Joseph B. Strauss,
  D.C., F.C.S.C
  Editor

  Volume 17 - Number 2
  January 2001

"An Unchanging Principle in a Changing World"

The principle of chiropractic, that a vertebral subluxation interferes with the expression of the innate intelligence of the body and that by correcting that subluxation the body has greater potential in all areas of life, has been an unchanging principle since the first man walked the earth.No one really began to understand it until 1895 when D.D., somewhat by accident, stumbled across it. We have been refining the principle, or more properly the clear expression of it since D.D.’s time.A principle cannot be refined, it is perfect from the beginning.There have been however, interferences if you will, to the perfect expression of the chiropractic principle and interferences topeople’s ability to understand it and accept it.Straight chiropractors have dedicated themselves to removing these interferences. The first interference to the perfect expression of the chiropractic principle had to be the early position that chiropractic was a cure for deafness.Fortunately, thatimpediment was removed rather quickly.If it had not been, we would not have grown as a profession.Other interferences over the years include the position that chiropractic is a cure-all and the idea that chiropractic gets sick people well or corrects the cause of all disease.Yetanother interference, and one that we see probably more than any other today, is the idea that chiropractic is a therapy, part of the medical model or that it is a treatment for musculoskeletal conditions.All of these interferences have prevented the chiropractic principle from being expressed to the fullest, that is, to the fullest benefit for all of mankind.Fortunately, straight chiropractors have come very close to expressing the chiropractic principle in a consistent manner, as it was meant to be, without the extraneous baggage and impediments to it.We make no claims and no promises, except for those that we can truthfully make. For example, we claim that the body works better without interference in the nerve system due to vertebral subluxation.That is true and it is always true.

You might think now that straight chiropractors have an unchanging principle, a principle that we agree upon and that makes sense, that all we need to do to get universal acceptance is to clearlyarticulate it.So why is that nothappening?Despite our understanding this unchanging chiropractic principle, many chiropractors still have difficulty building practices or even surviving. Many chiropractors are clearer on their principle than B.J. and his contemporaries and we have more and better tools with which to communicate it than we have ever had in the history of the profession.Yet universal acceptance eludes us.The problem is not our principle or our tools.Theproblem is that we have an unchanging principle in a changing world.The fact is many of ourchiropractic tenets are no longer part of the thinking of the Americanpublic and the rest of the world.

The strong individualistic philosophy that was characteristic of this country is fast disappearing.This country began in 1776 by apeople who wanted freedom and nothing more than to be left alone to live their lives, enjoy their liberty and have the freedom to pursue their individual idea of happiness.They did not want to be the wards of King George and enjoy the protection of what was at that time the most powerful nation on earth.

Today many, perhaps even most, people in this country believe that the government should take care of all their health needs from thecradle to the grave.When individual responsibility is set aside, individual rights are sure to follow.It is true that there are people unable to care for themselves, people who need help to sustain themselves.But historically that has not been the role of government.It has been the role of other people through a mechanism called charity, which has its literal and functional basis in love for one’s fellowman.When government takes over the responsibility for the less fortunate, people lose their ability to love and help those people.When that is lost, something dies in the human soul.I think chiropractors are a good example of this problem.As a profession we seem to be very interested in getting in on government programs.Yet I see very little evidence ofchiropractors doing charitable work in chiropractic, whether it is among the indigent of the inner cities, a third world country or the less fortunate in our own communities.The principle of helping your fellowman has been replaced by letting the government do it.That is a change in the thinking of a profession that was begun to serve mankind and it unfortunately reflects a change in what was at one time the most generous and charitable nation in the history of the world.

Recently, I had the opportunity of participating in a weekend re-enactment of late 18th century life.(I really have a life outside of chiropractic!)What impressed me was how hard life was in those days, the daily life of the average person was a difficult one. Yet we have no indication that people were any less happy in those days.Today we want an easy life and look forward to vacations, long weekends and early retirement. There has been a definite change in the work ethic principle.Similarly, people want “easy health” even if they have to take a pill to achieve it.They want to express their full potential but want a “five minute workout” to reach that potential.People know they need good nutrition in their life but apparently are convinced they can get it at a fast food drive-in.These changes in people’s thinking do not bode well for chiropractic care. You mean I and my family must come every week for the rest of our lives?”That idea is notconsistent with people’s ideas of wellness, health or however you want to classify chiropractic.

We live in a changing world, one that appears to me to be more and more embracing an outside-in viewpoint of life.We can adapt chiropractic to that outside-in thinking. Many in our profession are trying to do just that.Of course it means abandoning our unchanging principles. That is unacceptable to many of us.We can resign ourselves to taking care of and impacting a continually smaller and smaller segment of society.Or, we can dedicate ourselves to changing people’s thinking. If we can overwhelm the public with such sound common sense thinking, if we can strike a chord within the collective thinking of society, we can cause them to realize that these principles we call the ADIO philosophy and the specific ones relating to thevertebral subluxation are so profound that they cannot be ignored. Then and only then can we begin to make positive changes in this changing world.It will not be an easy task.Each one of us along with our organizations must step it up a notch in our own work ethic.Each one of us must determine whether it is important enough to do that.

Dealing With the Environment

When we look at the human body, we see it as a single organism with billions upon billions of parts working together in an organized manner.When we look at the universe, we see the planets moving about in a coordinated manner and we establish our major premise based upon these observations.We see order and organization in the environment, from seasonal changes to various biological cycles.From these observations a number of our profession, as well as naturalists, have concluded that the earth is one big living organism with all its parts working for the good of the whole.I do not think this is a reasonable position either from a philosophical or a practical standpoint.It might be a nice scenario for the New Age philosopher or the environmentalist to claim that the lion and the lamb are part of the same larger organism but the real world does not play out that way.In the healthy human body, the liver works for the benefit of the kidneys and hence, the whole body.Itdefinitely does not work toward the demise of the kidneys.However, if a hungry lion is put with a lamb it will not work under the direction of an organized intelligence for the benefit of the little woolly.The lion will eat the lamb.

There are too many examples of hostility in the environment and in the animal and plant kingdom to view it as one large interrelatedorganism, at least not in the same way as we look at the human body.We can see hundreds of examples of how one part of the body works for the benefit of another part.If you have ever seen an electron microscopic photograph of a white blood cell engulfing bacteria, it is a violent battle, not a hug as I heard a chiropractic speaker once state.Microorganisms act as universal forces.They are destructive toward structural matter. Perhaps with chiropractic care, good health habits, and hygiene we can reduce their negative effects but the fact is these little buggers are out to get us.That is part of their innate nature. The very fact that there is a food chain indicates that there is hostility and warfare going on in the world. The actions of organisms to kill and destroy other organisms cannot be written off as mere catabolism. It is a violent kill-or-be-killed world.Granted, much of it is for food.But that just proves the point.Vegetarians maintain that killing animals for food is wrong.Yet all carnivores kill animals. It has been estimated that 99.9% of all the organisms that have ever lived upon the earth are now extinct. So much for a benevolent “mother nature” (and why do we spend billions trying to preserve the snail darter, whatever that is).We assume that it is up to us to be the peacemaker for the plant and animal kingdom.As chiropractors, our role is to remove interference in vertebrates so that they can have the greatest chance of survival when the laws ofnature take their course.It is clear that those natural laws include some violent action among different species for food, self-defense, and protection of the species. That is far different than what occurs among the cells and organs in the human body.Our role as chiropractors is not to build a more harmonious world, as some would contend.It is to enable the human organism to adapt better to the environment, to be better equipped to handle universal forces in whatever form they may come.

Actually, I happen to think it is sad.When you realize that 25% of that 30% believe chiropractic is for bad backs, more than 4% believe it is a treatment for some other condition or a cure-all and less than 1% realize it’s purpose is to allow your innate intelligence to be expressed more fully, under all circumstances, we really should not get too excited about that statistic. Defining chiropractic by its objective has been one of the greatest breakthroughs in the development of straight chiropractic.It has done more to clearly elucidate what we do than all the authority wielded by the Palmers and R.W. Stephenson put together.It could be and should be the way in which the entire profession determines its mission.While defining ourselves by our objective has been important, I think it equally important that we strive to more clearly articulate that objective.I was happy to see an organization in our profession attempting recently to do just that. Unfortunately, I believe that we can strive to the point of counter productivity.

While it is true that it is not the chiropractor that “corrects” vertebral subluxation but rather the innate intelligence of the body, it seems that including that concept in our definition inadvertently confuses the issue.It is true that the body makes the adjustment and that the chiropractor merely introduces a universal force which tends to be destructive toward structural matter unless the innate intelligence takes that force, invests it with new character, and makes it an innate force to correct the subluxation.That is technically what we do. However, not only does it unnecessarily   “clutter” up our definition but we may open a can of worms by insisting in our documents and our definitions that we do not correct subluxations.If we are going to insist that we do not correct subluxations, then perhaps we should not be using the word“adjustment” to describe what we do.After all, technically speaking, we introduce a force and the body makes the adjustment.You can see the direction we are going.

Additionally, if we do not “correct” subluxations, what exactly is it that we do?Can we describe the idea that we introduce a universal force into the spine which the innate intelligence uses to correct a vertebral subluxation in a word or two?I have heard various terms like “facilitate,” “aid,” and “enable” used to describe it but inferring that we only help the body, creates another problem.Many chiropractors use physical therapy to change the character of muscles to “aid” in the adjustment or to “facilitate” the body’s acceptance of a universal force.Heat, cold, electricity, vibration or rollersmay prepare the body to better accept an adjustic thrust.I feel confident that we do not want to embrace those measures.

There is no one who is more persnickety than me about the use of language, about being precise in our language, and about making sure our terms and wording clearly convey our thoughts.It is critical that we try to convey our thoughts and our ideas of what chiropractic is all about and as clearly as possible.Our objective is to see people live their lives as free of subluxations as possible.To do that we correct these subluxations, or aid in their correction, or facilitate their correction, or enable their innate intelligence to correct them.Frankly, I am satisfied to say we correct vertebral subluxations with the inherit knowledge that it is really the innate intelligence of the body that does the work.I think it causes more confusion to try toexplain a philosophical concept in one word than to just say this is our objective.It is our goal to correct vertebral subluxations.That is why we introduce a force. The philosophical and physiological mechanism by which that correction is accomplished is an important   discussion from a philosophical, scientific, practice member education and technique standpoint.People should understand what we do but I do not believe it is necessary to totally explain the details of our philosophy in a single sentence in defining our objective.Our objective describes what we want to see done, that is the correction of subluxations and the fullest expression of the innate intelligence.Our philosophy explains the mechanism by which that occurs. Both the profession and the public will benefit if we can distinguish between our objective and our philosophy. Our objective is simply an objective that we have chosen because it is a valuable service to mankind and because it is one no one else on the face of the earth has chosen as a professional objective.Our philosophy explains the reasoning behind the choice of that objective and how we accomplish it.Let us keep them separate and distinct.

"30% of the American Public use chiropractic care. It's wonderful isn' it?"
Thot
Actually, I happen to think it is sad. When you realize that 25% of that 30% believe chiropractic is for bad backs, more than 4% believe it is a treatment for some other condition or a cure-all and less than 1% realize it's purpose is to all your innate inteligence to be expressed more fully, under all circumstances, we really should not get too excited about that statistic.

Locate, Analyze and …

Defining chiropractic by its objective has been one of the greatest breakthroughs in the development of straight chiropractic. It has done more to clearly elucidate what we do than all the authority wielded by the Palmers and R.W. Stephenson put together. It could be and should be the way in which the entire profession determines its mission. While defining ourselves by our objective has been important, I think it equally important that we strive to more clearly articulate that objective. I was happy to see an organization in our profession attempting recently to do just that. Unfortunately, I believe that we can strive to the point of counter productivity.

While it is true that it is not the chiropractor that "corrects" vertebral subluxation but rather the innate intelligence of the body, it seems that including that concept in our definition inadvertently confuses the issue. It is true that the body makes the adjustment and that the chiropractor merely introduces a universal force which tends to be destructive toward structural matter unless the innate intelligence takes that force, invests it with new character, and makes it an innate force to correct the subluxation. That is technically what we do. However, not only does it unnecessarily "clutter" up our definition but we may open a can of worms by insisting in our documents and our definitions that we do not correct subluxations. If we are going to insist that we do not correct subluxations, then perhaps we should not be using the word "adjustment" to describe what we do. After all, technically speaking, we introduce a force and the body makes the adjustment. You can see the direction we are going.

Additionally, if we do not "correct" subluxations, what exactly is it that we do? Can we describe the idea that we introduce a universal force into the spine which the innate intelligence uses to correct a vertebral subluxation in a word or two? I have heard various terms like "facilitate," "aid," and "enable" used to describe it but inferring that we only help the body, creates another problem. Many chiropractors use physical therapy to change the character of muscles to "aid" in the adjustment or to "facilitate" the body's acceptance of a universal force. Heat, cold, electricity, vibration or rollers may prepare the body to better accept an adjustic thrust. I feel confident that we do not want to embrace those measures.

There is no one who is more persnickety than me about the use of language, about being precise in our language, and about making sure our terms and wording clearly convey our thoughts. It is critical that we try to convey our thoughts and our ideas of what chiropractic is all about and as clearly as possible. Our objective is to see people live their lives as free of subluxations as possible. To do that we correct these subluxations, or aid in their correction, or facilitate their correction, or enable their innate intelligence to correct them. Frankly, I am satisfied to say we correct vertebral subluxations with the inherit knowledge that it is really the innate intelligence of the body that does the work. I think it causes more confusion to try to explain a philosophical concept in one word than to just say this is our objective. It is our goal to correct vertebral subluxations. That is why we introduce a force. The philosophical and physiological mechanism by which that correction is accomplished is an important discussion from a philosophical, scientific, practice member education and technique standpoint. People should understand what we do but I do not believe it is necessary to totally explain the details of our philosophy in a single sentence in defining our objective. Our objective describes what we want to see done, that is the correction of subluxations and the fullest expression of the innate intelligence. Our philosophy explains the mechanism by which that occurs. Both the profession and the public will benefit if we can distinguish between our objective and our philosophy. Our objective is simply an objective that we have chosen because it is a valuable service to mankind and because it is one no one else on the face of the earth has chosen as a professional objective. Our philosophy explains the reasoning behind the choice of that objective and how we accomplish it. Let us keep them separate and distinct.

Thot

Perfect environment is not the solution to anything in life.

Unity

We are once again hearing a call for unity from various segments throughout the chiropractic profession.One national publication has begun a program to elect a “virtual chiropractic association.”In the past few years, two of the three state organizations in Pennsylvania have merged.There has also recently beenincreased interest in uniting two of our national organizations, the ICA and the ACA.It seems that every year there is a survey that demonstrates that most of the profession would like to see these two organizations unite.There is no doubt that when it comes to organizations there is strength in numbers. There is also no doubt that there are certain issues upon which most chiropractic organizations could agree.In fact, that has been the reason for the call to unity. There are, they say, some issues that affect all chiropractors and we would be better able to promote those issues if we all pooled our resources.I would like to suggest that all issues are not of equal importance and that agreement on a less important issue cannot and should not override disagreement on a more important issue.If we unify on less important issues when more important issues are unresolved, the odds are good that the more important issue will only divide us.Pennsylvania is a good example.Some years back the state had only one non-straight   organization.That group split over a specific issue, which maybe no one even remembers now.Recently, however, the two were able to put aside whatever differences they currently have to merge again for a “united front.”The problem is that they will only stay together as long as a more important issue does not arise.

More significant than issues per se, is objective.As long as these organizations have the same OBJECTIVE, it would make sense that they could either agree onissues or at least agree to disagree.Those within the ICA and the ACA that would like to see a merger should look a little deeper than the issues and determine what is the professional OBJECTIVE that drives both organizations.It is interesting that the FSCO has not been asked to join in these merger discussions.The fact is the FSCO only addresses issues in relation to the organization’s unique chiropractic objective.In the mid-seventies the ICA and the ACA united around the CCE mostly   because they agreed upon the issue of diagnosis.The FSCO, on the other hand, maintained that diagnosis of medical conditions is not consistent with our professional objective and, in fact, confuses the public as to what our objective is.That is the reason for the split among so-called ICA straights and FSCO straights.The FSCO always tends to look at   issues, not from the perspective of whether they are good or bad for the profession, but how do they line up with its professional objective.

At an even deeper level than our objective, however, is the base or the foundation for our objective. That level would be the most important on which to come to an agreement. It determines our objective, which in turn determines how we deal with issues. That level consists of our core beliefs, how we look at life, the basic foundation for what we do and what we are. For some of us in the profession that foundation is what we call an ADIO world and life viewpoint. The particular aspect of that viewpoint that we chiropractors address is the concept of an innate intelligence. We recognize the character and qualities of innate intelligence. In fact, how innate intelligence is expressed throughout the body forms the basis for our professional objective, that is, we correct vertebral subluxation so innate intelligence can be more fully expressed. That objective determines how we address issues. For example, we accept that there is an innate intelligence and that it runs the body. That is a foundational principle. It determines what is normal, is completely aware of every innate need, and needs no help from us. That foundational principle determines our objective, removing an interference to innate intelligence expression. That objective in turn determines our position on issues. Therefore when it comes to the issue of diagnosis, our position is very clear and unwavering. The innate intelligence already knows what is normal, we do not. It can establish normal, we can not. Diagnosis is not necessary for chiropractic and as mentioned before, it confuses our objective in the public's perception.

If we are going to have unity in the profession, I believe we can only do so if we unite on the second and third levels. Otherwise, it is improbable that we will agree on issues.