Remind me again why we are doing research.

15

How many times did Archimedes have to sit down in his bathtub to prove his principle? How many times did Newton have to be hit on the head with an apple to prove gravity? How many people had to go to the guillotine to prove the body works better with a good nerve supply? How many million more people need to show improvement of medical conditions over the next 120 years to prove that chiropractic adjustments enable the innate intelligence of the body to work a little better and people live a little better? Or is that not enough?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 15 comments

  1. Charles Hollensed DC 09/25/2014, 3:42 pm:

    I am sorry but unless it is shown in a double blind, peer reviewed study none of the millions count towards proving chiropractic. I am old enough to remember Dr Suh, in the 1970’s who was going to prove chiropractic once and for all. All that happened was he concluded more research is needed. I am glad we correct subluxations and allow the body to achieve normal. And we can see it with our eyes when there is health.

    • Joe Strauss 09/25/2014, 8:28 pm:

      But that’s the problem, Dr. Hollensed, their contention is that we cannot see it with our own eyes, at least not see our contention of health/normal. The only thing that will prove it is “a double blind, peer reviewed study” that proves we can get as good or better results than medicine in alleviating medical conditions. That backs us into a corner that the only way out is to practice medicine’s objective, “getting sick people well” and proving it by their research methodology. In doing that we will have to say with the great Roman senator, Pogo, “we have met the enemy and he is us”.

    • Claude Lessard 09/26/2014, 12:06 am:

      According to the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science, to achieve normal (pri.27) is indeed the goal of the chiropractic objective. We also note that there is NO mention of health, illnesses, symptoms, pain or human potential within the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science. Therefore, together without condemnation, we conclude that chiropractic is NON-THERAPEUTIC and is not part of the human potential movement.  The purpose of chiropractic is its objective which can ONLY be deduced from its science.  When a profession has its science, this very science becomes the driving FORCE (guiding instructive information) to give direction to its research. The 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science INSTRUCT chiropractic research  toward a NON-THERAPEUTIC approach.  Thus chiropractic research should further validate and confirm the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science.  The results of chiropractic research should be published and disseminated to ALL the people of the world.  It is the birthright of EVERY human being to know the basic truth of the chiropractic objective.  Thus, any research directed toward the elimination or alleviation of symptoms, diseases and syndromes is NOT chiropractic and should NOT be considered chiropractic research.  Once again, chiropractic research should be directed toward the validation and the confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science.  –

  2. Glenn Allen 09/26/2014, 12:53 am:

    Why is it, that after many decades of Chiropractic proving it’s validity and well earned place in the lives of the world, through thousands and thousands and thousands of practices the world over, and research facility after facility, why does there still exist this incesant insistence coming from restless, insecure, and unsure Chiropractors, that there needs to be continuing research to prove that Chiropractic works, research, that when it is done, proves nothing more than that B.J.Palmers research was right all along? WOW, that was one LONG sentence!
    No matter how old B.J.’s research is, it keeps coming up correct and valid, and nothing that has been attempted to prove him wrong, has been able to do so. People keep thinking that because B.J.’s research is so relatively old, they are obligated by self appointment, to redue his proven relevancy of Chiropractic, and perhaps have a chance to put their name to it. No matter how much time and energy they put into it, it will not change a thing. Remember this one,”There is nothing new under the sun”?
    News flash…….The medical profession already knows of the validity of Chiropractic!!! Why do you think they have been slowly stealing as much of it as they can, since losing their anti-trust suits with Chiropractic? They would like nothing more than to claim all of the Chiropractic achievements for themselves. So, who else does redundant research need to convince? Perhaps chiropractors who are not convinced themselves?
    Look, you know it is valid, I know it is valid, even “THEY” know it is valid, to the point of wanting to covet it. What other proof is needed?
    I read a post earlier, about being glad that we correct subluxations and allow the body to achieve normal, (whatever that is), and we can see it with our eyes when there is health. I am also glad that we correct subluxations,(vertebral subluxations), as everyone is. However, when you do it to achieve body normality, and to actually see health with our eyes, it means absolutely nothing. The correction of vertebral subluxations, does not guarantee normality nor anything other than that the body is far better off without interference at the spinal level regardless of anything else! After correction of subluxation, the body may show observable improvement, it may show signs of nothing, or it may show signs of getting worse. All of that also means nothing. The only thing that means anything, is that the body is still better off without subluxations ,regardless of what is or is not observable. And, nobody, but nobody, can see health with their eyes or anything else.
    The bottom line is this, we know that Chiropractic is valid in it’s own right. Just like our philosophy, it cannot be proven wrong. We no longer have to prove anything to anyone. What we need to do, is to get over ourseleves, and concentrate instead, on doing the best we can, to be instrumental in helping the body to correct it’s own subluxations that it has, for any number of reasons, not been able to do. Then step back, and marvel at what the body does without interference, whether we like what the body does or not. That is not a choice that we have any right to make for anyone’s body, nor do we have the right to even think that we can.
    Knowing what everyone already knows, both in medicine and Chiropractic, about Chiropractic, what other proof does ANYONE NEED!!!!!!!! Just an opinion.

  3. Tom 09/26/2014, 1:51 am:

    Joe, the funny thing is that Chiropractic is based upon DEDUCTIVE reasoning, yet there are some that feel the need to “prove” it using inductive reasoning. The fact is, EVERY chiropractic practice ever built has been built in the absence of such inductive proof. Yet, that call still goes out.

    • Claude 09/26/2014, 1:42 pm:

      Why do you think that the profession is still spending precious time, money and effort to prove what HAS BEEN proven with rational logic and deductive reasoning? What is the possibility that is created that resonates with the profession and inspires it to move toward empirical proof? WHO is responsible for that choice?

  4. Tom 09/26/2014, 2:39 pm:

    It’s all about “proving” the legitimacy of what we do to the “intelligent ones”…the mds, scientists, researchers, etc…those who rely heavily upon inductive reasoning, the scientific method, to “prove” something. It’s all done with the intention of becoming more like them. A cursor glance at any chiropractic curriculum and one will see more and more medicine added making less room for the chiropractic subjects. Is it any wonder that a frightening number of chiro school graduates today have no clue what chiropractic is, but can diagnose the heck out of someone, only to have to refer the pt back to the people that failed them in the first place.

  5. Don 10/10/2014, 11:45 pm:

    Interesting thread. I’m glad I caught this one. I have some thoughts to share….
    The term I hear used nowadays is “cultural authority”. I haven’t looked into what the definition is according to a reputable source however, according to how many use it in my opinion it is what happens (insert huge assumption here) right after enough research has been done to support a theory. When the evidence supporting a theory has reached a level of common acceptance there is an increase in cultural authority for that theory or person who proposed it.
    Note: I stated a theory is only supported and never proven.
    This may be a coincidence however, I find that people who subscribe to this line of thinking also maintain that there is no such thing as chiropractic philosophy. Instead, it is philosophy OF chiropractic.

    • Claude Lessard 10/11/2014, 1:47 am:

      Don,

      From one Canadien to a Canadian 😉 What’s the difference?

      • Claude Lessard 10/11/2014, 12:13 pm:

        … between chiropractic philosophy and the philosophy of chiropractic?

  6. Don 10/11/2014, 4:56 pm:

    Dr. Lessard,
    I often hear it spoken, Cun-ah-dee-yen. 🙂

    The best I can explain it from my understanding is that there is no types of philosophy only philosophy of ______.
    I believe Coulter goes into depth on the subject. Could be mistaken. I haven’t read it in awhile.

    The book and definition below are often referenced.

    http://books.google.ca/books/about/Chiropractic.html?id=zsY8dwHl54YC

    Full Definition of PHILOSOPHY

    1
    a (1) : all learning exclusive of technical precepts and practical arts (2) : the sciences and liberal arts exclusive of medicine, law, and theology (3) : the 4-year college course of a major seminary
    b (1) archaic : physical science (2) : ethics
    c : a discipline comprising as its core logic, aesthetics, ethics, metaphysics, and epistemology
    2
    a : pursuit of wisdom
    b : a search for a general understanding of values and reality by chiefly speculative rather than observational means
    c : an analysis of the grounds of and concepts expressing fundamental beliefs
    3
    a : a system of philosophical concepts
    b : a theory underlying or regarding a sphere of activity or thought
    4
    a : the most basic beliefs, concepts, and attitudes of an individual or group
    b : calmness of temper and judgment befitting a philosopher

    • Claude Lessard 10/12/2014, 12:03 pm:

      Thank you Don. What you are suggesting is that our research should support the chiropractic objective, which is based on the AUTHORITY of 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science, which has been proved through rational logic and deductive reasoning, and I agree. –

      – Therefore, together without condemnation, we can conclude that for research to be called “chiropractic research” it should be non-therapeutic, since the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science and the chiropractic objective are non-therapeutic.

      • Don 10/12/2014, 3:46 pm:

        Dr. Lessard,
        Non therapeutic “chiropractic research”?
        I like the idea and I’m curious. Could you gave me an example of any complete or how that would work?
        My mind still goes to measuring results or outcomes but this may not be what you have in mind.
        Could you share your perspective? Thanks.

        • Claude Lessard 10/13/2014, 11:16 am:

          Don,

          I know you like examples ;). Yet, this time, it is for you and everyone else to find out! 🙂

          • Don 10/14/2014, 9:10 pm:

            Maybe someone else on the blog has a suggestion. 🙂
            I have none but would love to find out.

Leave a Reply

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