Straight v.Objective Straight Chiropractors


A straight chiropractor reads and follows DD’s and BJ’s philosophy.  A non-therapeutic,  straight chiropractor  understands the philosophy in light of its objective.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 9 comments

  1. chiropractor encinitas 03/19/2012, 6:57 pm:

    damn joe, doesn’t it aggravate you to no end all the names? straight, osc, principled. reggie was right when he said BJ should’ve trademarked the name so we could just call it plain ole “chiropractic”. we alienate people using the “straight” terms and others using “chiropractic”

    • JStraussDC 03/20/2012, 11:48 am:

      Joey, it is a bit of a pain in the neck but as long as we have people totally ignoring, adding to, or taking away from the philosophy, choosing to define it by what BJ said in 1906, or 1916,or 1926, or 36, 46, 56, we will have to more clearly define it. And of course we would not want to offend anyone by saying what they espouse is not chiropractic even if the want to define it by something other than its objective. Hence the different “brands” even though we know what is true chiropractic. Imagine if Old Doc Chiro had “trademarked” it as a cure for deafness!

    • Tom 03/23/2012, 2:33 am:

      Joey, what response do you get when someone asks you what you do and you say you’re a chiropractor? Invariably they grab their low back or neck and say I sure could use one of you guys or you’ll get the opposite, they say I sure am glad I don’t need you, or the third is the simple blow off, I don’t believe in chiropractors. Next time somone asks you what you do, say you’re an objective straight chiropractor (if in fact you DO practice that way). 99 times out of a 100 you will not hear one of the above responses. Instead you will be asked, what is that? And there is your opportunity.

  2. Jonathan Verderame 03/19/2012, 7:52 pm:

    This is an important topic, can you elaborate.

    • JStraussDC 03/20/2012, 12:24 pm:

      I’d be happy to Jonathan, thank you for asking. In the beginning….(how’s that for an opening phrase)…chiropractic was correcting vertebral subluxations, anything else, other than LACVS by hand only was mixing. Then we decided that your intent or objective was the issue. Reggie use to say that more mixing was done by hand only than by modalities or any other means. Traditional straight chiropractors maintained that because BJ used chiropractic to get sick people well, that was still straight chiropractic. Hence the use of the further descriptive term Objective Straight Chiropractic or non-therapeutic straight, which I prefer (even though I am credited with coining the former). Hope that helps.

  3. Steve 03/19/2012, 8:29 pm:

    C’mon Joe, can’t we all just get along. OSC is the final draft so to speak. The take away message from DD and BJ was that the subluxation was detrimental to mankind( vertebrates) for many reasons. As long as you adjust to remove subluxations, you are a chiropractor.

    • JStraussDC 03/20/2012, 12:09 pm:

      Steve, I think it was Dr. Gelardi who first said that chiropractors adjust for many reasons (eg. cure, treat, prevent disease, make money, get rid of back pain). True it is the procedure that we perform that is important but it is the WHY (as my friend Claude would say) that is important. Unfortunately we leave the WHY up to the chiropractor or worse to the chiropractor. That creates the confusion that is rampant in our profession.
      I like the way you put it, ” the take away message from DD and BJ”. But too few chiropractors are willing to say that message is LACVS so the ii of the body can be more fully expressed. If everyone would take away that message and only that message, rather than tack on their agenda, we could get rid of much of our profession’s confusion. Non-therapeutic/OSC does that, in my opinion.

  4. Bob Berkowitz 03/20/2012, 12:53 am:

    It’s all about your OBJECTIVE [aka: outcome assessment]: if it is an ADJUSTMENT as your METHOD to have an OBJECTIVE of correcting a vertebral subluxation, it’s chiropractic. If one’s METHOD is to ADJUST SUBLUXATION for the purpose of ridding a symptomatic complaint, one’s OBJECTIVE shifts to alternative-medicine, thus MIXING methods traditional to chiropractic with a medical purpose. Look at it this way: if the vertebral subluxation has been corrected and they still have a complaint would you desire to put the subluxated vertebra back? I would hope not. Their body is in a better circumstance to strive. If the subluxated vertebra is corrected and they still have the complaint, perhaps you now want to bring in PT, Acupuncture, Message, drugs, etc; for your focus has shifted, thus your objective has shifted to that of a person wishing to use chiropractic-like methods but with a MEDICAL objectives. Bottom line is: if other professions can do what you do and do it for the same reason; we don’t NEED YOU!

  5. WILLIAM HOLLENSED 03/20/2012, 4:41 am:

    Being a non-therapeutic, straight chiropractor who understands the philosophy in view of the objective is it. Therapeutics maybe very necessary and helpful but that does not make it chiropractic. You can do whatever you want but calling anything but OSC chiropractic muddies the waters. There are lots of people doing everything and just a few being true. Your choice – true or whatever but please don’t think it is chiropractic. Bob if you don’t ask for complaints you will not know one still exists.

Leave a Reply

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



Follow Us

Subscribe to this blog
via RSS or Email: