…but it seems to me that more upper cervical chiropractors are into treating medical conditions or their cause than are into correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed. The percentage is probably no different than other “straight” chiropractors but because they purport to practice the purest form of chiropractic, refined by no less than BJ himself, we somehow expect their philosophy would be straighter than most. Don’t get me wrong, many that I know are some of the straightest and most philosophcally sound chiropractors in the world and rarely do they end up adding modalities (mixing) as do many full-spine practitioners. But on the whole it seems to me that upper cervical chiropractors have a preoccupation with “getting results”, getting sick people well and discussing those results. Is that because they have a desire to prove that upper cervical technique is truly an HIO (whole in one), because they are stuck in a 1920’s traditional view of chiropractic or because they think that is what BJ was doing? How many upper cervical DC’s have lifetime, maintenance, family practices? Do some of you full-spine people have that same impression? I really would like to see some of the HIO practitioners weigh in on this issue. Perhaps I am totally off base (I have been before and there is never a shortage of people anxious to tell me). I sure don’t want to start a technique war on this thread nor do I want to bash upper cervical or any technique for that matter. It’s not really about technique, it’s about objective. I hope at this point we are mature enough in the non-therapeutic chiropractic community that we can have a meaningful discussion. Let’s hear from more of you!
Joe, you are SO right as I have had several interactions with pure upper cervical practitioners who had NO clue about expression of life. One particular case was about a year ago when i received a call from an upper cervical chiropractor looking to refer me his patient with medically diagnosed ms. The chiropractor was ‘treating’ FOR ms so I said in essence, you mean ‘WITH’ ms. “No” he complained back. I then inquired, that if you cleared the upper cervical subluxation and the ‘ms’ remained, would you then consider resubluxating the vertebrae or would you agree the person is still better off without the subluxation than with? His reply was that either the subluxation was NOT corrected or you then had to go into other procedures to treat the ms. I then asked if his objective was to correct the subluxation or to address the medical condition diagnosed as ms? With that he got angry with me and said I am NOT the chiropractor for his patient and abruptly hung up.
Joe, I did find it somewhat ironic that there was a study done by NUCCA docs with MDs showing the effect of upper cervical adjustments on elevated blood pressure. I was also dissappointed that the study purports that only upper cervical adjustments are the correct “treatment”. There is no doubt in my mind there are things beyond the scope of non-therapeutic chiropractic. And that those things are useful – they just are not chiropractic….
As to therapuetics I witnessed one of my ‘straightest’ firends move to a state where he felt he needed modalities to treat the effect of the low fees for adjustments, ie his bottome line. I hope some HIO weigh in on this.
Imagination or not, Joseph, the FACT is that people who aim to “treat”, get sick people well, or measure Chiropractic success by symptomatic change are mixing Medicine ( by definition) into Chiropractic. Straight Chiropractors correct VS soley because VS is detramental to Life. Techniques mean absolutly nothing when discussing Straight and Mixed Chiropractic. Such a pity and detrimental to the growth of TIC that some feel the need to camp at the grave of B.J. who defined Straight and Mixed by methods.
the feeling I have is that it’s not just your imagination.
I practiced NUCCA exclusively for 2 years after graduating from Life. In my opinion, the UC chiropractic view is traditional straight, Chiropractic gets sick people well, mindset. It’s also very “my technique is better than yours” mentality. The way that they “prove” their technique is better is through “results” (symptomatic results). There was very little talk of correcting subluxation for a better expression of ii. All research was geared towards symptomatic relief. I realize that a traditional straight view with a “superiority complex” that only UC could correct THE CAUSE OF ALL DIS-EASE led me down a path of not only mixing medicine(treating symptoms), but also mixing methods. If the UC adjustment didn’t cure someone, there must be something I did wrong, or there is something else needed for that patient and I should be the one to do it, with a natural, wholistic approach. Needless to say, I had a pain based practice with very few coming on a regular schedule for anything, let alone maintenance. People called when they were hurting.
I’ve only recently found OSC and started enjoying true non-therapeutic chiropractic. I still slip back into my treating ways, but am quicker at catching and correcting my mindset and talk.
Ironically, it was UC’s inability to get all sick people well that led me to OSC and full spine adjusting.
Thank you, Joe, for providing a forum for these types of discussions.
Have been in the NUCCA realm for 16 years and not once did I ever subscribe to the belief that we judge our success by symptomatic relief. I feel you are totally off base with this comment. Yet who among us chiropractors does not rejoice when the lame walk and the blind see?
NUCCA protocol is set up to achieve correction of a subluxated spine as it presents at the OCC C1 C2 joints. Success is based on the proof that the subluxated condition of the spine has been corrected. Of course they’re going to get better when that happens…
Dr. Stockwell, thank you for your comment. I’m glad to finally see a defense of UC technique. I knew there must be one of you out there. I would encourage you to have your friends also post I have just two questions at this time:
1. What is your “proof that the subluxated condition of the spine has been corrected.”?
2. What do you do if and when the “lame” don’t walk, the “blind” don’t see, or the heaches and low back pain don’t improve?
Judging from the previous comments on this post, I’m sure others will be asking you questions.
1. Supine Leg Check. Post X-Ray showing beneficial biomechanical changes. Postural Findings on the Anatometer. 5 Insight Sub-Station Technologies(Thermography, Algometer, Pulse Wave Profiler, ROM, and Static EMG)
2. I explain that there is something else contributing to their current state. The patients understand that my job was completed because I explain from the beginning that it is my responsibility to get the nerve system functioning the best that it can. When the checks listed above improve, symptoms improve. They go hand in hand… There are very few that do not get what they’re looking for symptom-wise.
Joshua,
Vertebral subluxations are caused by concussions of forces. It is NOT necessary that concussions of forces occur DIRECTLY at the site of the subluxation. A person might twist her ankle, fall down the stairs, fall off a ladder, open the window of his house, plainly sit on the sofa or a friend might pat him on the back… any of which could be the distant or remote portal of entry of a concussion of force and produce a vertebral subluxation. Force may enter anyplace in a human body, travel from the point of entrance to a place of least resistance in any vertebra of the spine. An external force might have entrance at the pelvis, produce sacral subluxation (BP) or travel upwards and produce an axis subluxation (ESR). External invasive concussions of forces can ENTER the body any place and travel to a place where they can overcome the existing internal resistive force causing a vertebral subluxation.
Would it be possible therefore, that an educated force introduced in the vertebra that is subluxated according to the analysis of the chiropractor, could also travel up and down the spine and would be utilized by the innate intelligence of body to ADJUST all the vertebral subluxations? If so would the 0.000000000000000001 part of WHO is introducing the specific force into the spine be adequate to do accomplish the WHAT of our objective?
Sounds good to me!
Here is a direct quote from a paper titled: A Brief History of the Modus Operandi of Measuring and Correcting The Atlas Subluxation Complex Syndrome and The Role of Posture in The National Upper Cervical Chiropractic Association (NUCCA) Standard of Care
“Measurement of the success of intervention is evidenced by postural changes, by changes between pre and post X-ray measurements, and by an improvement in medically diagnosed health problems and associated signs and symptoms.”
I include this quote to show that I was not “totally off base” with the comment that NUCCA seemed to base success on symptomatic improvement. I didn’t mean to imply that was the only way success was measured. However, it appeared to me that it certainly was always a part of measurement of success.
You’re right, Matt. I should have said, “grossly off base”
Here’s your quote, “The way that they “prove” their technique is better is through “results” (symptomatic results).”
You left two thirds of the proof out.
The way you put it makes It sound like it was your personal experience of being an elitist, not an accurate description of the organization as a whole.
– Josh
Joshua,
You are absolutely right. The way I stated it did sound like my personal experience of being an elitist. I apologize to the NUCCA organization, because that is not what the organization is as a whole. However, I did get that impression from a few that I met. When I would talk to them about why NUCCA was a better technique it would always revolve around better post x-rays, better posture correction, and better symptomatic results.
I was off base in my comment only including symptoms as “results”. I should have included all three. But, it did seem to me that most everyone I met loved to talk about getting sick people well and adjusting the cause of health problems. I don’t know if that is only for NUCCA, or all UC, or chiropractors in general.
With using the three criteria in my previous post it still answers Dr. Strauss’ statement of “more upper cervical chiropractors are into treating medical conditions or their cause than are into correcting vertebral subluxation to enable the ii of the body to be more fully expressed.”
I do apologize for not completely stating the full story and will certainly do better to give the full picture next time. I do appreciate your feedback and hope to have further conversations in the future.
In reality, ‘traditional straight’ is actually, CONSERVATIVE mixing; using one method to get ‘sick people well.’ It does NOT hold up to scrutiny and truly is what has been called over the years; “horse and buggy” chiropractic for it is just that. Should your outcome-assessment be determined by the symptomatic change, why limit your METHOD to only adjustments of vertebral subluxation? On the other hand, OSC understands our METHOD to be the Spinal ADJUSTMENT and the OBJECTIVE is the correction of Vertebral SUBLUXATION.
PERIOD.
Oh boy Upper Cervical Chiropractic…
Where Do I begin? Not only is upper cervical chiropractic therapeutic, it is incredibly divisive since many of them hold full spiners in contempt since “C3 is an extremity” and, “They have all slipped.”
I got my start with a certain flavor of Upper Cervical Chiropractic based out of SC. This one’s leader proclaimed that they and they only were doing B.J.’s work from the B.J. Palmer Research Clinic (1935-51) where ONLY this technique was used to get the worst of the worst cases well.(sounds strangely therapeutic so far…) I was told that the failed cases from all of the mixer’s (anyone not doing this technique) offices were sent to this clinic and people got well from all sorts of diseases which PROVES that they were the only ones getting results since ALL other chiropractors were just temporarily stimulating or inhibiting by pounding high spots. This group even resisted the adoption of the Tytron since BJ used Thermocouples and we were shown an out of context quote from a green book where BJ made a derogatory comment about infrared (of course BJ was referring to the use of infrared as a physical therapy modality and couldn’t possibly be referring to the Tytron since it hadn’t been invented yet, but never mind that!) Many have moved on from this hardline approach if for no other reason than those old Thermoscribes were starting to get really old, parts and service were almost non-existent, and the blinky lights on the computer screen were much more impressive to patients than having the old “toaster” sitting on a table. “If you are not using an instrument, then how do you know that you are correcting the subluxation?” “BJ already PROVED that ‘the graph’ was the only way to document subluxation, and this technique is the only way to remove it!”
As I moved through upper cervical techniques, I finally arrived at the “grand finale” upper cervical technique: NUCCA. This one was sure to be the ULTIMATE chiropractic technique since at the meetings they told us that this is the ONLY technique that corrects the WHOLE spine at once! “Everyone else is just segmental, bouncing the spine around” “We have patients ‘hold’ their adjustments for 9 months or longer!” This was impressive to me since I get checked and adjusted more often than that so that must mean that my technique isn’t as good.
If you really get down to philosophy with hard line upper cervical D.C.’s, they would eventually get cornered and finally say, “Of course it is all about correcting subluxation to allow for a better expression of ii, but C3 is an extremity, the upper cervical is the only REAL subluxation, and since UC DC’s are the ONLY ones that get these results, that PROVES that nobody else is doing anything (correcting subluxation). I know an upper cervical DC that claims that cancer and other terminal patients are regularly sent to him to get results. Of course, he has never documented any of this and I have never actually met one of these people. I don’t communicate with this individual much anymore since ever conversation eventually led to him telling me, “It’s too bad you are not doing ‘The Work’ man.” As if I am some sort of second class citizen for not doing UC!
It took me YEARS to shed this nonsense and I hate to admit it, but is sometimes haunts me still! The worst thing I did was purchase an instrument to see if my full spine technique would clear it. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. Where does this leave me? Was BJ wrong about this or are us full spiners not correcting subluxations since we are not clearing graphs? The most difficult thing to do is to sift through all of the exaggerations, “seminar stories”, and outright lies to find the truth.
I will end with a positive note about UC. One of the good things is that since they believe that the atlas is the only subluxation, and since they believe that it is the cause of all dis(-)ease, they put an incredible amount of dedication to becoming really good at what they do. Of course you can say, “Innate does 99.99999% and we only do .000001%”, but that can be misinterpreted as kind of a cop out. BJ said you can hit them in the rear end with a shovel and 80% would get well. But that is not an excuse to get sloppy with technique and, “Just let innate do it.” I like when I see chiropractors interested in chiropractic. At my school, my classmates seemed to be interested in everything EXCEPT chiropractic. I practice in an area where National is the dominant influence, so, as you can imagine, this has continued into practice even with DC’s who claim to be “principled”, interestingly enough.
UC, by it’s very nature, IS a declaration of a technique war since it defines itself as, “This is the only one that matters and conversely, “Everyone else is wrong.” They would CLAIM they are non-therapeutic since they only adjust when there is a subluxation (not for other reasons like symptoms or disease or other “effects” like all other “mixers” do), but you are correct that it does seem that they very often use the miracle case of medical cure to define them. I am almost tempted to share this thread with some of my UC friends to hear what they have to say.
BTW, who the heck ever opened the door to allow mixers to call themselves Traditional “Straights”…..hummmmm ,Joe Strauss?????
Guilty as charged, Joe. I made up that term because I was afraid to say you were a mixer when you began your practice….or that I was, or Reggie or even BJ.
B.J. opened that door without knowing he was doing it…. It comes with the territory…. Very much like the rest of us Joe D. Anyone going in deep waters will see reality for what it is. It’s up to us to integrate it within ourselves. Not a small task. Thank YOU for going DEEP Joe D.
I have followed the non-therapeutic chiro scene for some time and have stayed very quiet about it as far a dialogue on-line but this post got me really thinking that it was time to share my thots.
Let me give you a bit of my history. I graduated in February 2004, a newbie by many peoples standards. I had my own practice in Cedar Rapids, IA for the first two years out of school and practiced primarily Palmer Upper Cervical Specific with a Toggle table and Tytron for pattern analysis. I also did some Logan Basic and drop pelvic work with the rare thoracic adjustment. The last six months of that two year stretch I practiced solely Upper Cervical because it seemed to create the longest lasting correction of the subluxation. I was very much an educator my entire two years in that office and used many of the FACE materials, Thanks Joe, as they were the only one I could find that conveyed the actual chiropractic objective. It was fun and I even spent a brief time doing the box on the wall practice. (The happiest I was in practice by the way) That practice went through many incarnations in a short two years. From office procedures, finances, adjusting technique and so on. The one thing that remained constant was the education and share that chiropractic was about potential, that is was about helping them to realize that innate is in them, that I was there to aid in the removal of an obstacle to the free expression of ii inside them. That any healing that took place was due to their educated and innate working together. (usually their educated getting out of the way and not interfering.) I was not good at marketing pure chiropractic (which I think is a better term than straight) so I had to close my doors in April 2006. With a wife and 3 small children and one on the way at that time I went to work for a chiro in a nearby town who did activator. I lasted there 6 months as it was very symptom oriented and very insurance oriented. (do even get me started on insurance and Chiropractic) There was no other chiropractic options in the area at the time. So I had do decide if I was going to move my young family away to another state to pursue chiropractic or stay in our hometown (my wife and I are both from the Cedar Rapids, IA area) for my family. I chose to remain in the area and find a non chiropractic job to support my family that was around thanksgiving of 2006. I was very depressed during the next four months and really hated my job. In the spring of 2007 I was able to leave that job for another non chiropractic job that was far better and stayed in until May 2009. In May of 2009 I began working at a Chiropractic office again. This office did zero insurance which was a plus as I had zero desire to practice in an insurance practice. They made care affordable, $20 per visit, and they made it convenient, walk-in no appointments. It is a full spine office which is fine in my opinion but most of the patient base uses it only when they are hurting and the owners do not want a lot of education on chiropractic and regular lifetime care. So, I try here and there to plant seeds in the patients about the idea. Say things and ask questions to get them thinking and, in our open environment, give them the chance to make to the choice for themselves to come in regularly and get checked.
All this while I have seen, and continue to see, a handful of patients from my original office for upper cervical care out of my home, on a box on the wall basis as far as payment.
I also wrote a book and published it in July of this year called Sickness 2 Health: From the Inside Out. Curious to see what you think about the chapter on chiropractic. If anyone reading would like a free digital copy I would be happy to send it to you via e-mail, drtravisrobertson@gmail.com, so that you can share your thoughts on it.
Anyway, sorry about the long intro but I wanted you to know where I was coming from. As far as upper cervical care and symptoms, I agree there are probably just as many by percentage that talk symptoms as there is in general full spine adjusting chiropractors. There are a few characteristics about upper cervical care that make it easier to convey the message of non-therapeutic chiropractic:
Number One: They work on one area of the spine so if some one thinks that they are going to treat their low back pain it is easier to say that you are not treating pain but instead removing an interference to the expression of ii. I feel this would be easier for the patient to understand than if they were told the same but then you proceeded to adjust a subluxation in the lowback. This could easily confuse the patient. This is also true for upper cervical though if the person had headaches or neck pain.
Number Two: They can work with the term upper cervical care and the fact that its approach is different in many ways to typical chiropractic adjusting and should they chose they would have no negative name equity like chiropractic has. People seem to have their opinions set on what chiropractic is, sore backs and stiff necks. The more I see and interact with chiropractors the more I see that they are perpetuating this mindset. I know that this was tried with Spinology so it may not work for upper cervcial care to do it but with its unique apporach from a techinical perspective it might have abetter chance.
Number Three: If we define what we do by our objective than we have to have objective ways to measure what we do before and after to determine if we accomplished our objective. For sure we cannot measure Innate expression directly. So that being the case we have to look at physiology and anatomy for indicators of innate expression and to best of our educated ability select those that seem to indicate a more free expression of innate. We really only are guessing but we should always be looking and searching for ways to do this. I think that was what BJ strived for. Upper Cervical being what he left us perhaps the objective measures developed and developing under the upper cervical umbrella help us measure such as objectively as possible at this point in time. So within upper cervical care we have objective tests that fit very nicely into a non-therapeutic model of chiropractic.
As far as getting sick people well, I think chiropractic does this but not in the way that the average person thinks. Sick is the opposite of health and the definition of health is optimum function and therefore sickness or disease is less the optimum function. Of course people are not healthy or sick but exist on a sliding scale moving toward one or the other. A subluxation interferes with the expression of innate and therefore the bodies functions on some level. So on some level they are sick. And when adjusted and innate is in full contact once again they are more health on the same level. So I agree with BJ Palmer on this but I would not convey this to the average patient because they would think that we get SICK people WELL. Since many chiropractors do not get this patients/practice members may not understand it either so while true should not share do the high probability of confusion that it would create.
One other thot on my mind is that I do not think that innate is perfect since an effort could certainly be 100% of the potential but still be far from perfect. I simply feel that innate is intelligent as its name denotes. It is innate intelligence after all not innate perfection. I am not trying to take anything away from innate because it is most certainly far beyond our educated without a doubt. I just wanted to put the terminology more proper frame of reference.
I also maintain a blog, called “The Upper Cervical Blog”, discussing many things upper cervical chiropractic related. I do sometimes share things I find that are symptom oriented not because it should be an expected outcome or result or that it is a treatment for any condition because it is most certainly not. I share it only because I want the average person to be open to what is possible when we allow innate to work free of interference. Every time I share something of this nature I make that very clear to the reader.
Your thots on my thots?
Travis,
Thank you for sharing. I do appreciate your opinion regarding upper cervical work. I myself was trained with the Blair analysis and I understand the benefits and the limitation of such workas well as full spine work.
We are dealing with matter which is ALWAYS less than 100%. It is what makes the triune of life imperfect in people. We must come to grip with that reality and deal with the truth of it without losing our vision. To practice chiropractic by objective means that we LACVS for a full expression of innate intelligence which is ALWAYS 100% (pri.22) whose function is to create force (pri.8), the amount of which is ALWAYS 100% (pri.9). If we follow logically these principles, we can use deductive reasoning by stating that since innate intelligence is ALWAYS 100% and creates 100% forces ALWAYS, that innate intelligence is perfect. !00% means perfect! It behooves us to use caution when we attribute the word effort to innate intelligence. Effort which refers to exertion is NOT an attribute of LAW.
The LAW of gravity does NOT exert effort. Matter does! It is matter that will have to exert power to deal with gravity. The LAW is WHAT it is. WHO is dealing with it is exerting effort (like mountain climbing, doing sit ups or just getting out of bed in the morning).
The LAW of organization (innate intelligence) does not exert effort. Matter does! It is matter that will have to exert MOTION in order to deal with innate intelligence (to function in organized matter). The LAW is WHAT it is. WHO is dealing with that LAW is exerting effort (like cellular reproduction, assimilation, excretion and even breathing). It’s in the matter where the interference is located. Between brain cell and tissue cell because matter is ALWAYS imperfect. It is the transmission of the mental impulses in matter (nerves) which can be interfered with which alters the character of FORCE which is the CAUSE of dis-ease.
As long as our objective is that we LACVS for a full expression of the innate intelligence of the body, WHO uses WHAT technique will determine HOW best the chiropractic objective is accomplished.
Thanks for your comments Claude. Please excuse any grammatical errors in my previous comment as I was writing my thots quickly and did not proof them.
I agree that who using what technique will determine how best the chiropractic objective is accomplished. With my upper cervical patients I always use three checks to give me a more certain indication of interference to innate expression. I guess I just see that having fewer indicators increases the odds that the indicator does not represent what we think it does (ie. interference). With my UC patients I always error on the side of not adjusting if I am unsure. Maybe that is why Upper Cervical appeals to me and perhaps that is the best (what technique) for who I am to accomplish the chiropractic objective.
Travis,
As clarification, it is important to realize that the interference is NOT to “innate expression”. The interference is to the matter causing it to further limit its already limited state. There can be interference with the TRANSMISSION of innate forces (which are ALWAYS in matter… the changing character of the mental impulse due to interference to its transmission involving the nerve system between brain cell and tissue cell) (pri..29). As chiropractors, we deal with FORCE, which unites intelligence and matter, by LACVS which restores the integrity of the triune by allowing the body to express FULLY( without interference in its matter) ALWAYS 100% of innate intelligence, the requisite amount , proportional to its organization (pri.22).)
I think the word expression can be used as well since expression by definition is the, ‘activity of matter which reveals the presence of innate intelligence.’ According to the normal complete cycle expression (14) falls after physical personification (13) and is therefore related to the matter and therefore it can be less than 100% and thus interfered with.
Also it seems that when 100% is mentioned it seems to be referring to an amount. For example principle number 22. “There is 100% of innate intelligence in every ‘living thing,’ the requisite amount, proportional to its organization.” This is hardly the same thing as perfection. I would agree that we have the perfect amount (100%) of innate however.
Good reasoning, Travis
Growing up I heard, if you use therapy in your office you’re a mixer.
In school some said, if you adjust extremities you’re a mixer.
When I took (post grad.) Upper Cervical Specific we were told adjusting below axis, you’re a mixer.
Now I hear adjusting for any reason except correcting subluxations and guess what, YOU’RE A MIXER.
I gotta tell ya, I recommend ice for pain, adjust any joint in the body that needs it (spinal/para-spinal/others), advise adjustments for the sick as well as the healthy, and do my level best to reduce or remove subluxations in every spine I touch (animal or human). And not always by hand only, sometimes I use a little hand held instrument. All this and I still consider myself to be one the straightest chiropractors I know. Can you dig it?
Perhaps it would be easier to explain what you do not consider straight and why?
By the time I finished all the Greenbooks I had (about 25), I came to the same realization that I assumed BJ had. The subluxation in and of itself is justification for care. The adjustment unlocks the spine allowing innate force to flow uninterrupted. And that was my reason for being. I don’t care how others categorize me as long as my patients know what a subluxation is and where to go when they have one. I also feel there is a gradient between mixer and straight but where you stand on that slope is very subjective. Personally I prefer BJ’s terms, regular and irregular I AM A REGULAR CHIROPRACTOR
Thank you Travis. It is true that some of the language of 1924 is not always accurate as you mentioned that: “this is hardly like perfection”. Do you think a more accurate word for our lexicon would be: COMPLETE. Then it would denote perfection. I am convince that the MAJOR premise complete and and absolute and therefore perfect. We cannot improve upon perfection and perfection cannot be interfered with. It is matter that is variable and therefore always imperfect. Innate intelligence is limited DUE to the limitation of matter (pri.24)
Perhaps principle 22 could posit: “Innate intelligence is complete in every “living thing” creating its organization”.
Any comments anyone?
Better yet, whenever “100%” is used to describe intelligence, force and matter, perhaps we should ascribe the words “complete”. For example principle 22: “Innate intelligence is complete in every “living thing” adapting its matter”. This is an absolute.
And it does connote perfection.
Principle 5: “In order for life to be complete intelligence must be complete, force must be complete and matter must be complete”.
Principle 7: “Intelligence is always complete for any given matter”.
Principle 9: “Force created by intelligence is always complete”.
The principles concerning the triune show us that complete function depends upon complete intelligence, complete force, and complete matter.
I agree with you that your definition of expression would be “the activity of matter which reveals the COMPLETE presence of innate intelligence.” We also must understand within the complete normal cycle, it’s the expression of the MENTAL IMPULSE after personification that travels through matter (nerves) that can be altered due to vertebral subluxation. So we see that the second component of the triune, FORCE, is where the integrity of the triune is lost and it is at the level of matter that the breakdown occurs (VS) which alters the character of the mental impulse due to interference in matter.