Q&A # 61 X-Ray

14

If the information gained from an x-ray significantly outweighs the harm ionizing radiation does, it is justified. Agreed, but how do we know what and how much harm it is doing? It is my understanding that the conflict of this issue caused the departure of one of BJ’s most popular and effective philosophy instructors when it was first introduced into the PSC. Why was that?

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 14 comments

  1. David Suskin 06/05/2015, 5:56 pm:

    Although not directly a result of x-ray’s harmfulness (But might be),
    I think the issue must of dealt with: Straight Chiropractic Believes x-ray is mixing. This might be because Chiropractic Art, which is LACVS, deals with removing interference to Innate Forces, which NEVER are harmful. Maybe to endeavor within the ART (determining where to adjust), should also NEVER be harmful, and therefore this should not be entertained as a tool to be associated with Chiropractic. I don’t know which side of the fence BJ stood on versus this popular philosophy instructor. I’d assume BJ was straight (no mixing), but then again, with what I’ve been reading (Strauss Commentary on BJ books), and Dr. Strauss’s comments, I don’t know how one could determine what BJ (more DD), REALLY thought. I do not have the full picture certainly as Dr. Joe S, and others have, but certainly it seemed like BJ (and DD), threw TONS OF MUD ON THE WALL. Some of it stuck, some didn’t, some got wiped away, some of it was left to dry.
    Anyway that’s my long winded reply which apparently as most of my replies go, is putting everyone to sleep, or ignored, or… You know what?
    I don’t care. I’m unlearning and learning anyway 🙂

    • Joe Strauss 06/05/2015, 10:42 pm:

      David, you wrote”Straight Chiropractic Believes x-ray is mixing.” Not true.X-ray for the purpose of making a medical diagnosis is mixing. X-ray for the purpose of analyzing the spine for the first two components of vertebral subluxation is part of straight chiropractic and used by many good, straight chiropractors. I was only raising the question as to whether the end justifies the means. BJ thought it did, Joy Loban did not. It obviously depends, in part, on the chiropractors individual technique which is a personal matter.

  2. David Suskin 06/06/2015, 12:38 am:

    Joe,
    So you’re saying that Joy Loban did not think the potential harm from x-Ray was worth the risk of using it?

    • Joe Strauss 06/06/2015, 11:41 am:

      No David, just the opposite. Loban went down the street and taught at the Universal College of Chiropractic which eventually merged with the Pittsburgh school where he became president. One problem with multi-geniuses, which BJ was, in fact all geniuses, is that sometimes their vision is too narrow. I’m not suggesting that this was BJ’s problem in this situation. The jury is still out on that issue. Edison another multi-genius never could accept alternating current which was safer and more efficient than DC in the long run. I believe Stephen Hawkings has this problem.

      • David Suskin 06/06/2015, 7:06 pm:

        Joe,
        Maybe it’s a combination of genius, ego, and if they live long enough, the big LOM, Age, which typically brings about Inflexability.
        People have so much invested in their own lives, I can only imagine how much a genius has invested in their own ideas and their actuations. Old dog-new tricks.
        Interesting that wisdom, and self knowledge comes about through other humble channels.
        Funny, Claude speaks about Hawkings a lot. Because I’m not rock solid in my thinking, his genius and ideas and atheism, if I’m correct, scare me. Afraid his concepts and opinions will through me even more. Claude, you? Impervious. Interesting that you were able to read BJ and DD and extract the truth or essense of their messages, truths. I guess you used logic and your faith to keep you centered and on point with your analysis. Not an easy thing to do. At all. Have to be very grounded, for sure. And yet flexible enough to grow something like OSC.
        Maybe you’re one of those Fleible Geniuses. Kudos 🙂

      • David Suskin 06/08/2015, 5:53 pm:

        Monday Morning Blues
        The teleological argument is dead in the science and the bio-philosophical worlds. And here we are, Chiropractors, in the face of immeasurable amounts of mechanistic, physic-biochemical data, with advanced technologies and theories, that will only increase in time. It’s a quandary. There has been SO much thought on this subject. That there is Purpose or No Purpose (just appears that way). Philosophers since Aristotle and Plato have been arguing since early times. Today in the 21’st century, materialism as a debated and actualized subject, from what I can see, is only getting stronger and stronger.
        And here we are, with our MP – l’il ole country Chiropractors against the Giants of Thought and Intellect, With our BJ books, our RWS books, our Strauss Books.
        Too much information to decide, for me. I am truly looking for pragmatic and obvious answers, I fear they are no where in sight.
        This WHO does not have enough compiled AUTHORITY to truly decide. Me against Hawkings? Me against Kant? Me against Hume?
        I have no basis for my decisions to practice within a profession that basis itself on Vitalism?
        If Stephen Hawkings had a debate with BJ Palmer, I think BJ Palmer would loose. Hands down. Dr Strauss certainly has blogged and written a tremendous amount showing counter arguments, But I blow with the wind and haven’t the MIND to truly go up against the Educated’s of so so Many. So
        Tell me I’m wrong and why?
        –In the 21’st Century, Materialism has won, hands down, and I’m not so sure it’s in error.
        Tell me I’m wrong and why?

        • Claude 06/09/2015, 11:55 pm:

          David,
          It always was your choice. To surrender to an OIBU senses world view point, or an ADIO world view to the authority of the 33 principles of chiropractic basic science. YOU are WRONG David. If BJ would have lived in OUR time, I kNOW he would have been leading OC. NOBODY could have stood up to him! So your comment is based on YOUR perception based on his writings of 1960. Your judgment is based on 55 years AGO? What’s up with you? Be it as may, you are sitting on the fence, and I’m beginning to get frustrated by you. This blog is NOT about you and YOUR use of it only to clear your head. Do YOU get it? Your home work is HOME work! 🙂

          • Claude Lessard 06/10/2015, 10:29 am:

            … “All a musician can do is to get closer to the sources of nature, and so feel that he is in COMMUNION with the natural laws.” TRANE

        • Joe Strauss 06/11/2015, 10:08 pm:

          David, I think everyone comes to a point in his or her life professionally and personally when they must answer the question(s); who am I, why am I here, what is my purpose, and where am I going? Descartes found his answer or thought he did in “I think therefore I am”. Apparently he did not get much further than that. (It’s been said that good choices create options and bad choices limit your options) I think this blog has given you sufficient information to answer those questions, at least from a professional standpoint which is the blog’s purpose. I’m not sure there is any more that we could add to help you answer those questions. I think that’s what Claude has been trying to get across to you for some time now. One can have the same ultimate answer as a Stephen Hawkins: “I don’t know” or in effect “life has no meaning, purpose,or definition, it’s just a crapshoot”, and despite having a genius IQ no one, least of all himself or herself is benefited by their time on this earth. In the end no one should want to have on their dying lips, the lyrics of the song, “Is that all there is”? Materialism only wins when you make it your choice or your default position.

          • David Suskin 06/12/2015, 12:41 pm:

            Thanx 🙂
            Grab your coat and get your hat
            Leave your worries on the doorstep
            Life can be so sweet
            On the sunny side of the street

            Can’t you hear the pitter-pat
            And that happy tune is your step
            Life can be complete
            On the sunny side of the street

            I used to walk in the shade with my blues on parade
            But I’m not afraid…this rover’s crossed over

            If I never had a cent
            I’d be rich as Rockefeller
            Gold dust at my feet
            On the sunny side of the street (Satchmo)

          • Joe Strauss 06/13/2015, 7:30 pm:

            David, are you mocking me and I’m too simple-minded to see it?

          • David Suskin 06/13/2015, 7:51 pm:

            Joe,
            No no no no no. I am definitely NOT mocking you.
            You are not simple minded Joseph. You are in another class and highly regarded by me.
            Not quite as much regard as I give to Louis Armstrong and his genius.
            The song only reflects point of view, or the WHO, as a choice, which was the essence of the previous comment.
            I vacillate with the wind(unfortunately), but with a little help from my fiends I hope to get there.
            Satchmo totally walked on the sunny side of the street and it echoed and reverberated through the whole world and changed it forever, even. IMO.
            I should only have the passion for Chiropractic as I do for what I’ve heard through the sounds of Jazz.
            Trust me Joe. If I’m quoting lyrics particularly something related to Jazz,
            It’s a compliment to you.

  3. Brandon Maki 06/08/2015, 2:38 pm:

    As someone new to OSC and with an x-ray unit now sitting unused in my office I have seen both sides of this coin. I was a fire-breathing advocate of TSC using Gonstead method only in school so when I came out I outfitted my office with full spine x-ray and did line analysis on every one except for children and pregnant women. After 3 years of this I realized that my insistence that everyone be x-rayed before care was irrational if I wasn’t including the pregnant women and children. If I felt that the radiation was too harmful for those groups, why was it safe for every other person I saw? How could I know how their individual body was able to handle the radiation and might I be causing more harm than good. I began to analyze whether the findings on film were changing my analysis of VS or if I was merely using it as corroborating crutch and the vast majority of the time I found it was the latter. Now it’s true my sample size is smaller than some of the large practices who utilize x-ray, but I bet they would find the same outcome.

  4. RichieBDC 06/08/2015, 4:31 pm:

    I think there was a conflict on the safety of ionizing radiation.. I myself have questioned that also. I believe the end does not justify the means and we still do not know and understand the results of cumulative radiation exposure. I don’t use a microwave to heat my food….And do you have to rely on x-rays to adjust?

Leave a Reply

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