Polarization

32

We are dividing the profession into two camps. The problem is that where we are dividing it is incorrect. It is not subluxation-based v. non subluxation based but the medical objective v. the chiropractic objective.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 32 comments

  1. Bob Berkowitz 07/12/2013, 7:12 pm:

    You are DEAD-ON, Joe. For Chiropractic to be a separate and distinct profession, it is our OBJECTIVE that determines the difference, NOT the methods. I learned that 33 years ago from Thom Gel;arid, reinforced by both David Kock & Doug Gates, then solidified by Joe Strauss. Chiropractic holds up to any and all scrutiny when Chiropractic maintains it’s true identity as a non-therapuetic profession: PERIOR!

    • JoeStrauss 07/12/2013, 7:47 pm:

      Bob, it’s sad that so many of your classmates who also learned that have long ago forgotten it. We need to keep repeating it to our PMs, DCs and ourselves. Thanks for reminding us.

      • Richie Barone 07/16/2013, 8:17 pm:

        Joe, it seems like everyone has joined in on the slippery slope of being alternative medicine, which we are not, everyone benefits from regular chiropractic care regardless of the presence or absence of symptoms or diseases and this is the driving force in our society.
        “When Men like rivers follow the path of least resistance they usually end up crooked” BJP

        • Claude 07/16/2013, 8:58 pm:

          Richie,

          YOU are absolutely right! WHY do you think that the majority have “joined in on the slippery slope of being alternative medicine”?

        • JoeStrauss 07/16/2013, 9:31 pm:

          Good point Richie…what’s the alternative to chiropractic care? Anyone?

          • Claude 07/16/2013, 9:52 pm:

            Joseph,

            As you mentioned in your opening post, the distinction between the two camps is about practicing the chiropractic objective or not practicing the chiropractic objective. –

            – As far as I know… ONLY chiropractic addresses the instructive information that keeps the “living body” in coordinated harmonious action of all its parts in fulfilling their functions and purposes through LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –

            – That is WHY we, together without condemnation, can state that: –

            – CHIROPRACTIC IS SEPARATE AND DISTINCT FROM EVERYTHING ELSE AND IS INCLUSIVE OF EVERY VERTEBRATES.

          • Michael Duncan 07/17/2013, 5:07 am:

            Since chiropractic’s objective includes the deliberate and intentional application of Universal Forces to be submitte for II’s use to convert to IF’s and hopefully correct a VS, the only alternative to correct a VS, would be too have unpredictable, haphazard and unintentional UF’s to be of the right quality and quantity as such to be converted by II into an IF and used to make the correction.

            But other than that, there is no alternative to OC.

  2. Claude Lessard 07/17/2013, 10:00 am:

    Michael,

    YOU say: “But other than that, there is no alternative to OC”. –

    – HOW would you name “THAT”? –

    – Dumb luck? lol. 😉

    • Claude Lessard 07/17/2013, 10:20 am:

      … or may be that’s the !00% (perfection) intelligence and 100% (perfection) force that we talk about in the other thread. It could be named the WISDOM OF THE BODY. You point to the very fact of our glossary definition of vertebral adjustment which is ONLY accomplished by the innate intelligence of the body. –

      – 28.) Vertebral adjustment: A vertebral adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation. –

      – Good OBSERVATION Michael! 🙂

    • JoeStrauss 07/17/2013, 11:45 am:

      Claude, I would call it the grace of God.

      • Claude 07/17/2013, 1:39 pm:

        Joseph,

        Since the start point of chiropractic is the major premise, “WISDOM OF THE BODY” describes rather clearly WHAT is the innate intelligence of the body. WHY going beyond the major premise and bring God into the thread? 😉

        • Michael Duncan 07/17/2013, 3:48 pm:

          Why wouldn’t it just be a TRUE “normal” function of II? Does it not correct the majority of subluxations on its own accord before we ever are aware (made so by the chiropractor) we are subluxated? I mean, as TORS, we can only be aware and LAC, the onds II didn’t adequately correct to begin with, no?

          • Claude 07/17/2013, 4:54 pm:

            Michael,

            Absolutely! It is the ONLY function of innate intelligence which to adapt universal forces (including EUF) and matter for use in the body. –

            – As you mentioned so well: “the only alternative to correct a VS, would be too have unpredictable, haphazard and unintentional UF’s to be of the right quality and quantity as such to be converted by II into an IF and used to make the correction. But other than that, there is no alternative to OC” . You are correct! That is the ONLY “alternative to chiropractic”. And if someone were to ask WHAT is the alternative to chiropractic care? The answer is: The ONLY alternative to chiropractic care is NO chiropractic care. –

            – At that level, the people continue to benefit from the function of the innate intelligence of the body to continue to adapt universal forces to perform vertebral adjustments in order to correct vertebral subluxations.

        • JoeStrauss 07/17/2013, 5:39 pm:

          Claude, Linda asked me my personal thoughts. My choice was to either e-mail her personally, ignore her query or give her my personal opinion. I chose the latter. I probably should have prefaced my response with “when wearing my chiropractic hat I would answer… when wearing my theological hat…

          • Claude Lessard 07/17/2013, 6:07 pm:

            Joseph,

            It was not about Linda’s question of the other thread. It was about your answer to me on this thread which stated from Joe Strauss 07/17/2013, 11:45 am:
            “Claude, I would call it the grace of God.”

          • JoeStrauss 07/18/2013, 2:04 am:

            Sorry Claude, responding to too many comments at once and got my “threads” twisted. My response should have been to your “dumb luck” comment. Doesn’t principle No. 17 tell us there is no such thing as dumb luck? Since dumb luck is not the cause of some of my uf becoming an adjustment the best answer I can come up with is the ‘grace of God’ and the fact that He created a principle called the law of life or ii or the wisdom of the body to make the adjustment and does not depend upon my finite eb or luck. I usually try not to mess up more than one thread at a time. This to time I was able to mess up two. Does that mean I am becoming schizophrenic?

  3. Steve 07/17/2013, 8:48 pm:

    Hey Ya’ll,
    I tend to agree with Claude, the alternative to Chiropractic is no Chiropractic. Accidental Correction (AC) is a fluke, a random chance. By it’s very nature, AC does possibly as much harm as good. AC is neither scientific nor artful, more so it is not specific or reproducible. In fact there is no way to confirm it even happened unless you are measuring symptoms/effects and even then how do you know something else did not change at the same time.This idea that II corrects most of the subluxations is also unprovable and untestable, a theory at best. I for one am going to stop telling people the body corrects itself 80% of the time, it is most likely inaccurate and definitely unknowable.You either get Chiropractic or you don’t.
    The beauty of OC is that there are very clear and concise parameters, everything else like ACs, are outside our field and beyond our scope. There are no principles describing “accidental” subluxation correction. I doubt there is any research to substantiate this hypothesis either. If we are going to clean up the philosophy we should stick with principles and facts, and stop perpetuating suppositions and superstitions.

    • JoeStrauss 07/17/2013, 10:38 pm:

      Steve, isn’t an alternative another way of reaching the same objective? Therefore “no chiropractic” is no more an alternative to chiropractic than chiropractic is an alternative to medicine-different objectives. AC occurs by the same means as a chiropractic adjustment. The ii of the body does it! Further, how can you make a statement about AC like you made. What is your proof that is does more harm than good. Is turning over in bed an AC? Does it do more harm than good? The only thing artful about a purposeful correction (PC) is in the introduction by the chiropractor of a universal force. After that it is all the ii of the body. Ii corrects subluxations and it is the manifestation of a law not art. The ii of the body does not correct most subluxations. It corrects all subluxations that are corrected. The idea that some adjustments (UC specific) are better than an AC is a “supposition and superstition” perpetuated by chiropractors who think they have an adjustment “with something extra” (not referring to you). It is arrogance on the part of self righteous, holier than thou, chiropractic elitists. Apparently we are jousting while sitting atop our respective hobby horses. We all need a littler more humility in chiropractic and to stop taking ourselves too seriously.:) P.S. I appreciate your contribution to this blog and I apologize if I have offended you.

      • Steve 07/19/2013, 5:42 pm:

        Hey Joe,
        You asked , what is the alternative to Chiropractic Care? Since there is nothing like it, being non-duplicative and unique, maybe the (most) correct answer is, there is no alternative, no comparative. What is the alternative to life? What is the alternative to being subluxation free?
        It seems we actually have three possibilities or paths to a clear nerve system. The Chiropractic Adjustment (CA), Accidental Correction (AC), and Self Correction (SC). I understand II directs the correction or realignment in all three situations. The impetus that brings them about however is very different. As far as I can tell, the only one we have any control over or even input into is the artful CA. AC by definition implies random trauma. A bump on the head, a fall down the stairs, being hit in the head with a falling brick are all traumatic. SC is II using the physical matter to cause realignment (rolling over in the bed). Although the second and third achieve a similar goal I do not see them as Chiropractic Care. They are not a service one person can provide for another. Nor are they verifiable. Has SC ever been validated in any way.
        [“The idea that some adjustments (UC specific) are better than an AC is a “supposition and superstition”], C’mon Joe, you can’t believe a specific educated thrust is no better than a fall down the stairs, can you? If so, it is easier to shove folks down the stairs than to analyze set up and deliver the adjustic thrust, why aren’t you doing that in your office? By the way, research proved the UC technique was by far superior for achieving it’s goal of breaking patterns. Whether you choose to accept that as LACVS is up to you. All adjusting techniques are not born equal. I think most of the time when people say all tech’s are the same, what their trying not to say is , my technique is as good as anybodies.
        PS I appreciate you more and no offense taken

        • Claude Lessard 07/19/2013, 6:35 pm:

          PLEASE, let us ALL use the amended glossary terminology. It will help us understand clearly what it is that we mean to say. It’s not a chiropractic adjustment that the chiropractor provides… it’s an adjustic thrust. –

          – The following are definitions that are not found in Chiropractic Textbook but are thought to be uniquely OC: –

          – 26.) Objective of chiropractic: The objective of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
          – 27.) Educated universal forces: Educated universal forces are forces used by people for so called voluntary functions with limited intelligent direction. –
          – 28.) Vertebral adjustment: A vertebral adjustment is a universal force adapted by the innate intelligence of the body for the correction of a vertebral subluxation.
          – 29.) Adjustic thrust: An adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a vertebral adjustment. –
          – 30.) Objective chiropractor: a chiropractor who chooses to practice only the objective of chiropractic. –

        • JoeStrauss 07/19/2013, 7:35 pm:

          Steve, the point I was trying to make is that an adjustment is an absolute. It does not matter whether it is an UC specific, turning over in bed or it is a diversified one. If is corrects a vertebral subluxation, it is an adjustment. If it does not, it is not. There is no proof that there is an adjustment with something extra. It has never been demonstrated by an scientific method or criteria you want to use (except Seymour Ficher’s “how to weigh a pig” scientific criteria) that upper cervical specific adjustment (which it is what “breaking patterns” is all about) is a better way of correcting VS. All adjusting techniques ARE equal. All adjusting thrusts are not equal. I’ve seen old movies of BJ toggling and I’ve also fallen down stairs and frankly I would prefer a fall down the stairs if it could be proven that both corrected a VS.

    • Michael Duncan 07/18/2013, 2:19 am:

      Steve,

      Joe summed things up quite nicely. However, I am still curious as to how you determined this 80% figure used in your example? And I would agree that you should stop using it, because it is, at least this point in time, immeasurable. It is not however, an untrue statement that II corrects the VS (and as Joe pointed out, corrects ALL), sometimes, many times, often times, frequently, infrequently (insert your favorite adjectives) without the knowledge or “help” from the chiropractor.

      And while I must say that I am surprised at your philosophically incongruent statement “AC does possibly as much harm as good”, I couldn’t disagree more. That statement alone is nothing more than speculation. It appears that you are confusing a random, unadapted UF with a random UF that II has adequately adapted and used to make the correction, which it is SUPPOSED to do. It might appear as “accidental” to us, but in reality just par for the course of adaption for II. Unfortunately, no one can predict when or where an adequate force utilizable for II’s purpose of “AC” is going to occur, let alone make it specific of reproducible. But if it IS a UF that II can/does use, it immediately becomes specific..

      I would agree that what you call “AC” IS unscientific, unreliable, unreproducible and “un-artful” because while it occurs, it is a non-entity. Once it becomes available for observation and mensuration either by the list of things you mention above or by some other methods, it becomes an “entity”. Again, while being “un-subluxated” is the non-entity, the subluxation becomes the entity. And the “un-subluxated” state of the spine is the perfectly, normally and Innately controlled spine.

      There philosophy and the objective inherently deals with entity (VS) by logic and deductive reasoning. And while not addressed specifically because it is a natural corollary and the opposite side of the coin, so to addressed by logic and deductive reasoning.

      You are either subluxated or you are not. No in betweens. And logically with being UN-subluxated (non-entity), we conclude that II is in total control and adapting, at least as the chiropractic objective is concerned. Any other interferences or limitations of matter ARE outside our scope or concern.

      • Steve 07/19/2013, 8:12 pm:

        Hey Michael,
        The 80-85% comes from BJ, he”felt” II corrected that much on “her” own through Self Correction (SC) and Accidental Correction (AC), leaving the rest for the Chiro.. As we move away from the authoritative phase of our philosophy and depend more on logic, I find it difficult to support this idea. We have no way to know if, when or how often this SC/AC occurs. I am not familiar with any research that demonstrates what happens to a subluxation (sux) that is not adjusted, are you? We can only assume that this hard life causes more sux than we recognize. We can only assume they are SC. Was this ever demonstrated and if so, how? Let’s stick to what we know. If a Chiro. finds evidence of a sux., administers an Educated Universal Force (EUF) to assist II in correcting that sux. chances are better for transmitting 100% Innate Force. PERIOD
        As for the SC/AC, this can only be demonstrated in a therapeutic model,no?
        Did you ever notice the word adjustment never appears in the 33 Principles?

  4. Claude Lessard 07/18/2013, 11:54 am:

    Joseph,

    You stated:

    JoeStrauss 07/18/2013, 2:04 am:
    “Sorry Claude, responding to too many comments at once and got my “threads” twisted. My response should have been to your “dumb luck” comment. Doesn’t principle No. 17 tell us there is no such thing as dumb luck? Since dumb luck is not the cause of some of my uf becoming an adjustment the best answer I can come up with is the ‘grace of God’ and the fact that He created a principle called the law of life or ii or the wisdom of the body to make the adjustment and does not depend upon my finite eb or luck. I usually try not to mess up more than one thread at a time. This to time I was able to mess up two. Does that mean I am becoming schizophrenic?”
    ———————————————————————————————-

    Of course principle 17 tells us that there is no such things as dumb luck! That was my point! –

    – I agree with you if we go beyond the major premise… Yet, the start point of chiropractic is the major premise. I see no need to go beyond the major premise if we NAME the FUNCTION of innate intelligence, which is to adapt ANY universal forces (including EUF), the “WISDOM OF THE BODY”. It describes and “explain” rather clearly that it is the innate intelligence of the body doing the correction of vs ALL the time with or without chiropractic care. Can you see that?

    • JoeStrauss 07/18/2013, 5:06 pm:

      Claude, since I started this confusion and you contributed to it, let me try to bring it to a close:
      1.Post: Innate intelligence is 100%. Linda asked me to go beyond the MP. I did but posted it on the polarization thread. You just commented (replied) on that thread.
      2. Post:Polarization where your original comment was posted, and every comment thereafter. On a comment Submitted on 2013/07/18 at 11:54 am you wrote; “I agree with you if we go beyond the major premise… Yet, the start point of chiropractic is the major premise. I see no need to go beyond the major premise …….” I went beyond the MP because Linda asked me to BUT my comment of 07/18/2013, 2:04 am: was about your “dumb luck” statement being not dumb luck (because there is no such thing as luck) but the grace of God. That post had nothing to do with the MP or ui or my response to Linda.(at least I cannot see it) but relates to Principles #17 thru#23 and Michael’s description of “that”, a description which I thought was right on target and prompted my comment that there is nothing lucky about any adjustment. It’s all about innate intelligence and its response to universal forces educatedly created or randomly created. I’m sure we, in the end, are in agreement and it is just one of those internet communication problems.

      • Claude Lessard 07/18/2013, 10:39 pm:

        Joseph,

        I got it! Thanks and I’m sorry for contributing to the confusion. Perhaps it’s time to consider running one thread to its completion before starting another one. That way we would, together without condemnation, be less confused. 😉

        • Tom 07/19/2013, 1:48 am:

          Too bad we couldn’t just go back to a messagboard format maintaining that only Joe can start a new topic/thread. It would make keeping up with all the different posts so much easier.

      • Michael Duncan 07/19/2013, 2:35 am:

        I am in agreement with both Claude and Tom, if it is a possibility. Along with a thread “viewing/searching” feature.

        And maybe the above already speaks to this, but i’ve noticed that the “replies” only go a couple deep.

      • Don 07/19/2013, 3:30 am:

        This used to be a message board format? I didn’t know that.
        Changing back to that sounds great! However, I am guessing Joe probably had very good reasons for changing to this format.
        That being said, I find I often find I miss a few days and can’t find the posts I have yet to read.
        Like most message boards, if there could be a read/unread differentiating feature to these posts for individual contributors, it would certainly make my searching easier.
        Good suggestions fellas.

        • Michael Duncan 07/19/2013, 4:09 am:

          Don,

          The old F-A-C-E website that was Joe’s had a message board years ago, that actually had a TON of traffic and discussions that were great. At some point (and can clarify if necessary), I think it was hacked or somehow compromised and it was brought down. For me personally, it was part of my time spent there that gave me the tools to be an OSC’or and keep me connected to allow to remain one. I have truly missed it ever since.

          • Michael Duncan 07/19/2013, 4:10 am:

            Meant “Joe can clarify if necessary”…

  5. Pat Selimo 07/19/2013, 6:56 pm:

    Some who truly espouse the philosophy don’t believe they can practice this way with a cash practice and somehow pay back a 150,000 student loan, buy a house, raise a family, have a life and pay taxes all at once. So they become scared and become a mixer and bill for everything.

Leave a Reply

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