and that "lack of safety scientific evidence of their efficacy" is a fair and accurate paraphrase of what they've all said. Another option I'd prefer over "experimental and investigational is "medically unnecessary." This is what they've all said:


 * Aetna: Aetna considers chiropractic services medically necessary when all of the following criteria are met [list of criteria that excludes KST]... The Koren Specific Technique (KST) appears to be a new system of analysis in chiropractic. With the KST method, the adjustment is generally made with an instrument called the "Arthrostim" although finger pressure can also be used.  The KST allegedly opens up a new horizon on the analysis and correction of health problems by accessing the binary information of the holographic body, which supposedly enables a trained practitioner to access information about a patient's physiology that otherwise would not be available. However, there is a lack of evidence regarding the effectiveness of this [KST specifically] approach.
 * NDHS: Manipulation is considered experimental and investigational when it is rendered for non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Breech or other malpresentations, scoliosis, dysmenorrhea, otitis media, asthma and epilepsy; this is not an all-inclusive list) because its effectiveness for these indications is unproven and the paucity of evidence. Not medically necessary services considered experimental and investigational chiropractic procedures are as follows... KST
 * Leeds NHS: Leeds CCGs consider spinal manipulation services medically necessary when all of the following criteria are met [list of criteria that excludes KST]... Manipulation is deemed experimental and investigational when it is rendered for non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions such as dysmenorrhoea and epilepsy because its effectiveness for these indications is unproven. The CCGs consider s the following procedures experimental and investigational... KST

I guess none of them say safety. I didn't write the sentence that combines them though, so I don't know if the person who did saw that somewhere I'm overlooking. They all essentially use the same exact language, so if "experimental and investigational" isn't OR then I think a paraphrase of something they all have in common is ok too. Does this sound better?
 * Some insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques exclude KST from coverage because they consider it medically unnecessary due to the lack of scientific evidence of its efficacy.

Thoughts? PermStrump</b> (talk) 01:43, 17 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Leeds: "The CCGs consider s the following procedures experimental and investigational:"
 * North Dakota: "Not medically necessary services considered experimental and investigational
 * OSU: "The OSU Health Plan considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational
 * Aetna: "Aetna considers the following chiropractic procedures experimental and investigational:"


 * Leeds NHS: Manipulation is deemed experimental and investigational when it is rendered for non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions such as dysmenorrhoea and epilepsy because its effectiveness for these indications is unproven. This is about manipulation. It is not referring to KST.
 * NDHS: Manipulation is considered experimental and investigational when it is rendered for non-neuromusculoskeletal conditions (e.g., attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, Breech or other malpresentations, scoliosis, dysmenorrhea, otitis media, asthma and epilepsy; this is not an all-inclusive list) because its effectiveness for these indications is unproven and the paucity of evidence. The part "because its effectiveness for these indications is unproven and the paucity of evidence." is referring to manipulation. We can make the same claim for all four sources if we say it is "experimental and investigational." QuackGuru  ( talk ) 01:58, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I know they all say that, but I don't like it b/c it's a euphemism. I think they are using the term "manipulation" as synonymous with chiropractic in general. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 02:03, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Chiropractic in general is not specifically KST. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:04, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Regardless of what Koren said when he was being threatened with sanctions, the insurance companies are explicitly considering KST chiropractic. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 02:06, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The sources are making different claims about spinal manipulation and KST. For claims about KST we can only use specific claims that are about KST. Other claims about spinal manipulation cannot be use for claims about KST. The article claims "lack of scientific evidence of safety". Where does any of the sources mention safety? QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:12, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think I added the word safety, so I don't know where/if someone else saw it. I don't see it anywhere, so that's why I redacted it above. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 02:38, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the mass OR and primary sources will remain in the article until it is redirected. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 02:41, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * What about, "Several public and private insurers in the US and UK that cover other chiropractic techniques explicitly exclude KST from their coverage. Aetna's policy states there is a "lack of efficacy regarding this approach." I feel like "investigational and experimental" makes it sound like insurers think it has a chance of proving its efficacy when they clearly don't actually think that based on the tone of the rest of it. <b style="color:indigo;">PermStrump</b> (talk) 03:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)
 * "Several public and private insurers" is unsourced. I think it would be better to name the insurers. Aetna's policy states there is a "lack of efficacy regarding this approach." will work. QuackGuru  ( talk ) 16:44, 18 April 2016 (UTC)