A Thought on Outcome Assessment

10

If anyone can scientifically demonstrate that a positive change occurs after an adjustment ONCE, for one person, they have proved the efficacy of chiropractic care for every person ONCE AND FOR ALL. If you need to do it for every person who comes in the office or for every condition, it seems to me that you are addressing the alleviation of medical conditions. In that case, it is no longer research, it is therapy.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 10 comments

  1. jamie 12/16/2011, 5:37 pm:

    Dr. Joe,

    Do you see a difference between “proving” the efficacy of chiropractic care (great point!) and using assessment to monitor the progression of care (recommended frequency of checkups etc.)?

    What inside – out, congruent assessments exist in your opinion?

    • JStraussDC 12/16/2011, 7:11 pm:

      Proving chiropractic (scientifically), if it can be done, will involve more than just using outcomes. It is going to take objective findings. Likewise, we need objective findings to determine need for care. Subjective symptoms are already being used by most PMs (“I feel better, I guess I don’t need to be adjusted.”). We need to come up with something better but that’s a whole other subject.

  2. Steve 12/16/2011, 10:03 pm:

    Until we quantify the mental impulse, there will be no direct proof. We do however, have studies that show improved athletic performance and enhanced quality of life.

    • JStraussDC 12/17/2011, 3:16 pm:

      Agreed Steve. Only how do you quantify the metaphysical mental impulse? How do you demonstrate improved athletic performance and improved quality of life, when every person is different?

      • Steve 12/19/2011, 2:54 pm:

        You should have attended IRAPS at Sherman this year. Studies are being done and showing results. Although many more can and will bolster the evidence, there is positive data out there. Just like Holder’s work with addiction, measurement is possible.

    • Claudelessard@comcast.net 12/17/2011, 3:44 pm:

      The nerve impulse has been quantified Steve. The metaphysical component of the “mental” impulse cannot be quantified because it is not matter, it is adapted universal force by “unquantifiable” intelligence even though B.J. created the “electroneuroMENTIMPograph (you can see the derivation of the name given to the electrical meter included the mental impulse (MENT al IMP ulse)). B.J. said: “Whether or not mental impulses are energy, power, direct or alternating current, has not been proven. Our TIMPOGRAPH work indicates it is both. Superimpose onto, into,or thru our human energy impulse nerve force flow is INTELLIGENCE, JUDGMENT, DISCRIMINATION, ADAPTATION, MEMORY that works to produce construction, building, help, healing, curing, saving and prolonging lives.”

      The profession just did not want to follow the research and its results. B.J. condensed the report in a green book. Today, with the new science and technology, perhaps a group of scientists could continue and further the work. Read “Chiropractic Clinical Controlled Research”, Volume XXV, Palmer, 1951. To save you some work, go “straight” to p.604. Enjoy! 🙂

      • JStraussDC 12/17/2011, 5:15 pm:

        Thanks Claude

      • Steve 12/19/2011, 6:22 pm:

        Hey Claude,
        While it is true we as of yet have no way to measure ii we have been able to measure electricity (no mass) and the power of prayer. There must be some discernible difference between adapted and unadapted forces, we just don’t have the tools or technology…yet.
        Vol.XXV P.605
        6th. This pressure offers resistance or interference to normal
        carrying capacity of spinal cord or spinal nerve.
        7th. This resistance or interference reduces normal quantity flow
        of mental impulse or nerve force flow between brain and body.
        8th. This reduced quantity flow delivers less than necessary at
        periphery of nerves in tissue cell structures.
        9th. This reduced delivery reduces speed of action per unit of
        time of tissue cells, organs, or viscera of body.
        10th. This slowed-up speed of action lowers normal function of
        that or those structures thereby delivering less product or by-product.
        11th. This diminished product or by-product is dis-ease.
        12th. Regardless of structure, location, quantity, degree, or time,
        fundamental of underlying CONDITION of any, many, or all
        disease is same—it is dis-ease in function in body as compared to
        ease of Innate in brain which generates normal quantity of mental
        impulse or nerve force supply for same unit of time.
        13th. Compare unit of time of brain in generation, unit of time in
        transmission from brain to body, unit of time in expression in
        body, and they do not agree, establishing an unbalance between
        them—dis-ease.
        According to the passages you cited, quantity vs. time discrepancy has been verified.
        I do understand the new refined version of our philosophy separates the metaphysical component from the “nerve impulse”, but this is a good foundation for further study.

  3. Jim Peck 12/17/2011, 12:36 am:

    What has happened to Ron Pero’s research with long term chiro patients and their tcell and immune function measures? That would seem to be proof and evidence that regular adjustments simply bolster our function. Furthermore I believe that every person is unique (meaning that there is no uniform protocol for visits for everyone). I believe that the optimal program should be consistent and err on more over frequency because there is no contraindication for that.

  4. Matt Santos 12/18/2011, 12:50 pm:

    You cannot “prove” anything with science alone. The scientific method (induction) only gives you probabilities and averages. The interpretation of those statistical results to arrive at “proof” will necessarily (or at it least should) utilize deductive reasoning. In the same way I don’t believe that you can prove chiropractic with only induction OR deduction. The two must be used together.

Leave a Reply

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