Technique and Straight Chiropractic


In his very early writings B.J. maintained that symptoms were bad and were caused by a “misguided” innate intelligence.  Now we know that is not consistent with our understanding of innate intelligence.  Knowing that innate intelligence always does what is good for the body, many began to say that if innate intelligence creates symptoms, they must be good.  Therefore, symptoms should not be treated but rather their cause should be addressed.  This was the position of traditional straight chiropractors (TSC) and some New Age chiropractors (i.e., those who mix eastern mysticism with chiropractic).  They took the position that we should replace the medical doctor because he sees symptoms as bad.  The objective straight chiropractor (OSC) says some symptoms are good and some are bad, some probably need to be treated by medical doctors and some probably do not.  Further, we do not know which is which so we avoid making judgments and allow the person who must live or die with the consequences of their decision to make that decision.  Some are saying “what does this have to do with technique and straight chiropractic?”  Patience, folks!  If symptoms and signs can be either good or bad, we can respectively divide them into those that are a result of the innate intelligence’s attempt to adapt (what I am going to call “response”) and those that are a manifestation of innate intelligence’s failure to adapt (what I am calling “reaction.”)
    OSCs do not make judgments on whether a symptom or sign of disease is a response or a reaction (is the fever bad or good?) because addressing symptoms in any manner is medicine.  We do make the judgment as to whether vertebral subluxation is present or not, based on some physical findings.  (We must base it on some physical changes otherwise we might as well flip a coin…heads we adjust, tails we do not.)  Since we must make a judgment on physical findings, it behooves us to base our analysis on a response (i.e., what innate intelligence is trying to do), rather than an obvious manifestations of its failure (i.e., a reaction due to limitations of matter).
    Muscle palpation is based on the assumption that, in spite of vertebral subluxation, the innate intelligence is responding (normal/good) to attempt to correct the subluxation.  Hence, this is a superior approach to one that is based on manifestations of innate intelligence’s inability to respond due to limitations of matter or on manifestations that could be either good or bad.  For example, a curve could be a response or a reaction.  If it is a response, then it is adaptation directed by innate intelligence and should not be changed.  If it is a reaction, then it is only an effect and not any more valuable an indicator than a fever.  What is more, there is no ability to post check when manifestations are used to analyze the spine.  If the curve disappears, that may simply mean you have changed a curve, not necessarily corrected a vertebral subluxation.  Orthopedists can change curves.  If the curve does not disappear, that does not necessarily indicate that you have not corrected the subluxation.  The body may want or need the curve just as it may want or need a fever.  I believe there may be more than one indication of innate intelligence attempting to correct a vertebral subluxation or responding to a subluxated state.  However, at this point a working muscle seems to be the only one we have because it occurs only in the presence of vertebral subluxation.  Empirical findings and deduction tell us there is no other reason for its presence.  Certainly there could be other effects of subluxations, short legs, patterns, skin temperature changes, spastic muscles, limited range of motion, and pain.  Since these things may occur for other reasons, they are not ideal for determining the presence of vertebral subluxation.
    I do not think we should rule out other methods of analysis because our limited thinking cannot yet understand or accept them.  However, we use logic to accept the basis for muscle palpation as an analytical tool.  I would also like to see some logical basis for other approaches rather than simply an experiential basis.  I realize for some people experience is a valid criteria but based on experience everything works sometimes.  Even flipping a coin makes you right 50% of the time.  Based on logic some things do not make sense or at least do not make sense given the unique and narrow objective of the straight chiropractor.  v17n1

Be Sociable, Share!

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *