Volume 17 - Number 4
  July 2001

Intellectual Chiropractic

In reading J.P. Moreland   recently, I was struck by some comments he made concerning the success, survival and growth of a movement whether it be political, philosophical, religious or other.  Some of the things he wrote are very applicable to chiropractic and are worthy of thought and discussion.  He said that a movement cannot survive if a number of factors arise.  They  include the following:  “The movement will not survive in a culture where its viewpoint is considered irrational by a significant number  of people and is not adequately  represented among the intellectual leaders who shape the plausibility structure of that culture.”

Our chiropractic philosophy must become rational and logical to “a significant number of people.”  In the past we have presented chiropractic in a way that ONLY reached a small group of people, those disenchanted with medicine, those who were desperate, or those who responded to an emotional, pseudo-religious presentation.  If we maintain that approach, I       believe we will continually lessen our sphere of influence.  We need to talk less and less about getting sick  people well, less about one-cause, one cure, less about innate intelligence being God in man and less about other similar concepts that seem irrational to intellectuals.  Chiropractic philosophy is an    intellectual endeavor and we should make it such.  We tend to shy away from treating it intellectually because many in our profession either embarrass us with a poorly constructed philosophy (based on the old model of a cure-all) or ridicule an intellectual    approach to chiropractic in the name of science.  Many of these people are pseudo-intellectuals or anti-intellectuals claiming to want to put chiropractic into a scientific setting.  Many have a fear of discussing chiropractic on an intellectual level, a level on which they are uncomfortable.  We must emphasize the common sense, logical, intellectual idea that people are better off with a good nerve supply regardless of any other need or circumstance in their life.  We must also emphasize the intellectual concept of an innate intelligence.  That is right¾innate intelligence may not be a scientific concept but it is surely an intellectual one.

Further, according to Moreland, the movement cannot survive if it  enlists others to join because the  individual gets a certain satisfaction or it meets a need.  People must join the movement because the idea is important and “because of the truth that defines that movement.”  Chiropractic got where it is today because people “enlisted” in the profession for what they could give to humanity.  Being a chiropractor held little status except among those who the chiropractor served.  It was not a lucrative profession.  Today, however, we are attracting students for the “doctor” title and the promise of making a good deal of money.  To some extent this motivation has peaked, inasmuch as the prospect of great financial rewards has waned with the continuing loss of third party pay.  Yet to some extent, it is still a problem.  In addition to the desire for money, the status of    doctor carries with it a multitude of problems, not the least of which is trying to mimic the physician.  We need to reach young people for the purpose of serving  humanity not for serving self.

Lastly, Moreland maintains that a movement will falter in “an atmosphere wherein the movement does   not mobilize a growing number of its soldiers to be articulate advocates and defenders of its ideology who can debate in the public square.”

This is an especially important arena for straight chiropractic.  Until very recently, we have drawn into ourselves and circled our wagons to fight off our enemies.  To a great extent, we are still behind those   wagons.  We need to get out more into public and professional forums and present our idea and our       approach.  Most of our profession still does not differentiate between the objective straight chiropractor and the traditional “cause of all   disease” chiropractor.  In some ways we are responsible for that misconception.  I am not suggesting that we should be joining with other chiropractic organizations or even working with them, but we should not miss an  opportunity to present our views to them.

We have many people in our    profession who can speak about  chiropractic, hold their own in an intellectual discussion, present our model in a public, professional or political forum.  We have some great young  chiropractors who, given the opportunity and the      encouragement, can grow into     tremendous spokespeople for straight chiropractic.  It is time we began to utilize these people and  insure that this profession continues to prosper. 

The Sacred Trust

Excerpt from The Strauss Commentaries on the Green Books-Book Six.

In a section entitled The Fountain Head-The PSC, Dr. Ivens enumerates the impressive accomplishments of B.J. Palmer including the development of the School, the Printery, the Osteological Laboratory, the Student Clinic, the Radio Station and others, not to mention the development of X-ray, the NCM, the B.J.P. Research Clinic and other endeavors.  It is quite a laudatory and well-deserved list of accomplishments.   Despite the myriad of activities, however, one has to be painfully struck by the fact that chiropractic is no better off today than it was 50 years ago when this book was written.  The “tens of thousands” of graduates of the P.S.C. that span the earth have, for the most part, lost and/or obscured the vision of B.J. Palmer.  The Printery that used paper by the freight-train load, has left very little if anything that can apprise the public of true chiropractic.  B.J. said, “A drop of ink can make millions think” but the thousands of gallons he used have not created a lasting effect.  The student clinic that saw “1,255 cases monthly on the average” was a boon to the city of Davenport. One would think that the city would be a model of society for all the world to see.  Thousands of its citizens getting chiropractic care over four generations should have  produced something akin to “B.J.’s Utopia.”  Yet today Davenport, Iowa’s only outstanding characteristic is that it is a typical American city with its seedy areas and beautiful areas, it rundown parts and its beautiful buildings.  It is unique in that it has Riverboat gambling, hardly B.J.’s idea of closing the hospitals, emptying the insane asylums, jails and filling the churches.

Radio station WOC, B.J.’s     venture into the greatest boon to communication for mankind in the 20th century, has had virtually no long-term, positive effect on the public’s understanding of chiropractic.  B.J.’s accomplishments are legion.  However, with all that he did, all that he gave us, the question that burns in my mind is, where did he go wrong?  What did he do or fail to do that, given all of the wonderful accomplishments outlined in this essay, would leave the profession as a whole in the sorry state that it is in today?  Was there something more he could have done or should have done?   Is there something in the nature of man that B.J. overlooked or was not able to relate to that would, for the most part, negate or at least minimize, those wonderful accomplishments?  Or is what we have just a fact of life, something that is inevitable with every great idea, that it will be distorted?  We can all be inspired by B.J.’s accomplishments, though none of us will probably ever match them.  More importantly, we should be sobered by his failure, his failure to leave to us what he called “this sacred trust” in such a state that it would be intact a mere 50 years later.  Perhaps that is the greatest lesson, the challenge and the application of this essay.  We should be striving to make this chiropractic philosophy such a strong and powerful force that 50 years from now it will not be confused, not be seen as a treatment for back problems, not continue to less and less resemble the model that B.J. saw.  He is in part responsible for what chiropractic is today.  Surely those that followed him also take part of that responsibility.  However, it is we who are responsible for what chiropractic will be 50 years from now.  Will we be where we are today, further from where B.J. was in 1952 or will we have more clearly defined and communicated to the masses this principle that has been handed down to us?

Beginning on page 209, Ivens gives us some insights to the problem and why we are where we are today.  D.D. passed the torch to B.J. who actually developed and advanced the profession, the PSC and the principle.  However, B.J. did not, or could not, find anyone to insure that it would be perpetuated after his passing.  It is hard to believe that not one of the hundreds of chiropractors alive in those days could accept the mantle of B.J. Palmer.  Perhaps that was the problem.  It was a mantle of authority that was being passed on, not a philosophy and a principle.  B.J. had “led the profession not by reason and logic but by his authority.”  Consequently, no one felt qualified to pick up the mantle of authority.  Anyone could have worn the mantle of logic and reason but very few were qualified to wear the mantle that had been worn by B.J. of Davenport and him only for as long as anyone could remember.  He did not prepare all of us for his passing.  He did not even prepare one of us for his passing.  Therein lay the problem.  Ivens says that B.J. would have given everything he built and personally owned to the profession, free of charge, if he could have been assured that it would remain intact.  Apparently the offer was never accepted.  I would suggest that he should have not made the offer but taken steps to insure that the desire behind the offer was fulfilled.  If he had, chiropractic may well have looked very different than it does today.  Those who came after B.J. were more interested in preserving and building the institution than the philosophy it was founded upon.  They were more interested in preserving    B.J.’s technique than the chiropractic principles he gave us.  They were more interested in preserving the things and the places than the ideas and objective.  For that our profession is much worse off. 

Thot

"It is not a matter of whether you have a philosophy or not. Even a rejection of philosophy is a philosophy. The issue is whether you have critically evaluated your philosophy or not in light of logic."

Gary Dunn, D.C.

Weekly Visits

An interesting occurrence in my office last month got me to thinking about how we run our practices.  Several month ago, I referred one of our families to   another chiropractor thinking that the location of the new office would allow the family to get chiropractic more regularly.  Shortly thereafter they returned to my office only to tell me that the chiropractor had told them that should come weekly for the rest of  their lives.  However, the chiropractor added that if they were not willing to do that, he did not, or actually would not, accept them as practice members.

Obviously, in examining the pros and cons of this approach, there is one significant pro to this approach, practice members are assured better care.  If we can see people on a weekly basis, correcting their subluxations before they are present for more than a week, they will most certainly be getting more out of life.  That is the biggest pro.  There are also pros for the chiropractor, probably the biggest of which is practice members that are generally healthier, who have less medical conditions, and thereby less complaints.  That is logical since people who get adjusted weekly generally are healthier.  There will be consistency to the practice and a regularity of income.  Once the practice is established there will be less stress to acquire new people to solve the revolving door syndrome.  That in turn would save on marketing and advertising.  It is simply an easier, more enjoyable way to practice.

The cons, on the other hand, are rather simple.  For practice members the con is that they may not actually get under care or get under the care of a therapeutic  chiropractor who will never teach them what chiropractic is and only reinforce the idea that it is for symptomatic relief.  If they can’t find a chiropractor who will care for them on an altered or irregular schedule, they may not get care at all.  Neither option is in the best interest of their life or health.  For the chiropractor, the negative is that he or she will probably never build as large a practice as they want or see the maximum number of people they are capable of seeing.  I do not know of any chiropractor practicing in this manner whose practice is completely full and the practice will definitely grow at a slower rate than others.  Chiropractors, in general, are simply not attracting very many new people to the office (especially if you eliminate the new people who are just switching chiropractors, which represent over 50% of all new people in most practices).  Practicing in this manner, you eliminate not only those coming for relief care as do many straight chiropractors but also those who want lifetime care but can not or will not commit to weekly care.    I do not exercise as regularly as I should.  But I know that even my inconsistent exercise program is better than none at all.  What is more, my hope is that the more I exercise the more I will desire to do it on a regular basis.  Might the same things be said about irregular chiropractic care?  Given the natural attrition of a practice (moving away, death, going off to college, etc.), the major con with this type of practice is the slowness of growth, perhaps too slow to sustain the newer practitioner until he or she gets out from under chiropractic college/student loan debt.

I believe if you really examine the pros and cons of this issue you will find that in the end the decision to only accept people who come once a week is a selfish one.  We do it because that is the type of practice we really want.  To a certain extent we should all have the kind of practice we want.  I would like to have only those people who come in every week, with no complaints.  Someday, perhaps I will.  But, I will have to be a better communicator and be totally confident that people understand the principle.  At this point I do not believe everyone can get it within an hour, on the first visit.  That is another reason I am reluctant to put a requirement on them. 

No one wants a practice full of “bad” practice members but we all have some.  We would not think of discriminating against someone because of race or religion but is not this discriminating against the ignorant?  Is serving only those people that we want to serve really a service?  Of course, it is perfectly within one’s right to refuse service to anyone, but in a profession (objective straight chiropractic) that claims to be service-oriented, that seems a little self-serving.

With all that said, I believe it is possible that chiropractors can get to a place in their lives or practices where they will want to start cutting back, and unless they are going to take on associates they will have to limit the number of people seen.  If that time occurs, then it is perfectly understandable that they create certain limitations and requirements in the office.  If one of those requirements is that the person comes in every week, then that is understandable.  However, for most of us that day is far away, if it comes at all. 

Thot

Thoughts on Research

Excerpt from The Strauss Commentaries on the Green Books-Book Six.

As B.J. discusses the research and data of the B.J. Palmer Research Clinic, I am always left with the same question.  It is clear that B.J. wanted to do legitimate research.  He went to great pains in his work to remove variables.  He used the finest equipment available.  He brought in medical doctors to insure that medical findings were ascertained and evaluated by the right people.  He published thousands of pages of his findings in volume after volume and he was thoroughly satisfied that chiropractic indeed did get sick people well.  Here is my question: Why does the scientific community not accept his findings?  In fact, why does the chiropractic profession in general not accept that correcting vertebral subluxation will address the cause of diseases?  Is there no true objectivity in the scientific community?  Have these findings been brought to light in the world of science or is there some major flaw in B.J.’s research which he was unable to see that renders his work unacceptable?  Are we missing something?  There are schools of medicine that are founded on the work of people like Pasteur,  research done over a century ago.  It is still respected today.  Yet to my knowledge there is not one school, not even the one that bears the   Palmer name, that teaches the chiropractic principle based on the  research and proof that B.J. purported?  Do we just ignore this   aspect of our history?  We seem to.  If so, why is it ignored?  Are we afraid that publishing this research and presenting it to the world would elicit nothing more than a chuckle and a pat on the head as if we were a small child who had just performed a successful experiment with a chemistry set we got for Christmas. 

I believe as a profession we need to evaluate B.J.’s research and determine that it is valid and submit it to the scientific community, or we need to find where the research is flawed.  We have research departments at all the chiropractic colleges, getting grant money to study things that B.J. may have already proven.  Some of their research should be in evaluating the B.J. Palmer Research Clinic findings for the purpose of either using it or relegating it to the trash heap of chiropractic history.  As it stands now, that work is in a state of limbo.  As such we are being unfair to B.J., to the profession, and to the goals of science and research. 

Thot