A CCE/”straight” chiropractic college announced it was doing research on herbal products destined for the chiropractic industry. The college’s president emphasized that the school’s position was that “herbs should not be dispersed by chiropractors as an alternate route for prescribing drugs” (ICA Review May/June 1991). I imagine the good doctor is saying that the herbs should not be used for the treatment of disease. What other reason would there be to use them as chiropractors, and if we don’t use them why research them? The conclusion is that it is acceptable to use them and give them for health/nutrition purposes but not for disease treatment purposes. The implication is that there is a difference between dispensing a vitamin/herb for the treatment of a disease and for nutrition purposes. But is there really? In both cases the doctor has determined there is an abnormal situation, in one case for an identified medical entity, in the latter because of a lack of some biological substance. (You surely would not prescribe a vitamin or herb for a patient if they did not need it. That would be dangerous and dishonest). In both cases the doctor determines how much is needed to either effectively treat the disease or fill the nutritional void. Both situations, however, are inconsistent with the chiropractic philosophy for the same reason. What difference does it make whether you have given it a name or not by virtue of a diagnosis? You have still established educatedly that there is something wrong with the person and that you know educatedly which substance, in what amounts, and how often the substance should be given. It does not matter whether you are prescribing to solve the problem of a named disease or for nutrition purposes. It is acceptable to say people need vitamin C. That fact has pretty well been established empirically. But the moment you say how much a person needs, whether for the treatment of scurvy or just “to stay healthy,” you are making a determination inconsistent with chiropractic philosophy. v8n1