CAN SCIENTIFIC RESEARCH AND PHILOSOPHICAL CHIROPRACTIC CO-EXIST?

11

This was my presentation at IRAPS OCTOBER 2014. It caused quite a bit of discussion, less so as part of a talk at the Garden State Chiropractic Society Convention this past Saturday. I would like to get the comments of readers of this blog. I realize it is longer than the usual post but I think that was necessary in presenting sufficient information to engender adequate discussion.

ABSTRACT

Do we in the chiropractic profession believe that chiropractic is able to stand alone as a deductive science – apart from scientific research? Do we in the chiropractic profession desire that chiropractic stand alone as a deductive science – apart from research? Do we believe that we are not accepted by science, the health field, the public and even some colleagues within the profession because we do not prove the merits of our profession with scientific research? Most chiropractic research appears to foster the empirical, outside-in, experience-oriented approach to understanding and validating chiropractic as an effective alternative to addressing medical conditions and in doing so negates, subverts, or at least belittles the rational, deductive and philosophical approach, unwittingly purporting to make it unnecessary. Can research and philosophical chiropractic co-exist or does the very nature of chiropractic philosophy preclude it from the usual empirical, inductive, experiential methods ordinarily associated with medical practice? If our philosophy deduces that our objective is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body and its forces to be more fully expressed, how does our research demonstrate empirical evidence of that deduction? Is it because sick people get well? The medical profession gets sick people well (in theirs and the public’s opinion) and has been doing so for thousands of years, not just since 1895. Is our research, in principle, agreeing with the medical profession that being sick is the same as having a medical condition or symptom and getting well is the same as alleviating that condition or symptom or its cause? Can chiropractic as a biological science adopt the research methods and systems associated with the natural sciences of empiricism? Can chiropractic philosophy and outside-in empirical research, especially that of addressing the value of chiropractic in the alleviation of medical conditions co-exist? If so, will this increase or decrease the value of chiropractic care, ignoring the benefit to millions of people not (or not yet) manifesting the signs or symptoms of medical conditions and in so doing have the opposite effect that it is intended to have? Chiropractic research is intended to answer many questions about chiropractic. Will it? Lastly, is there a place for research in chiropractic, consistent with its a priori, deductive philosophy, which will improve the public’s understanding and acceptance of our profession?

Presentation
Hans-Herman Hoppe of the Ludwig Von Mises Institute, in his book Economic Science and the Austrian Method, a series of essays and lectures, expands upon the argument presented by the great Austrian economist for whom the Institute is named, that “methods associated with natural sciences cannot be successfully appropriated for economic theory.” (1) He posits that economics belongs not in the natural sciences but in praxeology “the study of human action and conduct, relating to praxis, relating to an art, science, or skill.” (2) Hoppe’s mentor, Von Mises, did not see his ideas of Austrian onomics as something new. It was actually the common system historically, from the time that coinage was invented as a simplified means of barter. Even in this country when using coins, not coins made of wood
(hence the phrase “not worth a wooden nickel”), but coins that had intrinsic value (gold or silver) or paper that represented actual physical gold (stored at Fort Knox, Kentucky). The term “fiat” means simply “decreed” and “fiat money” means money that someone had established (decreed) to be of a certain value. There must be a standard. The standard was gold (except for periods of war in which fiat money was a promissory note, a ”greenback,” with a future promise to pay back in gold). During Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s administration gold was decreed to be worth $34.00 an ounce. The American dollar (backed by gold) and the British pound (backed by sterling silver) eventually became the universal currencies until Great Britain no longer had sufficient silver to back up the pound and then the universal currency became solely the dollar. That standard was abandoned in the mid-1970’s and the government embraced the idea of fiat money no longer backed up by gold in Ft. Knox but with paper dollars backed up by paper dollars with no promise to repay in anything of intrinsic value. That caused inflation which drove up the value of gold (to nearly $2000 an ounce) as well as other commodities and as a result, How does this relate to our chiropractic philosophy and research? Can we decree anything in chiropractic? If not, we have no principles. Studying, learning and applying the Thirty-three Principles then would be a waste of time and mental energy, Gold has intrinsic value. If gold is $2000/ounce, it does not matter whether that ounce is in a coin, a gold bar, a piece of jewelry or the filling in a tooth. Chiropractic also has intrinsic value. As an absolute,
our analogy breaks down because gold, like any commodity, changes with the amount produced or available and the value placed on the item. (A rare coin, a piece of jewelry, or a dental filling may all have the same amount of gold but be priced differently.) However, for our discussion purposes the analogy will suffice because the result of an adjustment is always the same. An adjustment is always 100%. The adjustment always perfectly and completely allows the innate forces of the body to be more fully expressed, regardless of the absence or presence of a medical condition in the recipient. The intrinsic value of an adjustment is not related to the fee set by the chiropractor. Its intrinsic value is in the chiropractic objective. The philosophy of chiropractic is based upon a priori knowledge in the form of a Major Premise, the first of the Thirty-three Principles, and the deductive logic of the remainder of the principles. It cannot exist within the philosophical framework of the medical model which depends upon relativism. This paper will be confined to arguments concerning research and the natural science methodology which assumes, within reasonable standards, that it can effectively predict the outcome (and value) of an action within the human body despite its countless variables and unique expressions of innate intelligence. I hope that other chiropractic philosophers will undertake the task of contrasting the specific chiropractic/ADIO approach and
the therapeutic/OIBU approaches to research. Objective Straight Chiropractors disagree with the philosophy of allopathy, osteopathy and much of New Age and complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) philosophy. It is not so much that we have gone off in a different direction, but that the healing arts have abandoned their traditional embrace of what we might call the ADIO model of life and health based upon, most importantly, our fixed Major Premise from which are derived minor, but just as valid, premises which have been codified or arranged systematically and explained by Palmer, Stephenson and others in what we commonly refer to as the Thirty-three principles.
Most all current practices that involve the human body are based upon empiricism, experience and induction. Prior to the Enlightenment, healing arts practices were based upon metaphysical, mystical and/or supernatural causes; from miasmas (noxious vapors), the night air, bad blood, divine discipline, displeasure or judgment by the gods. The cure, however, usually involved some physical action such as bleeding, closing a window to keep out the “evil” night air or sacrificing an animal or person to placate or satisfy a deity. Failure was attributed to “God’s will” or the will of evil forces (your enemy’s gods) overcoming the will of good forces (your gods). The caduceus of medicine is a remnant of one of those procedures. The Israelites who were bitten by venomous snakes in the desert had to look upon a brass serpent on a pole to be healed. This was a demonstration of their faith. After the Enlightenment and by the time chiropractic was discovered and developed, procedures involving experience and induction had become the “physical” action of choice (although the serpent on a pole remained!). Most healing arts that were still based solely upon the metaphysical and/or supernatural either passed from the scene (magnetic healing), adopted strictly physical approaches, ignoring their former metaphysical components (osteopathy and homeopathy), or relegated their practices strictly to religion (faith healing and Christian Science). Chiropractic seems to be the only “healing art” that has successfully made the transition. Whether that is because the others were based upon false premises, since we are now in a post-enlightenment period in which the metaphysical is once again considered valid, or because chiropractic is a system that is founded upon identifiable truths is a subject that needs to be explored further. That subject is not relevant to this paper, unless those identifiable truths can be brought to light by research. I realize that I write/speak from a personal and admittedly biased non-therapeutic viewpoint and I do not represent any particular group or organization. That gives me a freedom that some present today do not have. I would welcome professional discussion with my presentation. IRAPS is the appropriate venue to have that discussion. While some would like to see and to establish IRAPS as a vehicle for establishing and demonstrating two sides of the same coin, working together to strengthen the chiropractic profession, I must question whether it may in fact have just the opposite effect. Philosophy and Research as we understand them, in reality, are not two sides of the same coin, combined to show us the validity of chiropractic, but rather can be compared to flipping that coin, each side representing a different objective. Prior to a football game the “coin toss” is not for the purpose of viewing two sides of the same coin in order to have a better understanding of a monetary system (who the system belongs to on one side and its denomination on the other) but to see who will first have the option to make a decision. The coin coming up “heads” is not a choice, an option or an alternative, a different way of looking at the same coin to give us more information but it, by its very nature and intent negates the other option or the other side exercising their option. “Heads” is really non-“tails.” It is not only a choice for what “heads” represents; it is a choice against whatever/whoever “tails” represents. Does research corroborate our philosophy? Does it attest to the truth, validity or accuracy of our philosophy? Does it support with evidence the chiropractic objective? Or does the very nature of research negate the need for and the validity of a philosophy of chiropractic? Conversely, does the philosophy of chiropractic negate the need for research…specifically that research that is intended to validate chiropractic’s ability to meet the medical objective? Do we engage in research in order to bring those who reject our philosophy into the fold when those who reject our philosophy would never embrace our approach to chiropractic to begin with? Is someone converted by the edge of the sword really a convert? If he is, it is only until another, a different sword, is held to their neck. How many people “lost their faith in chiropractic” in the early part of the last century when the medics ostensibly “proved” on cadavers that spinal bones do not move. Why has the chiropractic profession not done research in the past to prove our philosophy? Is it because we had no money and no confidence that research would support our philosophy, or that we had no way of doing research? Why did B.J. abandon his research of the effect of chiropractic on medical conditions? Perhaps it was because he realized research into medical conditions is a flawed model and chiropractic is not based upon a flawed model. Perhaps he understood that research belittles the true objective of chiropractic. When so-called legitimate chiropractic research began, our profession had just left the “chiropractic corrects the cause of all disease” phase and entered the “chiropractic gets some sick people well” phase, i.e., those with conditions that respond to our “natural” health care. On a video produced by the ICA, the traditional national chiropractic organization, chronicling Dr. Suh’s research, a well-known and well-respected leader of that organization said in effect that if research contradicted his philosophy, he would have to reevaluate his philosophy. This thinking set the tone for the chiropractic profession’s entry into the research field. In other words empirical findings trumped. When the chiropractic profession began to earnestly adopt and mimic medical practices, when they thought that performing medical procedures would gain them acceptance, the first thing they adopted was the medical procedure of diagnosis. It is what split the traditional and the objective straight chiropractors. The traditional straights adopted the medicalized model that required diagnosis and through controlling the accreditation process eventually all the schools were co-opted. Previously the early traditional chiropractors held to “subluxation as the cause of all disease.” That model does not require diagnosis. But it was not acceptable to the medical community, other chiropractors and the general public, at least not sufficiently to support a growing profession that desired acceptance. So the traditional chiropractic profession capitulated to the broad scope practitioners and merely disagreed on how many and which conditions chiropractic could and should address. But it does not matter whether your practice addresses one medical condition, 100 medical conditions or 1000 medical conditions, coming to a diagnostic conclusion is necessary. If we keep in mind that all chiropractors have at least one unified goal… to gain acceptance for the chiropractic profession,everyone would likely agree that acceptance or at least tolerance by the medical community is a prerequisite to acceptance by the general public. It was thought that by gaining the first (tolerance by the medical community) the second (acceptance by the public) would more easily come. After all it was almost universally thought that the bitter antagonism toward chiropractic by the medical profession was its biggest obstacle in gaining public acceptance. Their rejection of our foundational premise that chiropractic corrects the cause of DIS-EASE, mistakenly perceived as disease was the basis for that antagonism. The president of a chiropractic college at the centennial celebration of the profession implied that once we have demonstrated that our academic program meets acceptable standards and our diagnostic skills are approaching that of the medical community, it matters little which or how many conditions we address, just that we demonstrate by our research the effectiveness of our approach (outcomes assessment) for each of those diseases. Research seemed to be an answer, to satisfy the medical and scientific communities, the public and the entire chiropractic community, except for the small group of chiropractors who still maintained that chiropractic addresses the cause of all disease ( a few remaining traditional chiropractors) or no disease (all objective chiropractors). In the 60’s, chiropractors began to publish statistics of the percentages of patients who had positively responded to chiropractic care in the alleviation of their medical conditions. But these were only anecdotal, by individual chiropractors, published primarily in the form of advertisements that had little or no rigorous scientific or academic basis. This created a “need” and an opportunity for chiropractic institutions and organizations to enter into research, a place where it should logically be found. It also created an almost endless source of income, if medical research was any example, a source desperately needed by the schools to help subsidize their increased costs of education and a need to appear to be improving their standard of education and the profession’s standards as a whole. importunately, those standards had been set by the medical/scientific community and were focused on the treatment and cure of disease. To play their game we had to abide by their rules. This was the next step, wittingly or unwittingly, toward the medicalization of chiropractic. The question arises: Is the research model left over from a time when we, as a profession, held the philosophical position that while vertebral
subluxation is not the cause of all diseases, the correction of it gets some sick people (with some diseases). If we purport that research, for example, demonstrates that chiropractic is effective in 93% of the cases of XYZ condition, are we not saying that chiropractic as the “correction of vertebral subluxation to enable the forces of the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed” is not effective in 7% of those cases? Further, does that contradict our chiropractic philosophical position that every time chiropractic is applied it enables the innate intelligence of the body’s forces to be more fully expressed as our principles imply. Are limitations of matter a legitimate principle or in the minds of the scientific community a convenient “chiropractic copout?” If they are not a copout, must we demonstrate what those limitations are? Can we hold to a philosophy on one hand and at the same time embrace a system that negates or calls into question the validity or importance of that philosophy? Chiropractic is based upon a priori assumptions; one is that the body responds in a certain manner every time an adjustment takes place. That does not mean that a medical condition in that particular body or any other body will respond in the same manner or that a medical condition in the same body will respond in the same or a similar manner tomorrow, next month or next year. Chiropractic, at least that practiced in the non-therapeutic model, is not subject to verification, corroboration, or falsification on the grounds of experience which is exactly what most research attempts to do. Some would argue in favor of “case studies.” However, these studies never evaluate any of the 7% who do not demonstrate positive results. If not, they are implying there is no 7% or that the 7% received substandard chiropractic care, i.e., malpractice. I would suggest that case studies may be effective as an advertisement, as they were originally used, to attract people with those Chiropractic and all endeavors that involve the human body should not be based upon experience and induction but rather on a priori assumptions. Chiropractic, except as an alternative to, or having the same objective as medicine is not subject to the same model of verification or falsification as medicine, on the ground of experience. Is that not exactly what Chiropractic is an a priori science, a science in which its principles can and must be given a rigorous logical justification. I believe that has been done and refined over the past 119 years. That distinguishes chiropractic from other so-called schools of healing. All others see themselves as empirical and consequently are dependent upon and validated or justified by the experience demonstrated by research. Chiropractic has long been denigrated because it has not used that empirical-experience-research model. It is true that historically we have not used it, not because our science is flawed but because the model itself is flawed. The principles of chiropractic beginning with the Major Premise and consisting of general observations which require no proof are accepted by nearly everyone hearing them because they are consistent with his or her prior thinking or observations. The most common response that a chiropractor hears after explaining the philosophy or objective is “that makes sense.” Should we embrace a model that is inherently flawed? conclusion Medical research or research into medical conditions within the practice of chiropractic is part of an outside-in philosophy, demonstrating the greatest good for the greatest number, with no consideration or recognition of an inborn intelligence as a vital component and consideration of the human organism and experience. If 93% of people in a group with XYZ disease are helped by a procedure, that means that 7% are either not helped and may in fact, have negative side-effects. That, according to medical philosophy, may be an acceptable number and even if some of the 7% die, that is acceptable “collateral damage.” After all 93% are being helped and that is the greater good for the greater number. By analogy, it is like Keynesian economics, the antagonist to Austrian economics that advocates “kicking the can down the road.” Spend money we don’t have in order to help the greater number now, even though we are leaving those who are not born yet (representing many more than just 7%) with debt they cannot repay.
Why did chiropractic not do research before? Was it insufficient finances, no confidence that it would support our philosophy, or perhaps because we had no way of doing it? It was likely that all three contributed. Today, as a profession, we have come to believe we have overcome or should overcome those obstacles. I would hope that our decision is not based upon
the assumption that research into medical conditions is a legitimate model with regard to chiropractic and that chiropractic can be based upon and evaluated by inadequate and flawed models. Research into medical conditions and chiropractic’s impact will reduce the value of chiropractic care by inferring that chiropractic is valuable for the limited number of conditions that have been researched and demonstrated to respond to chiropractic care in a certain percentage, at best. It does nothing to demonstrate the value of chiropractic care for all people, for a lifetime regardless of the presence or absence of a medical condition. Does research demonstrate that in the theoretical 7% of cases where people do not get well, chiropractic has failed or that the chiropractor has performed malpractice in that the chiropractor failed in his objective? Does any chiropractic research demonstrate that people with a medical condition who do not demonstrate improvement are still better off having subluxations corrected? Does chiropractic research into the alleviation of medical conditions/symptoms merely perpetuate the technique wars that have plagued our profession for the past 100 years? Chiropractic research is intended to be a benefit to the chiropractic profession, answering many of science’s, the government’s and the public’s questions. My fear is that is has raised more than it has answered. The purpose of this paper is not to denigrate research.
Research is valuable to chiropractic. But like chiropractic itself, research must be limited to the objective of chiropractic and any empirical aspects which may enhance and corroborate the narrow philosophy surrounding that objective. If not we will be one step closer to encroaching upon or being absorbed by the practice of medicine. As it is, our present research is not relevant to human beings. We cannot use physics, chemistry or anatomy to do our research. The whole methodology of modern empirical science is just not appropriate for researching the individual human body. If research is being done for the purpose of determining whether someone has had a successful experience under chiropractic care with XYZ disease, that research does not fit with our chiropractic principles and objective. Worst of all it raises another question: What does that have to do with chiropractic?

Be Sociable, Share!
Posted in: Thinking Straight

This article has 11 comments

  1. Straight DC 04/27/2015, 3:48 pm:

    I am not a scientist & I am not familiar with all that goes into the scientific method, but it seems that if you go into research with an open mind & not one that wants to prove just what the scientist has on his/her mind, then I believe that science would have to come to the conclusion that there is such great wisdom behind everything in the universe and the “vastness” of it all is beyond human comprehension. Example: How the Hubble or Hummel Telescope was able to detect galaxies in the numbers beyond understanding and how everything in the universe has a part to play in the big picture – I think true science would have to admit that every blade of grass, every grain of sand, every butterfly etc. is part of a grand plan beyond scientific proof – or maybe science will come up w/ tools that have the ability to prove there is something greater at work in our universe. I think I remember hearing that as science delves deeper & deeper the more the “miraculous” becomes true. I think either Helen Keller or Albert Einstein said you either look at life as everything is a miracle or nothing is.

  2. Charles Hollensed DC 04/27/2015, 5:20 pm:

    If you ask the wrong question you can never get the right answer. You cannot do double blind studies on chiropractic particularly if you are focusing on disease outcomes. You simply cannot eliminate all the variables that could change outcomes. What will prove chiropractic is the acceptance by the people who understand it and feel they benefit from it. The ease of a subluxation free body cannot be measured but it can be felt. If practice members are educated they are the only science we need.

    • David Suskin 04/27/2015, 7:14 pm:

      Ya know,
      I want to agree with you, BUT, basing a proof or qualifying an acceptance based on how someone FEELS??
      I’d think you have to offer at least some kind of Outcomes assessment standard to justify asking any type of Result based question.
      A question like “How do you feel?” Is the Wrong Question, if a Result tinged question is warranted at all.
      NTOSC – Chiropractic is Objective oriented, and basically offered because of a deductive (logical) premise, not an empirical (sensory or result) premise.
      The objective is Always achieved. (LACVS for the fullest expression of innate intelligence possible. Period.)
      It that can’t be explained and be at cause for the PM for receiving their adjustment, then you are not practicing NTOSC, at least that’s my understanding.

      • Charles Hollensed DC 04/30/2015, 7:42 pm:

        I never stated or implied we ask them how they felt. When there is the fullest expression of innate intelligence I think the state of ease is one the body recognizes. We always adjust for full expression. And that is what we use as the reason but that does not necessarily negate the feeling. I take a shower to get clean but do enjoy the feeling of being clean.

  3. Claude Lessard 04/28/2015, 4:32 pm:

    The 33 principles comprise the foundation of chiropractic’s Basic science and from them we can conclude that the objective of chiropractic is to locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxation for a full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD.

    We note that there is NO mention of health, illness, symptoms, pain or human potential within the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science. For this reason it is concluded that chiropractic is NON-THERAPEUTIC and is not part of the human potential movement. The 33 principles were formulated in a logical, rational and deductive reasoning, in 1927, and give rise to form what is actually the solid foundational platform of chiropractic. How did we miss the obvious all those years? Were we so blind sided by our desire to be accepted? The purpose of chiropractic is its objective which can ONLY be concluded from its basic science. When a profession has its basic science, the objective of this very science becomes the driving FORCE (guiding instructive information) for its practice that can be disseminated to ALL the people of the world. It is the birthright of EVERY human beings to know the basic truth of the chiropractic objective. –

    – It logically follows that chiropractic research should therefore be NON-THERAPEUTIC as well. As I mentioned in previous posts and at IRAPS (thanks to Joseph presenting my paper) this past October, any research directed toward the validation of symptoms, diseases and syndromes alleviations or eliminations is NOT chiropractic and should NOT be considered chiropractic research.

    • David Suskin 04/28/2015, 6:28 pm:

      Touché!
      As you stated ‘…the driving FORCE (guiding instructive information) for its practice that can be disseminated to ALL the people of the world. It is the birthright of EVERY human beings to know the basic truth of the chiropractic objective.’
      Now that’s a challenge, as foretold by Dr. Joe Strauss.
      He has expressed little faith in humanities ability to receive this information with understanding and acceptance due to The Cartel and/or Human Nature and the Driving Force of a Tinctured Educated Intelligence.
      I tend to agree. Thus the SLIP

      • Claude Lessard 04/29/2015, 11:35 am:

        We must understand the history of chiropractic in order to understand Joseph post. The last great formal persecution of chiropractors in the United Stated ended in 1963. Delaware enacted the very first mandate for chiropractic benefits in 1963. Legislative activity was minimal for the remainder of the decade, with only Nebraska (1967) and New Hampshire (1969) enacting such mandates. During the 1970s, 17 additional States enacted mandate laws. Another 24 States passed mandates during the 1980s, and the most recent State to act passed its chiropractic mandate in 1990 (Health Benefits Letter, 1994). Ten years later, chiropractic profession was legalized in every State of the US. After this structural change, chiropractic increasingly accepted, and even defended, the dominant medical order, especially concerning primary care providers and insurance reimbursements. The philosophy became individualized and largely ostracized. The chiropractic movement slowly lost its vantage point of its ADIO perspective. Texts written in the fifty years preceding 1963 show it was unthinkable that a chiropractor would be a part of the medical establishment, as the medical profession was putting chiropractors in jail for practicing medicine without a license. By September 25, 1987, when the AMA was found guilty of conspiracy to eliminate the chiropractic profession, most of the profession had become medically oriented, and most chiropractors were now providing medical therapies and getting reimbursed by insurance companies.

        Before 1963, (BJ died in 1961) the profession was on the bottom of society, which is the privileged vantage point for understanding the liberating power of chiropractic for both the individual chiropractor and for society. Overnight the profession moved from the bottom to the top, literally from being in the background to being in the front on Capitol Hill. Washington is where were the large buildings for court and other public assembly are, and they became debate grounds for chiropractors to be accepted by the government.

        The chiropractic profession became the competitive alternative to the medical profession and started using chiropractic as purely an alternative to getting sick people well without drugs and surgery from the position of gaining acceptance instead of experiencing the profound power of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science. In a sense, chiropractic almost became one more therapeutic service! Calling chiropractic an alternative for getting sick people well and framing success for monetary gain made this position all the more seductive to the educated intelligence and all the more disguised for chiropractors. At the Garden State Convention this past weekend, Joseph spoke to the group and mentioned that, when he started practicing in the 1960’s, it was for him “the easiest way to grow his practice and educate people because chiropractic was still not fully accepted”. That’s due to the fact that people were willing to listen to something NEW. ( Now, “everybody” knows that chiropractic is for back pain, nothing new to that… right???)

        The falling chiropractic movement needed an leader, and Reggie was used to fill the power gap, making much of his teaching literally incomprehensible and unhearable, even by good people. The relationships of the triune, were largely lost as the very shape of chiropractic: the philosophy became absurd and distant, and was labelled a cult. The science became the needed empirical results through scientific research, and for all practical and dynamic purposes the objective was forgotten and thus not practiced. An imperial system needs law and order and clear belonging systems more than it wants wholeness or freedom for transformation, so it created the CCE.

        By grace, some uncompromising chiropractors of every decades and in every school still got the point, but only if they were willing to go through painful descent–which I call “separate and distinct from everything and inclusive of everyone regardless of creed, culture, gender, political and health status”. Without these journeys there’s something essential you simply don’t understand about the very nature of chiropractic and the nature of your own call. You try to read reality from the side of prestige instead of humble service, despite the fact that the principles have told us that service and the humility of educated intelligence (LACVS) is the way to the true power of the innate intelligence of the body for a full expression of its innate forces by the body. Period. Instead, chiropractors made a jeweled logo and decoration out of the profession (doctor), when it was supposed to be a shocking strategic plan, charting the inevitable path of full transformation into being WHO the human being was called to be, which is to fully expressed the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body.

        • David Suskin 04/29/2015, 12:34 pm:

          Claude,
          Thank you for that chronology and historical information in context with the chiropractic plight today.
          It would seem we have medicine, OIBU buttressing chiropractic, ADIO
          as they present themselves to humanity. Medicine approaching service to humanity thru inductive/empiricism, called research and Chiropractic approaching it’s service to humanity thru the use of rationalism/deduction.
          They have different agendas.
          A friend, I just learned, had a kidney transplant recently. They had been dealing with kidney disease since childhood, were in stage 5(?) kidney failure, just received a transplant from a family member, and for now, and I pray for the future are doing well. I don’t know the details and the protocols for survival (medications necessary, etc.), but it would seem, based on the technological state of Medicine today, that survival, perhaps good survival is very possible. I pray that that is so.
          I know I’ve made inquiries along this path before, questioning, how the body survives, with nerves (innate intelligence compromised) cut, etc. and yes it does confound me.
          It would seem that man, perhaps inevitably will might be able to survive, LIVE, with a brain hooked up to some kind of machine. That’s it. Life from the brain and a Machine doing the rest. Perhaps this machine will be robotic and be able to do many many functional things, perhaps with mobility and with the ability to trigger emotions, etc.
          So we have this, or maybe I have this, quagmire, this duality of thinking. On one side Research and Mechanism makes sense, because after all, we are matter wise, an intelligently built machine (chemicals, organs, cells, etc.) and on the other hand WE ARE ALIVE.
          When professions define themselves according to their usage to Mankind, it does get kind of merkie, confusing?
          Man the machine?
          Man the living being?
          Contradictions?
          Unknowns?
          How do juxtaposition The Paradox, as you say Claude, is tough.
          I don’t mean to hang out My dirty laundry so to speak, on these posts, or overshadow Claudes and Joes cogent and scholarly thoughts, words and questions.
          Perhaps because, THE SPINAL COLUMN and THE NERVOUS SYSTEMS are anatomical, and physiological structures that seem to bridge the immaterial with the material, that Chiropractic is vulnerable to these pendulic and fical flights by me.
          Maybe I represent the Lay, the Public, I mean, after all, I’m a chiropractor, studying chiropractor and look at the difficulty I have embracing the juxtapositioning of Research, Results, Empiricism, Deduction, Medicine and Chiropractic within a cogent, congruent reality of thought and practice.
          Chiropractic. The LACVS for the fullest expression of innate intelligence. Period. and whatever that translates too?
          Building a profession that succeeds on that, TODAY.
          It would seem that I need ALL the Answers, and that’s just not possible.
          Does that public need that to follow a cogent path from our profession?

        • Joe Strauss 04/29/2015, 5:32 pm:

          Claude, where are you getting the information for your statistics in the first two paragraphs?

          • Claude 04/29/2015, 10:43 pm:

            Joseph,

            I don’t see any statistics in these paragraphs. Just which that the State of Delaware was the first to get chiropractic insurance coverage and the others follow over the course of the years. Wilk et al is not a statistic either. You can find this almost anywhere.

  4. RichieBDC 04/28/2015, 7:58 pm:

    Non-Therapeutic research is possible but because of mans drawing of conclusions would as an end result turn into a therapeutic outcome. The only way to be accepted in your small sphere of influence is to educate, educate, and educate some more. Few will get it, few Chiropractors get it….most want to have it both ways….I am still growing and learning…been there done that. It is easy to get sucked into the symptom merry-go-round as a therapeutic-straight, and a proponent of the human potential movement for acceptance. Being a NTO straight Chiro is a tough position to practice and live in. I am a prisoner to the logic of it. This Blog gives me relief thanks Joe & Claude and others….

Leave a Reply

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