A Thought On Research


   If you are going to practice chiropractic by an ouside-in approach, particularly the one treating disease or its cause, then you must subject yourself to the scrutiny of that system’s evaluation process, namely the empirical approach. If, however, you choose to practice chiropractic by the ADIO approach and use a deductive method then you use that evaluation system. The deductive system determines by reason the approach to straight chiropractic-concluding that the human body is better off with a good nerve supply. It concludes or theorizes nothing more. You cannot make any other claims for chiropractic unless they can be concluded from the deductive process. Any other claims must come from the medical process-empirical study and evaluation. That is why there is so much emphasis on research today. Historically, we were told by medicine that we were incompetent diagnosticians, so we improved our diagnostic skills. A small group, the “straights,” said  “we will play another game-a non-therapeutic one.” Now medicine is saying if you want to play our game you must prove yourself empirically, hence the emphasis on research. Until we prove ourselves by their rules we must shut up or practice by different rules. Here’s a question.  If we prove what we are doing by their standards, their system, are we making and “proving” chiropractic as an ouside-in approach? In other words,  do you need a deductive approach to demonstrate the validity of chiropractic in an ADIO system?

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 85 comments

  1. Steve 05/25/2012, 5:20 pm:

    Well Joe they do have “self reported quality of life reports”, but don’t you find those too ambiguous?
    If we say the problem / interference is in the matter, can we not “prove” matter has improved with care? Didn’t BJ demonstrate a difference between misalignments and subluxations, maybe we could start there? Is anyone doing research on subluxation these days???

    • eric seiler 05/25/2012, 7:58 pm:


      You have defined TS chiropractors as ones who provide adjustments to address “conditions” and speculate on outcomes. And it seems you consider this an “outside in” approach? How? You seem to suggest that NTOSC is somehow not “outside in” while TSC is. Could you please explain?

      • JStraussDC 05/26/2012, 3:42 pm:

        It seems to me that affecting the matter to affect the force from Above-Down-Iinside-Out is NTOSC. To affect the matter, even with an adjustment, for the purpose of affecting the (condition of) the matter and if it necessitates a change in the matter to be considered a positive outcome is what the medic does. The positive outcome of a NTOSC adjustment is determined deductively. The positive outcome of both a TSC adjustment and a medical procedure is based upon what they have concluded is positive changes in the matter, which is at best speculative.

        • eric seiler 05/27/2012, 9:02 pm:


          My question to you was about your apparent belief TSC is “outside in” while NTOSC is not. My understanding of “outside in” is the practice of introducing something extraneous into the body with the belief that it will do some kind of healing or something therapeutic for the body, INDEPENDENT of ii, i.e. – drugs, ultrasound, “healing” herbs, etc.
          While both a TSC and a NTOSC adjustment both begin in essence with an application of force from the outside-into the body, the distinction that both have from “outside in” is that the force is designed to remove interference with a neurological process so that ii may due as it sees fit. Whether or not the chiropractor wishes to speculate on what ii might achieve once the interference is gone is immaterial to the concept of “outside in”. Both TSC and NTOSC adjustments are fundamentally the same from an ADIO perspective, and fundamentally the same from an”outside in” perspective.
          How am I wrong here?

          • Ben Tinker 05/28/2012, 9:30 am:

            Definitely chiropractic is ADIO, it can be no other way. The innate intelligence will utilize the force (adjustment) be it good or bad to help correct subluxation.
            To quote Reggie “how arrogant are you to suggest the bone needs to be in a certain location. only innate knows where it should be.”
            So therefore, and from the principles of chiropractic, a force can be constructive or destructive, to help innate intelligence or go against it.
            Your adjustment will hopefully help your body align the bone. You are not doing it.
            And this is why chiropractic is ADIO. If you think you know better than the body (by knowing that the atlas needs to be in a certain position) you are no longer practicing 1. ADIO, 2. with humility and 3. not in the best interest of your patient.
            So is an adjustment outside in? By the principles of chiropractic it cannot be (not if the body uses the force to move the bone and/or for something else).

          • JStraussDC 05/29/2012, 4:27 am:

            Until the mid 70’s there was no TSC or NTOSC, just straight and mixing chiropractic and anything done “by hand only” was considered straight chiropractic. Mixing was as you say “introducing something extraneous into the body”. It got to the point that even the adjustment became something extraneous; in order treat musculoskeletal problems, straighten curves and even treat certain diseases. Many believed the intention of BJ to correct the cause of DIS-EASE (interference to the expression of the ii of the body) was being lost. That is when it was decided that your objective or intention was the issue and not whether you used your hands only. So……
            1. NTOSC began to LACVS to enable the ii of the body to be more full expressed PERIOD. That was based upon deductive reasoning and was considered ADIO.
            2. TSC was LACVS and speculating what the result would be “Speculate def.;1. To meditate on or ponder a subject 2. to assume a risk in hope of gain” (getting sick people well is the subject pondered/and the risk to be gained)
            3. Medicine and therapies were extraneously introduced into the body speculating that they would cure disease. They are outside-in by procedure. If they are going to “speculate” then they need to diagnose and do research (bringing us back to the subject of this post and the major practical issue (diagnosis) that historically separated the straight movement in the mid 70’s into TSC and NTOSC. See the England case in Refined by Fire).
            4. Prescribing supplements to treat disease is outside in by procedure.
            5. Taking supplements to be healthy is outside-in by procedure.
            6. Eating good food is outside-in by procedure BUT ADIO by intention.
            7. Introducing and adjustive thrust into the spine is outside-in by procedure and either ADIO or outside-in by intention.
            The NTOSC position is that it is the intention that determines whether a procedure is ADIO or outside-in.
            Therefore 1. is ADIO, 2. is outside-in, 3. is outside-in, 4. is outside-in, 5. is outside-in by procedure and not chiropractic so we do not make a judgment on its intention. 6. is ADIO. 7. is ADIO or outside-in.

          • eric seiler 06/01/2012, 9:28 pm:


            What makes anything “outside in” is the expectation that anything other than ii will organize or re-organize the body. The expectation in NTOSC is no different than in TSC. The speculation on what organizing or re-organizing ii may do is where the difference is. However this has no bearing on the common expectation that only ii will do the work and this is the heart of the matter. You guys don’t get all the good marbles. Sorry.

        • eric seiler 06/01/2012, 12:06 pm:

          Thanks for the explanation, however I still find valid grounds for disagreement. NTOSC and TSC ADJUSTMENTS have the same objective – to allow ii fuller expression. The fact that in NTOSC you prefer not to address what may or may not happen thereafter, and the fact that a TSC chiro may wish to address such phenomena has nothing whatsoever to do what make a procedure “outside in”.
          If NTOSC likes to throw in the “PERIOD” bit…that’s fine! But to suggest that without the PERIOD you are an “outside in” chiropractor is an unsubstantiated grab at owning a concept is certainly not “yours alone”. Doing so is bad for business too. You might find more folks in TSC would get on your bandwagon if you did not go out of your way to create this kind of divisiveness! : )

          • Steve 06/01/2012, 8:42 pm:

            Hey Joe,
            If I am wrong please correct me, but I think what makes it outside-in is the expectation, not the application. ADIO is a philosophy not a technique. How can you give full credit to innate and then say, but I know this muscle should be looser or this gland should not be so active. The expectation that the body will change to fit the Dr.’s idea of what it should be, this desire to influence the body, is what makes it OIBU . It demonstrates that in essence, the Dr feels he/she knows more than the Innate Intelligence of the patients body. After all isn’t the body, as matter, always the result or effect of intelligence and force? We work with the force, period.
            NTOSC is different, hence the change in terminology. Just as radiologist are fond of using the term subluxation to mean minor/incomplete luxation or partial dislocation. As chiropractors we use the same term but mean something very different, misalignment WITH nerve interference. Within OSC going beyond the nerve system is concept mixing/OIBU. What was Reggie’s quote… more mixing is done by straight chiropractors…
            I say let the TSC crowd continue to heal the world, I choose to evolve and work with the power of LIFE, which goes way beyond health. “I am a CHIROPRACTOR working with the sciences of the universe by TURNING ON THE LIFE IN MAN…”. (BJP)

          • Claude 06/01/2012, 11:11 pm:


            – From some of your previous posts, since “smoking is known to accelerate dehydration of the IVD and causing motor-unit instability” I am understanding that this NEW acquired information from your educated mind would influence you to tell your patient to quit smoking. I also understand that you feel “obligated to direct your patients toward NEW eating behavior for the purpose of increasing the resistance of the body so they can resit the banana peel. –

            – I have NO problem with that. It’s just not the objective of chiropractic. –

            – Could you please tell us WHERE TSC puts the period? I’m curious to know. Thank you. –

            – By the way, you have a brilliant educated mind! 🙂

          • JStraussDC 06/05/2012, 12:05 am:

            You’re probably right, more TSC would get on our bandwagon (although I’m not sure I would call it a bandwagon) if we did not, as you say, “go out of your way to create….divisiveness.” More ICA chiropractors would “get on” if we endorsed diagnosis, supplements and massage therapy. In fact even ACA would get on if we endorsed everything else! May I remind you that BJ was the most divisive person in the history of the profession, perhaps especially so with the statement “chiropractic is specific or it is nothing”. What “may or may not happen” after an adjustment hardly sounds specific. Wouldn’t it be great to tell a PM exactly what does happen after an adjustment and have them be satisfied with that understanding and that outcome alone? That is what NTOSC is all about. When it comes to an “unsubstantiated grab at owning a” concept that is “not ‘yours alone’, that is exactly what TSC is doing. There is no research that sustantiates that a TSC adjustment meets the medical objective of curing or correcting the cause of disease.

        • eric seiler 06/06/2012, 2:56 am:

          While confessing the sins of other factions in our profession may be fun, it brings little value to the crux of this discussion which is about how the concept of “outside in” relates equally to both TSC and NTOSC.
          Consider the following:
          Scenario A. – A man pushes the button to open the gates at the dog track. The dogs are released and run as they will. He has no “dog in the race” and cares not how it finishes.
          Scenario B. A man pushes the button to open the gates at the dog track. The dogs are released and run as they will. This man has a “dog in the race” and is an astute student of the game. He has a concern about how it finishes, and if his analysis is done well, the odds may be in his favor.
          Neither of these men have an “outside in” approach to the race. They both understand that the dogs will run as they will. They both released the dogs in the same way. And in the most fundamental sense, their expectation about what would happen once they pushed the button was the same. They expected the dogs would run as they will…just as in both TSC and NTOSC the expectation is that ii will do as it wills.
          Neither of the men at the dog track (if they were in their right minds) would expect that the dogs would run as they willed. That would would be an “outside in”, and fully delusional, “medically minded” view of dog racing.

          • JStraussDC 06/06/2012, 4:36 pm:

            Eric, you make the typical TSC mistake, judging what you are not doing as “sin” and paint us with the same brush. We have never purposely given the impression that medicine is bad, outside in is bad or TSC is bad. They are just different ways to look at the human experience, choices if you will and we do not judge those choices. What we do not try to do is rationalize outside-in as being ADIO, TSC as being NTOSC. They are not wrong, they just do not represent our approach to chiropractic. Notice, the TSC bashes medicine, we do not. We can debate the merits of outside-in versus ADIO and that is the purpose of this blog. In the end it is a personal decision, not ours to judge. But to debate the merits and make a decision we must first determine what is OI and what is ADIO. The TSC historically has condemned the “sin” of medicine (clearly outside-in) but adopted those procedures that he wants to do and called them ADIO (eg. supplements, massage therapy, exercise, rehab, wellness care, pediatric care, etc., etc., etc.) That’s what this debate should be about.
            PS, lets not get so caught up in analogies that we lose sight of the discussion. I find that analogies are most helpful in trying to understand the metaphysical. The concrete is usually pretty clear.

        • eric seiler 06/06/2012, 3:01 am:


          Clarification of the last paragraph of my post above. Meant to say:
          “Neither of the men at the dog track (if they were in their right minds) would expect that the dogs would run as they (THE MEN) willed.

          • Don 06/06/2012, 3:39 am:

            Whether they are accurate or not, I have to say that I love the analogies that I read on this forum.
            Absolutely fabulous!! Keep up the great work everyone!

          • Claude Lessard 06/06/2012, 11:16 am:


            Having a “dog” in the race implies being “attached” to a certain outcome does it not? That’s why those who have a “dog” in the race (whether owned or gambled), cheer their “dog”, wish for it to win (even pray), make sure the “dog” is given plenty of legal “supplements”, exercise them regularly, massage them, have a great trainer and comes from the best breeders, all of which is to “achieve” the “winning” outcome (or income!!) of those WHO CHOOSE to have a “dog” in the race. Is it not outside-in? –

            – The NTOSCs, it is they, WHO CHOOSE to LACVS (open the gates) PERIOD. –

            – It is this CHOICE makes chiropractic a DIFFERENT AND DISTINCT way of participating in the game of LIFE . NTOSCs KNOW beyond any doubts that people are better off BEING subluxation FREE. The NTOSCs experience the JOY of the race regardless of the outcome (or income!!!). It’s opening the GATES (LACVS) ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT! There are NO attachments or disappointments ONLY pure JOY!!! Why do YOU join us, it is so much fun!!! 😉

        • eric seiler 06/06/2012, 12:46 pm:

          I’m not suggesting there is no virtue in being unattached to the race. Nor am I suggesting that their is greater virtue in having attachments. My point here is that the phenomenon is the the same in both cases. Both TSC and NTOSC set the race in motion with the understanding that what gets done is then out of their hands. By bringing in the element of intent, you are grafting-on a distinction that does not go to the heart of THIS matter, and as I said before, the act of doing probably creates unwarranted and entirely unnecessary friction. There are plenty of good reasons to suggest that NTOSC is a “pure” way of applying our trade. But the suggestion that all other chiropractors are “outside in” is just plane false (and a little snooty).

          • Claude 06/06/2012, 1:27 pm:


            Chiropractic by definition is to BE “friction” free! 🙂 –

            – Should a profession by defined by: –

            – 1- WHAT it does? –

            – 2- The results it accomplishes? –

            – 3- It’s techniques? –

            – 4- It’s objective?

            Eric, know that I value your opinion. As I said before, YOU have a brilliant educated mind!

        • eric seiler 06/06/2012, 6:25 pm:


          Fair enough on your point that NTOSC does not bash other approaches, however there is not a whole lot of difference between bashing something, and misrepresenting something – and I do, with all due respect, believe you misrepresent TSC by suggesting that an adjustment given by a TSC-tor is an outside in affair. You seem to repeatedly go back to mentioning ancillary, obvious “outside in” things that some chiropractors might do – like vitamin therapy…but this is not what we are debating. We are debating the adjustment. And I still contend, in the absence of any real proof from you to the contrary, that a TSC and a NTOSC adjustment are equivalent in relation to the concept of “outside in”. For both, the expectation is that ii will be freed to do as wills. How one may view what ii may or may not do thereafter is causally UNRELATED to what was set into motion, and is therefore irrelevant in this dynamic.

          • Don 06/07/2012, 1:33 am:

            I find this thread quite interesting.
            As I see it we have the NTOSC view that is saying ADIO is the objective AND the intent that defines it.
            Whereas in this instance the TSC view is that ADIO is the defined by the objective. PERIOD.
            It’s always about where you put the period.
            Amazing isn’t it 😉
            How did I do guys? Not bad for the new guy I hope. 🙂

          • Don 06/07/2012, 1:35 am:

            Can’t we just stay on the same side of the period for once? 🙂

        • eric seiler 06/07/2012, 1:14 am:

          I would borrow a concept from the Bible here and suggest that a profession should be judged by its fruit. In that sense, I think all of conservative chiropractic is in pretty good shape. Objectives and techniques are all well and good, but it is the ACTUAL experience and ACTUAL enrichment of those who place their trust in us (the fruit of our effort) that best reflects the value in how we chose serve humanity.
          Love and respect all you guys (Steve too).

          • Claude 06/07/2012, 1:58 pm:


            This is great WHAT you suggest “that a profession should be judged by its fruit”. –

            – The question is: How should we DEFINE a profession?

          • JStraussDC 06/07/2012, 9:05 pm:

            I tend to think the question should be, “how does a profession define is ‘fruit”?

        • eric seiler 06/07/2012, 6:20 pm:

          Sorry about the “Miss America Pageant” answer there!
          I expect we would both agree that “Objective” would be the best choice in your list.

          • Claude Lessard 06/07/2012, 8:36 pm:


            Do you think there could be a better way than by objective to DEFINE a profession?

    • JStraussDC 05/26/2012, 2:22 pm:

      I think that is what the researchers are trying to do., Steve. The problem is that there are other things that affect the quality of the matter beside subluxation/adjustment. Also “quality of life” involves more than the absence of disease. To answer the second part of your question, as long as we as a profession find it attractive and ego building to research the “effects” upon disease, we will never research on what is a subluxation and…. how do you research the metaphysical aspect of the vs?

  2. Kresimir 05/25/2012, 5:42 pm:

    Great post and thots Dr. Joe,

    I fail to see the problem with measuring. I don’t think the inductive method is a bad thing. I think the issue is how do we position it in the practice members minds. If we are saying that being subluxated less often is going to improve the function of the practice members matter. Is it a philosophical crime to have a functional assessment that shows potential changes?

    Induction is based around a philosophy, it is not a philosophical primary. What is we repositioned this idea in the mind of the profession and practice members?

    • JStraussDC 05/26/2012, 2:54 pm:

      Dr. Kresmir,
      First, welcome to the board and for your input. The problem with the inductive method is that it is only looking at some of the parts and so it never gives us a true, total answer. The medical model seems to be satisfied with partial answers…..as long as they can maintain that’s all their is or that is all that is needed. On the other hand, we maintain there is no one single answer but we address only one single answer (correcting the VS) because that one problem seems to be present in almost everyone. It’s not a philosophical crime to show potential changes due to an adjustment…if we could prove that it was the adjustment and only the adjustment that caused that change. Unfortunately, that would require that every other aspect of a person’s life and health not be addressed and that would, in my opinion, create a moral crime. People would not be allowed to improve any other aspect of their life otherwise the results would be skewed. I apologize but I do not understand your last sentence/question.

  3. eric seiler 05/25/2012, 8:51 pm:

    Sorry Joe,

    Put this in the wrong place the first time. (Trying to do a better job with your threads!) You should answer here.

    You have defined TS chiropractors as ones who provide adjustments to address “conditions” and speculate on outcomes. And it seems you consider this an “outside in” approach? How? You seem to suggest that NTOSC is somehow not “outside in” while TSC is. Could you please explain?

  4. Steve 05/28/2012, 5:08 pm:

    OK Joe, I’m trying to get this STRAIGHT in my own head.
    It seems that to adjust with any other purpose than clearing the nerve system is outside-in because you must first assume something is wrong or abnormal. In order to assume something is wrong you must first know what is right, thereby invalidating the patients innate intelligence. So really you are saying, you as a Dr. know more than ii and the adjustment is performed to advance or confirm this position. This adjustment then is done to bring the patient’s body closer to where the Dr. thinks it should be(therapeutic).
    On the other hand, the way to state or demonstrate the superiority of ii is by merely releasing it and getting out of the way. This adjustment is done to let ii do it’s job regardless of the consequences, knowing ii will do what ever is necessary to promote life(non-therapeutic).
    Could it all be a matter of egos Joe,. depending on where the Dr. positions him/herself in the process? TSC is attempting to change the effect (body/symptoms), OSC is attempting to affect the changeless(ii).

    • Don 05/28/2012, 10:07 pm:

      Thank you Steve!
      I was struggling with this one also.
      I realized the use of the word force and the intent of chiropractor were the reason.
      The application of an adjustic force seemed to be outside in. However, I realized that the application of force is the chiropractor affecting the matter and both the TSC and NTOSC do this but the intent of the application of that force is very important. We either apply the adjustic force with an intent to change something/see an effect (outside in) which is one thing or we are releasing ii to express itself fully by addressing the interference to the transmission of innate forces and expect only that the ii will do the rest. That seems quite different.

    • Steve 05/28/2012, 10:17 pm:

      Example #1
      Pt…. Doc I can’t stay out of the bathroom
      Doc …how so
      Pt …urinating all the time
      Doc…ok lets get you on the table and check your kidney switch
      Doc… well I found C1, T5 and T11 out today, T11 controls the nerve to the kidneys, lets see if that solves the problem,you will need to get rechecked in two days to see if your kidneys are functioning better.

      Example #2
      Pt …Doc I can’t stay out of the bathroom
      Doc…that sounds like a medical problem, if it goes on beyond what you find comfortable you may want to see an MD about that, meanwhile lets check your spine to make sure your nerve system is functioning at it’s best. Do you remember us discussing how Innate Intelligence controls and regulates your body through your nerve system?
      Pt…yes Doc, that’s why I’m here
      Doc…Ok, today you had C1, T5 and T11 subluxations in your spine interfering with your nerve system. I hope you’re feeling better soon but I know your body is already working better. Get your spine checked in 2 days to make sure those subluxations are cleared out.

      Discussion… Here is what I feel are 2 distinct approaches, #1 TSC, #2 OSC . Are they significantly different, I think so, especially if the original problem was in the liver and ii was running the kidneys overtime to adapt? I personally am in transition from #1 to #2, the difference between how I was raised /educated and how I prefer to practice now.

      • Don 05/29/2012, 1:41 am:

        Transition-ville for me too.
        I know it is a process and all processes take time.
        Thank you for this blog.
        Dr. Strauss’ blog is by far the best I’ve come across.
        If anyone else knows any other OSC resources, or people to connect with/look for, I’d love to hear them.

        • Tom 05/29/2012, 9:51 pm:

          Don, you need to get hold of (if you don’t already have them) Joe’s Chiropractic Philosophy Text, and Case Management for the Straight Chiropractor. Those two are critical to start with. Next in line would be Practice Building for the Straight Chiropractor and the Reggie book. This is a good start! 🙂

          • Don 05/30/2012, 12:40 am:

            Thanks for the recommendations Tom!
            I have the Practice Building Text already. Found it very helpful.
            Don’t have the Reggie Text. Many have recommended it to me.
            Someone also recommended the Reggie Gold CD/tapes to me. I have never heard them.
            Maybe someone out there who has the CD’s share their thoughts on them?

          • Tom 05/30/2012, 2:55 am:

            “Don 05/30/2012, 12:40 am:
            Thanks for the recommendations Tom!
            I have the Practice Building Text already. Found it very helpful.
            Don’t have the Reggie Text. Many have recommended it to me.
            Someone also recommended the Reggie Gold CD/tapes to me. I have never heard them.
            Maybe someone out there who has the CD’s share their thoughts on them?Thanks.”

            They’re ok Don. 😉 They came out in 1987 after Reggie just left spinology and he was on fire spreading the message of NTOSC. I was very fortunate to be in the audience when he recorded this 10 hour series. He covers inductive & deductive reasoning, the triune, cause & effect, limitations of time & matter, symptoms, 4 hours of Q & A. The 4 hrs of Q & A alone are worth the price of the set. Good stuff for sure!

  5. Claude 05/29/2012, 1:22 pm:

    The function of LIVING matter is to express innate forces (pri.13). The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. Period. –

    The rest is up to the law of life. 😉

    • Claude 05/29/2012, 2:15 pm:

      – There is an innate intelligence of the body that is always 100% proportional to the ORGANIZATION of that particular LIVING body (pri.22). The innate intelligence of the body maintains the material of the LIVING body in active ORGANIZATION (pri.21) within the limitation of the matter of that particular LIVING body (pri.24). There can be interference with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri.29) operating through the nerve system (pri.28) caused by vertebral subluxation (pri.31) causing DIS-EASE (pri.30) further limiting the matter of the LIVING body. —

      – Through deductive reasoning, it is logical to conclude that LACVS is the best and the most that the educated mind with all of its accumulated knowledge can do for a full expression of the innate forces of the LIVING body. Anything less is NOT the objective of chiropractic. Anything more is NOT the objective of chiropractic. –

      – ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT is to recognize our educated limitations and understand that there is an innate intelligence in the LIVING body as LAW OF LIFE fully capable of running the LIVING body as long as there are NO interference with the transmission of its innate forces. –

      – Chiropractic is the ONLY profession whose objective is to remove interference with the transmission of innate FORCE… the 2nd component of the triune of life. – 😉

      • Claude 05/29/2012, 3:31 pm:

        WHEN a person is born, a NEW of consciousness with an educated mind is also born. Educated was 0% up to that point and is now accumulating information at the specific rate of the limitation of the matter of the body (which most likely includes the presence of VS) and the environmental circumstances that the NEW person is subjected to. The senses of the NEW person have been activated and are working according to the law of organization of matter of its own body evidenced by seeing, smelling, tasting, hearing and touching. –

        – There is also consciousness of movement as information of muscular control with purpose, direction and intent flood the NEW educated mind. –

        – All along, the body of that NEW person assimilates, excretes, adapts, grows and reproduces cells at an astronomical rate (pri.18)
        all of which this NEW educated mind is hardly aware. –

        – The NEW person drinks colostrum, milk, nourishes the body, urinates and defecates. All of which is “proof” of being alive (pri.18).

        – As you all know, much more than that is taking place from moment to moment adapting to the multitude of needs of the LIVING body from its birth to its death. –

        – Going through this magnanimous journey we call life with full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body from ABOVE-DOWN-INSIDE-OUT is an invitation that chiropractic offers humanity. –

        – WHO you choose to BE in relation to this invitation will determine your life’s view point. –

        – CHOOSE WELL !!!

        • Claude 05/29/2012, 9:33 pm:

          Now, take a long loving look at YOUR self in the mirror. WHAT do YOU see? YOU are filled with LIFE are you not? Do YOU see LIFE coursing through your being from Above-Down-Inside-Out? Pretty evident is it not? –

          – Then WHY choosing educated to attempt to DO that which is the domain of the innate intelligence of YOUR body? Are you not infiltrating that which is a by-product of education, and speculative from outside-in-below-up? –

          – WHEN it is you WHO chooses limited educated mind over unlimited innate wisdom running the LIVING body, are you not participating in your “inner flow” from Above-Down-Inside-Out to BE broken down to give way to an Outside-In-Below-Up view point? –

          – It is ALWAYS about choice is it not? –

          • Claude 05/30/2012, 2:27 pm:

            Here’s some thing that might influence to make an elegant choice for LIFE. –

            – BJ said: –

            – “INTERNAL SOURCE is eminently qualified TO GIVE. We are educationally disqualified FROM RECEIVING. Reason presents EVIDENCE of why. There is an educational mental block, accidentally received thru a vertebral subluxation between above-down-inside-out which all suffer with and from, more or less. We try to treat blocked effects by bolstering them with a super-abundance of artificial education from outside-in-below-upward which side-tracks and stifles the normal coming thru.” –

            – The questions are: –

            – WHY giving the educated mind precedence over innate wisdom WHEN only innate intelligence can run an infant’s body, a toddler’s body, a child’s body, an adolescent’s body, an adult’s body and an elder’s body from birth until death? WHY choosing to trust education
            instead of the LAW of life already bestowed to EVERY human being from birth until death? –

            – That which develops the human race and each individual in it, does it not DEMANDS intensified observation, understanding and logical conclusion without fear and with absolute trust? –

            – WHY is it that the simplicity of OBSERVATION, of WHAT is factual and true, deceives the complex educated mind into denying the reality of WHAT it thinks? YOU all know what I am talking about! (Yes, but… — can’t be that simple… — Come on Claude, be realistic… — don’t bury your head in the sand… — But it’s not scientific and how can you prove it?… — I think it’s true and it doesn’t make sense…. — I don’t know why I don’t do it…. — Get out of the dark ages… — There’s got to be more to it… — I wish I could be as convinced as you are… —Try tell that to the public…. — etc….) –

            – Ask anyone: “HOW do YOU tap your foot, wink, or clap your hands?” The answer you will get is simple: “I don’t know. It just comes.” –

            – The sad part is that most chiropractors KNOW the answer to that question and it is they WHO choose to deny the reality of WHAT they know. –

            – Please, OBSERVE a lawn (yes, simple blades of grass) for 500 hours in silence all the while getting your spine checked every week. It’s easy to do and I promise YOU it will reinforce ADIO!!! 😉

  6. Don 05/30/2012, 9:37 am:

    “They’re ok Don. 😉 They came out in 1987 after Reggie just left spinology and he was on fire spreading the message of NTOSC. I was very fortunate to be in the audience when he recorded this 10 hour series. He covers inductive & deductive reasoning, the triune, cause & effect, limitations of time & matter, symptoms, 4 hours of Q & A. The 4 hrs of Q & A alone are worth the price of the set. Good stuff for sure!”

    Thanks again Tom!
    I’ll look into getting the Philosophy text and the Reggie book that you recommended (am also considering possibly getting the entire blue book set..maybe Dr. Strauss will have a promotion soon.. 🙂 Here’s hoping he reads this!
    As for the Reggie CD’s, before purchasing, I’ll look for someone who could lend me them to me for a preview. 😉

    • Don 05/30/2012, 9:41 am:

      He seems to have a promotion already! $200 for the set. Too bad, I’m outside of the United States. 🙁

    • Tom 05/30/2012, 11:17 am:

      Don, please send me an email at ticdoc55@gmail.com

      • Don 06/04/2012, 12:46 am:

        Hi Tom,
        Please check you email. Thanks.

        • Don 06/04/2012, 12:47 am:

          your email.

          • Tom 06/04/2012, 1:36 am:

            Thanks Don, please check your email.

  7. Claude Lessard 06/04/2012, 6:57 pm:

    How do people break loose from propaganda of a group-mind that has been sincere, earnest and honest in supporting its ideal in its search for the CURE of all diseases, staying with it for 5000 years, thus proving that this very sincerity, earnestness and honesty has infiltrated with its fundamentals the collective MIND of general education?

    • Steve 06/04/2012, 7:32 pm:

      Point out that after 5000 years they have not cured anything!
      Sadly most people believe what they hear first or most often.

      • Claude 06/04/2012, 8:26 pm:


        Your pointing out is correct. Yet people DONATE millions every year for the CURE. How can people break loose from that?

        • Tom 06/05/2012, 1:01 pm:

          Claude, that’s because “the cure” is “just around the corner”, didn’t you know that????? Who in their “right mind” would ever stop giving with that being the case. 😉

          • Claude 06/05/2012, 9:40 pm:

            Tom, doesn’t it prove that when a group-mind is sincere, earnest and honest, regardless of the subject matter, the public “sees” the group-mind as a mirror image of themselves and people WANT to participate in the ideal of the group-mind?

        • Steve 06/05/2012, 4:49 pm:

          Hey Claude,
          Only a massive educational/advertizing campaign would do. We would have to start yesterday and blitz the media. It would have to begin with cartoons and go all the way to the AARP magazine. It would have to be constant and long term, maybe 2 generations.
          Or we can do it one at a time in our offices.

          • Claude 06/05/2012, 9:41 pm:

            Steve, how is it working for you?

  8. Don 06/07/2012, 10:10 pm:

    If a practice member, for whatever reason decides to listen to the media regarding cervical manipulation and the reported …. but unsubstantiated…claims of vertebrobasilar episodes I feel responsible to respond to their questions and concerns. If as stated above “we will play another game-a non-therapeutic one.” Should I be responding? I know I can’t prove anything and we must shut up or practice by different rules.
    But here’s my question: What is the OSC stance on this issue of cervical manipulation and stroke?
    What is an philosophically congruent response to a pm who voices this concern?

    • Claude Lessard 06/07/2012, 10:56 pm:


      Non-Therapeutic-Objective Chiropractors do NOT perform cervical manipulations. The NTOS-Chiropractor locates the subluxated vertebra. Analyzes its juxtaposition with with the vertebra above, below or both to determine its accurate listing. Selects a chiropractic technique of choice. Introduces a SPECIFIC thrust into the SPECIFIC subluxated vertebra as gently as possible by hands or with a chiropractic instrument. The INTENT of the NTOS-Chiropractor is that the innate intelligence of the body will use that SPECIFIC thrust that was introduced and that the innate intelligence of the body will PERFORM the SPECIFIC adjustment of the VS. Period. –

      The practice member should be made aware of that.

    • JStraussDC 06/07/2012, 11:28 pm:

      Don, great question. I meant to post this question during the week while on vacation and could not get online. In order to give it the space it needs, I was going to repost your comment tommorrow as a new thread. Of course quick-draw Lessard responded before I could move it over. So , I’ll ask everyone to jump in on the new thread on Friday. My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.

      • Don 06/08/2012, 1:04 am:

        Sorry Joe.
        I’m sure you could phrase the question better than I could with the new post anyhow.
        I am really looking forward to the discussion.
        Hope you enjoyed the vacation!

        Oh! and thank you too …”Quick-draw”!

  9. Claude Lessard 06/07/2012, 10:34 pm:


    – Eric mentioned fruit as a truth taken from Holy Scriptures and he used it with HOW to “judge” a profession and he is right regarding the judging of a profession. –

    – Eric also mentioned that OBJECTIVE was the better choice of four possibilities I gave him regarding HOW to DEFINE a profession. –

    – It seems to me that fruits deal with results. And fruits or results can be shared by many professions. Examples: –

    – Case 1: Someone goes to an MD to have a headache go away. MD treats headache with drugs…. headache goes away. –

    – Case 2: Someone goes to an Faith Healer to have a headache go away. Faith Healer prays for the headache to go away… headache goes away. –

    -Case 3: Someone goes to a psychologist to have a headache go away. Psychologist uses biofeedback for the headache to go away… headache goes away. –

    – Case 4: Someone goes to a chiropractor (MANUROPATH, MIXER, CHIROPRACTOID, TSC, NTOSC) to have a headache go away. Chiropractor adjusts the spine for the headache to go away (or simply to LACVS for the NTOSC) … headache goes away. –

    – ALL 4 cases have same fruit and same result. Yet Faith Healing is NOT Medicine. Psychology is NOT Medicine. Chiropractic is NOT Medicine. In this scenario those 4 learned professions share the same fruit/result . These examples make it quite clear that we cannot DEFINE a profession by its fruits/results. –

    – My question to the group still stands: –

    – Do you think there could a better way than by objective to DEFINE a profession?

    • JStraussDC 06/07/2012, 11:13 pm:

      Whew Claude!, You and Eric have opened a can of worms. Before we get into that we need to clarify something: If we consider the “fruit” of the above a physical product, result or objective(in this case getting rid of a physical problem-a headache) then all 4 cases have the same fruit. It’s just a matter of who has the better fruit. The fruit of the NTOSC is not physical, like the others. It is metaphysical (greater expression of the ii of the body). That’s where chiropractic differs from all the rest. It is the only profession that considers fruit to be non-physical. If the chiropractor truly corrects the vs and the headache does not go away, has he produced fruit? Sure! As Reggie would say often “that person is a better headache sufferer.” Whether the headache goes away or not is immaterial to the NTOSC. My personal desire is that the headache go away but I do not confuse my personal desires with my professional objective. I have seen too many TSCs allow their personal desires to take precedence over their professional objective and they ultimately end up mixing other things into their practice which totally obscures the objective of chiropractic.

      • Don 06/08/2012, 1:19 am:

        Dr. Strauss,
        I know Reggie traveled and lectured extensively, and much of what is quoted may be from these lectures. Other than the Reggie CD/DVD’s and your book, do you know of any other (CD, DVD, internet) collections of Reggie’s lessons and/or sayings such as these?

        • JStraussDC 06/08/2012, 11:57 am:

          Funny you should ask, Don. I’m sure Reggie talks are all over the place. Tom and I met with Irene a few weeks ago and she gave us literally hundreds of tapes and even an unpublished manuscript (typed on a typewriter!!!, now being put on computer). Many of the tapes are cassettes and even reel to reel and video (some of the videos are professional quality/studio reels and cassettes which we have no way of even viewing…anyone have ideas?). It is a monumental task to get them into a format that will make it accessible to chiropractors and the public. Some of the audio tapes go back to the 60’s, some have deteriorated badly and need editing. Tom is heading up this entire effort. We are at the same time discussing the best way of making this available. We want to make sure we do not infringe upon things that are still sold through Chiroproducts, and copyrighted radio and television programs. Lastly, much of it depicts Reg’s evolution from his TSC (when he graduated from Palmer) to NTOSC to spinology back to NTOSC. We want to make sure that this effort honors the man and preserves the great contribution he has made to chiropractic. So be patient and hopefully we can get some great stuff out there in the near future.

          • Don 06/08/2012, 8:34 pm:

            Dr. Strauss,
            Thank you for taking this task on and look forward to the end product. You are making a great contribution to the profession with this and all of your work. I hope you get the support you deserve.
            Thank you again.

          • eric seiler 06/08/2012, 10:41 pm:

            I guess you must be right! Anyone who does not think the way you do must be a deluded, self-serving, glory seeking usurper of metaphysical principles.
            After a brief morning session of begging God to make me rich, I go to my office, and using the power of my will alone, I direct my patient’s nerve impulses to their symptomatic areas and evoke their healing…after which they bathe me in hero worship. Then I go home and beat the dwarf I keep chained to a sink in my basement.
            Yep – that’s a day in the life of a God-fearing Traditional Straight Chiropractor.

          • JStraussDC 06/08/2012, 11:02 pm:

            Eric, just when I think I am beginning to, at least, understand your TSC perspective, you post a comment that throws me for a loop. I don’t understand why you think you need to keep him chained!

          • eric seiler 06/08/2012, 11:54 pm:

            Gosh Joe!
            I guess your dwarf likes his beatings. My tries to run off.

          • Steve 06/11/2012, 1:25 pm:

            Eric Eric Eric,
            Show that dwarf some of your unconditional love and give him a few adjustments. Maybe he will stop biting your ankles when you brush your teeth, and you won’t be so grouchy.
            Oh and thanks for reminding me TSC does not stand for Therapeutic Straight Chiropractic, I don’t know how that concept got in my head.

          • eric seiler 06/11/2012, 7:03 pm:

            Steve, Steve, Steve,
            Who is the grouch?

      • Claude Lessard 06/08/2012, 2:08 am:


        That was NOT the point I was making. I do understand that the NTOSC does consider the fruit to be non-physical. Nevertheless, my examples do share fruits/results on the physical level as well. –

        – Case 1: Someone goes to an MD to have his headache go away. MD treats his headaches with drugs… the headache does NOT go away. The MD did NOT accomplish his objective. –

        -Case 2: Someone goes to a Faith Healer to have his headache go away. FH prays for the headache to go away… the headache does NOT go away. The FH did NOT accomplish his objective. –

        – Case 3: Someone goes to a Psychologist to have his headache go away. Psychologist uses biofeedback for the headache to go away… the headache does NOT go away. The Psychologist did NOT accomplish his objective. –

        Case 4: Someone goes to a chiropractor to have his headache go away. Chiropractor (Manuropath, Mixer, Chiropractoid, TSC, NTOSC)
        adjusts the spine for the headache to go away…. the headache does NOT go away. The chiropractor did NOT accomplish his objective. –

        – I must point out that chiropractic did accomplish its objective which is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. And the chiropractic objective is METAPHYSICAL. It deals with FORCE which is the second component of the triune. You are correct in stating that the fruit of chiropractic is METAPHYSICAL. And ONLY NTOSCs acknowledge this fundaMENTAL truth. In the above examples ONLY the NTOSC accomplishes her objective which is the chiropractic objective. This is WHY I take the responsibility to BE one WHO chooses to BE an NTOSC. In the examples above, ONLY the NTOSC is STANDING UP for the objective of chiropractic. –

        – NTOSC LACVS. PERIOD. –

        • Claude Lessard 06/08/2012, 2:34 am:

          My question is: –

          Does anyone think that there could be a better way to DEFINE a profession than by its objective?

        • eric seiler 06/08/2012, 12:56 pm:

          A lot of truth here Claude.
          You just need to drop the “ONLY NTOSCs acknowledge this fundaMENTAL truth” bit.
          This is patently false. : )

          • Claude 06/08/2012, 2:23 pm:


            – Very well then. Both TSC and NTOSC aknowledge that the fruit of chiropractic is fundaMENTALly METAphysical (free FLOW of MENTAL impulses). –

            – NTOS-Chiropractors are NOT concerned with fruits or results! –

            – WHY LACVS (open the gates), then have a personal desire (rooting for a dog in the race) OVERCOMING the professional objective of chiropractic (which simply LACVS for a full expression of the fundaMENTALs)? Why attempting to get sick people well (have YOUR and your patient’s dog in the race… win the race)? –

          • Steve 06/08/2012, 8:55 pm:

            Hey Eric
            When you praise your god, do you do it so he/she will make you rich? Or, do you praise him/her out of respect and devotion, knowing that “thy will be done”? Now what would you say to someone that told you they mainly praised god for the rewards, of wealth, health or eternal bliss? Does the same act (praise) change by intent? Does it demonstrate a different level of understanding and could it possibly marginalize the relationship?
            I know doing something because it needs to be done or is the right thing to do is different than doing the same something for a payoff.
            Or could it be that TSC refuses to give up the symptom relieving HERO status. Who is the hero, chiropractic or the chiropractor?

  10. Claude 06/08/2012, 2:50 pm:

    My question still stands: –

    Does anyone on this blog think that there could be a better way to DEFINE a profession than by its objective? 😉

    • JStraussDC 06/09/2012, 12:10 pm:

      Claude, is there any profession that does not define itself by its objective?

    • eric seiler 06/09/2012, 6:01 pm:

      Members of a given profession may have some “ideal” about what their objective is, but society may define them quite differently depending on whether or not their “fruit” is congruent with their proposed objective.
      For example, a politician may say the objective of his profession is to uphold the constitution, but his constituents may find this dubious.
      Can you think of any other professions that profess an objective that does not match what they produce?
      So for this reason I wish to withdraw my earlier answer, and suggest that the best way to “realistically” define a profession is by its produces, not what it professes .

      • JStraussDC 06/11/2012, 1:54 pm:

        Eric, we always seem to get hung up on your analogies. A politician is a public servant. His objective is (should be) to serve the public. The means by which he does that is to create laws that are consistent and reflect the ideals of the constitution. The objective of the chiropractor is or should be to correct vs to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed. The means is the adjustment. The chiropractic “constitution” is the philosophy. When a TSCor makes the adjustment the objective, the “product” can become anything they want including getting sick peolple well which is not a bad objective… it’s just that it belongs to another profession. People coming into our offices may want a different product than we have to offer. The NTOSC must convince the person that his product (better ii expression) is vital and if he desires another product, he must choose another option. It seems to me that the TSCor makes the adjustment the end rather than the means to the end (correcting vs to enable…..). When that happens the PM can have any product he wants. If the PM does not get the desired fruit, he will look elsewhere. In order to not lose the PM the TSCor will try other things to produce the desired fruit and his objective becomes that of medicine. That is called mixing objectives.

        • eric seiler 06/11/2012, 7:18 pm:

          This is another fine example of you defining things as it suits you rather than as they are. The objective of NTOSC is to LACVS – right? The product is greater expression of innate. You are no less product oriented than TSC. You simply chose (and I’m not suggesting this is bad) to disregard what may or may not happen beyond this. But as I have repeatedly suggested – fundamentally this is no different than TSC where the major tenets of our philosophy is concerned.
          Give credit where it is due.
          Celebrate those things we as chiropractors have in common.
          Build an individuating case for your paradigm where it is genuinely unique only.
          Attract people that way.

          • JStraussDC 06/12/2012, 1:35 pm:

            Eric, you may not accept the NTOSC model but surely you must intelectually understand it by now. But here goes again:
            1. It is not LACVS, that Eric, may be the TSC model. Actually from your comments I understand the TSC model to be LACand preventVS. The NTOSC model is LACVS to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed.
            2. To ignore the first component (LACVS) allows for other things like techniques that correct non spinal nerve interference, eg.KST and what some NTOSCors call conservative mixing eg. supplement prescribing, wellness care and preventing VS.
            3. To ignore the second component or call it a product rather than part of the objective, allows you to have any “product” you want and results in:
            A. a guessing game, which is not philosophically sound, akin more to the practice objective of medicine, getting sick people well.
            B. requires a diagnosis and/or a prognosis (the issue that ooriginally split the straight movement into TSC and NTOSC).
            C. Confusion on the part of the PM and can lead them to make dangerous and life threatening decisions, to expect a “product” that the chiropractor/ii cannot, because of Lof M, deliver.
            D. Damages the public’s perception of chiropractic and has led ,IMO,to 99% of the profession’s problems.
            4. To NOT “disregard what may or may not happen” is a dangerous game and not necessary. It only serves to enhance the arrogance of the chiropractor and has no value if the PM truly understands what greater expression of the ii of the body is all about.
            5. Conclusion: You are correct “there is no differen(ce)….where the major tenets of our philosophy is concerend.” But there is a difference between the objectives and that is the far more important issue.

        • eric seiler 06/13/2012, 3:20 am:

          Actually I do accept and understand your model, and I also find it one of the better brands of chiropractic that we have today. I am a big proponent of most all of what you have to say, which is why I hang around this blog as much as I do. And because I am not a member of your choir, I’m probably of better use to you than having another “yes” man around. Because I’m looking from the outside in and claim no personal ownership in what you espouse, I can look at it objectively.
          You have a very pure and admirable approach to chiropractic. I simply do not accept the kind of spin you have placed on a few concepts that are not NTOSC-tic’s to own or alter, example – the nature of ui and the way you spin outside-in. Your handling of these concepts in my opinion is arbitrarily “out-of-whack”… and unnecessarily so! I think you are also a little Stone Age in your dismissal of the fact that chiropractors can give their practice members useful advice about chemical, physical and emotional stress without it being in any way whatsoever outside in. This may simply be because you have never been exposed to this…but this does not mean the principles do not exist.
          The fact that TSC can take a broader approach to the etiology and ramifications of subluxation makes it no less chiropracTIC than what you are doing. It is a matter of preference… and nothing more.

        • Matt Monetti 07/28/2013, 3:48 am:

          I’m jumping in the middle of this thread. I have not read all the posts, but this particular topic seemed to capture me.

          I do not see it matters whether chiropractic is defined by its objectives or it’s products. For both these measures TSC and NTOSC differ. The objective determines what the product is. TSC wants to get sick people well through LACVS. The product is wellness, but only where there is illness = heal. The NTOSC wants to enable Innate Intelligence to be fully expressed through LACVS. The product is improved function = vitality. Though they use the same approach or method, LACVS, they have different objectives and thus provide different products. Am I mistaken about these objectives or products? Anyway I really agree with what Joe posted. It’s a case of the end (treatment) and means (adjustment) to the end (improved overall function). If the PM only got the same number of adjustments from equivalently trained chiropractors using the same techniques but one was NTOSC and TSC the outcome would be expected to be the same. However from the PM’s perspective one would measure success based on the relief of some condition and the other would not. Just because the method is the same does not mean the product is.

          I do believe intention, mentioned much later in this tread, is a key aspect of the difference that needs to be considered.

    • Steve 06/11/2012, 5:05 pm:

      Hey Claude,
      I don’t know that we are defining ourselves by the objective anymore because our objective is so elusive. LACVS is not our objective it is our method for achieving our goal of removing interference to the innate forces.Sure, we can demonstrate subluxation, physically. Yes, we can offer adjustments to restore tone. What we can not do is prove our “objective” which is improving the expression of innate force. What I feel truly defines us is our concept, ADIO.
      Admittedly our method is unique as we attempt to reconcile the limits of matter by introducing a calculated force into the spine however, we do not define ourselves as ADJUSTERS. We seek to restore nerve tone for better transmission but we’re not NERVE TUNERS. We were named for our approach, “done by hand” but that does not define us either..
      What we have here is a concept, an idea, a perspective, the body ALWAYS works better without nerve interference. If our objective is metaphysical then I guess our terms of definition should also reflect that understanding. Are we not INNATEOLOGISTS( one who works with the principles of Innate Intelligence). I think that is more encompassing than FORCEOLOGISTS
      As you guys have said what we do is immeasurable, un-researchable, and non-provable. Even though we can explain it, we can’t make it observable. Since logic is our best tool for teaching it, maybe we should use logic to define what we do when removing interference to the transmission of innate forces. We’re FORCEMONGERS

      • Claude 06/13/2012, 8:38 pm:


        Innate intelligence does NOT have principles to work with. It is principle itself. It is principle #20 of the 33. LACVS is part of the objective of chiropractic. The objective of chiropractic is: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD. –

        – You are correct in stating that interference with innate forces (pr.29) is metaphysical. We must ALWAYS remember that the definition of vertebral subluxation is both physical AND metaphysical. –

        – A vertebral subluxation is a vertebra (physical) that has lost its juxtaposition with the one above, the one below or both to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening (physical), impinging upon a nerve (physical) and interfering with the flow of mental impulse (metaphysical) between brain cell (physical) and tissue cell (physical) and vice versa. Vertebral subluxation is the CAUSE of DIS-EASE. The profession of chiropractic LACVS thereby restoring EASE. –

        – Therefore chiropractic is truly defined by its objective. It is the profession of chiropractic (TOR) WHO is called to choose to practice the objective of chiropractic or not. It is as simple as that! 😉

  11. Claude 06/12/2012, 10:14 pm:

    This comment is from quick draw and goes under: Question from a reader.


    Non-Therapeutic-Objective Chiropractors do NOT perform cervical manipulations. The NTOS-Chiropractor locates the subluxated vertebra. Analyzes its juxtaposition with with the vertebra above, below or both to determine its accurate listing. Selects a chiropractic technique of choice. Introduces a SPECIFIC thrust into the SPECIFIC subluxated vertebra as gently as possible by hands or with a chiropractic instrument. The INTENT of the NTOS-Chiropractor is that the innate intelligence of the body will use that SPECIFIC thrust that was introduced and that the innate intelligence of the body will PERFORM the SPECIFIC adjustment of the VS. Period. –

    The practice member should be made aware of that.

Leave a Reply

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



Follow Us

Subscribe to this blog
via RSS or Email: