Research Q&A #56

70

Are we trying to corroborate our chiropractic philosophy by research because of its weakness or its inability to stand as a deductive science? Or because we believe it is not acceptable to those in the scientific community, the health professions, the general public and many in our own profession?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thoughts

This article has 70 comments

  1. Steve 03/06/2015, 3:57 pm:

    To quote a trusted friend:
    Basic scientists seek to discover new knowledge and information without the primary concern of how the principles they create might be used. Applied Science takes information that already exists and utilizes it for the solution of an existing problem. All scientific disciplines (physics, chemistry, biology, chiropractic, psychology, etc.) have basic and applied aspects. Basic science is more basic in the sense that without discovery of PRINCIPLES (emphasis mine) there is nothing to apply. Applied science relies on and could not exist without basic science.” – Claude
    Should we not have both? Who knows what the future of research will bring if we discontinue do it? Just think, 100 years ago flight, 50 years ago the moon. today Mars. 50 years ago, nerve impulse, mental impulse?????

  2. David Suskin 03/06/2015, 5:35 pm:

    What other profession, service or product is available to the public, to the world, that is a deductive science at it’s core, whose applied science professes to have an immaterial objective that only can produce an undefined result? I think the public (including scientists, chiros, other professionals, etc.) have virtually NO orientation to services or products, distributed from professionals especially, that offer a completely philosophically based product, that invites a radically different viewpoint and worldview. Thus, the necessity to educate, as a fundamental requirement to this applied science, Chiropractic. There must be some kind of confrontation to peoples viewpoints. It’s not weakness of Chiropractic Philosophy. It’s the inherent weakness and vulnerability of people that lends itself to OIBU viewpoint and domination. The world!
    Philosophical research I’d think is more of an inquiry into the 33 principles, without condemnation. It’s more of an educational discourse between Chiropractor and the Public. What else could it be.
    Chiropractic research as per NTOSC is an oxymoron, yes-no?
    Your reference to:
    ‘inability to stand’ is of course the question, and the problem. Can it stand? I would think that The Truth inevitably shall set you free, but the world, mankind’s world, has been faced with illusions, falsehoods, inequities, dominations, mindsets, etc. for 1000’s of years.
    Inquiry and research applied to human viewpoint and/or worldview perhaps is what is required. ADIO vs OIBU research. Educate the public, and then let the cards fall where they may.

  3. David Suskin 03/07/2015, 11:33 am:

    Hours, Days go by without comment! Is everyone in such agreement, such disagreement, completely void of opinion, so busy, so unreachable, so dead, with no ability to introspect, think, feel or analyze. All is NOT well on fragile rock farm! So say something. Get it going. Learn, question, INSULT something, Insult me!! 33 P’s!!! Offer your experiences.
    It gets so damn quiet around here sometimes. Argh

    Testing 1 2 3, Testing. Anybody home???????

    • Claude Lessard 03/07/2015, 11:59 am:

      David,

      “Have patience with everything that remains unsolved in your heart. Try to love the questions themselves, like locked rooms and like books written in a foreign language. Do not now look for the answers. They cannot now be given to you because you could not live them. It is a question of experiencing everything. At present you need to live the question. Perhaps you will gradually, without even noticing it, find yourself experiencing the answer, some distant day.” Rainer Maria Rilke

  4. David Suskin 03/07/2015, 12:56 pm:

    Thank you for that Claude.
    Perhaps…

  5. David Suskin 03/07/2015, 2:39 pm:

    Joe, Claude, Steve, fellow OCers,
    Been reading Dr. Joe Strauss’s new book ‘No Mans Land’.
    A wonderful read Joe. Very current and focused. I love studying your books and the knowledge and questions that they offer.
    Ok, one more time. As you state in the book, and within many many other reads, And on this blog, and within the 33 Ps, and as applied to this post, me, the questioning, dubious Chiropractor. You state, and I quote. “Those mental impulses are metaphysi- cal…messages from the innate intelligence of the body through the brain and over the nerve system.”
    How do we Know this? How do we prove within our 33p philosophy, that indeed, the intelligence, innate intelligence Produces a force, called the mental impulse, and uses the nervous system to create union between ii and innate matter, adapting universal forces? How do we 100% logically! deduce this? (Eg. All men are mortal. I am a man. Therefore I am mortal). Like that? 100% b
    Yes, I know its P101, but if I can’t get it 100%, accept it 100%, then how can the public! the scientific community, etc. Get It. Live it. Own it.
    I am earnest and sincere in my perhaps, stubburn, resistant, naive, Stupid?? Request. But it’s critical.
    And I know Claude that perhaps it requires more and more story telling, living with the question and the paradoxes, etc.
    but it is a legitamite perhaps redundant and tiresome request.
    Love you guys

    • Claude Lessard 03/07/2015, 5:05 pm:

      David,

      It’s ok to for you to say: ” I can’t get it 100%, accept it 100%”… It is you WHO can choose to give the public ALL of what you have… along with your sincerity. If you choose to do so, then, the rest will surely follow. 😉

    • Joe Strauss 03/07/2015, 9:34 pm:

      David, you wrote:
      “Those mental impulses are metaphysi- cal…messages from the innate intelligence of the body through the brain and over the nerve system.”
      How do we Know this? How do we prove within our 33p philosophy, that indeed, the intelligence, innate intelligence Produces a force, called the mental impulse, and uses the nervous system to create union between ii and innate matter, adapting universal forces? How do we 100% logically! deduce this? (Eg. All men are mortal. I am a man. Therefore I am mortal). Like that? 100% b
      Yes, I know its P101, but if I can’t get it 100%, accept it 100%, then how can the public! the scientific community, etc. Get It. Live it. Own it.”
      John Warwick Montgomery tells the story of a woman who called a psychiatrist and claimed that her husband believed he was dead, she could not convince him otherwise and that it was adversely affecting their married life. She wondered if the psychiatrist could help convince him that he was not dead. The psychiatrist spent hours with the man explaining the anatomical and physiological reasons why dead men do not bleed. After he showed the man all the evidence from his experience and the textbooks and the man had acknowledged that all the authorities agreed that “dead men don’t bleed”, the psychiatrist stuck the man’s finger with a pin sat back and smiled at him. The patient looked at his finger with the blood oozing out, looked at the doctor and said, “dead men DO bleed”!
      There are only three types of proof, reasoning (logic and deductive), empirical (the senses) and faith (belief in an authority). The patient above had the third type which ignored the first two. The Mosaic law requires that two witnesses must agree. In Ferguson, Missouri the police officer, credible witnesses, and the empirical proof (the evidence) agreed.
      We can discount my belief in the chiropractic philosophy but we still have the deductive and the empirical proofs.
      1. We must first agree upon the definition of mortal and that “mortal” does not necessarily mean there is no metaphysical component to it.
      A. Deductive proof-principle number 14 compared with principle number 20
      B. Empirical proof-a tree and a desk.
      2. We must agree that mental impulses are metaphysical in nature.
      A. Deductive proof-one or more of our 33 principles.
      B. Empirical proof-living organisms having no known physical mechanism to carry mental impulses still demonstrate one or more of the signs of life.
      3. In human beings mental impulses are carried (perhaps not exclusively) over the nerve system.
      A. Deductive proof-principle number 28, 29, 30
      B. Empirical proof-hanging, spinal cord injuries.
      4. The innate intelligence produces a force called the mental impulse.
      A. Deductive proof-principles number 20, 21, 22,
      B. Empirical proof-a corpse.
      5. This innate intelligence adapts matter and universal forces.
      A. Deductive proof-principle number 23.
      B. Empirical proof-the sun tans or burns a living person, but not a corpse.

      • David Suskin 03/07/2015, 11:05 pm:

        Joe,
        Thank you.
        I need to study this.
        Do you have a particular answer to the question (topic-posting), you posted?

        • Claude 03/07/2015, 11:47 pm:

          David,

          The “trusted friend” that Steve quoted says, that you are treading uncharted territories. Research CANNOT and WILL NOT empirically validate that which is beyond the material senses as BJ found out with the encephaloneuromentypograph. So, get a grip and deal with it. Otherwise, you’re back in paralysis. You’ve got work to do, dammit! Can you choose to do it? Please!!! 😉

          • David Suskin 03/08/2015, 12:12 am:

            Claude,
            I thought the trusted friend was you???
            Or was it the other Claude ;)?
            Anyway, Joe did post an answer I need to ponder,
            Oh I understand about the empirical snafu, ‘sound of one hand clapping’, as it relates to research, etc. but I like how you put or whoever put,
            Treading Uncharted Territories! In the context of WHO we are, The Why, The What, The How.
            Being in the minority has its advantages.
            Is it possible we know a secret that we are privileged to know, to understand, that warrants an almost sacred trust. Perhaps that is adding to much mystery or self importance. I’m not sure. But if it’s all about the WHO and my ethics are in, then hey, go for it. I say this now! Let’s see what I say in the morning, when it need to get momentum into my thinking cap. Eechch Mornings!
            See, I yelled and screamed today, tested 1 2 3 and generated some life.
            It least in my veins, or should I say Nerves 😉

          • David Suskin 03/08/2015, 9:38 pm:

            Claude and Others,
            I understand the placement of the Period in the chiropractic objective, but why can’t Outcome Assessment Research be performed with a large population of PMs well educated to the philosophy and the OSC objective over the course of let’s say a year, evaluating physical, psychological, spiritual, etc. outcomes as a declaration of potential influences that Innate Intelligence fully expressed (adjustments), has on the PM sample?
            Wouldn’t that be a means to communicate the horse and the cart?
            What does the full expression of innate intelligence mean to You? As a question presented. To 1000 PMs plus …

  6. David Suskin 03/07/2015, 5:53 pm:

    Claude,
    Sincerity and personal commitment, an acceptable mission is important. Vital and Ok perhaps. I know you have spoken about Doing! The art, helps to complete the personal commitment.
    We use logic to move from the major premise to the justification, um, bad word, to the necessity, to the reality of subluxation. To the reality of the existence of a mental impulse, as dictated by the philosophical syllogistic relationships of the 32 remaining principles. It would seem that you have elected to use Faith as a means to embrace the existence of a metaphysical/physical process, that being the disturbance of the mental impulse by subluxation, and the reduction of that disturbance thru the introduction of an EIF we call a spinal adjustment.
    But is there a logical argument that is Not Inductive + faith that You have found that deduces the nervous system as the carrier of this impulse.
    Let alone that we, thru adjustment, are having an effect on the restoration of this metaphysical property?
    An argument that is truly Deductive?
    Yes, I know. I’m repeating myself, yes. And it is about the WHO who chooses to without condemnation, embrace the authority of the 33.
    You know what I’m saying Claude? And it begs to answer Joes question in this post, I believe. That’s why the public, and the Mixers and the scientists resist, plus they are entrenched in OIBU, Dypsycho if you will.
    People will embrace what they see, and what they see is what they can touch, physically or mentally (thru logic). We cannot see the mental impulse. We cannot touch it. We can perhaps see its footprint in the guise of subluxation signs, like short leg, palpation, technique pre-post adjustment indicators, that I personally make sure I explain to my PMs, so they at least can get a semblance of some physicality of the mental impulse interference and/or restoration.
    But logic would be helpful. And we have this philosophy.
    It would seem that if we could, or you could further elaborate the logic that relates mental impulse to the nervous system, not as an induction, but as a deduction, that would be ICING on the CAKE.
    Like I said. (Eg. All adults were children. I am an adult. Therefore I was a child. ) something like that, applied to the mental impulse, the nervous system, interference, subluxation, etc.
    wouldn’t that be a novel presentation of a reality etched in stone. Not a belief, but a logical reality.
    Is chiropractic such a science, such a a service that in hangs in the ethers, that one eventually has to take faith to, and not rock solid embracing of?

    • Claude Lessard 03/07/2015, 6:54 pm:

      David,

      Just do it with what you have. No more. No less. I’m sure that’s way enough. Take it from me… 40 years and I am hoping for 20 more years to go at it. WHO knows!!! 😉

  7. David Suskin 03/07/2015, 9:28 pm:

    Claude,
    Based on your answer, Joes question: Are we trying to corroborate our chiropractic philosophy by research because of its weakness or its inability to stand as a deductive science?
    I’m going to have to say YES, because our deductive science deals with an immaterial/material component that does NOT lend itself to 100% deduction. I guess I am missing something. Perhaps this is all a demonstration of the paralysis of analysis.

  8. Claude Lessard 03/09/2015, 11:32 am:

    David,

    You stated: “Wouldn’t that be a means to communicate the horse and the cart?” –

    – It has been done 30 years ago and scientifically published by CBSRF! 😉

    Here is an excerpt from East West Health Magazine, 1989.

    “Boosting Your Immunity Through Chiropractic
    In 1975, Ronald Pero, Ph.D., chief of cancer prevention research at New York’s Preventive Medical Institute and Professor of Medicine in Environmental Health at New York University, began developing scientifically valid ways to estimate individual susceptibility to various chronic diseases. Pero and his colleagues found strong evidence that susceptibility to cancer could be gauged by the activities of various enzymes involved in metabolic and genetic changes from exposure to carcinogenic or “mutagenic” chemicals. An individual’s immune system responsiveness, or “immune competence,” also was directly linked to certain DNA repairing enzymes that provided an objective way to assess disease susceptibility. Lack of those enzymes, Pero said, “definitely limits not only your lifespan, but also your ability to resist serious disease consequences.”
    Pero was fascinated by various hormones’ synergistic relationship with other cancer-inducing agents to promote the disease. For example, thyroid hormones affect the early phases of radiation- and chemically-induced cancers. If the thyroid produces too much of either thyroxine or thyroidstimulating hormone, cancer risk greatly increases. And because the nervous system regulates hormonal balances, it too can influence susceptibility to cancer. Along these lines, various kinds of spinal cord injuries are accompanied by a high risk of developing cancer, particularly lymphoma and lymphatic leukemia. This connection led Pero to consider chiropractic a potential alternative for reducing the risk of immune breakdown and disease.
    In 1986, Pero collaborated with Joseph Flesia, D.C., Chairman of the Board of Directors for Chiropractic Basic Science Research Foundation (CBSRF). With a grant from CBSRF, they began a research project at the University of Lund in Lund, Sweden. Using Pero’s tests to gauge resistance to hazardous environmental chemicals, they hypothesized that people with cancer would have a suppressed immune response to such a toxic burden, while healthy people and those receiving chiropractic care would have a relatively enhanced response.
    Measuring 107 individuals who had received long term chiropractic care, Pero’s team had surprising findings. All chiropractic patients were `genetically normal, ” that is, they had no obvious genetic reasons for increased resistance or susceptibility to disease. Any difference, therefore, had to be accounted for by environmental or therapeutic factors. The chiropractic patients also had 200% greater immune competence than those who had not received chiropractic care, and 400% greater immune competence than those with cancer or other serious diseases. Despite a wide range of ages in this study, immune competence did not show any decline with age; it was uniform for the entire group.
    Pero concluded that “chiropractic may optimize whatever genetic abilities you have” so that you can fully resist serious disease. “I’m very excited to see that without chemical intervention …this particular group of patients under chiropractic care did show a very improved response,” he told CBSRF. “These changes occur from chiropractic treatment.”
    Source: East West Health Magazine, November, 1989.” –

    – How much awareness and transformation has it accomplished, over the past 30 years, besides a few PMs from a few private practices?

    • Claude Lessard 03/09/2015, 11:35 am:

      … remember that in this world, from an OIBU point of view, “dead men do bleed” … 😉

    • David Suskin 03/09/2015, 1:38 pm:

      Claude,
      So the fact (opinion??) that: ‘remember that in this world, from an OIBU point of view, “dead men do bleed’
      accounts for the lack of impact Pero’s work had on awareness and transformation?
      Ya know, it’s interesting, and of course this comes from I’ll say a fairly conflicted OIBU/ADIOer, me… When Renaissance came out with their information, their program, I wanted to believe the material, and of course Joe F was a gifted and unique individual, and presenter. But I couldn’t help think that all this stuff, (Peter graves, 5 components, research, Esteb’s input, etc.) was good, very good, BUT it was designed to promote. Not necessarily bear truth. Yes I know Joe F talked about the medical model and if you can’t beat em, join them, but cut the legs off their knowledge table. It would appear that Renaissance had an agenda attached, that I took as a sell. Hey, ya gotta sell, ya have to communicate the benefits of your goods to the populous. It’s funny, I let the OIBUers sell, and take it as fact (upbringing-subconscious, fear tactics, whitecoat syndrome), but Chiropractors?? Hidden agenda. Irrational I know, but I’m being honest, and I have an open mind!!! Anyway, so Why didn’t the Scientific community, if Pero’s result, Suh’s results where so astounding, so revealing, why didn’t they get more press, more exposure??? (I naively ask)
      Wouldn’t it be great, I say to myself, if the 33 Principles, ONLY the 33, with graphics, and explanation, and background to a philosophy, had a media package that REALLY COULD PRESENT the knowledge aquisition (logic, empiricism, faith) used, Joes, Your’s, the accurate, and very current, media wise, presentation of the 33 principles as Chiropractics raison d’etre.
      Was Pero’s work legit? Was, Is he a somebody to be respected, was he high on the ladder of researchers? Suh?? What happened to peer review, and publication and honored research publications??
      Anyway. I know, It’s Chiropractic, and we’re on our own, in many ways, IIIII Know!!! and it’s all about the WHO, but this WHO, has grown a bit weary, tisk, tisk! What can I say. I keep forging ahead, but I think I speak of valid questions, at least of somethings that bear a truth in identifying a problem, besides ME being the problem.

      • Claude Lessard 03/10/2015, 4:04 am:

        David,

        You posted: “it’s all about the WHO, but this WHO, has grown a bit weary, tisk, tisk!” It is you WHO choose to BE “weary”. It is your choice and you are free to BE weary, if it suits you. I got what you said and I accept it. 😉

        • David Suskin 03/10/2015, 11:06 am:

          Claude,
          Are you sure you’re not a Scientologist?
          You certainly place a lot, EVERYTHING??, on mans greatest attribute, FREE WILL.
          it IS about the WHO, but being the BEer AND the FREE WILLer at the same time?? A tisk tisk WEARY thing can ALWAYS be overcome?
          No LOM on it?
          What you’re really saying, in answer to Joes post, his question, is that scientists, the public, health professionals are in the grips of their WHO, their choices, what they have chosen to BE, even if they don’t know it?
          If exposed to the 33Ps and not choosing to understand, to embrace, Chiropractic, ADIO, is Their WHOs choice, and it is their Misfortune, their Mistake, but if we.keep telling the story over and over, giving them the opportunity to choose their WHO, then all is OK. UI, II, matter, life, etc. will do what it is maintained to do. People will come and people will go and that’s how it has to and should be!!
          Carry On ADIO.
          Your saing that I need to realize that everything I do or don’t do is a result of the WHO I choose to be. And yes some choices involve bravery, stepping outside of ones comfort zone, doing what is right and not expedient, and owning The 33Ps enough where that’s what you deliver to people, and let those who decide to come on board to do so and those that don’t? There are plenty of fires to put ou (Joe F), so say good day, knock on another door and say, there is a fire ther is a fire, get out (telling the story), and the non believers? Let them have their WHO, Way, and knock on another door. Keep knocking on doors.
          Have I embraced the ADIO, 33P way completely? No. Am I closer? Yes.
          Will I get the big idea and all else will follow? It already is, or it’s damn close!!!!

  9. Steve 03/09/2015, 4:07 pm:

    I do not rely on faith with Chiropractic Philosophy. I observe order. I find no need to question the creation of this order for that circumstance lies beyond the realm of my discipline. That there is organization of differing levels I can comprehend and discuss with those of like mind and or curiosity. If they choose to or are able to develop this ADIO world view, I am able to offer them some guidance, nothing more. Self-development is a solo mission.
    I also observe change after having the opportunity to contribute to this organizational process. This is all the proof I need to continue . I have the Big Idea.

  10. David Suskin 03/09/2015, 5:43 pm:

    Steve,
    You present this concept of contributing to this organizational process, by removing interference to it thru spinal adjustment. It’s a Simple, very concise understanding.
    The prevalence of LOM in an ailing, suffering humanity is abundant, has been abundant. There have been great strides in this domain, perhaps much of it is palliative, some of it Life saving, some of it deadly.
    The full breath of Chiropractic as it deals with an immaterial side of reality, I think requires an abundant understanding, logical, but thorough by Chiro AND PM.
    To have lifetime PM’s not obliging the Chiropractor because He(she) is a Doctor (faith), but due to understanding in a logical but theoretical principle (Major Premise >> 32 principles), I maintain, is a huge undertaking. I don’t doubt your ‘Getting’ The Big Idea. I doubt the public being able to Get The Big Idea, in a passive way, or in a way that would commit them to it’s worldview, viewpoint, and lifelong commitment when the public looks to spend their incomes on pleasures and pains, not necessarily the philosophical. That’s why, yes there has to be Transformation in the PM, some how, and that takes work and I’d think more than just an ‘adding to organization ADIO concept, by removing interference to it’s expression, that being an adjustment. But Listen, once again, who am I to say. You get the Big Idea, you have the practice. You apparently have and do do it, successfully (whatever that means).
    The rubbing of ADIO with OIBU (LOM) events can create a good amount of friction particularly when it comes to spending hard earned Cash.

  11. Steve 03/09/2015, 8:04 pm:

    David,
    For most to catch on to ADIO is not a ground-breaking, life-shattering change as you seem to want to make it out to be. To be considered an enabler not a controller is a great position for a Chiropractor. It is not our responsibility to “change” lives, but to provide an opportunity otherwise not available. Through TIC talk and TOR touch many will adapted a wider view. Some will catch the whole wave, some only get pieces, some not at all. It is the same with the profession, some high some low, many in the middle.
    None of this really effects our ability to serve. Give what you can, when you can, the best you can, and that is all you can do. Be grateful for those that allow you to touch their lives.

    • David Suskin 03/09/2015, 9:35 pm:

      Steve,
      Thank you for that Steve.
      Dave

    • Joe Strauss 03/12/2015, 1:49 pm:

      Steve, for those who have never heard or grasped the ADIO or chiropractc philosophy before, it surely is “a groundbreaking, life shattering change”. Those of us who have been born into it (like you) or lived it many years (like me) often take it for granted. I saw a video the other day of an infant who had been born deaf and received an implant. Even a child with little ability to communicate, graphically demonstrated the joy of hearing for the first time. Imagine his reaction when he hears and appreciates Beethoven or Mozart or even his mother’s voice for the first time. It might not be groundbreaking or earth shattering but when I hear or understand a chiropractic philosophical concept for the first time, it stirs my soul. I would hope that each one of us would have that reaction.
      I agree that it is not our responsibility to change lives, only the Creator of that life can do that. But to enable a person through our “tic talk or tor touch” (I like that phrase, thank you) is no small thing. In fact, it is the greatest thing, in this life, that one human being can do for another.

      • Steve 03/12/2015, 8:25 pm:

        I believe BJ said the ADJUSTMENT was the greatest thing one person can do for another. I would however agree the understanding behind the adj. would be next.

  12. Don 03/15/2015, 2:39 am:

    Sorry I’m coming into this discussion late. I probably can’t add anything more to this discussion.

    I would like to throw a different type of question out there to see what variety of answers exist. I welcome anyone to share their responses.

    Instead of forming an answer please provide the question.
    The answer is….an acceptable way to use research methods in OSC.
    Thank you for your consideration.

    • Claude 03/16/2015, 4:20 pm:

      Don,

      Re-read post 9-26-2014 12:06am. 😉

      • Don 03/17/2015, 2:24 am:

        Dr. Lessard,
        You may have to re-post that one. I am unable to locate it.
        It’s the Greenwich Mean time Joe warned us about, coming back to haunt us again. 🙂

        • Claude Lessard 03/17/2015, 12:00 pm:

          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

          • Claude Lessard 03/17/2015, 12:00 pm:

            Don,

            I re-printed it above 😉

          • Joe Strauss 03/17/2015, 2:08 pm:

            Thank you, Claude.

        • Joe Strauss 03/17/2015, 2:07 pm:

          Don, I’m even familiar with the GMT issue and I could not find it. Thanks for suggesting that Claude re-post it.

  13. Don 03/17/2015, 4:34 pm:

    Thank you Dr. Lessard and Dr. Strauss.
    I’ve encountered some difficulty in re phrasing that into a question. Here is my thought. Let me know if it is correct.

    Is the validation of the 33 through research acceptable through research methods?
    Yes…there exists an acceptable way to use research methods in OSC.

    Let me know. Thanks.

    • Joe Strauss 03/18/2015, 2:06 pm:

      Don, do the 33 principles really need to be validated by research or anything else for that matter? They are all a deduction from the Maj. premise. A premise does not need to be validated. It is accepted as fact. In freshman college physics class we did not validate the law of gravity, we just demonstrated that it was expressed as 32 ft./s per second on the earth.

      • Don 03/19/2015, 5:21 am:

        Dr. Strauss,
        Thank you. I can see how the phrasing of the question I tried to create from Dr. Lessard’s post seems incorrect or incomplete.
        I didn’t intend for the question to read that way.
        May I clarify?
        I chose to use this statement from Dr. Lessards earlier post: “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”
        I suppose the question I could have formed possibly could read
        “Is the validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science through research acceptable through research methods in OSC?”
        Personally, I found this to be more difficult to understand.
        What do you suggest as the question with the answer: “…is an acceptable way to use research methods in OSC.”

      • Don 03/19/2015, 5:25 am:

        Dr. Lessard,
        How does one go about validating and confirming the effective application of the 33 through or with research methods?

        • Claude Lessard 03/19/2015, 11:50 am:

          Don,

          How did the Wrights’ brothers, validate the law of gravity? The principle of lift? The principle of drag? The principle of airfoil? I am a pilot, and every time I fly my airplane, I validate and confirm those principles. Am I not? And if I run out fuel at 10,000 feet of altitude, then the law of gravity will be validated, hopefully with a successful emergency landing. Carry on. ADIO. 😉

          • Don 03/19/2015, 9:40 pm:

            Dr. Lessard,
            Pressed for time. Sorry about the brevity here.
            What about the research methods part of that question?
            Please explain. Thank you.

      • Don 03/19/2015, 10:12 pm:

        Dr. Lessard,
        I am back again. Thank you for your reply.
        I completely agree that validating the principles of gravity may be done through someone flying an aircraft that subsequently runs out of fuel mid-flight. If I was thinking of demonstrating gravity that may be one way. It also may be done other ways. I am not entirely sure of what those would be though. This is why I ask.

        Maybe you can help me this way, how would you answer the question
        “Is the validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science through research acceptable through research methods in OSC?“

        My position is that I just don’t know. There may be but I have yet to discover it and so I remain open to the possibility.
        Thanks for remaining open and sharing your thoughts.

        • Claude Lessard 03/20/2015, 1:23 am:

          Don,

          How do you think that putting into words the 33 principles happened?

          • Don 03/21/2015, 12:55 am:

            Dr. Lessard,
            I recall the answer was given prior to the question being formed.

            If the answer is “….an acceptable way to use research methods in OSC.”
            Is there anything you would add or change?
            Thanks

      • Don 03/25/2015, 12:45 am:

        Dr. Lessard,
        Did you receive this last question (above)?
        I am curious what, if anything, you would add or change.
        Thank you.

        • Claude Lessard 03/25/2015, 5:25 pm:

          Don,

          You posted: “Maybe you can help me this way, how would you answer the question
          “Is the validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science through research acceptable through research methods in OSC?“ –

          – What is the meaning of “validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”? What part of chiropractic involves the “application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”?

      • Don 03/25/2015, 9:59 pm:

        Dr. Lessard,
        I think this was my fault. I may have assumed so let me check. Please read below.

        I would like to throw a different type of question out there to see your answer would be. I invite you to share your response.
        **NB: Instead of forming an answer please provide the question.
        The answer is …..an acceptable way to use research methods in OSC.

        Thank you for your patience.

        • Claude Lessard 03/26/2015, 12:44 am:

          Don,

          It’s not your fault. You know well enough by now that I will NOT do the work that is yours to do… yet, I will assist you as you will answer your own question. –

          – According to OECD (2002) Frascati Manual: proposed standard practice for surveys on research and experimental development, 6th edition, research comprises “creative work undertaken on a systematic basis in order to increase the stock of knowledge, including knowledge of humans, culture and society, and the use of this stock of knowledge to devise new applications.” –

          – Therefore, Don, what is the meaning of “validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”? What part of chiropractic involves the “application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”?

      • Don 03/26/2015, 1:53 am:

        Dr. Lessard,
        Thank you.
        I am not familiar with that resource you quoted so I don’t know how to answer.
        The reason I asked the question in reverse is because I noticed that you had a preference for forming questions.
        This was my way of finding the question to the answer instead of the answer to my question.
        My goal is to explore the OSC – research methods connection ( if there is one) without getting into looming at several definitions of what research could be. ( although that may be interesting discussion for another thread 🙂
        Thanks again.

        • Claude Lessard 03/26/2015, 11:14 am:

          Don,

          OK. So, Don, what is the meaning of “validation and confirmation of the effective application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”? What part of chiropractic involves the “application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”?

          • Don 03/27/2015, 1:31 am:

            Dr. Lessard,
            My most honest answer is I do not know what it means.

            I could guess it means research but that would be a guess.

          • Claude Lessard 03/27/2015, 2:03 pm:

            Don,

            Chiropractic is philosophy, science and art. Which part involves the “application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science”?

  14. David Suskin 03/18/2015, 2:28 pm:

    Hi Joe (timidly),
    Yes it’s me, thickheaded? stubborn? OIBUseless?? – But here it goes.
    I’ve asked this many times. You and others give me your answers. I say yes. But there’s a little part of my logic that questions. OK, so here it goes, as per THIS POST..
    Principles:
    28. The Conductors of Innate Forces – The forces of Innate Intelligence operate through or over the nerve system in animal bodies.
    29. Interference with Transmission of Innate Forces – There can be interference with the transmission of Innate forces.
    30. The Causes of Dis-ease – Interference with the transmission of Innate forces causes incoordination or dis-ease.
    31. Subluxations – Interference with transmission in the body is always directly or indirectly due to subluxations in the spinal column.
    ***********************
    Being that the 32 deductions in intent, deal with an immaterial subject, intelligence and force, Yet we ascribe these entities to a matter entity >> THE NERVOUS SYSTEM.
    How can claim that this is deduction and NOT induction, since the nervous system, by identifying it, is an object of matter. Yes, in is a transmitter of impulses. We empirically can measure that. But how can we ASSUME, PRESUME, DEDUCE that the Mental Impulse
    a. uses the nervous system
    b. can be interfered with by pressure on a nerve (called a subluxation)
    c. that can be corrected by what we call an adjustment (EIF allowing innate intelligence to correct the subluxation with innate forces)
    It would seem that Research while it can’t prove the existence of the Mental Impulse, It can’t prove the existence of a Subluxation
    AND DEDUCTIVELY, WE CAN’T REALLY PROVE THE EXISTENCE OF A SUBLUXATION EITHER, OR THAT THE MENTAL IMPULSE USES THE NERVOUS SYSTEM AS IT’S CONVEYOR OF INTELLIGENT DIRECTION.
    Unless I’m WRONG.
    Maybe, once and for all, you can SET ME STRAIGHT, it straight.
    I’m so attached to material entities. We all are attached to material entities. Determining where when and when not to adjust is attached to material entities (THE FOOTPRINT as you call it)
    ARE THE 32 PRINCIPLES REALLY ALL DEDUCTED FROM THE MAJOR PREMISE AND HOW.
    be patient –
    Kindly
    Dave >> Student of ADIO

    • Claude 03/18/2015, 5:40 pm:

      David,

      You posted: “timidly”????? YOU??? –

      How I wish you would remember that your questions were answered in past blogs. Or are you a person bleeding WHO chooses to think that he is dead? Oh yeah, you posted that you were “thick headed” “stubborn” “OIBUseless”… Since it is you WHO choose to label yourself that way… well, suit yourself! 😉

      Re-read blog: Claude Lessard 11/19/2014 12:49am. Make sure that you re-read your comment of 11/19/2014 2:19am.

      • David Suskin 03/18/2015, 6:58 pm:

        I’m not too self deprecating!
        Claude, this new system of looking up by date, putting that date in the search field, It Don’t Verk! What’s the post title??
        And I presume you’re going to re-answer my redundant question?
        I’m guessing you’re answer is going to be:
        David, it’s all about the WHO, isn’t it? or David, embrace the paradox, or
        David stop thinking and start doing, or I’ll find out once you give me a better handle to the search on 11/19/2014 12:49am.
        I await 😉

        • Claude 03/18/2015, 8:14 pm:

          Here it is:

          Claude Lessard 11/19/2014, 12:49 am:
          David,
          The function of innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal as per principle #27 and one of the purposes of that function is to have coordination of action of all the parts of the body for mutual benefit (pri.23). In order to have coordination of action, there must be harmonious functioning of parts (pri.32) to manifest mutual benefit which requires congruent interconnectivity amongst different parts. In other words, as innate intelligence adapts universal forces and e/matter for coordination of action (pri.23), the congruency of instructive information necessary to harmonize all the parts of the body needs intelligent distribution from a centralized control center forming the operating system used by the innate intelligence of the body in order to coordinate the activities of all the parts of the body. Since we know from principle #6 that there is no process that does not require time, coordination of action of all the parts of the body is a process requiring time. Coordination of action also requires TRANSMISSION of the instructive information of the innate intelligence of the body… from the centralization center to the parts of the body at the periphery. It needs centralization and distribution from center to periphery. Time is paramount for physical e/matter to process metaphysical data and express that data (pri.6 and 13). It requires time for living e/matter to process innate forces (pri.23) without breaking a universal law (pri.24). A direct contact between the expression of metaphysical data by physical e/matter (pri.13) and its physical motion (pri.14) must interface with each other. This interface is the union of metaphysical intelligence and physical e/matter expressing instructive information created and adapted by intelligence (pri.10 and 23). Since it requires time to centralize and distribute data to be processed by living e/matter, distance between different parts must be interconnected with each other in order to harmonize their specific function into coordinated activity (pri.32). Through observation, the physical interface of the vertebrate animal body consists of a specialized system of intelligent directed conductivity and is necessary to first centralized the already assembled metaphysical innate forces and to distribute their instructive information to the different parts of the body. Through inductive reasoning, of the many tissues comprising the animal body, the nerve system with its brain, spinal cord and nerves, is a network used by the innate intelligence of the body to link all of the different parts of that particular vertebrate animal body. From the adaptation of the e/matter of the nerve system by the innate intelligence of the body (pri.23), specialized coded messages with instructive information form the applications of those coded messages into a multitude of programs interfacing with each other and the operating system (brain as control center and nerve system to distribute the data). All this is so extremely complex that the interface itself is separate and distinct (pri.4). Therefore, a highly specialized system is used by innate intelligence for that purpose. It is the nerve system, which is the TRANSMITTING matter forming a network that is used by the innate intelligence of the body to coordinate the action of all the parts of the body into congruent and harmonious functions (pro.32) for mutual benefit of all its parts (pro.23)… INCLUDING the nerve system. It must be remembered that the nerve system also needs harmonious action (pri.32). The nerve system is comprised of living e/matter that continually needs to be adapted by innate intelligence (pro.23) in order to perform its function (pri.28) which is to TRANSMIT force. Therefore, stated as principle #28: “The forces of innate intelligence operate through or over the nervous system in animal bodies.” –

          ————————————————————————————
          Your reply
          David Suskin 11/19/2014, 2:19 am:
          Very interesting Claude, and intriguing. You discuss time as a factor, that requires coordination and harmonization because time or time out of sync is certainly something that requires adaptation. Also the identification of the interface between metaphysical and physical, so intrinsic to the philosophy as represented by p 13 and p14! And as represented as a centralized organic structure being eg. The nervous system, very interesting.
          A very cohesive train of thought. I will study it. Thank you Claude. –

          • David Suskin 03/19/2015, 1:26 am:

            Claude,
            You mention: Through observation, the physical interface of the vertebrate animal body consists of a specialized system of intelligent directed conductivity and is necessary to first centralized the already assembled metaphysical innate forces and to distribute their instructive information to the different parts of the body. Through inductive reasoning, of the many tissues comprising the animal body, the nerve system with its brain, spinal cord and nerves, is a network used by the innate intelligence of the body to link all of the different parts of that particular vertebrate animal body.
            **********************
            The concept of p23 interfacing at the junction between universal forces and motion, between immaterial and material, adapting, coordinating parts for mutual benefit. Yes this fits together, as a theory. I don’t know if it is a deduction that bears itself in a junction comprising basically muscles.
            That’s the thing. We talk of body parts, tissue cell, and I know we’ve covered this before. Anatomically, efferent nerves, junctioning in muscles of organs, blood vessels, glands, is either a physiological interpretation ONLY, with a reduced interpretation of what’s really going on here, or there are other effects going on, other anatomies????
            Is this the TONE that DD was talking about? Where some metaphysical event is taking place at that immaterial(force), material(motion) junction, which is manifesting as an adaptation of universal force, manifesting as a coded message that permeates the TONE of the cells, as controlled by the TONE of the muscle, into the organ, into the tissue, into the cell???
            I’ve crossed this path with you before Claude. I know.
            Do you get what I’m driving at?
            Is it that the science, the anatomy, the physiology has not caught up with the THEORY that we deduce as the logical tissue to supply the transmission for innate intelligence?
            It’s like we have Life. And we have vitalism. And we have the signs of life. And we have NO explanation mechanically how this could be with the deductions we have made. So we deduce innate intelligence, a vitalistic type principle, and the nervous system makes sense that it’s part of this Triune. But the complete support, scientifically, anatomically, isn’t there. YET!?
            Muscle stimulation?, Golgi tendons, pacinian corpuscles (afferently), end plates, free nerve endings ????
            Pieces are missing! Not from the Theoretical, but from bears out on the actual, which I know is just the empirical and not something that the immaterial can be observed within.
            It’s a philosophical enigma.
            Life is a philosophical enigma.
            This is part of what stops me.
            Cause I can’t touch it, can’t prove it COMPLETELY, unless once again I’m missing something.
            I welcome your input without condemnation to investigate this STOP.
            Am I the only one?
            Talk to me professor(s)

  15. David Suskin 03/18/2015, 8:42 pm:

    Claude,
    I will study this, once more. If I find an issue, as per Joe’s comment:
    …Don, do the 33 principles really need to be validated by research or anything else for that matter? They are all a deduction from the Maj. premise. A premise does not need to be validated. It is accepted as fact…., I will comment (specifically about the process of Deduction).
    However, I am looking for, as Joe has described, gnosis to enter an epignositic realm with regards to Chiropractic Philosophy, ADIO, and all that we have discussed.
    I thank you Claude and of course Joe.
    Dave

  16. David Suskin 03/19/2015, 3:14 am:

    Claude,
    Just a note. I’m reading from David Koch’s book, contemporary chiropractic philosophy, p 89, chap 12, the efferent side of the normal complete cycle.
    He seems to implicate greater controlling receptors, neural apparatus, and some interesting discussions which go beyond my muscle to tissue cell limitation I present.
    I know you’re not in full agreement of his rendition alterations of the principles. Be that as it may, sometimes when it gets to these points, these discussions, when it gets beyond the pure logic, the deduction, then it becomes a matter of who and what I believe, either scientifically, or perhaps some other reality. Faith? Authority?
    I don’t know I don’t fully embrace things. Maybe I don’t fully embrace anything. Maybe that’s good. Maybe that’s who I am at this point. But it gets in the way of me getting up on the pulpit and opineing.
    It’s tough to sit on the fence and not be able to go over to one side. Completely. Ahhhh. The shades of gray .
    I believe in ADIO. But I don’t own or KNOW IT.

    • Claude Lessard 03/19/2015, 11:40 am:

      David,

      Carry on. ADIO. 😉

      • David Suskin 03/20/2015, 2:19 pm:

        Claude,
        I’m reading in RWS Textbook. Yes, I know, it’s filled with THE PHILOSOPHY, the principles of the basic science. AND most importantly, it is from the past, so without condemnation, we must come to the science (facts), of the present and consider those errors as being the science of the time, without negating the GOOD, THE Truth that RWS (and BJ) presents. Also in OC we eliminate God, or Creation, Religion, etc.
        I know you don’t know the mind of RWS, and that is not my intention, to negate. You are more knowledgeable of BJ, RWS, the progession of the history, and information of Chiropractic than I.
        In RWS, Textbook p.6 >> Art. 32, RWS states
        ‘If the nerve is severed the tissue cell loses function and dies. This is proof that the mental impulse is necessary to life.’
        OK, this is NOT TRUE, and I accept that. Science had only a certain amount of knowledge at the time. BUT, did he just make this statement? Without Research? Here he is presenting in a factual manner, something, as though it WAS FACT. And it ISN’T.
        if a nerve is severed, the tissue cell may loose function??? and may die??? BUT NOT NECESSARILY (eg. kidney transplant, etc.)
        So why would he state that? To support his argument, that ‘mental impulses are necessary to life? BAD ARGUMENT!!! Yes, mental impulse are necessary to life, in total, perhaps. Plenty of nerves can be cut and people still live.
        So it throughs my suspicion into his purpose, his honesty, in writing this Textbook.
        Do you have comment on this integrity, or even STUPIDITY that he presents. Or once again, David Suskin is missing something here.
        Oh I see, when he says the tissue cell dies, he means dies EVENTUALLY >> no, no, come on. He was under a pressure of some sort, to prove a point about mental impulse, but as they say, JUMPED THE SHARK! WHY?

        • David Suskin 03/20/2015, 2:24 pm:

          and Joseph, I meant to include you in the request. Actually with your abundance of historical and contextual knowledge, I would honor your viewpoint. You’ll probably say, David, RWS, wasn’t a Saint. He was a mere mortal man, who was prone to mistakes, as any man. The textbook is Filled with mistakes. It’s our job in 2015??? (Wow!), to refine our Philosophy and Science, when possible.
          However, This point >> Cut a nerve and the cells die! Easily tested, and easily proven as WRONG! So why did he print, say it?

          • Claude 03/20/2015, 2:59 pm:

            David,

            Why was the ENTIRE world thought it was a fact that the earth was flat? Galileo was excommunicated for stating otherwise. It was a “fact” until it was discovered otherwise was it not?

          • Joe Strauss 03/20/2015, 6:27 pm:

            Claude, my understanding is that the flat Earth theory was only held by a few people, never universally held. I also understand that Galileo’s conflict with the church was in (correctly) theorizing that the earth revolved around the sun, that the earth was not the center of the universe. Perhaps of the flat earthers had the same control over the media that the global warming kooks have today.

  17. David Suskin 03/20/2015, 3:39 pm:

    Claude,
    Because the horizon made it look that way, or fear, or the need for discovery, for bravery. OK, BUT, A nerve???
    RWS, BJ’s Innateoscope, whatever it was called??? pneumomentodigitizer??whatever >>
    Take a frog, cut the nerve to it’s leg…. the leg doesn’t work… but the tissue lives!!!
    I don’t know. Just seems like RWS had the need to but the cart before the horse, and he was writing a professional document. So professional that it’s almost Biblical (TSC)… but you use it. It’s the philosophical bible… minus some facts and Religion (or plus, depending on how you want to condemn or forgive, etc. IT.
    Either way, there was no reason for him to use that
    CUT THE NERVE AND THE TISSUES DIE..
    The earth was already proven round, and nerves not being REQUIRED for ALL TISSUES to remain ALIVE, was already Known.
    I know what he was driving at. But there it is, in this RWS Chiropractic Textbook. Bad Data, and the earth is round.
    Besides, people, for centuries had paralysis. There arms, or legs didn’t ROT OFF THEIR BODY. They just didn’t work???

    • Claude Lessard 03/20/2015, 6:37 pm:

      David,

      You posted: “Either way, there was no reason for him to us that CUT THE NERVE AND THE TISSUES DIE”. –

      – Here’s what Joseph mentioned a few posts ago: –

      – “Chiropractic has identified two types of death. There are probably others but they are not addressed by our chiropractic philosophy. Clinical death is identified by the medical profession, when the human brain is no longer generating nerve impulses. That is not only a medical definition but apparently it is the legal definition also. Theology has identified at least five other types of death. Here we are only concerning ourselves with the types of death addressed in our chiropractic philosophy.
      The first type of death is what we might call biological death. This is the death of the organism. It is when the innate intelligence of the body is no longer being expressed through the organism. Since chiropractic really does not deal with death but life and since the innate intelligence of the body is a metaphysical phenomena, we have no way of empirically demonstrating biological death and must depend upon the medical profession’s methods of making that determination. Lest we feel too discouraged about lacking that ability we are reminded that the medical profession throughout history has themselves been frustrated by their inability to make a reliable determination. Tradition says that so often were corpses not really deceased or mistakenly assumed to be so that a string was often tied around the dead person’s hand,passed through a hole in the coffin and attached to a bell above ground. One of the gravediggers was expected sit near the grave through the night in the event that the supposedly deceased became conscious and moved his hand ringing the bell. It is said that this is where the expression “saved by the bell” first came into usage (and you thought it was in an Ali fight). The chiropractor is no more trained to make that determination than is a layperson. On the other hand when that determination has been made, the chiropractor can conclude deductively (based upon accepting the medical doctor’s empirical assessment), that the organism is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body. It must also be understood that biological death can occur, that is, that the innate intelligence of the body is no longer being expressed but that there is still cellular, tissue, or organ intelligence being expressed. Since a chiropractor cannot make that determination, he does not know when the organism is no longer expressing the innate intelligence of the body, that must be done by a medical physician who makes the determination that the individual is clinically dead but that there is still cellular, tissue, or organ intelligence being expressed through those tissues. This is the basis for organ and tissue transplants. I hate to think how many of those people are still expressing innate intelligence of the body and could be “resuscitated”. As chiropractors we can be thankful that we are not in a position to have to make that determination.
      The second type of death is what we might call partial death. In this case there is a partial lack of the expression of the innate intelligence of the body but the individual may or may not manifest any indication of this lack of life because there is still biological life. If the individual is manifesting indications of a lack of life it may appear as the symptoms or the signs of a medical condition. If the individual is not manifesting any indication of this lack of life he may appear to be healthy from a medical standpoint (in which case we are told by the CCE that we have no basis for adjusting them.) However only a chiropractor could determine this lack of life and only if it is caused by vertebral subluxation. The chiropractor refers to this state of partial death as DIS-EASE.”

    • Joe Strauss 03/20/2015, 6:40 pm:

      David, if we go back to a recent post we can see that the definition of “die” is important. The tissues as a result of a vertebral subluxation are functionally dead, lacking the expression of the innate intelligence of the body’s forces. But the tissues may still be expressing biological life, tissue intelligence. Paralysis causes functional death and was due to lack of the expression of the innate intelligence of the body through the nerve system. Biological life, “tissue intelligence”, was still present. That is why, “arms or legs didn’t rot off their body”.

  18. David Suskin 03/20/2015, 7:43 pm:

    Joseph,
    Interesting!
    Would ‘die’ or ‘death’ need to apart of the OSC Lexicon?
    So I presume this is not YOUR interpretation, but IS what RWS had in mind, knowing his, BJ’s(who he compiled from), and knowing Chiropracticology as you do, Professor (humble)

  19. David Suskin 03/20/2015, 7:47 pm:

    And, If Innate Intelligence is not Fully Expressed then Chiropractically, a Person Is Dead!, or you might say in Partial Death. Correct?

    • Claude 03/20/2015, 8:06 pm:

      David,

      When a living body does not fully express the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body, that living body is “dead” to the innate intelligence of the body, that’s what we call, “partial death”. This is due to the violation of the principle of coordination (32) which is a lack of coordination of action. The practice of the chiropractic objective imaintains the integrity of the principle of organization!

      • Claude 03/20/2015, 8:12 pm:

        ..: when the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body are interfeted with, the systems, the organs, the tissues and the cells remain alive and they lack coordination of activities.

  20. David Suskin 03/20/2015, 10:46 pm:

    Joe,
    I understand that this is what we have come to interpret, how we understand perhaps the nuance or the intent of RWSs statement.
    However, as written
    ‘If the nerve is severed the tissue cell loses function and dies. This is proof that the mental impulse is necessary to life.’
    He is using induction (proof), to make his point about the relationship between the mental impulse and life.
    Your interpretation, which I once again agree with, IS METAPHYSICAL in nature and I would not categorize it within the the realm of PROOF by example, to make a logical affirming conclusion.
    The statement ‘loses function and dies’ I am lead to understand it as an empirical statement. This is where I find fault with RWSs intent.
    Correct me if I am misreading. But again, I agree with Our interpretation of partial death, biological life, tissue intelligence, etc. and with Claude’s statement ‘Claude 03/20/2015, 8:12 pm:
    ..: when the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body are interfeted with, the systems, the organs, the tissues and the cells remain alive and they lack coordination of activities.’
    But that is another subject or logical conclusion,
    You might not agree with me with regards to This argument, and if you don’t, How? Where have I misread, misinterpreted?
    And if you do agree with my observation, maybe you could shed some light on this RWS Faux pas.

Leave a Reply

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