National College (at the time National School of Chiropractic), was antagonistic to the Palmer School, BJ and the Palmer philosophy. Its Founder J.F.Allan Howard was the most articulate spokesperson for what he called “the rational point of view. His criticisms included:
1. Making a religion out of a simple technique or calling a simple technique a science.
2. Subluxation as the cause of all disease-one that believed that “subluxation is present in the majority of all dysfunctions of the body…”
3 Making the nerve system the cause. He saw blood, oxygen, poisons as equally causes of diseases.
The above do not seem like major conflicts (and for many they were not) but show how philosophical differences can become a great chasm which divided the profession. What significance do you see in these issues? Journal of Chiropractic Humanities Vol 8 No. 1
My records are in a file drawer at National. I practiced 3 miles from the campus for 40 years. Howard wanted to promote a different system of healthcare. The points you cite are the start of a school that now firmly and adamantly denies that subluxations exist. A school which has always embraced natural healing outside the scope of chiropractic. Massage and acupuncture and naturopathy are their main add-ons. They have used the status of chiropractic being licensed as a cloak for their ability to practice. Drs Janse and Faye were the architects of CCE. They were also main obstructers to Palmer grads getting licenses. And later minions of the college obstructed Life college and others from practice. It is unfortunate that they cannot break free of chiropractic because much of what they teach is beneficial just not chiropractic. Much of the division was the result of backlash from National trying to control and allow only their brand of practice.
Well, the assumptions you wrote are valid.
Subluxation is not the Cause of all diseases. Yet it is the cause of dis-ease, which philosophically is a precursor to malfunction and dis-ease.
Duplication is one of the causes of dis-ease. And after correction of the Sub-Luxation, the body returns to proper function and can heal itself.
Ah, here we come to the crux of the matter of understanding what Chiropractic should really be all about.
National has deviated from real Chiropractic to the point of being lost in the wilderness, probably forever. Yet they started with some valid insights.
The idea that subluxation causes or is involved with all disease or even just some diseases requires clarification.
Luxation means total dislocation of body tissues…Subluxation simply means dis relation of body tissue, less than a total dislocation.
When Chiropractors speak of “subluxation” they generally mean “vertebral subluxation” which is thought to cause interference with the proper or normal function of nerves passing through the intervertebral foramen resulting from vertebral impingement upon the nerve.
Most chiropractors get stuck in the idea and goal of giving “corrective adjustments” and either forget or ignore the purpose of chiropractic care.
The purpose of a chiropractic corrective “adjustment” is to reduce the “subluxation”.
The purpose of Chiropractic Care is however, the reduction of the problems caused by the interference to the function of the nerve resulting in neurological confusion. This condition, interference to the function of the nerve, should be the Chiropractors goal, since all aberrant body functions, including the “subluxation” itself are the result of nerve malfunction resulting in neurological confusion.
Neurological confusion is involved with all health malfunctions.
Not all neurolgical confusion is caused by vertebral subluxation.
Vertebral subluxation can be and is caused by neurological confusion traceable to other irritants.
This last statement does explain why vertebral subluxations will be found related to all body malfunctions.
You wrote “Not all neurological confusion is caused by vertebral subluxation”…Perhaps…But…
What if we just focused on informing, educating and correcting vertebral subluxations? Greater impact upon humanity. Do we need to add offering “fast food”?