Position Paper #1-Objective Straight Chiropractic (OSC)

67

Dear Readers.
In 1984 I created and was the director of the Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education (FACE). For 25 years, among its activities, it published the Pivot Review, a philosophical newsletter, my “Blue Books,” and a web page. During that time it also published nine ”position papers” to explain the uniqueness of the philosophy of OSC. When the newsletter was changed to a blog, most articles in the newsletter were placed in a section titled the “Pivot Review Archives.” But since the blog, (www.chiropracticoutsidethebox.com) is not an organization and I no longer had an official position in any organization, the Position Papers were not included. The blog does not represent anything beside my thoughts and readers’ comments. However, I have had some requests for the “position papers” so I thought it might be of some value to publish them. But first I would like to run them past this group and refine them. After all, they are 25-30 years old. We will publish them on this blog over the next week or so. Please, if you are able, be so kind as to critique them, make suggestions and ask questions for clarification. I believe it would be a great help to me personally and chiropractic in general. Below is the first position paper:

The term “Objective Straight Chiropractic” first appeared in the book Refined By Fire: The Evolution of Straight Chiropractic in 1994. It is used to describe a group within the chiropractic community that represents a very narrow, single objective to the practice of chiropractic. The practice is purpose or objective-driven hence, the term “Objective Straight Chiropractic.” While every approach to the practice of chiropractic has an objective, very few define themselves by that objective! Although the term “Objective Straight Chiropractic” (OSC) is relatively new, this approach to chiropractic began formally in the mid-seventies with the creation of the Federation of Straight Chiropractic Organizations (FSCO, 1976) and the change in name by Sherman College of Chiropractic to Sherman College of Straight Chiropractic. At the time, no other schools or organizations identified themselves with the term “straight” in their name. Unfortunately, after that, a number of organizations also claimed they were straight. They referred to the FSCO and Sherman as “super straights” as well as other less kindly names. To demonstrate that all straight chiropractors are not the same, the terms “traditional straight” and “objective straight” were coined. Until the mid-seventies all straights were traditional, following the original precepts of the Palmers. Unfortunately, other things were added along the way which became part of the traditional approach even though B.J. and D.D. never endorsed them. The most controversial addition was diagnosis. Many traditional chiropractors became more and more medical, more and more confused, and had such wide variations in practice that it was difficult to know who was straight and who was not. Further, certain groups in the profession, in an effort to create a false unity, were trying to obscure the term “straight.” The objective straight chiropractor has one purpose to his/her practice. He/she corrects vertebral subluxations because they interfere with the full expression of life by reducing the ability of the innate intelligence of the body to coordinate function through the nerve system. Objective straight chiropractors correct subluxations not because they cause disease or are associated with any medical condition but simply because the body works better without them. Objective Straight Chiropractors do not claim that vertebral subluxation is the cause for any or all diseases but simply an impediment to the ongoing life process and that alone justifies their correction. Other terms that are synonymous with Objective Straight Chiropractic include non-therapeutic chiropractic, objective chiropractic, and modern-day straight chiropractic. It should be noted that all straight chiropractors who practice by objective do not agree with the use of the term Objective Straight Chiropractic. Some believe that anything other than this approach is mixing and consequently, the adjectives “objective” and “straight” are redundant and unnecessary. They feel that it gives credibility to the traditional approach as being straight and closely aligns the two approaches when in reality, traditional straight chiropractic (having a “cause of disease” objective), is more closely aligned to mixing chiropractic and medicine than to Objective Straight Chiropractic. Despite that, traditional chiropractors continue to refer to themselves as being straight chiropractors, hence, the need to further clarify straight with the term “objective.” (see Refined By Fire: The Evolution of Straight Chiropractic page 18)

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 67 comments

  1. Claude Lessard 06/13/2014, 11:24 am:

    “He/she corrects vertebral subluxations because they interfere with the full expression of life by reducing the ability of the innate intelligence of the body to coordinate function through the nerve system.” –

    – HOW can VS reduce innate intelligence’s ability to function as per principle #22? Is not VS reducing the ability of E/MATTER to express FULLY the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body, as per principle 13 and 23, that is interfering with the coordination of the body’s function through the nerve system?

    • Claude Lessard 06/13/2014, 11:27 am:

      … in other word, the chiropractic objective states: LACVS for a FULL EXPRESSION of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body (by the body’s E/MATTER).

      • Claude 06/13/2014, 3:03 pm:

        … Vertebral Subluxation definition: A vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the vertebra above, the vertebra below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening, impinging upon a nerve and interfering with the TRANSMISSION of mental impulse from BRAIN CELL to TISSUE CELL and vice versa. –

        – The interference in TRANSMISSION is between brain cell which is e/matter and tissue cell which is also e/matter. The reduced ability of e/matter to express the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body is the direct consequence of VS and leads to interfering with the coordination of the body’s function through the nerve system. –

        PS: Do you think it would be a good idea to post this definition of VS within the lexicon?

        • don 06/14/2014, 9:06 pm:

          I believe an explanation of how the VS produces the interference to the transmission of mental impulse may not be necessary in the definition of vs.
          I would suggest leaving that explanation for the definition of transmission or interference.
          I believe definitions are best made in the simplest form with the least words possible. If the full meaning is captured then it has been defined.

        • Claude 06/15/2014, 5:35 am:

          Don,

          The definition stops at vice versa.

          • Don 06/16/2014, 9:10 pm:

            Dr. Lessard,
            Vice versa??

    • Steve 06/16/2014, 12:59 pm:

      A comma or two would put the emphasis on “to coordinate function through the nerve system.” –
      As we have discussed earlier, Innate Intelligence may have other forms or mediums of communication, we however only deal with the nerve system.

  2. David Suskin 06/13/2014, 5:40 pm:

    Claude, Joe, Steve,
    As long as we’re on the topic of definitions and principles,
    Q1: Does Innate Intelligence require Innate Matter, in order to exist?
    (I understand II is metaphysical, so the question of existence is challenging with regards to metaphysical (I’ll call them) actualities, or premises or components?
    Q2: Are Innate Forces metaphysical? (I would assume it requires innate matter in order to create an applicable force. Not in essence as a requirement to exist (Here we go again with that word existence and metaphysical things – Help me here), but as I imagine answer to a requirement that Innate Matter is demanding in relationship to it’s maintaining organization and coordination.
    Q3: If Innate Intelligence is Metaphysical and it does not require Matter in order to exist (?), then in essence, when Life is Ended, wouldn’t Innate Intelligence still exist, but not within that body?

    Perhaps I’m really understanding that metaphysical things, in essence don’t exist, except in relationship to the matter they support.
    or??? Kind of confusing?

    Professors? Gentlemen and Ladies? Doctors, OSC’s, Authors and Commentators?

    Answer(s):___________________________

  3. don 06/14/2014, 9:13 pm:

    I certainly have thought of these questions and from what I have learned here I can say those answers would depend on how the terms metaphysical, innate matter, innate intelligence and principles are being used.
    If we agree with the definitions in the LEXICON tab (thanks Joe!) that is one thing. If there isn’t agreement on those terms, then one would spin there wheels so to speak in conversation looking for an understanding. Just my 2 cents. 🙂

    • don 06/14/2014, 9:14 pm:

      Define terms..
      Btw did we add terms of acceptance to the lexicon??

      • Joe Strauss 06/17/2014, 2:00 pm:

        Good suggestion Don. At first I thought you meant explaining TOA but now I relize you mean to define TOA from an OSC viewpoint. I will put one up for comment and input.

        • Don 06/19/2014, 8:29 pm:

          Thanks Joe!
          🙂
          And who knows!.. maybe if our discovery leads us there, we can add informed consent also. 😉

  4. Claude 06/16/2014, 10:00 pm:

    Don,

    Vertebral Subluxation definition: A vertebra that has lost its juxtaposition with the vertebra above, the vertebra below or both, to an extent less than a luxation, occluding an opening, impinging upon a nerve and interfering with the TRANSMISSION of mental impulse from BRAIN CELL to TISSUE CELL and vice versa.

    • Steve 06/17/2014, 1:18 pm:

      Where is the Mental Impulse created that goes from tissue cell to brain cell??? Classic chiropractic philosophy describes this as an impression and transmission of vibration, a universal force or nerve impulse.

      • Claude 06/17/2014, 2:11 pm:

        Steve,

        The mental impulse is ALWAYS created by metaphysical innate intelligence in the metaphysical innate brain.

      • Claude Lessard 06/17/2014, 5:54 pm:

        Steve,

        The mental impulse is a universal force that is adapted and coded by metaphysical innate intelligence within metaphysical innate brain and sent to the physical brain for coordination of actions.

        • David Suskin 06/17/2014, 6:06 pm:

          Claude,
          Are we talking to or from cell?
          and if from cell, is this not necessarily an afferent pathway?
          or ?

          • Claude Lessard 06/18/2014, 11:40 am:

            David,

            Both… to and from the cell. –

            – Remember that both sides of the nerve system are used by the innate intelligence OF THE BODY for COORDINATION OF ACTIVITIES of all the parts of the body (pri.23 and 28). Also remember that Innate intelligence needs a communication system and that is the function of the nerve system as far as coordination of actions is concerned (pri.28). Since metaphysical innate intelligence is everywhere… not only in the physical brain and that the innate brain is located wherever the innate brain is, efferent and afferent pathways are really one and the same as far as function is concerned. Both efferent and afferent are simply the innate intelligence of the body bringing about adaptation, and as you know, adaptation is EXTREMELY complex which requires time due to the fact that it involves e/matter. Also both, time and e/matter, are limited (pri.24). –

            – Also remember that it is metaphysical innate intelligence that adapts and codes universal forces within metaphysical innate brain which become mental impulses. The innate intelligence of the body then sends mental impulses to the physical brain for coordination of actions. Interference with transmission of innate forces (for coordination of actions) is always directly or indirectly due to VS (pri.29 and 31) and violates the principle of coordination (pri.32).

  5. Don 06/16/2014, 10:56 pm:

    Dr. Lessard,
    I understand now….BRAIN cell to TISSUE cell…
    and TISSUE cell to BRAIN cell…
    in other words vice versa.
    Thanks.

  6. Claude Lessard 06/18/2014, 11:43 am:

    Correction: … not only int the physical brain and that the innate brain is located wherever the innate INTELLIGENCE is…

    • David Suskin 06/18/2014, 3:31 pm:

      Claude and Reach Out to Joe
      Don’t know if Dr. Joe would agree with you with regards to
      afferent and efferent (int-force-e/matter)-triune.

      He seems to state in numerous publications (books, blog),
      that the efferent side IS ii-force-e/matter, but that the afferent
      side is a big ?? with regards to it’s role and the mental impulse.
      In his discussion of cycles he seems to resolve it with
      the concept of cycles being a concept (fact) that holds it all together.

      I’ll make a reach out to Joe to set me straight and perhaps shed some light on this along with your brightly lit bulb illuminating this subject ( brain>>cell, cell>>brain, efferent, afferent)

      • David Suskin 06/18/2014, 4:08 pm:

        Claude, Joe
        Relooking at what I wrote >> and with your statement
        ‘ Both efferent and afferent are simply the innate intelligence of the body bringing about adaptation’

        It’s almost as if when it comes to mental impulse, we’re almost not even talking about the physical connections or transmission.
        If Innate is everywhere then why would it need a nervous system to communicate? An if it’s not about communication, but about
        INNATE FORCE uniting Intelligence to e/matter then That’s all
        II >> Innate Brain >> Mental Impulse >> Nerve (EFFERENT) >> tissue cell (e/matter)

        It would seem that in the end, Almost >> it all comes down to
        FAITH. We’re not talking about 2+2=4 therefore 4-2=2 >>

        I still think that the deductive assumptions that lead to the principles dealing with ANATOMICAL STRUCTURES AND FUNCTION (Nervous System) >> becomes very theoretical, INDUCTIVE (Adjustments seem to show that things happened, peoples health improved, people transformed, people adapted better??? inductively >> empirically !!! >> and therefore that leap of faith to believing that the Nervous System was the carrier of the Mental Impulse, or The Innate Force >> therefore became incorporated into the principles
        created by BJ

        Professor set me straight here.
        Whip this Chiropractor into shape, Now come on 🙂

        • Claude Lessard 06/18/2014, 6:00 pm:

          Dave,

          If all the musicians of the orchestra have the score before them with their instruments at hand, WHY do they need a conductor? Would it be perhaps for coordination of the precise sounds of Beethoven’s symphony #5 or Vivaldi’s Four Seasons? –

          – Adaptation is a highly complex phenomena in “living things”. It requires coordination of activities (pri.23) without breaking a universal law (pri.24). Therefore the nerve system is the TRANSMITTING matter that is used by the innate intelligence of the body for communication. –

          – Perhaps there is a need to clarify the distinction between adaptation which is physical (i.e. is bound by the limitation time and e/matter), and INTELLECTUAL adaptation which is metaphysical, (i.e. is immediate and NOT bound by the limitation of time and e/matter)?

      • Joe Strauss 06/19/2014, 12:34 pm:

        David, my understanding is that the afferent side of the normal complete cycle (NCC) is the “first leg” of coordination of activity. It is a metaphysical MI from the IB to the physical brain in order to become a physical/metaphysical MI (analogous to making the thought/message in the telegrapher’s brain become the telegraph’s metaphysical message and physical dots and dashes. The MI afferently going to the physical brain is part of intellectual adaptation (IA), a metaphysical phenomena. It is for the purpose of a MI “picking up a physical component (being “attached” to physical dots and dashes) just as any “secret code/message” could be attached to/hidden within an innocuous looking physical letter or book. All we physically see (measure) is the physical component (EKG,EEG) but we cannot see/measure the metaphysical message. It is necessary because adaptation is a physical process and needs more than one cell, tissue or organ (CTO) to occur. So the MI of IA must go to more than one physical brain cell in order to go to more than one CTO so that (physical) adaptation can take place. Here’s an exercise for all you (2or3?) chiropractic philosophers out there: How and why does this differ from the Palmer Model of the NCC and how can the two be reconciled? Of course, as always, questions or disagreements are welcomed. I nor BJ nor anyone else is the authority, especially in an issue that involves the metaphysical and the finite educated mind. The principles, philosophy and deduction are the authority.

        • David Suskin 06/19/2014, 2:44 pm:

          Joe, and Others,
          hmmmmmmmmmmm

          Thank you for being in this discussion.

          I have been re-philosophizing oh for 2-3 months now. It’s so important
          to my re-Chiropractic return.
          I think on day one, on this blog I aimed right for the Principle, P#28.

          Because as you say Joe, we are using Deduction here, the cornerstone of Chiropractic Philosophical engagement.

          We have gone from a Major Premise (e/matter) >> existence of e/matter, to a Triune (intelligence, force, e/matter),
          superimposed that Triune into observations of intelligent processes as seen in matter (eg. (forces of gravity, forces of friction, time, e/matter properties (eg. water – freezing point, wetness)(eg. All of the elements and their properties), forces of fuel, fire, heat, cold, with the intelligent integration and process of development of mountains, oceans, erosion, volcanic activity, types of rock (igneous, sedimentary, etc.) >>> The EARTH >> barren, yet intelligent, organized >>

          And then the superimposing of the Triune onto Life >> cells, and on and on showing, observing what makes life, Life >> Signs of Life >>

          Usage of this Triune, it’s an interesting Template if you will. We observe it and we also ASSUME it to be evident, almost EVERPRESENT, in EVERYTHING, inorganic and organic. Universal e/matter and Living Matter. Interesting? Maybe some leaps of faith in there. But it all, inductively appears right. THE TRIUNE

          With regards to the single cell
          The principles don’t really discuss the intelligence>force>e/Matter for non-vertebrates, although we know it’s there. Or we define it that way.
          LIFE! 1 amoeba or 1 human, 1 human cell or many human cells (Complete human organism).

          But in the single cell we don’t necessarily see, a possible interference to it’s II. It must have a communication system. It must have a triune, that being II >> Innate Force >> e/matter. Innate Forces MUST exist, if we follow the Triune. Must their certainly might be an interference to it’s so called Nervous System (system of Innate Force transmission), whatever that communication might be (axoskelotons, molecular vibrations, Who knows! Mental Impulse from the Membrane of the cell ??

          My Point is that BJ presented a Philosophy thru observation and deduction. What was the observation thru these deductions that made him ASSUME that the NERVOUS SYSTEM was THE vehicle for IForce transmission. It is a logical assumption, yes. But that’s where all of this Debate is from what I can see, swirling around into unknowns, and assumptions, and mixer vs straight issues, truth, belief, IO vs OI, etc.

          Point is >> Chiropractic WAS A DISCOVERY 1ST. An EVENT. And then the discoverer (DD), and the developer (BJ), put reason to what was, is happening here (there).

          We’ve come to the point in our Philosophy (and it’s probably been there all along – forgive my lack of scholarly adeptness of the history of Chiropractic, etc. ), where Innate Intelligence Does the Adjusting. We just put in Universal Forces. Isn’t taking a chemical (drug), into the body, the adding of universal force, that II could use to overcome a LOM, like the subluxation. (Just a speculation)

          So we’ve determined that Factually – IT’S THE NERVOUS SYSTEM, THE SPINE – ADJUST THE SPINE PUTTING IN UNIVERSAL-EDUCATED FORCE – AND LET INNATE DO THE REST.

          Reconciling Palmer Model (Brain-tissue cell-safety pin) with The New Model >> The INNATE SEA that Claude has spoken of. (Body II, Cell II, afferent, efferent, etc.) It’s a tough one, not to feel like we’re mixing apples and oranges. Working from Deductive philosophical constructs thru Anatomical Physical Functioning Constructs to the Adjustment of the Spine to let II express it’s self fully.

          BOTTOM LINE >> The common link is, in both Models >> We adjust the spinal column (I’d even say – where ever nerve interference exists), and THINGS HAPPEN. HOW? WHY? How does one life-YOU come into the interplay with my Life-ME or vice versa, etc. and AID the NORMALIZATION OF THE SIGNS OF LIFE IN US and OUR FELLOW MAN.

          Help Me Here and I’ll Help You

        • David Suskin 06/19/2014, 6:16 pm:

          OK – here it goes
          Redefine Principle 28,29

          old-28. The Conductors of Innate Forces – The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nerve system in animal bodies.

          new-28.28. The Conductors of Innate Forces – The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through all living structures, particularly the Spinal Column in living bodies.

          old-29. Interference with Transmission of Innate Forces – There can be interference with the transmission of Innate forces.
          new-29. Interference with Transmission of Innate Forces – There can be interference with the transmission of Innate forces, particularly when (where) living structures should be, are not, because of Universal Forces exceeding Innate Resistances.

          Then mechanistically people can say ok, it’s bone out of place on nerve, or tensegrity model where forces have positioned body structures from macro to micro, out of innate balance impeding mental impulse flow thru body.

          DD said Chiropractic was founded on Tone. Tone imbalance >> Mental Impulse resisted by Universal Force (LOM)

          BASICALLY, BODY PARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE WHERE BODY PARTS ARE SUPPOSED TO BE AND IF THEY ARE NOT, MENTAL IMPULSES ARE IMPEDED, DISTORTED, BECOME UNIVERSAL IMPULSES.

          The triune of II to Force to e/Matter must be preserved so >> If not then >> Subluxation

          Then the body is one big mental impulse in one big body II, all communicating with many cell II >> Coordinating, protecting, adapting, resisting, communicating, FLOWING

          oops Am I stepping on sacred cows, or is this all mechanistic fluff or speculation.

          But it just gets rid of the whole anatomical dealings with the speculations of the integration of the nervous system and it’s physical function just says In the body there is a perfect II. LOM thru injury, etc. causes universal force interference of matter with II.
          Chiropractic Adjusts Structures – Identifying where this interference could be (educated), puts in educated universal forces and Innate corrects these imbalances to structures.

          Personally I like the concept of Nervous System and toggling universal educated forces into that sea (Spine) of Mental Impulse.

          But… Any thoughts

  7. David Suskin 06/18/2014, 6:17 pm:

    Claude,
    I do understand your analogy, however
    you mentioned (above)
    “afferent pathways are really one and the same as far as function is concerned. Both efferent and afferent are simply the innate intelligence of the body bringing about adaptation”

    Afferent pathways physically bring information FROM the cell.
    The body (Body LIFE) doesn’t need the triune from the cell to be completed (cell ii >> force >> eMatter) >> The cells are what need to be coordinated within the II (body) requirements.

    Since II IS everywhere and all the cells have their SCORE to play >> WHY the afferent reference, unless we are discussing the presence of CYCLES and theories as to why WE think the afferent path is there, with regards to II, Mental Impulse, not necessarily Nerve Impulse (eg. mechanoreceptors, mechanistic, etc. )

    Have I missed a beat?

  8. David Suskin 06/18/2014, 6:43 pm:

    Claude – don’t mean to over-Talk these points, but my previous post I would like some clarification on (afferent-efferent) – as it has been a strong point discussion in Joe’s Blue Book(s).

    But you bring up the conductor, and it’s been brought up as an analogy many times. But something I just thought out, and again it’s just conjecture possibly on my part, but I think it deserves mention.

    Mechanistically, I have imagined that the body, with all of it’s processes, all of it’s chemical interactions, cascades of reactions to the n’th degree. Negative feedback loops between hormones (endocrine) and target organs. This orchestra >>> carried by THE BLOODSTREAM – I imagined >> that this is, was how the chemistries interacted, in their design.

    But, Perhaps – REALITY CHECK – that’s too imprecise. Chemicals, enzymes, hormones waiting for their cascading friends to coordinate this completely efficient living machine, the body-

    THE NERVOUS SYSTEM – II – Mental Impulse – as required by life creates the precision, and if the matter supports it >> 100% health
    100% coordinated Living Purposeful living matter in active organization.

    If it’s just the chemistry >> which does feedback and interact, beats are lost, timing is wrong, TRUMPETS ARE TOO LOUD, VIOLINS ARE OUT OF TUNE, and CHAOS! —

    yes/no

  9. Steve 06/18/2014, 7:50 pm:

    It seems that if the new concept of Mental Impulse moving ADIO and OIBU then the following terms must also be modified
    15.) Impressions: The message from the tissue cell to Innate Intelligence concerning its welfare and doings.
    17.) Innate Brain: That part of the brain used by Innate, as an organ, in which to assemble mental impulses.
    20.) Mental Impulses: A unit of mental force for a specific tissue cell, for a specific occasion. A special message to a tissue cell for the present instant.

  10. David Suskin 06/18/2014, 11:10 pm:

    Steve,
    I look for others opinion too, on this body to cell to body. Adio to oibu mental impulse flow?

    If ii goes to innate brain to assemble mental impulses, then what goes to innate brain as e/matter from ii to innate brain to assemble mental impulses to transmit to those innate brain cells.

    It’s all kind of the same thing. Innate intelligence of the body needing the cells to live thus coordination. Ii of the cells needing the body to support the environment to live in thus coordination.

    As a thought. Perhaps a thought in search perhaps
    The nervous system as matter has functions efferently and afferently in the physical realm. As living matter, metaphysically, it could utilize efferent pathways and afferently pathways to manifest triunes from body to cell to body. From ii to ii to ii

    Perhaps someone wiser can shed some light on this >>
    Steve, Claude, Joe, Don, Educated, Innate, Universal

  11. Mike 06/22/2014, 2:56 am:

    Just a thought about “AMP”, I wonder why B.J. didn’t come up with it, in spite of all his subluxation research over the years, his extensive knowledge of anatomy & physiology (esp. of the spine), his developing sophisticated equipment to detect subluxation, & his utmost respect for Innate? Any thoughts?

    • Joe Strauss 06/22/2014, 10:58 pm:

      Mike, good question and welcome to the blog. When we are trying to determine why someone did/said something who is no longer with us (BJ), it is only a guess. My guess:BJ was never trying to “validate/prove chiropractic” as most research is attempting to do today. He was convinced from the philosophy that it was valid. He was interested in finding the most objective way in which to LACVS. The objective, to LACVS in order to enable the forces of the ii of the body to be more fully expressed was already settled in his mind. He was looking for a way that was easy, involved the least amount of subjectivity, so it could be learned by the greatest number of people in the least amount of time. AMP, from my experience, takes a lot more practice, skill, time, effort and is more subjective than reading a DTG, checking leg lengths (both can be easily taught to a CA) and delivering a specific External Invasive Force (which I am told an instrument can do). It is the difference between being an accomplished artist and one who paints by numbers.That is not a slight on the above tools, procedures or the people who use them. They all do the job (LACVS) in the end. Each one has its positive aspects and its drawbacks.

  12. Mike 06/22/2014, 11:34 pm:

    OK, but I still wonder not only how you can be sure of WHICH muscle you’re feeling through all the superficial muscles & other tissues, but also, how do you know WHY the muscle is “contracted”, as many subluxations are caused by muscles being stimulated/irritated directly by toxins, by viscerosomatic reflexes, etc.? After all, if not, how would it be stated by D.D. & B.J. that “trauma, toxins, & thoughts” cause subluxations? Wouldn’t it have to include muscles not functioning as Innate would want them to, pulling vertebrae into a sublimated position?

    • Mike 06/22/2014, 11:35 pm:

      subluxated, not sublimated! (darn auto-correct!)

      • Claude Lessard 06/23/2014, 1:01 am:

        Mike,

        You posted: “how do you know WHY the muscle is “contracted”, as many subluxations are caused by muscles being stimulated/irritated directly by toxins, by viscerosomatic reflexes, etc.?” –

        – My answer is: YOU DON”T! Further more, you don’t need to know WHY? It’s the innate intelligence of the body that ultimately adapts the adjustic thrust which is an EUF. Do the best you can and the rest will take care of itself… or “get the BIG idea and the rest will follow”.

        • Mike 06/23/2014, 1:18 am:

          So then how can one using “AMP” say via their palpation of working muscles, they know where Innate is trying to move the bone?

          • Claude Lessard 06/23/2014, 11:04 am:

            Mike,

            Honestly, they really don’t know… they assume to the best of their educated intelligence. There are so many different universal forces and also e/matter that innate intelligence has to adapt to produce a vertebral adjustment. It is the chiropractor WHO uses her educated intelligence and choose her preferred method of analysis. Then it is she WHO chooses to introduce her adjustic thrust which is an educated universal force as specifically as possible. It is nevertheless an educated guess. Yet, chiropractic is specific or it is nothing! 😉

          • Joe Strauss 06/23/2014, 12:14 pm:

            Mike, They don’t. They say that they only know where it does not belong (by the fact that the ii of the body with its “working muscles” is trying to move it). Analogy: If you come home from work 15 minutes before a planned social gathering, the house looks clean and beautiful, everything in place except that there is a vacuum cleaner sitting in the middle of the living room. You may not know where it should be (typical man, never helps with the housework!)but you know it doesn’t belong there. Your wife knows where it should be and just needs to know that it has been left in the wrong place. You inform her of that by saying something stupid like “do you want his vacuum cleaner in the middle of the living room” (I’m projecting on you, Mike, what I would probably say in this situation) She responds sweetly, from the kitchen, “little Susie was vacuuming for me and couldn’t carry it upstairs. I’m going up there in a minute. Just put it at the bottom of the steps. I’ll take it up. You still do not know where it belongs upstairs just that that is the direction it is going so you(introduce a force in order to) move the vacuum cleaner in the direction it should go, toward the upstairs.

          • Joe Strauss 06/23/2014, 1:29 pm:

            They do not say they know exactly where it belongs to the millimeter, no one knows that but the body’s ii. But from knowledge of origin, insertion, action and the anatomy of the Para spinal muscles he determines the general direction the ii of the body is trying and failing (because of limitations of the matter of the muscles that would move the bone back into its right position) to move the bone. If the muscles were able to move it, the subluxation would be corrected with the person never knowing they were subluxated, something that probably happens in most subluxations. It is when the vertemere, the muscles and tissues surrounding the subluxated vertebra are affected by the VS that the ii of the body cannot make the correction. But it is still trying, “looking” for more universal forces that it can adapt, invest with the new character, of an innate force and correct the subluxation. That EIF may come from rolling over in bed, a slap on the back, a sneeze, or the EUF from a chiropractor. Meanwhile the ii of the body is still trying. The working muscle is a physical manifestation of that trying. It is not a stabilizing (first two layers) muscle. It has a different feel than a spastic muscle.

  13. Mike 06/23/2014, 12:32 pm:

    So then, rather than the “contracted”/”working” muscle telling you which way Innate is trying to move the bone (as there could be MANY reasons for that muscle being contracted/working, not all as Innate is in control of), you just know that the bone is where it doesn’t belong?

  14. Mike 06/23/2014, 1:47 pm:

    Again, it’s common knowledge that both voluntary & involuntary muscles can be made to “contract” for various reasons, (including toxins, viscerosomatic irritation, etc.), so we can never be sure WHY the muscle is “contracted”, AND a muscle that’s “contracted” would feel the same via palpation (especially through all those layers), REGARDLESS of why it’s contracted. BUT, we do know that something is “out of balance” there, & we can make an educated guess (as Claude said), introduce a force, & recheck to see what Innate has done with that force?

  15. Mike 06/24/2014, 12:10 pm:

    Claude? Joe? Responses to my last posts?

    • Claude Lessard 06/24/2014, 4:52 pm:

      Mike,

      You posted: “we do know that something is “out of balance” there, & we can make an educated guess (as Claude said), introduce a force, & recheck to see what Innate has done with that force?”

      – Educated intelligence does not know the myriads of universal forces available to the law of active organization. What educated intelligence knows, is that interference with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces is always directly or indirectly due to vertebral subluxations (pri.31). When it is you WHO choose to introduce your educated universal force in an educated specific adjustic thrust, you have done everything your educated intelligence can possibly do… don’t worry, the rest will follow. –

      – Remember that you don’t enter the office with the car you drove from you home. Your car carried you there and you get out of it to enter the office. You’ve got to let go of the car. Your educated intelligence carried you to your adjustic thrust. You’ve got to let go of your educated intelligence all together, get out of the way and let the law of active organization take over. Then move on to your next practice member. –

      – This does not mean that chiropractors should not do pre and post checks. It simply means to put everything in perspective and recognize that it is the innate intelligence of the body that produces the vertebral adjustment… and the domain of innate intelligence is unknown to educated intelligence.

      • Mike 06/24/2014, 7:23 pm:

        I am in total agreement with you on that Claude! My point of all of my posts is that there is NO method of analysis that can with absolute certainty tell us what Innate is trying to do in any individual spine here & now (as all methods of analysis have their strengths & weaknesses). It’s ALL ultimately an “educated guess”, as there are too many unknowns & variables in the whole equation! Of course, we may get a “good idea” of what’s going on, & what we should do, especially if we are “tuned-in” & have been practicing for years…it becomes an “intuitive” thing. I respect all methods that one has mastered, as long as their INTENTION is simply to be instrumental in the liberation of Innate!

        • Claude Lessard 06/24/2014, 9:42 pm:

          Mike,

          Let’s check some slipping shall we?

          … as long as their INTENTION is simply to be instrumental in LACVS for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! The law of active organization is 100% perfect and doesn’t need liberation. The interference is between brain cell and tissue cell… between e/matter and e/matter. E/matter is that which is being liberated… is it not? 😉

          • Claude Lessard 06/24/2014, 9:48 pm:

            … in other words it is e/matter that benefits from a full transmission of instructive information. That’s when e/matter functions properly by fully expressing the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body.

          • Steve 06/25/2014, 5:21 pm:

            The law is 100% and perfect. Is it not the transmission or conveyance of that law (IF) that is liberated by the correction of a subluxation, for the benefit (coordination) of matter?

        • Joe Strauss 06/24/2014, 11:55 pm:

          Mike, sorry I took so long to respond. Re: you post to Claude, we cannot even know whether our initial analysis is a innate response to a VS or a limitation of matter what, we might call a reaction. The same could be said for any medical sign or symptom. Is a fever the body’s innate response or the body’s inability to bring about normal function and needs to be outside-in addressed (but not by me). Fortunately for chiropractors that is not our concern except for ourselves and our children. But in the case of changes in muscle as your question asks, there are a few scenarios:
          1. If it is a physical reaction like spinal muscle contraction “for various reasons (including toxins or visceromotor irritation, etc.)”, it like other LOM reactions is not our concern. The large broad muscles of the first and second layers are usually the ones involved which may indicate that it is a normal adaptive action of the ii of the body in order to stabilize the spine, not our concern anymore than whether a fever in someone else’s child is our professional concern. Our concern is whether they are subluxated or not.
          2. If it is involving the 3rd and 4th layers, multifidi, intertransversari, and the rectus capitas group then it is likely a “working muscle” response by the ii of the body trying to correct the vertebral subluxation. (There is a different feel to a spastic muscle and a working muscle. Tom, Claude, Glenn or Nick Spano could probably explain/describe it better than me. I know it when I feel it.
          3. If you cannot tell the difference because of too much spasm as in a situation of too much pain (which usually accompanies spasm), personally I suddenly become an upper cervical chiropractor and only adjust Atlas or Axis or areas above or below the area of spasm/pain. I would never adjust in an area of extreme pain or spasm, even with the pleading of the P.M., “aren’t you going to adjust where it hurts doc?” My response, “I only adjust if, when, and where, it does not cause pain. If you cannot take an adjustment because of the pain, then I should not be introducing an EIF”. I tell them, “go home and give the adjustment that I could safely give that enabled your body to work better, a chance to do so. If you cannot stand the pain and need to do something about it, I appreciate and sympathize with that dilemma, but that is not my area of expertise.”

          • Mike 06/25/2014, 12:42 am:

            Thanks Joe. I agree with most of what you said, but still feel with the deeper paravertebral muscles, there is a great possibility for “misinterpretation”, as:
            1) those muscles can & do contract often “outside of Innate’s control” (as from toxins acting on the muscle directly, or indirectly on the nerves going to it), which I (& many others in chiropractic, including D.D.!) believe is how a large % of subluxations occur. (along with viscerosomatic irritation as explained in A.E. Homewood’s “The Neurodynamics of the Vertebral Subluxation”)
            2) a “contracted” muscle will palpate the same, regardless of why it’s contracted. (I’m not talking just about “spastic” muscles, which too are “contracted” muscles)
            But, that all being said, I do believe you can gain much valuable information from muscle palpation, & in the final analysis, as Claude says, we’re still making an educated guess!

          • Mike 06/25/2014, 3:33 pm:

            The bottom line is AMP is very “subjective”, inter-examiner reliability has not been adequately proven (just one study on 12 people), & for all the reasons I mentioned previously, we can not be certain about what we are really feeling OR what it really means, although it’s easy to delude ourselves into believing we can! Fortunately, Innate can make use of most artfully delivered adjustive forces!

          • Joe Strauss 06/30/2014, 10:45 pm:

            I guess “Mike”, “its easy to delude ourselves” but perhaps not as easy as deluding others, especially if you are not even honest about who you are or what your intentions on this blog are. How can anyone trust the certainty of statistics or references cited by a person who lies about something as minor as their real name or their profession?

          • Mike 07/01/2014, 1:52 pm:

            Posting under a pseudonym is pretty common practice in most forums, & not considered being deceptive. Nevertheless, my intentions were sincere, as I have always admired & respected you as a principled chiropractor, & wanted YOUR perspective on the matter. Thank you for sharing your insights with me.

          • Joe Strauss 07/01/2014, 6:44 pm:

            Mike, do you mind if I call you “Bob”? If pseudonyms are not meant to be deceptive, what is their purpose? How do we even know that they are common? Perhaps, if it is common., there are really only 100 people out there on the internet each one using 100,000 pseudonyms. How many do you use? Do you think that maybe this blog only has 3 or 4 readers or maybe only Claude and you using many pseudonyms?
            Anyone can get on this blog but we expect them to identify themselves. Hundreds, maybe a thousand or more read this blog anonymously and we have no idea who they are nor do we want to know. If they (or you) care to get our “perspective” or “insights” on an issue, the question/request can be e-mailed to us anonymously. If they want to add their opinion or carry on a dialogue with the group then we would expect that they would honestly identify themselves. Since I now know who and what you are, I would like you, if you so desire, to continue posting. However, how can I be sure your research statistics and citing are honest and accurate or even that you really admire and respect me “…as a principled chiropractor…”?

  16. Mike 06/24/2014, 9:57 pm:

    I totally agree! Thanks Claude.

    • Steve 06/25/2014, 5:24 pm:

      Hey Mike, what analytic technique do you use? How is it superior to the one you criticize?

      • Mike 06/25/2014, 6:01 pm:

        Hi Steve. I incorporate muscle palpation, motion palpation, & leg checks. Granted, they all have their shortcomings, but used in combination, you can get a pretty good idea of what’s going on. But, ultimately, as Claude said, it’s still an “educated guess”!

        • Steve 07/02/2014, 2:32 pm:

          WHAT…. Mike is not Mike…. I feel so used, deceived and manipulated. How is lying about your name not considered deceptive? So what’s the deal “Mike”? Are you in the witness protection program, on the lamb, an MD that couldn’t cut it in Chiropractic school? Maybe you are a rank mixer and don’t want your friends to see you. It does not matter “Mike”, we accept you as you are. No matter what your stage of learning or which side of the philosophical fence you reside upon. As long as you are polite and HONEST with yourself as well as us.
          We are all a bunch of friendly guys and gals here, except for Claude, he can get a little feisty once and a while.

  17. Claude Lessard 06/25/2014, 5:42 pm:

    Steve,

    That’s a very good question! “The law is 100% and perfect. Is it not the transmission or conveyance of that law (IF) that is liberated by the correction of a subluxation, for the benefit (coordination) of matter?” –

    – VS interferes with TRANSMISSION of innate forces (pri.31) and results in e/matter NOT expressing the normal instructive information from innate intelligence. When this occurs the Principle of Coordination (pri.32) is violated and the limitation of e/matter is increased. Therefore it is e/matter that is the subject of “suffocation” and needs liberation. The innate force is ALWAYS 100% (pri.22 and 27). When VS is present, the innate force is non-existent since it has reverted to being a universal force that might be adapted by the innate intelligence of the cell and that cell, as we know, becomes cellfish.

    • Steve 06/25/2014, 7:08 pm:

      If IF exist before subluxation and ceases to exist after, how is it not the IF that is “liberated. Yes the effects are demonstrated in matter and the matter is “starved” for instructive information when Sux. are present, but it is the organizing principle that is freed.

      • Claude Lessard 06/25/2014, 10:07 pm:

        Steve,

        As YOU mentioned before (and I agree), the interference is with the TRANSMISSION of ALWAYS perfect IF and is constructive toward structural e/matter (pri.26). This interference reverts the IF back to ALWAYS perfect UF which is deconstructive toward structural e/matter (pri.26). It is this deconstruction that increases the LOM as the tissue cell becomes cellfish and is NOT participating to the wefare of the body any longer. It is indeed e/matter that is ALWAYS limited (read imperfect or less than 100%). With VS the LOM is further increased LIMITTING the freedom of expression of instructive information by e/matter. that is now more cellfish. E/matter needs to be liberated and that is exactly the WHAT and the WHY of the chiropractic objective. –

        – Once again, the interference is WITHIN e/matter, beteen brain cell and tissue cell.

  18. Glenn Allen 07/02/2014, 12:50 pm:

    Greetings “Mike”, “Bob”. A few of us already knew who “Mike” was from the start. We held our tongues because we did not want to use Joe’s site to start a war of words. The site surely deserves better than that. And, the people you entered into deceptive conversations with, deserve better than that. Remember, people who read The Chiropractic Trust and other related sites, also read Chiropractic Outside The Box, and will see all of the dialogue, without any comments from us. Perhaps this little episode will turn into a good thing for everyone, because, as B.J. wrote, “Another good thing about tellig the truth is, you don’t have to remember what you said”. I do hope that you feel free to keep posting in an open, contributive and beneficial manner, because we are all in this together, and when one of us resorts to pretense and deception, it impacts all. This is a new day with the potential for a fresh start. Take advatage of it and make this day great!!!!!!

    • Mike 07/02/2014, 2:32 pm:

      Thanks for sharing Glenn. I still wonder however how simply using my middle name as a pseudonym makes everything I said in my posts invalid or deceptive. This issue seems to be a red herring.

      • Joe Strauss 07/02/2014, 4:02 pm:

        Mike, it doesn’t make everything or anything you said “invalid or deceptive” but it does make everyone who doesn’t know you personally (which is all of us but perhaps 1 or 2), but knows you are being deceptive about who you are, wonder. That is not fair to you, to cast a shadow of doubt on the veracity of your statements. It’s also not fair to me when and if I find out. It places me in the awkward position of having to either “out” you and perhaps undermine the valuable statements you have made or keep silent and perhaps unknowingly be a party to a deception. Lastly, it is unfair to the blog where hopefully people come to learn and share truth. This “issue” is not a “red herring” as you suggest but it does distract us from the discussion. As an informal discussion blog, we do not require people to cite their references. That would limit discussion (although “Steve”, whoever he is, usually cites his, at least on some of the 719 comments he has made and we have posted/approved).

        • Bob (aka Mike) 07/02/2014, 5:20 pm:

          I get your point. My apologies.

    • Mike 07/02/2014, 3:34 pm:

      Again, many on public forums use pseudonyms to remain anonymous…NOT to deceive. 😉

      • Mike 07/02/2014, 6:50 pm:

        I wonder how much of an issue my anonymity would have been if I were in agreement with your views on muscle palpation? Anyway, my apologies to all.
        Mike (aka Bob) 😉

        • Joe Strauss 07/03/2014, 10:41 am:

          Mike, I wonder if you would have felt the need for anonymity if you agreed with our views. Is that a reflection on us or is it a reflection on other blogs/formats you have been on?

Leave a Reply

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