Power influence.


We must realize how much a sphere of influence, we have as NTOSCors. I hate to think where chiropractic would be today if it were not for the NTOSC movement begun in 1973 with the founding of Sherman,the FSCO, and people like Thom Gelardi and Reggie. There is no doubt the “objective” aspect of NTOSC would not exist without what the Palmers left us. For that we owe them our enduring respect and admiration. For some reason their objective, DIS-EASE, devolved/degenerated into disease. Part of the reason was that they and/or their contemporaries only addressed DIS-EASE as it related to disease. That became traditional (straight) chiropractic that began in 1961 (after the death of the Authority who left us only a small part of his thinking in the form of the written word.). The saddest aspect of all of this is that the traditional straight/ICA/”BJ” chiropractor in continuing to embrace the “chiropractic gets sick people well, cause of all disease” model have in fact abandoned the true objective that BJ Palmer left us. The majority of chiropractors who want to hold onto that model and continue to be TSC will eventually, if they have not already choose or be forced to, abandon true chiropractic for the medical model. We are the only restraining force preventing the wholesale degradation of chiropractic. That is a great responsibility and challenge.

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 40 comments

  1. dan sevier 02/08/2013, 9:03 pm:

    Good point. For ChiropracTIC to survive, especially to thrive, there must be ChiropracTORS who walk the talk.

  2. Steve 02/08/2013, 9:34 pm:

    Hey Joe,
    Do you think that adjusting subluxations simply because they were subluxations and for no other reason was the BIG IDEA, and most missed it?

    • Claude 02/08/2013, 10:27 pm:

      Joseph, Dan and Steve,

      BJ said it first and best and I paraphrase his statement writing:

      “There is NOTHING one mortal can do for another, in the area of human performance, other than LACVS, step back and allow a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD!”

  3. Bob Berkowitz 02/08/2013, 11:16 pm:

    Joe is SPOT on with his assessment; as usual. Most frustrating is when trying to embrace those schools, organizations and individual who just do NOT get the difference of Traditional & NonTherapeutic. They tend to cop an attitude when confronted or just plain rationalized the irrational. Try listening to the Monday night Sherman phone calls, for so often the jargon is there, however, the application fails. Check out the web sites of those that are talked about in a NTOSC light to truly know if they can walk the talk. I remember the one guest discussed his rationale for his non-chiropractic items, stating to, “…get over it.” How about speakers on the IFCO platform, who just to not know, they are mixing their message, yet continue to make that stage. [Hey Joe, do you think I am going to ruffle some feathers?] At Lyceum, we were able to hear four competitors seeking to represent Sherman in a contest called Tic-Talk. Wonderful idea to say the least! Only problem is how they do NOT know they are waffling from therapeutic to non-therapeutic. Guy at Life stated how Life has always been a ‘subluxation’ school; to which I can agree, however the objective has NOT always been non-therapeutic. I was so naive I thought ‘sports chiropractic’ was checking spines of athletes for the SOLE purpose of addressing vertebral subluxations to allow their body’s in a better place to strive. WRONG! It was more in line with being a trainer or a PT. When I was going to attend their seminar about hospital protocols, again I was so naive to think it was about how to check spines of hospitalized people with, for example,had tubes up every orifice.WRONG again! It was how to work with the MD to address the person’s medical condition. Advancing a modern practice of chiropractic as a separate & distinct profession is very difficult as so many want to perpetuate the standard run-of-the-mill therapeutic practice of chiropractic.

    • Don 02/09/2013, 1:35 am:

      Dr. Berkowitz,
      I can certainly see your point. To this day I still “waffle” from therapeutic to non-therapeutic. I think it stems from my inability to explain the non-therapeutic benefits to chiropractic care with the understanding that I can explain the therapeutic benefits.
      It is as if the the perception is that the portal to understanding chiropractic seems wider for therapeutic explanations and narrow for non-therapeutic ones in the population.
      Chiropractic is not religion but it seems universal that…
      “strait is the gate, and narrow is the way, which leadeth unto life, and few there be that find it.” (Matt. 7:14)

      • Don 02/09/2013, 1:39 am:

        …the last comment is about salvation through Christ.

      • JStraussDC 02/09/2013, 4:29 pm:

        Don, do you mean your “inability to explain the non-therapeutic benefits” as compared to people already knowing the therapeutic benefits? I think we are all faced with that dilemma. To paraphrase an old Reggie analogy, that’s like showing someone the benefits of using a 60 inch flat screen TV as a plant stand rather than something that will give them 400 channels of entertainment.The problem is as BJ said “we never know how far reaching something we ….do today will affect the lives of people tommorrow.” So as a profession we seem to be satisfied with setting up plant stands rather than entertainment centers. But it seems to me the more we understand this philosophy the less “waffling” we will do. I would venture to say that you waffle less today than you did a year ago. That’s called growth!

        • Bob berkowitz 02/09/2013, 5:40 pm:

          Don, as you stated, Chiropractic is not a religion. Religion can come into a NON-Chiropractic discussion when exploring where the life within the body came. I believe the majority of people know that it is their body that does the healing. I believe they know it is actually the life within the body that is responsible and is always doing what it needs to do and to the best of their ability, under their circumstances. In fact, the only group I find that either struggles with it or just plain rejects it are Chiropractors and especially those in Chiropractic leadership like the presidents of most of our school, CCE, National Boards, FCLB, reps on our state boards, etc. Think of the dilemma of those that know and understand the Law of Homeostasis. They know that anything with life is ALWAYS striving to live and ALWAYS doing so in the best possible manner, limited by their physical matter. Then you go and hear them say how the body’s adaptations are wrong and measures success by what they educatedly believe it should be. The traditional chiropractor wants to do it with adjusting subluxation [words are there, but the application is not] the truest of mixers want to do it with anything the law allows or tolerates, the medical profession looks to do it with drugs and surgery. Can you get the idea that ones methods is NOT the issue, it’s their objective, what are they looking to accomplish. NTOSC is only saying that the body will adapt, strive, etc better without a subluxated vertebrae than with. Our method is the spinal adjustment and our objective is addressing the subluxated vertebrae. As Joe said, it is a process of growth that can only be fed by interacting on these blogs and those with like minds.

      • Don 02/09/2013, 5:46 pm:

        Dr. Strauss,
        Yes, I did mean to write “my inability to explain the non-therapeutic benefits of chiropractic”. Explaining it as the “get sick people well” approach was and is still much easier for me for many reasons.
        Speaking to the people on this blog has most definitely helped.
        Many others that I ask say that the non-therapeutic explanations are not where we should start with new people to chiropractic as it is too far from where they are at. We should meet them where they are at an transition/shift their thinking over the course of care. I know you have some views on this. I remember a previous post.

        I agree with your point that I waffle less, however I still do. I still find myself explaining the health benefits the majority of the time rather than the other benefits to their life and community. I am not sure if I need to understand the philosophy more or overcome this thinking that I need to meet them where they are at. I choose to attack both of these areas. Thanks for the blog.

        • Claude Lessard 02/09/2013, 6:48 pm:


          You cannot think yourself into a NEW way of explaining chiropractic to people. Wash you mind of all compromise and explain chiropractic to people as ONLY you can do… the way that it is YOURS to do… then YOUR thinking will follow! In other words, you cannot think yourself into a NEW way of living, you live yourself into a NEW way of thinking! It is very important to understand that. ๐Ÿ˜‰

          • JStraussDC 02/10/2013, 5:38 pm:

            Claude, I’m not sure I undertand your comment.Didn’t BJ and before him Marcus Aurelius and before him the Bible say “As a man thinketh….so he is. It seems to me that thinking precedes everything.

        • StraightDC 02/11/2013, 4:08 pm:

          One factor that is not being addressed here is the position that the practice member is in when they come to your office. I am not using this as an excuse, but some people are just NOT wanting to hear what we have to say.
          I am all for continuing to refine, clarify & simplify the true chiropractic message and to put it across in such a way that everyone would buy it. But for me anyhow, it just does not happen. A practice member just left the office that has been coming here for years, but she just comes when she hurts. She knows the message – she hears me say it everytime she comes in, but does what SHE wants to do.

      • Don 02/09/2013, 6:47 pm:

        Dr. Berkowitz,
        You stated that you believe the majority of people know that it is their body that does the healing. I believe they know it is actually the life within the body that is responsible and is always doing what it needs to do and to the best of their ability, under their circumstances. They should know and understand the Law of Homeostasis that anything with life is ALWAYS striving to live and ALWAYS doing so in the best possible manner, limited by their physical matter.

        Although I find that many people would agree with these statements, they also see the bodyโ€™s adaptations as wrong and measure success by what they educatedly believe it should be as well. This is true of people in general not only chiropractors. Many have lost the understanding, belief or faith (for lack of a better word) in their bodies ability to heal.

        Thankfully, as you said the NTOSC is only saying that the body will adapt, strive, etc better without a subluxated vertebrae than with.
        I agree that this is a process or growth and I thank you for helping me grow.

        As a side note, was this discussion one about the therapeutic benefits of chiropractic or the non-therapeutic benefits? The reason I ask is that this is typical of the ones I am having with people and I think therapeutic (i.e. healing).


        • dan sevier 02/14/2013, 12:03 am:

          I think Dr. Berkowitz is explaining the situation correctly: It’s not WHAT you do, it’s WHY you do it that is important, at least as far as your awareness is concerned. How you explain to your patients/clients/practice members/congregation is most important for their viewpoint of Chiropractic, for helping the consumer get a different point of view. To practice “non-therapeutically” YOU need to be anchored in principle, because “None can anchor to an unanchored mind”. If you tell me that you are “treating C5/6/7 to relieve the tingling in your hand”, well, then let’s do it, because that tingling is driving me nuts. If it works then when I have tingles in the future or if I know anybody who’s hand tingles then I’ll be back. You can make a living at it . . . do you want to make a life of it? Your choice.

  4. Claude Lessard 02/10/2013, 6:56 pm:


    ABSOLUTELY! As a man thinketh… so is he! Therefore, how would one go about transforming one’s thinking?

    • JStraussDC 02/11/2013, 12:02 am:

      Begin to think from an ADIO perspective….when it comes to chiropractic that would be from an NTOSC viewpoint. To do that you must first know it. To know it you must immerse yourself in the philososphy. Just my opinion:)

      • Claude Lessard 02/11/2013, 2:31 am:


        Yes! EXACTLY as you stated in your opinion. –

        – In sequence:

        – FIRST, one WHO chooses freely to IMMERSE oneself into the philosophy … –

        – Is one WHO will freely ACQUIRE a NEW knowledge, SECOND. –

        – THIRD, one WHO will choose freely to EMBRACE the NEW viewpoint of NTOSC… –

        – Will be one WHO freely begins to THINK from a NEW perspective called ADIO. The transformation into a NEW way of thinking has been accomplished. –

        – In other words, you reasonably and logically described that: “You cannot think yourself into a NEW way of living, you live (the philosophy) into a NEW way of thinking!” –

        – The transformation of thinking CANNOT come from thinking since we are NOT human thinkings… We are human BEINGS with free will. –

      • Don 02/11/2013, 3:09 am:

        Is this the “Be โ€“ do โ€“ have” perspective versus the “do-have-be” perspective to life?
        Change the thinking of the chiropractor first. Then ask what do I really believe. Then expand those things that are congruent.
        believe if they โ€œdoโ€ the right things, they will โ€œhaveโ€ what they desire and only then will they โ€œbeโ€ the person who deserves those things.
        Just a thought.

  5. Claude Lessard 02/11/2013, 5:53 am:


    – If WHO you choose to BE is to immerse yourself into the philosophy, you will acquire a NEW knowledge of the ADIO perspective which will transform your thinking. Then, it is you WHO may freely choose the NTOSC viewpoint. In other words, it is you WHO is free to choose WHO to BE regarding chiropractic, by immersing yourself into the philosophy. To BE immersed into the philosophy will DO something to you… that will result in you to HAVE a NEW knowledge, a NEW perspective and a NEW viewpoint. Then and only then will your thinking be transformed. –

    – With your transformed thinking, it is you WHO will choose to create a NEW way to explain chiropractic to people. –

    – As you can see, It is the structure of your BEING that needs transformation first. Then with a NEW structure in place, you can “pour” NEW thinking into the NEW structure and the NEW thinking will NOT collapse the NEW structure. Both the NEW structure and NEW thinking will be sound. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Claude 02/11/2013, 1:59 pm:


      BJ said it another way… He said: “Structure determines function”. ๐Ÿ˜‰

  6. Michael Duncan 02/11/2013, 8:24 pm:


    I don’t think that it isn’t that your pm (or any pm’s for that matter) are NOT wanting to hear as much as it is NOT wanting to come for our reasons. Much like exercise, good nutrition, etc. We ALL know that exercise is beneficial, but we don’t all choose to do it. We all know that our bodies need good nutrition, but don’t always (and sometimes rarely) follow it.

    I truly believe that people will always come for THEIR reasons. Now, sometimes their reason matches ours, either before they ever get to the office, or after hearing our reason and deciding our is better or makes more sense.

    But being an NTOSC’or, we don’t serve people directly (meaning THEIR reasons), we serve them by serving principle, which is OUR reason. Mixers attempt to serve people directly, which is why they are constantly adding or deleting stuff that they do. They are constantly chasing their tails to make their patients happy.

    Our objective is unique and applicable to everyone with a pulse, a spine and a nerve system. But when someone comes in, there is no difference in what we offer or why, regardless of whether they are hurting or not.

    Other than dismissing her from care, the only thing that you can do is to continue to tell her the objective and serve her the best you can through your objective by serving principle, not people. The problem comes when you STOP serving people through principle and start trying to serve them directly.

    • Steve 02/11/2013, 8:49 pm:

      Hey Michael,
      Well said!

    • StraightDC 02/11/2013, 10:30 pm:

      Thank-you for your explanation. I totally agree.
      Serving the principle is what we are about, but as is always the challenge – putting it across so that more & more people will WANT to do it.

  7. Steve 02/11/2013, 8:46 pm:

    Hey Don,
    All learning goes through 4 phases.
    1. unconscious – incompetence,
    2. conscious – incompetence,
    3. unconscious – competence, and
    4. conscious competence.
    Stage 1, you don’t know what you’re doing (right or wrong),
    stage 2, you start to get a sense of your mistakes,
    stage 3, you can see where you are doing it right but you’re not sure why/how, and
    stage 4. you now know what , why and how to do things right and you do them correctly.
    We are all on the continuum somewhere, doctors and patients alike.

  8. Dan Sevier 02/11/2013, 8:46 pm:

    Hmmm . . . Claude, I can only profess ignorance as to B.J. saying “Structure determines function”, but that sounds counter-intuitive. In the living world my understanding is that function is activity directed towards an end, and the structure is a means to achieve that end. The structure can and will be altered (call it adaptation?) as needed by the driving force. Yes, structure “limits” the activity, but is, in my opinion, preceded by the necessity of function. Structure altered by trauma or toxicity can and will affect the function and achievement of the end, but that I see as after the fact and the main focus of my practice.

    Looking forward to your thoughts,


    • Claude 02/11/2013, 9:59 pm:


      Would you say that the “structural” integrity of the vertebral column is necessary for EASE of flow of mental impulses to provide right function to tissue cells?

      • Dan Sevier 02/13/2013, 7:53 pm:

        Sure, but the structural integrity refers to the structure being, doing and therefore having “oneness” with it’s original design; so, after the fact. The function still precedes the structure imho ๐Ÿ™‚

        • Dan Sevier 02/13/2013, 8:07 pm:

          I’m probably just splitting hairs here of course.

          • Tom 02/13/2013, 8:52 pm:

            We had this “debate” in spinology and in the end came to the conclusion that the one thing can can know with certainty is that they are related, and that affecting one affects the other.

          • Steve 02/13/2013, 11:28 pm:

            Hey Dan,
            This is not hair splitting this is nonsense. I don’t mean that rudely. It just makes no sense. Structure must determine function. A basketball does(functions) what a basketball does because of how it is made. Throwing a blob of rubber, a block of wood, or a shoe through a hoop does not make them a basketball. A heart does what it does because of its design (S>F). Said another way, function is always a product. The structure is the producer. Without a structure you can have no function, at least in the physical world. Did you mean to say intelligence precedes structure, which precedes function?
            As a side note, a change in function may cause a change in structure but only if the substance is adaptable by Innate Intelligence.

  9. Don 02/11/2013, 9:38 pm:

    Dr. Lessard,
    I would guess that your view on this matter does not fit either the “be-do have” or the “have-do-be” perspectives. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    Steve, I’m not sure you implied it but is the learning curve you wrote of and what Dr. Lessard is referring to (i.e. be-ing and new thinking) the same thing? Could you explain how?

    Lastly, I think this might just all be to deep for my present level of thinking.. ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Claude 02/11/2013, 10:26 pm:


      It’s ALL about the ADIO perspective… and you are doing very well! ๐Ÿ˜‰

    • Steve 02/11/2013, 10:43 pm:

      Hey Don,
      My point was ..it just takes time. For me, for you, for the ‘shunts. Joe and Claude had teachers and time too.
      The fact that you recognize your changing thought patterns (stage 2) is a good sign. Be patient with yourself, but stay at it.

    • Don 02/12/2013, 12:02 am:

      Steve and Dr. Lessard,
      Thank you for your encouragement.

  10. dan sevier 02/14/2013, 1:32 am:

    Steve, for some reason I cannot post this as a direct “reply” to your “nonsense” post.

    The point I’m attempting to make is that the necessity of a function precedes the construction of a structure. You don’t require a basketball to play basketball, you simply need a ball that fulfills the requirements of the made-up game, like an action ball. Will it do as well? Probably not to a basketball player, but to someone who occasionally shoots baskets with friends, what’s the difference, it works within the parameters.

    To be biologically alive in this world does not require a human body, unless you plan on being a homo sapien of course, but the function of being alive manifests in innumerable structures that accomplish the mission of living. If a structure does not fulfill the needed function, then the structure will likely cease to exist. So of course, after the fact, structure determines the function. Alter the structure and the function is affected; tear a meniscus & the knee doesn’t work so well (personal experience), subluxate any joint and it’s function is affected on all levels and will manifest as disease or degeneration or whatever, but the living organism, as Dr. Berkowitz pointed out, will strive to correct the structure to suit the function, or, heal. Where there is life, there is hope; It’s a function of enough time and enough matter.

    Does this make sense? I don’t claim to explain things well, but function superceding structure is not nonsense, if properly elucidated.

    • Steve 02/14/2013, 3:20 am:

      Hey Dan,
      Now you say “the necessity of a function precedes the construction of a structure”. This is not the same thing. Intenion is an aspect of intelligence, not of structure or function.
      Then you say, “If a structure does not fulfill the needed function, then the structure will likely cease to exist.” If only it were true, as evidence the CCE.
      Seriously Dan, in your own words “Alter the structure and the function is affected” , you know that does not work in reverse. You can’t shoot hoops with a beachball. You can however use a basketball to stay afloat in the water.
      PS, you couldn’t attach because the universe wanted to give me the last word, hahaha JK.

      • dansevier 02/15/2013, 10:28 pm:

        Well Steve, the CCE continues to exist because is a man-made structure that is essentially political in nature (took that seriously, having been in school when DOE provisionally accepted it as The Accrediting Agency for Chiropractic . . . next thing we knew we had PhDs. who hardly spoke English teaching the classes.)

        This whole thing started with “Structure determines function” which is still counter-intuitive to me. Your basketball analogy sounds like some caveman came across this strange round thing that was a certain size and weight and bounced well, then noticed a hoop and so he started dribbling the ball and making jump shots.

        Obviously I understand that structure affects function once the structure that has a function is established. If the structure is altered the function may well be lost or compromised. As I said, I’m probably splitting hairs, but in my mind first there must be a needed function, then a structure is developed to achieve that function. (Witness CCE). ) If you wish to call that meta-physical, ok.

        My job for the past few years has been to check the structure of living creatures who come to me and do my best to help the afflicted to overcome and/or adapt to their condition. That will often mean communicating with other professionals who are providing services to the person (state mandated records). My job is locate and adjust and be a friend.

        I got to get IT (the last word) maybe.

  11. dan sevier 02/14/2013, 1:39 am:

    Tom, I agree.

  12. dansevier 02/15/2013, 10:29 pm:

    Oh yes, I’d also like to state that I don’t believe function or structure exist without a preceding “intelligence”, so same-same.

    • Steve 02/16/2013, 2:03 am:

      Hey Dan,
      OK (LW)

Leave a Reply

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