Volume 18 - Number 2
  January 2002

An Apology

Every so often an event or circumstance will bring to light something that should have seemed very obvious. We all knew that there were terrorists in the world who hated the United States and attacked us in foreign countries. We also knew that we have virtually no system to keep would-be terrorists out of the country. Yet, our government agencies did little to protect us from a terrorist attack, as if they never believed it would happen on American soil. Then came September 11, 2001. It seems to me that in the least we are owed an apology by many agencies and branches of the federal government who have been asleep at the controls for the last 10 years or more. The conflict we are now engaged in is clearly demonstrating how widespread the problem is.

There is a conflict that confronts the straight chiropractic community at this time that has clarified a problem that exists, a problem that the leadership has largely ignored. We have worked hard to tell people what exactly we do and what we stand for and to a lesser extent we have explained what we do not do and why. Yet we have done very little to provide the information, the knowledge and the tools to practice non-therapeutic straight chiropractic. Heavens knows that the schools are not doing it. They are not even giving students the wherewithal to practice non-straight chiropractic let alone non-therapeutic chiropractic.

Unfortunately, we really have few role models in straight chiropractic. We have no practice management consultants for straight chiropractors. We maintain that we are different, so different that we have a different school and state and national organizations. Yet our graduates and members generally practice like traditional chiropractors or ICA-type chiropractors. People have not joined our movement, not because it does not make sense. It is the only approach that makes sense. It is a great way to practice. People have not joined us because as great as our message is, we have not demonstrated that you can make a good living practicing objective straight chiropractic. Some straight chiropractors are doing well, but many more are struggling. It is easy to tell people that chiropractic will make them feel better or that it can cure everything. It is not as easy to explain what we do. Most of the successful straight chiropractors have been at it for 25-30 years and became successful in a different era, so we are not role models.

We sponsor seminars to help explain straight chiropractic, but some of the speakers are not (yet) successful chiropractors themselves. Some need to take insurance to make a living. Some teach at schools as well as practice. While this gives them a great perspective on the academic aspect of chiropractic, the chiropractor building a practice cannot identify with them. Some have another business, depend upon a spouse's income, or work other jobs to supplement their income. Those that have built successful practices have not had to do so for 25 or 30 years. We have always said that practicing objective straight chiropractic is a wonderful life, and it is. But can people do it? We tell them a cash practice is the way to go but the vast majority of us are still taking insurance. I suppose chiropractors figure that if they need to take insurance to make a living they might as well go all the way and get all they can. After all compromise is compromise.

So many times, I have talked to ICA-type chiropractors who cannot seem to see a difference between us and them (see The Mailbox). I cannot understand why they do not. It is clear to me and I have tried to make it clear to them. The problem is that too many of us do not practice any different than they do. Our practices do not reflect our philosophy. We are not role models for young graduates or those who truly want to change. If we are successful it is because we got there doing insurance or got there 25-35 years ago when the world was much different (e.g. no insurance, 30,000 less chiropractors, no student loans). We have managed to articulate modern day straight chiropractic. We have just not managed to demonstrate the practicality of it. We have shown it is sensible, but we have not proved it is workable. For that, I for one apologize.

I am sure there are successful chiropractors out there, practicing from day one in the objective straight chiropractic model. Of course there are people who could sell a refrigerator to an Eskimo. Most people can not. Because a few can do it does not mean it is a marketable commodity. We need to demonstrate the way to practice straight chiropractic and practice it successfully. We need to develop tools and procedures to help the chiropractor. We need to teach practical straight chiropractic. If we do not provide it for the chiropractor he will be forced to practice something else. The Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education in general and myself in particular will be putting its major efforts into developing, teaching, and promoting practical straight chiropractic in the coming year. We would appreciate any help you can give us. For those of you who want to practice straight chiropractic, we ask you to hang on a little longer. I believe it can be done and some of those who can show you how will be stepping up their efforts in the near future.

Getting Well

What does it mean to get well from a chiropractic standpoint? Does it relate at all to how you feel? For most people it definitely does. People even verbalize it on occasions with a statement like, "I don’t feel well today." Yet we know that "well" does not relate to the presence or absence of symptoms. There are many people who feel fine today who may be dead we are all dying I guess, or told they have a terminal disease tomorrow. If we look to B.J., we do not find much help. He seems to relate "wellness" to results and whether it is an acute case or a chronic one. He relates it to the person’s medical condition. However we can say that people are "well from a chiropractic standpoint," that is they are adjusted there is not nerve interference, their body has a full complement of mental impulses between brain and tissue cell and working as close to 100% as possible. But face it, people often do not understand our "well" from everyone else’s "well."

The term well is generally associated with the absence of medical conditions. For that reason it would seem to me that it is term that should not be used in day-to-day chiropractic conversations. When a word has a universal meaning and that meaning is medical in nature, we would do well to avoid it especially if we are using it in a different context or with a different meaning than the accepted medical one. I guess one could use the term chiropractic "well" like many use the term "chiropractic diagnosis" to show the difference between analysis and diagnosis. Although since we have the word analysis, I cannot understand why people feel it necessary to attach the word chiropractic to the medical term diagnosis. Terms should educate and they should clarify what we do. To mix them with medical terms only causes confusion, it has just the opposite effect. Perhaps for some that is the whole point, to mix chiropractic and dilute it to the point of making it totally unrecognizable as anything but a medical specialty. I seriously doubt whether that is the intention of the people who read this publication. However, whether it is intentional or inadvertent, the results are the same. We need to realize that "well" and "wellness" in any sense are not part of the chiropractic objective. We want people to have chiropractic for a lifetime, whether someone deems them "well" or not. We believe everyone needs a good nerve supply regardless of the presence or absence of wellness. There is no relation to wellness and chiropractic. A person who has no hope of being well (if that situation truly exists) still needs chiropractic. Every time we associate chiropractic with being well, or wellness programs, we dilute its real value. When we dilute its true value, the profession suffers because the public knows less about chiropractic. Our practices’ suffer because there is another criteria placed on whether a person needs chiropractic or not. But most of all, people suffer because they think they are well or think they cannot get well or that chiropractic failed to get them well (when that is not its purpose). We are doing a disservice to mankind. Let’s be clear in our terminology.

Limitations of Matter

In modern-day straight chiropractic, the objective straight chiropractor has totally eliminated the problem of limitations of matter except with regard to whether the practice member can accept the introduction of the force. Once we abandoned the objective of getting sick people well and began to concentrate on the objective of correcting vertebral subluxations simply because they interfere with the body’s ability to function at its maximum, limitations of matter were no longer an issue. If your objective is to be a substitute or an alternative to medicine, then limitations of matter are an issue because medicine’s main objective seems to be addressing a body that it believes is past those limitations. Whether it be to cure cancer or the common cold, medical doctors believe the innate intelligence of the body needs help from the outside. The chiropractor who addresses the cause of disease, believes specifically that subluxation is always the cause. However, he or she is still faced with the problem that the condition may be past the point that even if the cause is corrected, some life-sustaining measure must still be utilized. Medicine is usually the profession to provide that life sustaining measure. In an increasingly litigious society, determining the point at which that care is necessary is essential to the chiropractor who "gets sick people well." If you make it clear that getting sick people well is not your objective, you have a greater chance of avoiding unpleasant litigation.

Turning to B.J. for wisdom on this issue of limitations of matter is not very helpful. B.J. seemed to ignore the whole concept of limitations of matter. He thought that there is always a sufficient supply of mental impulses for the demand as long as that supply can get through without interference. We must conclude that B.J. is talking about normal, natural conditions because no matter how subluxation free one may be, falling out of a ten-story window will damage the body. How about a massive dose of anthrax? How about someone sneezing in your face? Are these normal situations? One gets the impression that they are not and that B.J. does not address those abnormal circumstances as if they do not exist. On the other hand, the medical profession gives us the impression that every circumstance is abnormal and that the human body cannot handle even the common cold without decongestants and antibiotics.

Objective straight chiropractic does not get involved in the situation. Is that a cop-out? I would say that it is not. We are not taking responsibility for making those decisions. The individual who may or may not be past the point of limitations of matter is the person responsible for making that decision. It is unfortunate that they usually only get input from the physician who tends to see every situation as exceeding limitations of matter. That is why many traditional chiropractors get involved in those issues and on giving advice. However, because one unqualified person (the physician) is willing to give advice is no reason why another (the chiropractor) should be doing it as well. What we need to do is teach people about their body, about their innate intelligence and give them the knowledge to make intelligent decisions.

Thot

From the Mailbox

A young chiropractor recently wrote to me expressing his concern and displeasure over a Pivot article about the relationship between the objective straight chiropractor and what we would call the traditional chiropractor, the "chiropractic gets sick people well" type, those who usually identify themselves as being subluxation-based. He felt that, while we have some differences, we have much more in common than do the broad-scope practitioners and that we should be focusing on our areas of agreement rather than being divisive as he perceived my article to be.

I admit that sometimes my articles can be somewhat inflammatory, but then they are nothing compared to many written by B.J. when these traditional chiropractors use as a model. I guess it is only inflammatory if you do not agree with it. If the articles were written so as to be agreeable to all the readers, I personally feel that they would not be worth reading. They are designed to make you think. As for the content, it is true that the objective straight chiropractor and this traditional chiropractor have more in common than they do differences. Both acknowledge the philosophy of innate intelligence. Both see the vertebral subluxation as the area of expertise of the chiropractor. Both believe mixing medical practice and chiropractic practice is detrimental to chiropractors. These are three commonly held tenets. It would be fine if we left them at that. But all philosophers, as well as seekers of truth are obligated to search further, to dig deeper in order to find the truth. "For unto whomsoever much is given of him shall be much required" (Luke 12:48) I believe that principle holds true outside the theological realm. For example, we expect more from a teenager than we would from a five-year old. We, who have been given this innate philosophy, have a responsibility to understand it, clarify it, and apply it accurately in our practices. Slight differences can be fatal. The osteopathic profession once held to a vitalistic philosophy. It was slightly different than ours yet look where they are today.

In looking closer at both the differences between the objective straight chiropractor and the traditional straight chiropractor become evident. We both embrace an innate philosophy, but we have some differences as to how to describe innate intelligence, what its role in the body is and what its limitations are. Objective straight chiropractic do not think that innate intelligence is a being, or a spirit guide, and it does not usurp the role of the educated intelligence. Both groups focus on the vertebral subluxation. We have that in common. But we have differences in why we make it our area of expertise. The objective straight chiropractor does so because vertebral subluxations are, in and of themselves, a detriment to the well-being of the human organism. Nothing more, nothing less. The traditional chiropractor sees them as the cause of disease, as an interference to man being a perfect expression of God or as something else. Some think that as long as we are both correcting vertebral subluxation that it does not matter. Your intent and your objective always matters, that is why we call it "objective" straight chiropractic.

Both groups believe that mixing chiropractic and medicine is wrong, but we have differences as to what we consider mixing. The objective straight chiropractor sees making judgements about medical practice or procedures to be mixing. Presenting chiropractic as an alternative to medicine gives people the idea that the two have similar objectives. Similarity is mixing. Discussing disease or medical conditions in a chiropractic context is mixing. The traditional chiropractor thinks it is alright to discuss the "cause" of disease.

The conflicting ideas between the objective straight chiropractor and the traditional straight chiropractor are admittedly small, but they represent divergent paths and as you travel on divergent paths you become further and further separated and alienated. That is the reason why we have great extremes of thinking and practice in the chiropractic profession today, possibly more than any other profession or school of thought (with perhaps the exception of religion). It seems to me it is better to air our little differences, discuss what may seem to be minor conflicts and clarify this chiropractic philosophy than to wait, as we have done in the past, until we have even a greater disparity within our profession.

The ADIO Viewpoint of Life - Part I

Characteristics of an ADIO Philosophy

It is important to realize that everyone has a world and life viewpoint. Even the supposed absence of a viewpoint is a viewpoint. There is probably only two viewpoints what we in chiropractic world call the ADIO Viewpoint and the outside-in viewpoint. It often seems like people have more than two viewpoints. This is because people often combine aspects of the ADIO with the outside-in creating almost innumerable hybrids of a viewpoint of life. There combination are often caused by a lock rational and logical thinking. In other words people often think and act in a way that is inconsistent with their world and life viewpoint. They usually do so because of emotion, or habit, or tradition. In fact we all on occasions act in a manner inconsistent with our viewpoint regardless of what it might be. B.J. spoke often of this when be talked about clergyman who preached about God on Sunday but rejected the chiropractic philosophy.

There are a number of characteristics of an ADIO philosophy. This essay by no means covers them all. But it may be helpful to understand a few. The first, I would like to explain is the idea that There are absolutes in life. Often those that hold to an ADIO philosophy are accused of seeing everything in terms of black and white, right and wrong, good or bad. While that is not accurate, the fact is there are absolutes and we need to recognize these absolutes. The outside-in philosophy teaches that everything is relative. The situation ethics of Joseph Fletcher and other modern philosophers have convinced people that there are no absolutes. It is true that there are gray areas, issues that are relative but because of that we cannot conclude that there are no absolute issues. Everyone ultimately recognizes that something is wrong, somewhere a person steps over the line of right and wrong. But the outside-in philosophy says that point is different for everyone.

The second characteristic of the ADIO philosophy is that Nothing can occur without a cause and that it makes sense to address the cause whenever possible. The outside-in does not see a cause in the sense that we do or that addressing the cause is any more important than treating effects. To them the cause of the world and its inhabitants is random chance. The cause of disease is bad luck or being in the wrong place at the wrong time, so as to catch a germ or some such nonsense. The ADIO philosophy recognizes that there is a cause. However, we also recognize that at some point you must acknowledge a causeless cause or a First Cause. Logic would demand it. That leads to a third characteristic. The individual embracing an ADIO philosophy Understands and accepts that there is an authority greater than the educated mind of man.

In chiropractic we refer to that authority as a law, particularly the law of organization or universal intelligence and in the living organism, the law of life or innate intelligence. Just as the U.S. Constitution is the authority in this country, so are these laws the authority in the world. That is not to say there is not an authority in the world or a cause for these laws. But the recognition of, naming of, or worship of this cause, while part of an ADIO philosophy is outside the perameters of the chiropractor philosophy. We end with innate and universal intelligence. The outside-in philosophy considers the educated mind of man to be the ultimate authority in matters of life health and social conduct. There are other characteristics of the ADIO philosophy and as we get further into it in future essays, they will be explained.