Bronchiolitis obliterans organizing pneumonia (BOOP), also known as cryptogenic organizing pneumonia, is a form of non-infectious pneumonia; more specifically, BOOP is an inflammation of the bronchioles (bronchiolitis) and surrounding tissue in the lungs. It is often a complication of an existing chronic inflammatory disease such as rheumatoid arthritis, dermatomyositis, or it can be a side effect of certain medications such as amiodarone. BOOP was first described by Gary Epler in 1985.

Some authors have recommended the use of an alternate name, cryptogenic organizing pneumonia (COP), to reduce confusion with bronchiolitis obliterans, a distinct and unrelated disease.

The clinical features and radiological imaging resemble infectious pneumonia. However, diagnosis is suspected after there is no response to multiple antibiotics, and blood and sputum cultures are negative for organisms.

It was identified in 1985, although its symptoms had been noted before but not recognised as a separate lung disease. The risk of BOOP is higher for people with inflammatory diseases like lupus, dermatomyositis, rheumatoid arthritis, and scleroderma.

Unfortunately for non-healthcare professionals, healthcare professionals can use many different words for pulmonary toxicity and still understand each other completely. Yet, for laypersons, this can lead to some difficulties while searching for information about pulmonary toxicity (or about any other side effect). Here are some words that are rather similar to each other in meaning for healthcare professionals. Side effect = adverse event (AE) = adverse drug reaction (ADR) = adverse reaction = toxicity. Pulmonary = lung. Pulmonary toxicity = pulmonary injury = lung injury = lung toxicity. And instead of pulmonary toxicity (a general term), the specific name of the specific side effect in question can be used, e.g. pneumonitis or radiation pneumonitis. Any combination is also possible, of course.

Pulmonary toxicity is possible due to many chemical compounds. However, the most famous (infamous) example is pulmonary toxicity due to asbestos. Asbestos can lead to a highly dangerous (i.e., highly malignant) lung cancer called malignant pleural mesothelioma, sometimes also simply called mesothelioma. As a consequence, the use of asbestos is now completely prohibited by law in most countries.

IBD resulted in a global total of 51,000 deaths in 2013 and 55,000 deaths in 1990. The increased incidence of IBD since World War 2 has been linked to the increase in meat consumption worldwide, supporting the claim that animal protein intake is associated with IBD. Inflammatory bowel diseases are increasing in Europe.

While IBD can limit quality of life because of pain, vomiting, diarrhea, and other socially undesired symptoms, it is rarely fatal on its own. Fatalities due to complications such as toxic megacolon, bowel perforation and surgical complications are also rare..

Around one-third of individuals with IBD experience persistent gastrointestinal symptoms similar to irritable bowel syndrome (IBS) in the absence of objective evidence of disease activity. Despite enduring the side-effects of long-term therapies, this cohort has a quality of life that is not significantly different to that of individuals with uncontrolled, objectively active disease, and escalation of therapy to biological agents is typically ineffective in resolving their symptoms. The cause of these IBS-like symptoms is unclear, but it has been suggested that changes in the gut-brain axis, epithelial barrier dysfunction, and the gut flora may be partially responsible.

While patients of IBD do have an increased risk of colorectal cancer, this is usually caught much earlier than the general population in routine surveillance of the colon by colonoscopy, and therefore patients are much more likely to survive.

New evidence suggests that patients with IBD may have an elevated risk of endothelial dysfunction and coronary artery disease.

A recent literature review by Gandhi et al. described that IBD patients over the age of 65 and females are at increased risk of coronary artery disease despite the lack of traditional risk factors.

The goal of treatment is toward achieving remission, after which the patient is usually switched to a lighter drug with fewer potential side effects. Every so often, an acute resurgence of the original symptoms may appear; this is known as a "flare-up". Depending on the circumstances, it may go away on its own or require medication. The time between flare-ups may be anywhere from weeks to years, and varies wildly between patients – a few have never experienced a flare-up.

Life with IBD can be challenging, however, it should not impede your ability to live a normal life. Patients with IBD can go to college, hold a normal job, get married, have children etc. As is the nature of any chronic, unpredictable disease, there will be ups and downs. The progress made in IBD research and treatment is astounding and will only improve in the years to come.

Although living with IBD can be difficult, there are numerous resources available to help families navigate the ins and out of IBD. The Crohn's and Colitis Foundation of America (CCFA) is an excellent resource. CCFA is a vital resource to getting questions answered and finding support about life with IBD.

In chiropractic, vertebral subluxation is a purported misalignment of the spinal column, not necessarily visible on X-rays, leading to a set of signs and symptoms sometimes termed vertebral subluxation complex. It has no biomedical basis, lacks clinical meaningfulness, and is categorized as pseudoscientific by leading chiropractic authorities. Traditionally, the "specific focus of chiropractic practice" is the chiropractic subluxation and historical chiropractic practice assumes that a vertebral subluxation or spinal joint dysfunction interferes with the body's function and its innate intelligence, as promulgated by D. D. Palmer, the inventor of chiropractic.

The chiropractic subluxation is the heart of the split between "straight" and "mixer" chiropractors. Straight chiropractors continue to follow Palmer's vitalistic tradition, claiming that subluxation has considerable health effects and also adding a visceral component to the definition, while mixers, as exemplified by the United Kingdom's General Chiropractic Council, consider it a historical concept with no evidence identifying it as the cause of disease.

Within the chiropractic tradition, a vertebral subluxation complex is believed to be a dysfunctional biomechanical spinal segment which actively alters neurological function, which in turn, is believed to lead to neuromusculoskeletal and visceral disorders. The WHO acknowledges this difference between the medical and chiropractic definitions of a subluxation: medical doctors only refer to "significant structural displacements" as subluxations, whereas chiropractors suggest that a dysfunctional segment, whether displaced significantly or not, should be referred to as a subluxation. This difference has been noted in the proceedings of the chiropractic profession's "Mercy Center Consensus Conference": "The chiropractic profession refers to this concept as a 'subluxation'. This use of the word "subluxation" should not be confused with the term's precise anatomic usage, which considers only the anatomical relationships."

The chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex has been a source of controversy since its inception in 1895 due to the lack of empirical evidence for its existence, its metaphysical origins, and claims of its far reaching effects on health and disease. Although some chiropractic associations and colleges support the concept of subluxation, many in the chiropractic profession reject it and shun the use of this term as a diagnosis. In the United States and in Canada the term "nonallopathic lesion" may be used in place of "subluxation".

A 2009 review concluded that epidemiologic evidence does not support the chiropractic subluxation, concluding:

In 2015, internationally accredited chiropractic colleges from Bournemouth University, University of South Wales, University of Southern Denmark, University of Zürich, Institut Franco-Européen de Chiropraxie, and University of Johannesburg made an open statement which included: "The teaching of the vertebral subluxation complex as a vitalistic construct that claims that it is the cause of disease is unsupported by evidence. Its inclusion in a modern chiropractic curriculum in anything other than an historic context is therefore inappropriate and unnecessary".

The WHO definition of the chiropractic vertebral subluxation is:

The purported displacement is not necessarily visible on X-rays. This is in contrast to the medical definition of spinal subluxation which, according to the WHO, is a ""significant structural displacement"", and therefore visible on X-rays.

As of 2014, the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners states:

In 1996 an official consensus definition of subluxation was formed. Cooperstein and Gleberzon have described the situation: "... although many in the chiropractic profession reject the concept of "subluxation" and shun the use of this term as a diagnosis, the presidents of at least a dozen chiropractic colleges of the Association of Chiropractic Colleges (ACC) developed a consensus definition of "subluxation" in 1996. It reads:

In 2001 the World Federation of Chiropractic, representing the national chiropractic associations in 77 countries, adopted this consensus statement which reaffirms belief in the vertebral subluxation.

The ACC paradigm has been criticized by chiropractic authors:

In May 2010 the General Chiropractic Council, the statutory regulatory body for chiropractors in the United Kingdom, issued guidance for chiropractors stating that the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex "is an historical concept" and "is not supported by any clinical research evidence that would allow claims to be made that it is the cause of disease or health concerns."