There is a fine but distinct line between adjusting someone for vertebral subluxations who, coincidentally has a medical condition and adjusting someone for a medical condition who coincidentally has a vertebral subluxation. I am not sure that as chiropractors many of us are:
1. Fully cognizant of that fine line.
2. Not concerned about whether there is a relationship, realizing that whether there is or is not, as Dr. Bill Decken says, they are better off with a good nerve supply (having the fullest expression of the forces of the innate intelligence of their body).
3. In agreement that whether that relationship (if it exists) it is not a professional concern of ours.
4. Making that coincidental relationship or lack thereof understood by the people who come in our office and the general public.
5. Aware of the detrimental effects of not making that fine line clear to both the public and to the future of the chiropractic profession.
6. Continually working to clarify those lines and not obfuscate them realizing that everything we do or say has one effect or the other.
That is a good commentary of B.J.’s quote: “We never know how far reaching some thing we may think (or not think), say (or not say), or do (or not do) today, will affect the lives of millions tomorrow.”
Good food for thought. I especially liked the part:
distinct line between adjusting someone for vertebral subluxations who, coincidentally has a medical condition and adjusting someone for a medical condition who coincidentally has a vertebral subluxation.
I wonder if #2 and 4 would change if among the profession we had a consensus around objective measures for the presence of vertebral subluxation.
IMO, for some people, this would be the only way to show a lack of relationship between medical conditions and vs presence.
What do you think?
Don, I’m not sure we could get a consensus among chiropractors about anything! What would you say is or could be the “objective measures for the presence of vertebral subluxation?” Unfortunately it seems to me that the most common way (hardly objective) is evidence of the alleviation of a medical condition which has the opposite effect, that of showing an ” apparent relationship between medical conditions and vs presence.” This only serves to reinforce the misunderstanding of #4 and undermines #5.
Don,
Keep telling the story over and over and over and over again in as many creative ways as doable to everyone, including chiropractors, the way we do it on this blog… and the rest will follow. 😉
… and remember that to be creative is to CREATE a NEW possibility for another… that resonates with the other person, in such a way as WHO they choose to BE, at that moment, is to MOVE from point A to point B, and are INSPIRED by that possibility. 😉
Joe (Dr. Strauss) and Dr. Lessard,
I guess, consensus may not be what we are looking for.
I am not sure. I will try to clarify below.
It does seem to me also that the most common evidence of objective measures is the association between vs and a disease condition. I hope here we can find another way that is acceptable to you and I.
You asked, what would you say is or could be the “objective measures for the presence of vertebral subluxation?
I have a theory but before we look at mine, with your permission, I’d like to ask a clarifying question first:
Are there any objective measures that are valid from an OSC perspective or is it that any objective measure runs counter to the OSC perspective? Please share your thoughts freely. 🙂
I think when after I look at the answer to this question closer, then we can look at examples (which we all know I like 🙂 ).
Thanks.
…and DISCOVER something NEW together. 😉
Don, I guess I could say “I asked you first”:) But I am willing to answer if you can tell me what you mean by “objective measures for the presence of vertebral subluxations” (your term Submitted on 2014/11/01 at 2:18 am). Is a deduction based upon a principle considered an “objective measure”.
Joe, Yes I agree you did ask me first. Sorry about that. 🙂
You asked if a deduction based upon a principle could be considered an “objective measure”. I honestly don\t know the answer to that but would REALLY be interested in finding out.
I guess we could ask if deduction from a principle can satisfy the definition first.
Measure – a standard unit used to express the size, amount, or degree of something.
Objective – not influenced by personal feelings or opinions in considering and representing facts.
Let me know what you think.
Thanks Joe!
To clarify, here is my thinking about objective measures for the presence of vs.
There are a variety of measures that chiropractors used and have used in the past to locate vs. Leg length analysis, thermography, radiographs and muscle palpation come to mind. There are many others, I am sure.
The term LIFE-O-Meter was toyed with awhile back and I wanted to ask.
I am using an example related to muscle palpation because it is simpler for me to understand but Imagine for a minute that we could measure the degree of tone or the degree of “working-ness” of the intrinsic muscles of the spine individually or in pairs as they relate to the vertemere. If there was a device that could measure the body, particularly these small intrinsic muscles of the spine, would this be an acceptable objective measure of the presence of a vs?
Why or why not?
Thanks for your thoughts.
As for my example….I just typed a long response and went to hit send only to see it vanish. Argh!
I’ll paraphrase.
My example of an objective measure MAY include a device or measure (probably not yet possible) of the degree of tone or “working-ness” of the intrinsic muscles of the back.
The reason I say this is that, the muscle palpation method seems most in line with the OSC perspective IMO.
Taking this a step further, I could see that if there was a method of quantifying the measure of the “working” muscle that the practitioner feels with his her fingertips to determine the line of drive then we may have the beginning of an objective measure suitable for the OSCor to use ..(possibly….).
What are your thoughts. If the technology was available to assess the intrinsic muscles of each vertemere in this manner, would this be acceptable. Why or why not?
Thanks.
Joe in case you missed my answer please see above. Also, what are your thoughts. If the technology was available to assess the intrinsic muscles of each vertemere in this manner, would this be acceptable. Why or why not?
Thanks.
Don, allow me to try to bring focus/clarity to this discussion so we can all eventually (after more good discussion and this is good discussion) come to a conclusion , “without condemnation” as Claude would say.
1. In the medical world (at east in 1964) an objective finding was a “sign” as opposed to a subjective finding, a “symptom”. Agreed?
2. In chiropractic philosophy, an “objective finding” would be a principle or the deduction from a principle, what Claude calls part of the basic science of chiropractic; “There is a universal intelligence in all matter…” as opposed to an opinion or theory which would be subjective. Agreed?
3. In medical art taking a blood pressure would be a sign (objective). However as Reggie use to joke, “if you want to lower your blood pressure find yourself a doctor with poor hearing!” So from the standpoint of the physician, it is subjective. Everyone should get the same finding in any given patient. However because the body is not static and observer reliability is an issue, it does not necessarily occur.
4. In chiropractic art is, for example, the use of muscle palpation, “working muscles” (eg. Nick Spano’s AMP). Is that objective under definition #1 or subjective under definition #2?
5. Would the use of a hand held, heat reading instrument, like the DTG that BJ helped to develop be considered objective or subjective and any more reliable than AMP? Is that what you are asking? Have you already concluded that:
A technological instrument (like the DTG) is “objective” and hence more valid than the “subjective findings” of say muscle palpation and we should develop one for the analysis of each “intrinsic muscle vertemere”? Are you suggesting we should develop an instrument that tells us what the two greatest technological instruments ever designed, the hands and the rational educated brain of man (designed by God who is infinitely smarter than BJ and Dossa Evans put together) cannot tell us. Keep in mind that the DTG is based upon theory and/or opinion at best and AMP is based upon deduction from a number of the 33 basic science principles (#1,#17,#20,#21,#23,#24,#25,#27 thru #32).
Joe,
You asked a series if great questions and I’ll try my best to provide my opinion all.
You asked…
1. In the medical world (at east in 1964) an objective finding was a “sign” as opposed to a subjective finding, a “symptom”. Agreed?
I don’t now about the medical world but based on my understanding of the terms, yes, I agree this distinction between sign and symptom; objective and subjective.
2. In chiropractic philosophy, an “objective finding” would be a principle or the deduction from a principle, what Claude calls part of the basic science of chiropractic; “There is a universal intelligence in all matter…” as opposed to an opinion or theory which would be subjective. Agreed?
I have to be honest here in that I often find this part confusing. Are we still using the definition ps stated in #1 above or different one? How are we defining “objective” and “subjective” DIFFERENTLY here?
3. In medical art taking a blood pressure would be a sign (objective). However as Reggie use to joke, “if you want to lower your blood pressure find yourself a doctor with poor hearing!” So from the standpoint of the physician, it is subjective. Everyone should get the same finding in any given patient. However because the body is not static and observer reliability is an issue, it does not necessarily occur.
I believe Reggie’s example is a great one in some instances.
Question: If reliability is an issue and good reliability does not necessarily occur, how does It fair relative to other measures? In other words, for discussion purposes, can you name one analysis, test or sign in chiropractic that has reliability?
4. In chiropractic art is, for example, the use of muscle palpation, “working muscles” (eg. Nick Spano’s AMP). Is that objective under definition #1 or subjective under definition #2?
This is the question that I was hoping to get an answer to. I don’t know the answer myself. I would think that the neurophysiology as explained in Dr. Spano’s manual could put it squarely in the testable ( definition number 1) but that is yet to be concluded from our discussion here.
5. Would the use of a hand held, heat reading instrument, like the DTG that BJ helped to develop be considered objective or subjective and any more reliable than AMP? Is that what you are asking?
I imagine that the DTG is not comparable to the AMP method of analysis. Let us instead imagine a DTG-like instrument that instead measures the degree or factor of “working” in a Vertemere. Would this be acceptable to use in an NTOSC/OC office? Why or why not?
Have you already concluded that:
A technological instrument (like the DTG) is “objective” and hence more valid than the “subjective findings” of say muscle palpation and we should develop one for the analysis of each “intrinsic muscle vertemere”? Are you suggesting we should develop an instrument that tells us what the two greatest technological instruments ever designed, the hands and the rational educated brain of man (designed by God who is infinitely smarter than BJ and Dossa Evans put together) cannot tell us. Keep in mind that the DTG is based upon theory and/or opinion at best and AMP is based upon deduction from a number of the 33 basic science principles (#1,#17,#20,#21,#23,#24,#25,#27 thru #32).
Actually, I have yet to make my conclusions on this topic. I certainly have a theory in mind that I am working on and like other theories I had, I question it and see the theory holds true under more careful inspection.
I guess you can say I am testing one of my hypotheses at this point. 😉
Thanks for helping me Joe!
Do you think it is possible for the public to disassociate the term DR from the concept of conditions?
In my extended family there are eleven doctors; 1 Litt.D (hon.), 3 ThD’s, 1 PhD, 5 D.C.s, and 1 M.D. (no dentists, optometrists, or osteopaths) It’s only possible if we explain it to them.