If the 33 Principles form the foundation for chiropractic (and I believe they do) how did we become a health profession and end up striving to “get sick people well” when there is no use of the word “sick”, not even any mention of “health” or “wellness”, only “life” and “living things” more than a dozen times in the 33 principles? When, how and why did we make the transition from life to where we are today? Any theories or thoughts?
Didn’t you hear Joe, DD cured deafness. Of course we now know different but can you imagine what went through DD’s head, “I racked his spine and he could hear”.
BJ tried desperately to prove it (Chiropractic cures) and in so doing developed our beautiful philosophy.
Thanks to Reggie and people like him we may just now be approaching the chiropractic zenith with OSC, adjusting subluxations simply because they are subluxations.
Never has Chiropractic been more refined and defined.
This is a good example for the case of evolutionary process of the philosophy. –
– In BJ’s own words: “Beginning back in 1890, five years before father discovered Chiropractic, he was writing along the lines of his investigation his early ideas on scraps of paper as the occurred to him. He never tore up his longhand notes but merely wadded them up as so much waste parer and threw them in the basket. Every night, even though I was but a young boy, I used to go to that basket and pick out those scraps, straightened them out, and kept them. I now have those early notes long before Chiropractic was discovered.” The Evolution of Chiropractic, DYE, 1938. –
– Chiropractic evolved from “scraps of paper” from 1890 and it was over 30 years later that the 33 principles were formulated. The transition from “getting sick people well” to life is slowly but surely happening 100 years later, today. 🙂
With the misapplied concept that the opposite of being sick means you are healthy, is where the debacle originates and goes from there. Thinking in terms that HEALTH is about the BODY and SICKNESS is about body PARTS adapting to their environment, to address outcomes that access the part as your success rating is illogical, irrational and just plain unreasonable from a true OSC perspective. However, if I were adapting in a manner that were labeled a sickness, I much rather have a spine, free of vertebral subluxation than with a subluxation; not for the particular body part, but for my body to be in a better circumstance to adapt to that which I may NOT like.
Is a “correction of a vertebral subluxation” philosophical or physiological?