Absolutes and Chiropractic


To make the objective of chiropractic into anything other than enabling the innate intelligence to be better expressed takes it from the realm of absolutes into things relative. The adjustment always allows the innate intelligence to be better expressed. If our objective is to get sick people well, chiropractic would fail at times, we would fail at times or the objective would fail at times. It would no longer be a principle or law – as an absolute, it never fails.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 9 comments

  1. Richard Alan Franks 12/05/2011, 8:06 pm:

    Perfectly stated.

  2. Scott Bjerkness 12/05/2011, 8:11 pm:

    Keeping the objective simple and absolute makes it “right” and true. It is fun to practice simply focusing on the person and their spine. I was wondering about DD’s philosophy which was obviously good but focused to a certain degree on which vertebrae or regions to adjust to help certain diseases without using therapies, much like reputable chiros like Dr. tom Morgan does with his touch and tell system. This, maybe to some is, is considered staying away from “mixing”. So the philosophy you all follow is more from BJ and even more from the 33 principles, correct?

  3. Bob Berkowitz 12/05/2011, 8:35 pm:

    Absolutely, Joe. What is labeled as a sickness is actually our physiology [function] adapting to the best of the body’s ability under their current circumstances. Our objective is to improve the body’s circumstance by addressing vertebral subluxation.

  4. Steve 12/05/2011, 9:55 pm:

    The objective of chiropractic has been many things to many people, it ( the objective ) has evolved. DD’s objective was reuniting man the physical with man the spiritual. BJ’s objective was to find the “one cause” for the “one dis-ease”. OSC is the latest evolution and seems to be the purest form of chiropractic. It is funny don’t you think, by refining our objective we have actually opened our possibilities?
    Einstein said “Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not simpler.” & “If you can’t explain it simply, you don’t understand it well enough”
    BJ said ” It’s as simple as that”

  5. Joe D. 12/06/2011, 2:42 am:

    Not just a few “broadscope” tors say that we are a limited form of practice; but clearly we are the only UN-limited form of TIC.

    • bill d 12/07/2011, 4:06 am:

      Joe, good point. The broadscope chiropractor has a narrow effect. He/she can only serve those folks with conditions (in the scope) that are supported by evidence. The narrow scope chiropractor has a broad effect. While he/she checks for subluxation (the thing in the scope) the effects are very individual and unknown in limit.

  6. Ronen 12/06/2011, 8:38 am:

    Well said.
    After reading it, finally I can say and write what we/chiropractic do.
    1. Chiropractic adjustment always release and reactivate the internal inborn abilities and power (Innate).
    2. Regullar chiropractic care strengthens, develops and guards the inborn abilities and power.

    Thank U Dr. Strauss,
    Finally I know and can describe what I do.


  7. bill decken 12/07/2011, 3:59 am:

    Isn’t it important in deductive reasoning to define terms? How is “sick” being defined? Bob does that above and thus completes the thought, however, others may define sick in another way.

    • JStraussDC 12/07/2011, 10:23 pm:

      Excellent point Bill and “sick” is a perfect example. Some chiropractors use “sick” to describe a subluxated person thus justifying the phrase “chiropractic gets sick people well” by adjusting subluxations. However, that is a medical term and I doubt MDs would agree that being subluxated means you’re sick, especially when they do not acknowledge its existence.

Leave a Reply

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