When it comes to science and the subluxation, sometimes I think we straights want to straddle the fence, which tends to be a very uncomfortable position. That fact was brought home to me when a respected chiropractic columnist (respected means he has more than seven letters behind his name) challenged our model of the vertebral subluxation and its metaphysical component. The problem is that we want to tenaciously hold onto our metaphysical foundations, the idea of innate and universal intelligence, but we also want to play with the big boys in the scientific arena citing and doing research on the concept of nerve interference. We seem to be challenged, however, on the fourth component of the vertebral subluxation, the interference with the transmission of mental impulses between brain and body. Here is where our problem arises. We acknowledge that a metaphysical entity (for want of a better word) generates these mental impulses but then we want to place them in the physical realm. That is not so far fetched an idea and even has some basis to it. Nerve impulses are physical entities, just as much as electricity. But mental impulses and nerve impulses are not the same thing. Nerve impulses can be measured scientifically by certain types of instruments. B.J. desired to measure them and to demonstrate interference to them. That was the purpose of the electroencephaloneu- romentipograph. So what’s the problem? Why do doctors, like this neurology diplomate, want to belittle our model of the subluxation and its interference to mental impulses? Further, why are we so defensive and why do we constantly cite research to try to prove that vertebral subluxation does indeed interfere with the function of the nerve system and the expression of the innate intelligence of the body?
I think the latter supposition is the one that causes us the problem. There is no problem with acknowledging that a vertebral misalignment can interfere with the nerve system. Obviously, neurological instruments demonstrate lack of nerve energy so something must be interfering with it! The problem comes about when we contend that these subluxations occur on a fairly common basis and that they contribute to organic dysfunction in the body (at least we have backed off of the “cause of all disease” position).
But the real problem is that these subluxations are a physical interference to a metaphysical entity (the mental impulse) and that we insist on describing this entity in both physical and metaphysical terms. In the minds of the scientists we want to play in both games. We want the research, we want to claim physical interference to physical nerves by physical bones, but when push comes to shove, we fall back on this unseen immeasurable, non-physical entity, the mental impulse. Our opponents cry, “Hey, you can’t have it both ways. Either, you are a science and must prove what you do by the accepted (mechanistic) methods of science or else you are something else. In which case, own up to it.” You know what folks, they have a good point. Either we give up our metaphysical foundations, in which case we become a manipulative therapy, or we acknowledge that there are aspects of our practice that are not subject to scientific scrutiny. So what. So what if we cannot scientifically prove innate intelligence or interference to a mental impulse? Does that mean we do not deserve to exist? In a free society we have a right to practice our approach as long as it is not a danger to public safety, and that issue has been settled long ago. Do we have a right to federal, state and third party funds? Who says that science is the arbitrator of what or who should or should not have access to the public largesse? In a democratic society the will of the people should decide that. Even if every scientist in the world thinks there is no scientific basis for what we do, if the people want it, they should have it. (This is aside from the issue of whether being paid with tax dollars is in the best interest of the chiropractic profession, I think not, or in the best interest of the Republic again, I think not.) If the public wants chiropractic care paid for as much as they want medical care, they should have it regardless of whether one is totally scientific and the other is metaphysically based. (This is also apart from the issue of whether the chiropractic objective is amenable to third party pay.)
What’s the point of all this? I believe that in the coming months and years we are going to demonstrate that the service we provide is more in the metaphysical realm than we heretofore imagined or acknowledged. I believe that the mental impulse may be as much an elusive intangible as the innate intelligence of the body itself. If that is the case, we must be prepared to stick to our idea of what a mental impulse is and what we do despite not being able to empirically prove it, or we must change, abandon the metaphysical component of what we do and become another limited therapy. If we choose the former, we must be willing to accept the consequences which may include ostracism and derision. I am not sure most of our profession is willing to accept that. V19n4