Medicine maintains that a disease does not exist until
and unless it is diagnosed in the patient. Similarly they
conclude that no one died of smoking-related diseases until
the Surgeon General’s Report. In fact, cigarettes were not
dangerous until then. Further, they claim that no one died
of diet-related diseases until they established
scientifically the relationship between diet and illness. No
one dies from prescription drugs until they clearly, through
scientific methodology, establish that a particular drug is
harmful. Even the strongest critics of medical practice
would probably disagree with the above statements. Yet, it
is the only conclusion that can be drawn unless one would
want to suppose that organized medicine has an incredible
callousness toward human life. How could one disregard
obvious common-sense thinking until it is scientifically
proven. Less than a generation ago the medical profession
scoffed at the idea that what an individual ate had anything
to do with cancer and heart disease. Since then they have
done scientific studies and proven that there is a
relationship. How many thousands of unnecessary deaths
occurred because it had not been proven, despite the logic
that says that what you put into your body contributes to its
level of health. A small child has enough reasoning capacity
to recognize that breathing cigarette smoke into one’s lungs
is not conducive to health.
But before we become too critical of medicine, let us
look at our own profession. Many in our profession say we
cannot make claims for chiropractic as a cure for various
conditions until we prove it scientifically. We are barely
just proving that chiropractic is an effective treatment for
bad backs. While that may be true, it misses the common
sense point and perhaps condemns thousands or even millions
of people to less than a healthy life and a premature death.
Chiropractic is not a cure or treatment for ear problems in
children. One side says it is, the other side (medically
oriented) says it’s not been proven and antibiotics have been
scientifically shown to be effective. A third group says
that common sense dictates that a child with ear infections
needs a good nerve supply. If the innate intelligence of the
child’s body is expressing itself a little more fully over
the nervous system, the body may be better able to handle the
infection and the incidence may even be decreased. That’s
common sense. It may not be a radical enough approach for
the “cure claimers.” It may not meet the medical, scientific
criteria of the “treatment provers.” But it is the only
approach that we can take without making unsubstantiated
claims or allowing unnecessary suffering. But we must be
clear to the public, the medical community and the rest of
the profession concerning what we do.
1. We enable the innate intelligence of the body
to better express itself by removing interference
in the nervous system at the vertebral level.
2. We do this in sick people, healthy people,
symptomatic people, asymptomatic people, people of
all ages.
3. We do this because common sense dictates it and
conscience prevents us from doing anything less. v11n2
