….was how the Green Books described the concepts of diagnosis but only when it was believed that VS was the cause of all diseases. It did not matter at that time. It was moot. When it was acknowledged/established it was a differential (medical) diagnosis, it was no longer seen as a chiropractic concept but to determine which were medical and which were chiropractic. It worked for those who saw musculoskeletal conditions as chiropractic and others as medical. The one and only chiropractic “condition ” is one deductively determined by principle, a vertebral subluxation that interferes with the expression of the forces of the innate intelligence through the matter. That was “/corroboratedestablished” in the Louisiana England Case and settled the issue. TSC with its medical diagnosis, not addressing the OSC objective only, “but getting sick people well”, even (if only by correcting vertebral subluxations). It, although argued poorly by Dr. Janse. Unfortunately, was was understood and accepted by most chiropractors, the public and became medical/TSC…. mixing.
I remember Dr. David Koch from Life University giving a talk at the LCP course at Sherman a few years ago. He mentioned OUR “differential diagnosis of the vertebral subluxation.” He was really talking about listings and some vertebral conditions (such as spondylitis, retrolystesis, anterolystesis) and that we indeed were bounds to diagnose VS. Life University was seeking to reinstate it accreditation status with CCE then. There were about 30 participants and I remember that only Dr. Myron Brown and myself challenged him on this issue.
Does anyone know if that’s what is taught at Life?
That was taught at Life even beforen the. That’s what prompted the creation of tenr FSCO now IFCO in 1976.