Volume 16 - Number 3
  April 2000

For the purpose of understanding chiropractic there are essentially two world views. We commonly refer to them as Above-Down (ADIO) and Outside-In. If we expect to truly influence the world at large and our individual communities in particular, then we must understand these world views and how they impact the lives of our practice members and our potential practice members. This will enable us to present chiropractic in the clearest manner and to avoid unrealistic expectations in being able to reach certain groups of people.

While there are two different world views, these views create three distinct groups of potential practice members and those who ultimately join a straight chiropractic practice. We shall examine these three groups.

1. The first group consists of people with an ADIO world and life viewpoint.

This is the group of people who clearly live their lives from an ADIO viewpoint. Their profile is usually that of a person who has a religious belief or at the least, recognizes a power or deity greater than themselves. They are the types of people who display a certain degree of independence, take responsibility for their life and their actions, and see the role of government as being limited in their life. With regard to the practice of medicine, while they may use medical procedures, they understand that it has or should have a minor role in their health and life. They try to avoid drugs as much as possible and they see the need to be proactive regarding health (i.e., doing things to be healthy). This group makes the ideal chiropractic practice member. When they hear and understand the philosophy of chiropractic, they generally respond very positively. They have a vitalistic philosophy of life and chiropractic fits beautifully into it. These people will become the bulk of a practice's lifetime chiropractic practice members. The challenge in making them lifetime practice members is in convincing them of the need to be "dependent" on a chiropractor on a regular basis. Their independence and self reliance tends to cause them to not want to depend on anyone. Guessing as to what percentage of the general population of the country is made up of this group would be only that, a guess. However, it appears that the percentage of the population making up this group is dwindling every year. In the early part of the history of this country, this group probably made up the vast majority of the population. I would say that today it represents a minority.

2. The second group consists of those with a clearly outside-in philosophy of life. They are mechanists. They are materialistic and if they have a religious persuasion, it is superficial and probably only out of habit from youth or to please a spouse or parent. This person is impressed with the accomplishments of science, as well as those of medicine. They believe that the answer to man's problems will ultimately be found in scientific discovery, increased education, and the enlightened few controlling the lives of the unenlightened masses. This thinking, in addition to science, extends to such areas as health care practices, sociology, politics and government. Usually they reject chiropractic care and are often vehemently antagonistic toward it. These people, on the whole, will not be reached. However, there are some of them that will seek chiropractic care. These are usually the last-resort types who see chiropractic as a treatment for a certain condition, usually back pain. They will only use chiropractic on that basis. They will never become a lifetime practice member and will reject overtures by the chiropractor to get them to come on a regular basis. Their responses will vary from condescending to indignant should they be pressed to become regular practice members. They will continue to come as they choose and when they choose until either they find that chiropractic no longer "works" for them or until the chiropractor either dismisses them or drives them away with his "badgering" about the need for regular care. Occasionally, one of these types will change. It is usually the result of a radical change in other aspects of their life and in their general world view. However, for the most part, chiropractors must realize that we will never make great inroads into this group. They have bought the lie of the outside-in viewpoint of life.

3. The final group, in my opinion, represents the great masses of humanity. They live what I would call a life of incongruency. If given a clear description of the two world viewpoints, they would definitely claim to adhere to an above-down one. However, most aspects of their life are totally inconsistent with that viewpoint. Their thinking is superficial. Their understanding of an ADIO philosophy of life is weak and they rarely question whether something is consistent with that philosophy. They do not look for or think about congruency in their life. These people need to be taught. They need to understand the ADIO philosophy and how it impacts upon every aspect of their life. They need to see how chiropractic, while addressing the need for maintaining a good nerve supply, is part of a greater philosophy that needs to be applied to all aspects of their health and life. Whether the chiropractor should be doing this education is up to the individual, but the more they are taught the ADIO philosophy, the more they will be able to apply it to their understanding of chiropractic and to become better practice members.

Recently the charge has been leveled that what we call objective straight chiropractic or non-therapeutic chiropractic or modern-day straight chiropractic is an attempt to undermine the contribution of B.J. Palmer to the development of chiropractic. On one hand, our critics say that what B.J. and the other pioneers were doing is the same as what we are doing today, correcting vertebral subluxation for the sole purpose of enabling the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. Strangely, in the next breath, they often charge that what we are offering is more akin to spinology than to chiropractic. (See Sidebar) It seems to me that one cannot have it both ways. Either we are the same or we are different. Perhaps it would be helpful to review the history of the development of this modern-day, non-therapeutic approach to chiropractic.

First, I think we need to clear the air about our attitude toward B.J. Palmer. No one presently alive and active in the straight chiropractic movement believes they are able to or are interested in usurping B.J. Palmer's position as the Developer of chiropractic. Further, no one that I know of is interested in denigrating or belittling the contribution he has made, and in some ways continues to make to the development of chiropractic. I do not believe anyone thinks he or she could have done what B.J. accomplished. He was truly a remarkable man.

But for all his brilliance, B.J. left some gaping holes in the philosophy of chiropractic. Perhaps not in his understanding but surely in the manner in which he presented it. We must realize that the majority of so-called mixers in history learned their chiropractic at the Palmer School of Chiropractic under the tutelage of B.J. Most mixing schools were started by Palmer graduates. While we may have written off many of them to deviant thinking, there are a number of more recent examples. In the mid-seventies, schools that claimed to have held to the Palmer philosophy suddenly began to incorporate diagnosis and other aspects of materia medica into their curriculum and justified it by saying it was part of chiropractic. With very few exceptions, most of the "B.J. chiropractors" were strangely silent in condemning this practice by their alma mater, their fellow alumni, and the national organization that B.J. started. As a result of this wholesale slipping of the profession, some straight chiropractors began to assess the situation, with the desire to strengthen the philosophy and keep the profession from being absorbed by medicine. It was concluded that there were a number of weaknesses in the B.J. presentation of chiropractic.

First, B.J. defined chiropractic with terminology that lent itself to ambiguity. A term like "of things natural" is so vague that it is virtually worthless. Defining chiropractic by technique, such as "by hand only," served no purpose. It was decided that chiropractic or at least this non-therapeutic approach should be defined by its objective and that objective should be limited to correcting vertebral subluxations to enable the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. The practice of chiropractic is nothing more. Relating chiropractic to the cause of disease is no longer an acceptable approach to the practice of straight chiropractic because whether we like it or not, getting rid of the cause of disease is the medical objective and if that is our objective also, our argument with medicine is only one of methodology rather than objective.

Terms like DIS-EASE have been replaced because of their close association with medical terminology. "Getting sick people well" is another ambiguous phrase. "Sick" seems to have meant both being subluxated as well as manifesting the signs and symptoms of a medical condition. "Sick" is a word so closely associated with disease and the therapeutic objective that its usage in chiropractic is more harmful today than helpful. In the past 25 years, the straight chiropractic community has worked very hard to define and clarify the practice of chiropractic. Straight chiropractic practice draws a very fine line, a very necessary line. History has repeatedly shown us that chiropractors claiming to espouse the Palmer philosophy have gone off in directions the Developer would have condemned. Some of them have gone that direction because of the vagaries and the inconsistencies of B.J.'s writing and his terminology. In pointing out those consistencies we have not belittled B.J. Palmer. Quite the contrary. If chiropractic is to remain unmixed as B.J. would have wanted it, this close scrutiny of his writings and philosophy and minor changes are not only valuable, they are an absolute necessity.

Whenever a military campaign is failing, it is time to change strategy. It is quite evident that the medical profession has changed its strategy with regard to chiropractic in the last few years. With the growth of chiropractic, the loss of the antitrust suit (Wilk v. AMA), and the public's willingness to question medical procedures and search for alternatives, medicine realized attacking chiropractic and calling us a bunch of unscientific quacks was no longer a viable approach. I do not know whether it was a concerted effort or how exactly this new strategy developed but it seems to be successful. To see the need for this new strategy they apparently noted two things about chiropractic, two things that do not speak well of our character. The first was that chiropractors wanted acceptance. We had fought for licensing laws and were constantly trying to improve our educational programs to gain acceptance. Wanting acceptance is not necessarily bad but the second thing they noted was that we, as a profession, were willing to do anything to gain that acceptance. The important thing is that, at some point, they stopped looking at chiropractic as a principle and began looking at it as a procedure. As a procedure, chiropractic is more or less acceptable to medicine, after all, the practice of medicine is based upon pragmatic procedures. They use most any procedure if it has been shown to work until it is found to do more harm than good or until a better procedure is found. Drugs and surgery are procedures. There is no philosophy or principle associated with medicine, none of significance, that is. Medicine really does not have a problem with our procedure. Osteopaths have been doing it for years. Physical therapists do some manipulation, as do physiatrists. Further, millions of people have gone to thousands of chiropractors for over 100 years, so there must be something to manipulating bones. Their problem is with our philosophy, the idea that the body can heal itself better when there is no interference in the nerve system due to vertebral subluxation. Manipulation is acceptable, if it is for the purpose of relieving minor joint problems. However, this "adjustment" with the so-called innate philosophy behind it, that is not acceptable to them. Be that as it may, medicine was convinced that they could get us to put aside that philosophy if they would acknowledge the value of our procedure. It was important though to refer to it as manipulation so as to remove any philosophical connotation. So here is the strategy that the medical doctors came up with: 1. Acknowledge the procedure, manipulation is good. 2. Agree that it is beneficial for certain people with certain musculoskeletal conditions. In other words, the medical doctors will agree that chiropractic is good for some back problems. Here is the key to their strategy. Did you ever notice when somebody says something bad about you that is not true, you jump up and down and protest the lie, but when somebody says something good about you that is not true, you are not likely to correct them? I think this is how the inflated numbers of patients seen by prominent speakers occurs. When a speaker is introduced and the person introducing him says, "He sees 1,000 patients a week, blah, blah, blah," the speaker is not about to come on the platform and contradict that beautiful introduction. He would not say, "I would like to correct so and so. I really only see 700 patients a week not 1,000." When the medical profession started saying nice things about us like we can help back problems, we said, "Thank you very much, can we get in your hospitals and treat some back problems?" What we should have said was, "Wait a minute, chiropractic is not about treating back problems. Here is what chiropractic is …" So there we were. How many readers have heard practice members say, "My doctor says it is good for me to come to you?" We have finally received the blessing of the medical fraternity. Of course, how many have had a practice member say that the doctor was endorsing that care for anything other than musculoskeletal problems let alone to enable the person's inborn wisdom to be expressed more fully. The medical doctors do not even bring up the issue of the philosophical chiropractors or those who think they can cure everything (a misunderstanding of what we do). That is why an organization like the National Association of Chiropractic Medicine (NACM) has not grown. They see themselves as the medically rational approach to chiropractic. They would take a position acceptable to the doctors. Little did they realize that the rest of the profession would also take that position making them unnecessary. Chiropractic is a manipulation for joint problems. Of course, anyone with a brain can see the unfolding of the rest of medicine's strategy. Keep the chiropractors out of the HMOs. Develop rehabilitation centers, then teach the physical therapists to manipulate or do it themselves. If things continue as they are, the rehabs will be able to hire out-of-work chiropractors to manipulate for them.

That is where we are today. We are there because that is where the majority of our profession, from the leadership, to the schools, to the practitioner in the field has chosen to be. Every time a chiropractor accepts a patient FOR a back problem, that misunderstanding is perpetuated and strengthened. Tell a lie long enough and people will start believing it. There are a few of us that are not into that model of chiropractic and unlike the rest are not willing to feed into it. Unless the majority of the profession agrees that they do not want and that they will not accept the role of a back doctor, things will only get worse.

Is innate intelligence (or universal intelligence for that matter) what makes us alive (or keeps us in existence) or is it just a manifestation of matter that is living (or not)? We sometimes describe innate intelligence as that which organizes matter on an active level. But could it just as easily be described as matter that is organizing itself actively, that is, demonstrating one or more of the five signs of life? Similarly, is universal intelligence what causes organization of the atoms and the planets of the universe or is it, or should it be, the description of that phenomenon? I think it is clear from the Palmers' writing that they saw universal and innate as that which organizes matter atomically (universal) and actively (innate). This is indicated by the facts that not only did they capitalize the terms but they also used them synonymously with theological terms. Even the Triune of Life presents the idea that intelligence is separate and distinct from the matter and not merely a characteristic of its level or degree of organization.

There are those within our profession that would argue that what we call innate intelligence, or universal intelligence for the matter, is really only a manifestation of arbitrary levels of organization. They, of course, are the mechanistic chiropractors. They argue that these different levels are merely different positions on the evolutionary scale and that medicine already has a term to describe this, "viz medicatrix." They would further argue that this does not cause the physician to alter his method of practice from a mechanistic model because it is, in and of itself, a mechanism. Their idea of innate intelligence or viz medicatrix is really no different than the principle of internal combustion, that which keeps an automobile "alive" and running. The problem with this position is that someone designed the internal combustion engine. It did not design itself. The mechanist would argue that chance and time designed the living body. To him that makes perfect sense. I guess there could be a theistic mechanist, a person who accepts that there is a God but that innate intelligence is not the cause of life, merely a name to describe the phenomena of life. I have never met a theistic mechanist personally, but I believe there may be one living somewhere in Kansas.

At the other end of the spectrum is the Palmerian idea that universal and innate intelligence are the ultimate cause, that they are entities. The Palmers believed that they organized matter on the atomic and active level. For our discussion here the Palmers believed that, innate intelligence was the cause of life, all life on every level. God, however anyone describes Him, was merely universal intelligence (or innate intelligence in living matter). If someone had a greater or different concept of God than the characteristics of universal and innate intelligence, then that idea was considered a distortion according to Palmer's writings. B.J. had no reservations in stepping into the field of theology and criticizing it from his chiropractic philosophical position. (See Fame and Fortune Chapter XII). This idea is consistently seen through B.J.'s writings. There was nothing above or beyond universal and innate intelligence. They were the causeless cause. Needless to say, this approach creates conflict with certain religious groups, not the least of which is Christianity.

There is a third position, one that, while not totally consistent with historical Palmer philosophy, meets the spirit of the philosophy, one that is non-mechanistic and yet does not offend theological concepts. In this contemporary view, innate intelligence is viewed as a law or a principle. However, it is with the explicit understanding that there is a lawgiver behind the law. It is not the Creator of life but the creation principle by which life comes into being. As such, it carries the weight and respect of the Creator, but in chiropractic philosophy it is not necessary for us to acknowledge or study the Creator of the law any more than it is necessary for the physicist to acknowledge the creator of the Law of Thermodynamics. It is similar to the laws of this land. Laws make this country work, make it a living organism, if you will. Yet we recognize that there is something behind that law, the three branches of government, as well as the Constitution and various law enforcement agencies. Because of this position, the mechanist, who recognizes nothing more than the manifestation of a principle but not the principle, considers us religious fanatics. We say there is something more than innate and universal, but He (or some might say it) is outside the realm of chiropractic philosophy.

To the other extreme, those who hold to the traditional model of universal and innate intelligence, we seem like heretics. Not because our idea is so outlandish but simply because it is not the idea that B.J. espoused concerning innate and universal intelligence. It should be noted that referring to innate intelligence as the Law of Life, B.J. gives some historical credence to this position. The big difference between our present day straight chiropractic and the traditional approach is that we hold to the idea that chiropractic is separate and distinct from everything else, including medicine and theology, and that it should not conflict with those fields. As a result of that, some fine tuning needs to be done with respect to certain chiropractic philosophical concepts. This different way of looking at innate and universal intelligence might be a good place for that fine tuning to start.

Does it say something about the mentality of our profession that many of the leadership seems to think that we have too many chiropractors for the population and they are endeavoring to reduce the number of people entering the profession? Why does it not occur to them that there are not too many chiropractors, there are too few people coming to them. Wouldn't it be easier to just expand our market, the number of people who need our services. The problem is that whenever those in our profession see the need to expand our services, they always try to expand it into fields already crowded or overcrowded, like physical therapeutics, nutrition, acupuncture or even medicine. When the people who started Taco Bell decided to begin a business they saw the wisdom of beginning a fast food Mexican restaurant rather than a fast food hamburger joint. Why compete with McDonalds and Burger King when there is a niche nobody is filling?

Well, we have an opportunity to fill a niche that nobody is filling, correcting vertebral subluxations so the body can reach a greater potential in life. Why compete with medicine and the other therapies? That seems simple to me. Why can't the leadership in chiropractic see that?