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

  Volume 17 - Number 3
  April 2001

Mega Shifts in Thinking

There is no doubt that the greatest task of the objective straight chiropractic movement is educating the public to what chiropractic truly is. This task has been made more difficult by the stupidity (idiocy, imbecility, witlessness) of our profession in positioning itself as a treatment for bad backs. It is perhaps the ultimate example of "shooting yourself in the foot." As a profession, we had the opportunity to create chiropractic in any model we wanted. It could have been anything from a cure-all to a treatment for minor musculoskeletal conditions. We chose the least attractive, the least desirable, the least beneficial to humanity, and probably the least lucrative approach, treating bad backs. I am not suggesting that we should have gone with the cure-all approach. In fact, modern-day straight chiropractic is all about repositioning ourselves to a place where we can be attractive to the public, serve as many people as possible and make a decent living. That repositioning process is not easy. It is downright hard. Recently, a young chiropractor wrote saying that he found it impossible to change peoples' thinking and as a result he was abandoning the objective straight chiropractic approach and was going to practice somewhere between the cure-all approach and the bad back approach. My heart goes out to this young chiropractor and those like him. They have paid a great price to get into a profession that has positioned itself in a place that cannot support them. We need to change peoples' thinking. Before we do that we must realize that peoples' thinking has changed over the years. Unfortunately, in many ways, that move has been further and further away from the world and life viewpoint that we call ADIO. I believe that is the obstacle this young chiropractor could not overcome. We must understand these megashifts in peoples' thinking and then combat them by demonstrating the incorrectness of those ideas. Part of the problem is that there are also microshifts in peoples' thinking that get chiropractors all excited. However, these are just microshifts and in focusing on them we fail to recognize the megashifts. "Natural healing" is a microshift. A desire by people to get well without drugs or surgery is a minor change in thinking. We think that is opening a whole new vista for us. Yet natural or unnatural is not the issue. When people stop thinking in terms of healing disease no matter what the method, that will be a megashift and that is when true chiropractic will start to have an impact. When people start thinking about addressing health rather than fighting, curing or preventing disease, that will begin a megashift. Meanwhile, the microshift of "natural healing" will bring us a few people who we can share with the other groups that make up the natural healing profession, a movement that seems to grow larger and more crowded every day. With that brief introduction let us look at some of the megashifts in thinking that effect us as chiropractors.

1. A shift from theocentric to anthropocentric thinking. This shift at first glance would appear to be more of a concern for the religious community than the chiropractic profession. We must realize, however, that this shift in thinking means that people are considering less the wisdom, power and nature of Someone greater than their own finite educated mind. As it relates to chiropractic, people are less focused on an innate intelligence in their body, a universal principle, and more focused on their own abilities. Unfortunately, people like Deepak Chopra support this shift. On cursory examination, it would appear they are talking about individuals taking control of their own health rather than letting allopathic medicine do it. What they are really talking about is substituting your own educated intelligence for the educated intelligence of the physician. That is a microshift and not necessarily in the right direction. Only when we begin to put our confidence in the inborn wisdom of the body and allow it to run our body rather than running it ourselves, will a positive megashift occur.
2. A shift from objectivism to relativism. This change in thinking says there is no objective reality, everything is relative. While the traditional approach to chiropractic as a cure-all does not reflect true chiropractic, it does have a positive side to it. It maintains that everyone needs chiropractic care. Chiropractic actually grew in that model despite the fact that it was unscientific and it went against what most people thought. It was radical, yet chiropractic grew. Even today, traditional straight chiropractors who claim chiropractic corrects the cause of all disease have the largest practices. Today we face the task of changing the thinking of a society that believes that there is nothing that everyone needs, that no care, no procedure, no therapy benefits everyone. We are all different which of course, is true. Therefore we have different needs, again, true to a point. The fact that everyone needs chiropractic care and it is not relative to your state of health or the condition you have or do not have is a difficult concept to get across in this shifting mindset.
3. A shift from objectivity to pragmatism. This change in thinking goes along with the one above. It presents the idea that not only are peoples' needs relative to their problems but their needs should be met on a pragmatic level. The motto today is if it feels good, do it. People take drugs, knowing they are harmful because they make them feel good. Society is like the small child who hates the taste of broccoli. Though he is told to eat it "because it is good for you," he dreams of the day when he grows up and is in charge of his own life, when he will not eat broccoli no matter how good for you it is. Maybe he will and maybe he won't. The point is that we do not place emphasis on what is good for us, but what feels good to us. That is pragmatism. We must get across the need for chiropractic care in people despite the fact that many will probably not feel any different under care. Some will feel no different because they have passed limitations of matter and some because they feel good from the start. However, they all need chiropractic care. Pragmatism and chiropractic are in antithetical camps. There are people who are willing to use chiropractic pragmatically. They go to a chiropractor because for some reason, unbeknownst to them, they feel better afterward. Those people frustrate me because if for some reason they stop feeling better afterward, they quit care. That is hardly the model we want to perpetuate.
4. A shift from truth to opinion. Society is moving away from the idea of truths and toward the idea that everything is opinion. One of the frustrating things that I have found in recent years is that people do not accept our presentation as truth, only as our opinion. In the age of political correctness, everyone is entitled to an opinion. Our "truth" is just one opinion. This is born out by the fact that people do not accept what we do. We tell them what straight chiropractic is all about, they seem to understand it inasmuch as they do not challenge or question it (I often wish they would), but they do not follow through with care. This can only be because they see the idea of regular care enabling the body to work at full potential as our opinion, not as a truth. They see it as our truth not their truth. Their truth is that chiropractic helps their headache or backache or whatever. If we want to believe it does more, that is okay with them but that is not their truth. They will respect our truth but not embrace it. The fact is there is only one truth. There are many opinions about chiropractic but only one truth. Either it is what we say it is or we are mistaken, deluded or lying. It cannot be right for us and wrong for someone else. We sometimes even fall prey to this thinking ourselves. We acknowledge other approaches to chiropractic by calling them mixing chiropractic, traditional chiropractic, etc. We say we do not judge other approaches, but we should. Correcting vertebral subluxation to allow for the fullest expression of the innate intelligence of the body is truly chiropractic. Everything else is not chiropractic. These other approaches are not wrong necessarily, they simply are not chiropractic. We should not present them or acknowledge them as an alternative approaches to chiropractic anymore than we should present chiropractic as an alternative to medicine. That does not mean we should deny other members of our profession the freedom and right to practice in a wrong manner, but neither does it mean we should condone or recognize what they do as truth or even as an opinion as to the practice of chiropractic. The shift in thinking says, "you are entitled to your truth as I am entitled to mine." Everyone is entitled to his or her own opinion, but we are not entitled to our own truth. If we are, then there is no such thing as truth, principles, laws or absolutes. Eventually an organization, a profession, a society or a country will crumble with this type of thinking. In the case of a country, at this point an authoritarian leader would arise, establish his opinion or truth and a totalitarian government would be formed. Nazi Germany, Russia and China are examples of this situation. We need to accept the fact that there is such a thing as absolute truth and that chiropractic philosophy represents it. We must go about the task of promoting that idea.

We have a philosophy that can go far toward shifting people's world and life viewpoint. We need to understand these shifts away from ADIO and work toward showing their weakness and error. Then and only then can we shift societies' thinking.

Neither Fish Nor Fowl

As objective straight chiropractors, we often find ourselves in the middle of the chiropractic conflict, a place we really do not want to be. In fact, sometimes I think that we are so far removed from the mixer/ACA and the B.J./ICA chiropractors who believe they are straight that we have nothing in common with either of them. I often think we should be the Switzerland of the chiropractic wars. Instead, we seem to be attacked or at the least disliked by both sides.

The mixers see us as part of the straight community because we call ourselves straight chiropractors. A number of other groups also call themselves straight. The ICA, the WCA, and most of the larger chiropractic colleges would like to think of themselves as straight. Many even identify themselves as such. The mixers think the FSCO is just another "straight" organization like the ICA and the WCA and that petty politics and petulant personalities keep the three organizations separate. The fact is that we are a far cry from these organizations. In fact, an argument could be made that other than the title "chiropractor," we have very little in common with the ICA and WCA. (Interestingly, we share that title with the mixers as well). Most of these "other straights" are interested in bashing medicine; we are not. They feel our profession should be taking a position on medical procedures such as vaccination; we do not. They are concerned about getting more space at the government feed trough; we are not. They are interested in positioning chiropractic as an alternative to medicine; we are not. One enormous difference on the national organization level is that their primary purpose is to benefit their members. They believe that if promoting chiropractic helps achieve that purpose, so much the better. If they have to compromise a little chiropractic to benefit their members so be it. We (the objective straight chiropractors) have a mission of getting the message of true chiropractic out to the masses, i.e., promoting chiropractic. If doing that benefits the members of our organization, so much the better. Chiropractors join these other organizations for the benefits. Chiropractors join ours for what it stands for or what they can contribute. So while the mixers see us as the same as the "other straights" (perhaps a little more radical) we see a big difference.

The "other straights," on the other hand, do not think of us as their allies. Oh, they would like to absorb us because if we did not exist, then our people would likely be their members. They may even try to use us on occasions to further their objectives. And there may be the very remote possibility that something they are doing for the chiropracTOR will benefit chiropracTIC. That is to say, if they are doing something to achieve their objective (i.e., helping their members) and it can help us achieve ours (i.e., getting the true message out to the world) we may work with them. I have yet to see a situation where that could occur, but you never know. However, the bottom line is they really do not like us. We are and have always been, since the objective straight chiropractic movement began, a conscience to them, a reminder of what they should be doing, of how they have compromised for acceptance. Remember the formation of the FSCO was in response to their abandonment of the principle in favor of recognition. They have compromised; we have not. For that reason they do not want us around, at least not as an organized entity that promotes and publishes standards and principles and a philosophy to which they fail to adhere. So here we are, not accepted by either group, either because they do not truly understand what we do or because they understand all too clearly what we do. However, when you look at Switzerland and realize they have never been invaded in modern times, are considered to be a stable and reliable country, are totally neutral in the political wars and continue to go about their business regardless of the political turmoil around them, perhaps that is not such a bad position in which to be.

Changing B.J.'s and D.D.'s
Chiropractic Most of us have questioned or have been questioned about the right to change chiropractic as D.D. and B.J. espoused it. Recently, a young man raised the question of whether anyone had the right to change B.J.'s philosophy. Even the development of objective straight chiropractic has been challenged by traditional "chiropractic gets sick people well" chiropractors. There is no doubt that some of the philosophical tenets of D.D. and B.J. have been changed since the start of the objective straight chiropractic movement in the mid-seventies. What right do we have or does anyone have to make changes in chiropractic? I would like to suggest some reasons, but first we must acknowledge that B.J. made wholesale changes to his father's idea of chiropractic. In fact, many of the things that B.J. said and did were in conflict with his father's original ideas and Old Dad Chiro was not the least bit reluctant to chastise the "usurper" for some of them. Of course, D.D. himself changed aspects of his own philosophy, art and science from 1895 until his death in 1913. I would suggest that as the first reason we have a right to make changes in chiropractic. D.D. and B.J. set the precedent by doing it themselves. Not only did B.J. change many of D.D.'s ideas, but he also changed his own ideas considerably over the 50-plus years he presided over the profession. That is the first reason we are given some latitude in making changes in the philosophy and art of chiropractic, the Founder and Developer themselves set the precedent.

The second reason involves the very definition the Palmers gave to chiropractic, "a philosophy, art and science," all of which are constantly under change. Philosophy by its very nature is changing. One would hope that the art form associated with chiropractic would change and by changing, improve. Scientific facts may not change but the application of those facts change. In addition, science changes as new paradigms are created. If chiropractic were relegated to a religion or a dogma then we could keep it from changing but given the chance to do that, the Palmers refused.

The third reason we have the right to change chiropractic is that when D.D. began to teach chiropractic and teach others to teach it, he acknowledged that there would be changes and even encouraged it. It is true that at first he balked at the idea of sharing this new idea with others and it is said that it was B.J. and a near-death experience that finally convinced him to teach chiropractic. He apparently felt that allowing others to teach chiropractic was in the new profession's best interest. When you share anything with others and give them the right to pass it on you must expect it to change.

Another reason is the fact that the Palmers agreed to let chiropractic become regulated by the state. When they gave up their control over chiropractic, they had to know that the state would make changes and they were agreeing to those changes by accepting the idea of licensure. To think that the government would create a licensed profession exactly as the Palmers wanted without ever changing it would be irrational. It is true that they tried to influence the process as much as possible but they knew going into the licensing game that they could not write the rules. Apparently they thought that in the long run it was what was best for chiropractic. Whether they were right or not is open to discussion. Finally, the most important reason we have the right to change chiropractic is that chiropractic simply had to change. In the position or the model that it was placed in, change was necessary. Essentially, the Palmers presented chiropractic as a last resort for failed medicine. As medicine improved in treating diseases and certain diseases like typhoid fever waned due to better hygiene, the miracle cures of chiropractic were no longer needed. Sadly, most chiropractors changed chiropractic into a treatment for back problems. It seems to me that for chiropractic to survive, chiropractic has to change. The traditional "correction of the cause of all disease" just does not work anymore. We can become a therapy for minor musculoskeletal conditions or we can promote a model that fills a need that every human being has, improved innate expression. We believe that objective straight chiropractic adheres as close to the Palmer model as possible but offers an approach acceptable to the broadest base of society. That is a change for the better.

The Vertebral Subluxation

As scientific knowledge and philosophical understanding increases, it sometimes becomes necessary for us to reexamine and/or redefine aspects of chiropractic. Perhaps the facet most in need of reexamination is the vertebral subluxation. The importance of the vertebral subluxation is underscored by the fact that it is a central part of the chiropractic philosophy, the chiropractic art, and the chiropractic science. While there are many areas of discussion relative to the vertebral subluxation, time and space require that we narrow this discussion to one particular area.

A question continually debated is whether the innate intelligence of the body would create a vertebral subluxation. One side of the debate adheres to the principle (#25) that the innate intelligence will never do anything to harm the tissues in which it resides. A subluxation is a detriment to the well being of the organism. The fact that we correct subluxations also clearly suggests that they are bad, which means that the intelligence of the body would not create one since that would not be intelligent and the innate intelligence always acts in a responsible and intelligent manner. Case closed. It is very easy to give philosophical chiropractic answers. The conclusion therefore is that any subluxation is not the result of the "wishes" of the innate intelligence but in spite of them. Any misalignment or adaptative change is not a subluxation, which fulfills the four-point criteria, but is a compensatory mechanism brought into action specifically by the innate intelligence of the body.

The challenge to this position is the argument that any structural deviation to the spine in some way effects the function of the nerve system since you cannot affect structure without affecting function in some manner. The challenge usually comes from one of the technique people and invariably it is one who is concerned with structure, who is trying to straighten spines or bring curves into his/her pre-determined idea of normal. They consider any structural change within the body, including curvatures, to be a subluxation. It is easy and common to brush off these approaches as not being truly straight chiropractic and perhaps they are not, but that does not mean that they do not raise some valid questions. The discussion that develops proves quite interesting. We agree that the innate intelligence will change the structure of the spine by moving individual bones to produce adaptative curves. If, however, that causes some sort of interference in the function of the nerve system, (i.e., a subluxation) then the innate intelligence has indeed created a subluxation. How does that coincide with our principle that the body will do nothing to harm the tissues in which it resides?

First we need to understand what we mean by innate intelligence not harming the tissues in which it resides. The innate intelligence of the body will not harm the overall organism but that does not mean that the innate intelligence may not on occasions sacrifice certain parts or functions for the good of the whole organism. An example of this is when the innate intelligence withdraws blood from the extremities to pool blood in the internal parts of the body. In frigid weather this definitely sets up the potential for frostbite but it also keeps the vital, internal organs warm, thus sacrificing the extremities to keep the person alive. With that concept in mind, it would seem that the innate intelligence of the body may misalign a bone of the spine, even to the point of causing an interference in the nerve system for the greater good of the organism. Would that be a subluxation or a compensation? Is it an adaptative mechanism? Should we adjust it or not? Or more correctly, should we introduce a force to move it? If it were not a subluxation, we would not be adjusting even if we were changing its position since by definition an adjustment is a correction of a subluxation. It would seem that these situations would be few and far between, mostly because of the importance of the nerve system. However, it does seem conceivable that the innate intelligence could and would deprive cells of a proper nerve supply just as it deprives the extremities of a proper blood supply if there was a greater good to be accomplished.

Perhaps then, we need a new criteria for the vertebral subluxation besides the criteria we already know (loss of juxtaposition, occlusion of an opening, impingement upon a nerve and interference with the transmission of mental impulses). Perhaps we need to qualify a subluxation as a bone that is in a position that places it outside of the control of the innate intelligence of the body. In other words, the innate intelligence could move a bone into a position that would cause nerve interference but still have control over that bone, be aware of the overall body needs, and be able to restore it to its proper position or move it to a less damaging position as the circumstances change. This would not be a subluxation. However, a bone in a position in which the innate intelligence has no control and cannot move it back or into another position as needed would qualify it as a vertebral subluxation. Although nerve interference is present in both cases, in the first situation the innate intelligence can move the bone back or somewhere else as needed. In the true subluxation, the innate intelligence cannot move the bone from the position in which it is resting without an outside force which it can utilize. (This force commonly being in the form of a chiropractic thrust.)

This way of looking at the subluxation would include elements of B.J.'s idea that nerve interference could occur below axis without being a subluxation although, for different reasons. B.J. advocated correcting these "nerve interference causing misalignments" if the upper cervical subluxation did not clear out in a certain period of time. In this new model there would be no reason to ever adjust those misalignments. This way would also include certain elements of the concept of fixation associated with other techniques, although the innate intelligence could conceivably fix or set a vertebra so that it seemed to be a fixation by something like motion palpation but still not be a subluxation by the new criteria.

We know that a vertebra subluxates because an external invasive force greater than the internal resistive forces has been introduced into the body. This means that the body did not have sufficient force to prevent it. It would then seem that it remains a subluxation because the innate intelligence cannot produce or transmit sufficient innate forces to correct it-at least not at that specific movement. It would take an outside force (the hands of a chiropractor) to introduce sufficient force for the innate intelligence to correct it. This is consistent with our present thinking about the subluxation. The only thing to determine is whether the misaligned bone interfering with the nerve system is outside the control of the innate intelligence (i.e., a subluxation) or whether it is not. However, that is a technique discussion, outside of the scope of this article, and something we will discuss in a future issue. Meanwhile, each of us needs to evaluate our present form of analysis in light of this criteria.

Thot

"If someone is going down the wrong road, he doesn't need motivation to speed him up. What he needs is education to turn him around." Jim Rohn

Thot

The goal of effective communication should be for the listener to say, "Me, too!" versus "So what?" Jim Rohn