Force Restoration vs. Matter Improvement


Over the years various chiropractic speakers have divided the profession into two groups.  The earliest division, of course, was straights and mixers.  What you did with your hands determined the group which you belonged.  If you put them on the patient’s spine for the purpose of adjusting a vertebra, you were a straight.  If you used a machine (i.e., instead of your hands), you were a mixer.  (See Fig. 1) 

          Later some began to use other distinctions, broadening the classification to include other professions who appeared to have the same objective as many chiropractors.  One notable division of modern times was doctor of cause (D.C.) versus doctor of symptoms (D.S.) or doctor of therapies (D.T.).  (See Fig. 2)  All of these divisions served a valuable purpose in clearly defining the roles of different aspects of the chiropractic profession.  However, in more recent years the distinctions became blurred.  As more chiropractors began to accept the idea that disease had other causes besides the vertebral subluxation, the classifications doctors of cause and doctors of therapy began to put more health care professionals, like nutritionist and P.T. (rehabilitation), on our side and in a way that seemed good.  We then had other professionals with whom we had something in common.  We were all trying to remove the cause of something.  The downside is that some chiropractors began to utilize these other procedures under the banner of correcting the cause.  So nutrition was added to chiropractic, as was the repair of sports injuries and other procedures that would clearly not have been considered to be chiropractic two decades ago.  We were no longer distinct, no longer separate and no longer different.

          But many of us happen to believe that we are different, that our objective is not like any other objective within or without the health care community.  Our objective is not only different but also unique.  We are interested in “force restoration.”  The objective of correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be better expressed involves restoring the flow of innate forces over the nerve system.  We are not interested in changing the matter of the body.  That is perhaps the difference between objective straight chiropractic and ALL other approaches.  All other approaches are interested in improving the matter of the body.  (See Fig. 3)  Chiropractic relates to restoring force to the matter.  It may be argued that when the force is restored, the matter is improved and that is true, but matter improvement is not the objective.  That is why the force-restoring chiropractor does not pay attention to changes in the physiology of the body and why he/she continues care even if the patient seems to be getting better, or for that matter when they are getting no better or even getting worse.  The objective straight chiropractor knows that whatever is happening in the body, the organism is benefited by force restoration even if certain matter is not improved.

          This way of making a distinction between approaches does not pass judgment on the validity or the efficacy of the other approaches.  In fact, there are definitely situations in which the objective of  matter-improving is necessary.  Let’s look a little closer at the distinctions.  Eating good food is matter-improving.  Providing the function necessary to digest, assimilate and make use of that food necessitates force. The chiropractor sees that the force is restored when necessary.  The nutritionist might provide sufficient food or nutrition to improve the matter.  Exercise is intended to improve the matter, medicine is also intended to improve the matter, as is some surgery (i.e., reconstructive, open heart surgery).  Physical therapy, like exercise, is intended to improve the matter.  All of the above are directed at the matter.  Chiropractic is directed at allowing the force to be restored.  There are times when matter needs to be improved, when its ability to function is limited.  If that limitation is due to a lack of force, then force restoration is the answer.  If it is due to an inherent limitation within the matter, then perhaps a matter-improving procedure would be helpful.  The difficulty, of course, is to know when and where a matter-improving procedure is necessary.  The chiropractor not involved with matter improvement does not have to be concerned with that.  His/her only concern is to determine when and where the force has been reduced at the vertebral level and to restore that force.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 1 comment

  1. thomas 12/28/2012, 7:42 pm:

    Wondering how you would answer someone who questions how can we be certain that the chiropractic adjustment restores force/electrical impluse into that nerve. Or perhaps if that is the case, the nerve may already be damaged from the subluxation thereby unable to be restored

Leave a Reply

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