Volume 16 - Number 4
  July 2000

Recently one of the national associations published an article about a presidential candidate supporting chiropractic and chiropractic legislation. The inference was that we should be aware of which candidates support chiropractic and which do not. I have always had a problem with one-issue candidates or in supporting a candidate because he agrees with my position on one issue. Believe it or not, there are a number of issues that are important to me beside chiropractic. It is not a problem if the candidate has a philosophy of life or a world outlook that causes him to take a particular position. Many candidates however take a position on something or support an issue because it is politically expedient or because they just happen to agree on that one issue. Just saying that candidate so and so supports chiropractic is not really helpful, especially with all the different approaches to chiropractic. Does he/she support it for the treatment of back pain only? Twelve visits? Does the candidate really understand what chiropractic is all about?

It seems to me what is more important is the candidate’s world and life viewpoint. A philosophy of life does not necessarily include a position on chiropractic but it says a good deal about the way the candidate thinks….ADIO or outside-in. That will impact chiropractic in a more important way than whether he/she thinks chiropractic should have insurance parity. For example, is the candidate in favor of an expanded role for government or a limited role? An expanded role of government in the health field, for example, has given us mandatory vaccinations. That issue impacts chiropractors personally and their practice members’ ability to take responsibility for their own health. A candidate who believes that government knows best what a citizen needs with regard to health is merely an extension of the medical thinking that says the doctor knows best. It creates a controlling environment rather than a liberating one, which is an even more dangerous extension of that outside-in thinking.

Chiropractic is based upon correcting a cause within and the practice member taking responsibility. Non-responsible types, those who believe that government should take care of people, that people do not have the ability to take care of themselves, that big brother knows best, that the environment is the cause, that people are not responsible for their actions, and that guns are the cause of killing and germs make you sick, will carry this thinking into their political actions. They will support legislation that addresses disease and its cause and never consider appropriating funds for research into health. They will try to control or eliminate systems and programs which allow people to make their own choices with regard to every area of life and health. They will continue to perpetuate the faulty thinking that is responsible for most of the problems in this country.

They may open their arms to chiropractic but not allow it to be freely practiced as the chiropractor wants to practice. They will embrace chiropractic with the idea of controlling it or conforming it to their idea. Those kinds of people do not deserve our support or endorsement. In fact, we should be aware enough of what they truly stand for and we should work against their election.

I have come to the conclusion that most people in this day and age are willing to be tolerant of anything and anyone as long as it does not involve absolutes or principles. In other words, I believe most people are unwilling to tolerate absolute truths or principles. People are willing to tolerate ideas and positions that they do not agree with as long as the people who hold to those ideas are willing to tolerate their ideas. But that really is not tolerance. It seems to me that to be tolerant you must accept another’s ideas regardless of whether or not they are accepting yours.

The gay community is a perfect example. They want society to tolerate their lifestyle and have convinced most of society to do just that. However, their animosity and intolerance is poured out on the segment of society that does not accept that lifestyle as being appropriate. They will not tolerate organizations or groups whose standards or beliefs do not accept their lifestyle. Not only will they not tolerate them but they will attempt to bring the force of the judicial system upon them to make them act against their beliefs. Tolerance is defined as “the capacity for or the practice of recognizing and respecting the beliefs or practices of others.” Clearly they are not respecting the beliefs and practices of the Boy Scouts. Now it is true that the Boy Scouts and certain fundamental Christian groups do not exhibit tolerance themselves. But you must be tolerant of them. Their beliefs and standards do not allow them to be tolerant. They would have to give up that which is the basis for their existence. Tolerance would be respecting those beliefs and practices.

What does this have to do with chiropractic? Well, it seems to me that Objective Straight Chiropractic is the most tolerant approach. The very fact that we use the term “Objective” to qualify what we do says that we recognize a difference in the practice of others. That is to say, everything we do in the office is specific for fulfilling our objective, to locate vertebral subluxation because it, in and of itself, is a detriment to the fullest expression of life. We are even tolerant of others who call what they do “chiropractic” despite the fact that it is reducing our college enrollments, forcing our schools to abandon chiropractic, confusing the public as to what chiropractic is and generally bringing the profession to the brink of destruction.

With regard to the practice of medicine, we, as objective straight chiropractors, do not pass judgment, condemn it or even address it. We do not attempt to dissuade people from going to a medical doctor for therapeutic care. You cannot get much more tolerant than that. I wish that the tolerance on the other side was half what ours is. We are continually told by other members of our profession that we are lunatics, charlatans or have the intelligence of a rock to believe the idea that correcting subluxations has any other benefit than musculoskeletal relief. We are told we are not merely unscientific boobs, we are that way by choice. In a time when our profession accepts such unproven practices like acupuncture, nutritional therapy, AK and many more, a chiropractor who says that a vertebral subluxation decreases the quality of one’s life is looked upon as if he is uttering insane babblings. There seems to be tolerance for everything except for principles and the people that hold to them. It is a sad indictment upon our society in general and on our profession in particular.

Recently a publication carried a photograph of the president and vice-president of a national chiropractic organization carrying the two signs above while standing in front of a famous hospital in Southern California. This organization has a history of being anti-medical, but this scene was a little much for even me. I very much admire the energy and the zeal this organization has for chiropractic so I cannot help but wonder why they spend so much time, energy and money attacking the medical community. Perhaps medicine needs to be attacked, but I am not convinced that it is chiropractic’s job. There are a lot of injustices in the world, starving children in Africa, infanticide in China, religious persecution in the Middle East, abortions in America. Why is it that chiropractic does not jump on these causes?

The article accompanying the photo talked about President Clinton’s campaign to reduce medical errors and medical deaths. I can imagine how that will be accomplished. These types of public demonstrations only serve one purpose: to invite government intervention. The president’s wife has already made clear how the government would like to intervene, that they want to take control of the health care system entirely. That will never improve health care, or medical care for that matter (the two being different), and it surely will not benefit chiropractic. Government intervention will not bring more people to chiropractic. The government will see chiropractic as they do medicine with their outside-in mentality. I can see it now! No adjusting unless there is a diagnosed medical entity that has been scientifically shown to respond to chiropractic care. Limited visits. No lifetime maintenance care. More supervision. And never under any circumstances will children be allowed chiropractic. The FDA’s attack on the biggest publisher of chiropractic brochures should be enough of a warning that the government is no friend of chiropractic.

I know that this particular chiropractic organization would not think that the above action would be good for chiropractic. The question is then why take that kind of tact? On one hand this national organization sues the FDA for trying to control what we publish and say to the public. On the other hand they are supporting the idea of more governmental control. Control of the medical community is not the answer. An informed public, one that understands health and the role of the body’s self-regulating mechanisms is the answer. Those are liberating ideas, ones that allow the public to make free choices but unfortunately are not part of the present administration’s agenda.

The real issue is, why focus on a negative? If chiropractors do not treat disease, why do we attack medicine for its inability to do it well? Those kinds of attacks can only serve to position us as an alternative to medicine and I do not believe that is a healthy place for us to be. We have such a positive message in chiropractic. Sure, vertebral subluxations are a negative, but the bigger picture of what we do involves enabling the innate intelligence of the body to be more fully expressed. We allow individuals to reach a greater degree of their potential in every area of life including, but surely not limited to, health. There is nothing more positive than removing interference to innate expression. Conversely, there is nothing more negative than treating disease, except perhaps criticizing those who do it. We should be for life, not against medicine. I applaud an effort to take our message to the streets, but carrying placards attacking medicine does nothing to promote chiropractic. Maybe we should try standing on a corner and handing out a thousand of the Foundation’s “Reaching Your Potential in Life” or “There’s a Miracle in You” tapes. Now that would be a positive contribution to chiropractic, although I am not sure there is any chance it will get you on the 11:00 o’clock news.

I always find it perplexing that people say a procedure should not be used until it is proven effective by whatever means they think is appropriate. Does that place the issue of proof above compassion and concern for our fellow human beings? There are the extreme examples such as people with terminal cancer who have to go to Mexico for treatment. And then there is the ultimate one that a chiropractor recently told me about. He was at an emergency room and was not allowed to try to adjust a person who had just been pronounced dead of a heart attack. I can understand if a procedure has the potential to do harm or injury (as do most medical procedures). But there is very little danger to chiropractic care, none at all if done correctly. What if ten years from now it is shown by extensive studies, or whatever it takes to satisfy the scientific types that chiropractic care does improve the quality of one’s life? Are all the people who will have been denied care because of the present lack of scientific proof to be considered a casualty of scientific concern? In this age of increased knowledge about the intricacies of human function, to say that the criteria for benefit or an indication of improvement is the absence of or alleviation of symptoms, is ludicrous. It has been demonstrated that so many aspects of health and human function, even the development of disease, occur on a sub-clinical level. Clearly we need other criteria to demonstrate the value of procedures like chiropractic that often can not be demonstrated clinically. I believe I have proved, to my satisfaction, that chiropractic is beneficial to every human being. I have proved it by logic, by common sense, and by the positive reception my services get from the people of my community. I need no further proof. At this point, the burden of responsibility lies with the naysayers. If they believe there is no value to what I do, let them set up legitimate experiments and demonstrate that hypothesis. I will no longer accept the false charge that the responsibility of proof is mine. I will no longer accept the charges that my practice is not scientifically based. I am satisfied with the scientific proof that I have gleaned. If others are not, frankly, that is their problem.

Why is it that so many in our profession seem to feel it is our job to attack the medical profession. Sometimes it so much borders on childish behavior that it is embarrassing. In response to the medical community questioning the validity of the chiropractic approach, we answer with, “Oh yea! Well you kill thousands of people every year!” as if the shortcomings of medical practice somehow validate the chiropractic philosophy. The fact is neither the medical approach nor its outcomes are in any way related to what we do. I have spoken out against this practice in the past and my thinking has not changed. I truly believe that we are meant not just to survive as a profession but to take our rightful place, not ahead of medicine, but as a unique service that everyone needs. Regardless of whether people need medical care or not, we must stop the medical bashing. Unless we stop talking about medicine, attacking medicine, or comparing what we do to medicine, we will never be viewed as anything but an alternative to medicine.

I am not sure who threw the first stone in this fight. I know that some of D.D.’s and B.J.’s early advertisements were less than complimentary to the practice of medicine. Of course, we are all aware of the chiropractors who were jailed for correcting vertebral subluxations. We will never know if this was done because medicine was intolerant of anyone in the health care arena or because we gave the impression that we were achieving the same objective as the practice of medicine. It was most likely the result of a little of both.

In an effort to try to understand why medical bashing goes on, especially as an almost knee-jerk response to attacks by medicine, some interesting ideas arise. The charge by medicine is that chiropractic is unscientific and the response by chiropractic is that medicine kills and maims millions. Both charges are true. By medical standards, chiropractic fails to prove itself effective in alleviating diseases or their cause. But chiropractic does not wish to be judged by medical standards, whether they are considered to be scientific or not. It is especially true when those standards seem to allow medical procedures to be approved which later are demonstrated to be dangerous, worthless or both. Even a research project proving the efficacy of chiropractic as a treatment for bad backs is reported to have been repudiated by further studies. Does this mean that chiropractic is not helpful in alleviating musculoskeletal problems? No, what it does demonstrate is that the scientific method used by medicine and accepted by much of the scientific community is flawed. The issue is not that medical procedures kill and injure millions of people every year. The issue is that these procedures have been proven to be safe and effective by the same testing methods that chiropractors are criticized for not utilizing. Those in the medical community who criticize chiropractic for its lack of empirical proof, never seem to explain or apologize for the death and side effects of numerous drugs and procedures. The reason is that in their mind as long as a procedure has met the “scientific criteria” it is acceptable. That is the bottom line. If people die or are maimed, that is acceptable. Conversely, it does not matter whether chiropractic has over 100 years of anecdotal proof, millions of satisfied people, a philosophy that is sound, and/or that has so few “side-effects” that they are not worth noting. If chiropractic does not meet the scientific criteria, it should not be used.

What we do is not the same as medicine. Our procedure has no inherent harm to it. So there is no reason to research it for proof of safety. Medical procedures do have potential for danger and harm and apparently the research procedures that they want us to subject people to are flawed in their ability to determine that danger. The purpose of medical testing is not primarily to prove efficacy. It is primarily to prove safety. Because you are dealing with the human organism and every person is different, it can never be proven that everyone will be helped by a medical procedure. All they can try to prove is that the dangers are minimal.

So the standoff continues. We choose not to subject ourselves to the medical scientific evaluation because we see the flaws in it and medicine will not accept us until and unless we do. The answer for us as a profession is to entirely move away from the medical model. Otherwise we will have to accept their requirements of proof.

For some reason I cannot get terribly excited about all the quantum physics theories that are thrown around at chiropractic seminars. In the end they seem to be just another mechanistic approach to the explanation of this phenomena we call “life.” But there is a new concept that strikes at the very paradigm of science, a concept that I find very intriguing. It is called “intelligent design.” In fact, there is a book by that title written by William Dembski which I recommend reading. In April, Baylor University hosted a conference that focused on the differences between intelligent design and naturalism. It was attended by a number of Nobel Prize winning scientists. The following month another conference was held in a U.S. House of Representatives office building at the invitation of Rep. Charles Canady (R-FL). Now these people are scientists, not philosophers or theologians, but what they are saying is that scientific endeavor seems to be pointing to the fact that there is some sort of intelligence behind the creation of the universe. They are quick to point out that giving universal intelligence (okay, that is my term, not theirs) a name like God or the Creator is outside the scope of science. They admit however, that research and scientific investigation constantly discredit the naturalistic viewpoint. They suggest that matter is not all there is and that the universe and everything in it does not seem to have even possibly occurred by chance.

We can have all the scientific studies proving the efficacy of chiropractic, we can have research to establish the existence and the effects of the vertebral subluxation but until science begins to accept our major premise, they will never give chiropractic, real chiropractic, an honest hearing. Maybe that is starting to happen. Some scientists are saying intelligent design may not be a scientific concept, but as scientists they are searching for truth and when they weigh the facts, the idea of random chance creating and controlling this universe falls far short. The evidence points clearly to intelligent design. Undoubtedly there will be a fight by the mechanists and the atheists. They do not want intelligent design to get a foot in the door of science. They fear its ultimate ramifications when people start thinking about their purpose and existence. Science is not intended to make people think, to philosophize. Yet, we know that science is limited. Science can only take you to the edge of metaphysics and no further. Some are willing to say that is far enough for science to go and eventually we can push the boundaries further as technology improves. Others, however, say as we push those boundaries we are faced with the undeniable fact that there is a scientifically inexplicable intelligent design to this universe. When the true scientists reach the point of seeing and accepting that idea, they will be surprised to see that we chiropractors have been there all along.