Historically, straights did not see chiropractic as a cure-all, but rather for the correction of the cause of DIS-EASE. So when adjusted patients did not get better, they wrote it off to limitations of time and matter. The mixers, on the other hand, saw chiropractic as a cure for all disease. When it failed to accomplish that for the same reason, limitations of time and matter, they began to add ancillary procedures to chiropractic in the hope of keeping it as a cure-all.
Dr. Joe, based on my understanding it doesn’t seem as straightforward as that? Many of those who would consider themselves straight, used proper language etc, still we’re attempting to cure. Chalk it up to limitations maybe, use the correct terminology maybe, but their objective was still curing conditions. I still see it with many proclaimed straights relating chiropractic to conditions vs better expression of the innate intelligence of the body.
Is this a situation of defining terms? I think alot of straights are not as straight as they think?
It seems most, even many “straight” chiropractors still practice in a paradigm 2 model. Interestingly they often knock other chiropractors using alternate modes of “treatment” when they are still “treating” conditions through correcting subluxations.
Thanks for championing and helping us understand the paradigm 3 model of chiropractic!
Good observations Jamie. I think you hit the nail on the head. Reggie always said that more mixing is done by hand only than anything else. It is really straightforward if we define chiropractic by its objective. Some want to use anything and everything else but. That’s where our professional confusion occurs.
Thanks Joe. The first time I heard “objective” was when I read your blue books while still in school (CMCC nonetheless). Life was never the same. Chiropractic just made sense.
Happy New Year