Can we trust someone who teaches nutrition as part of chiropractic and who sees chiropractic as an alternative to medicine to teach a seminar on chiropractic philosophy?
Can we trust someone who teaches nutrition as part of chiropractic and who sees chiropractic as an alternative to medicine to teach a seminar on chiropractic philosophy?
Not likely!
Nutrition can never be part of chiropractic – it is a separate entity and it’s surely not an alternative to medicine. I don’t think that person could be trusted to give a clear presentation regarding the philosophy of chiropractic. If they don’t see the contradiction I’d expect their view of chiropractic is also full of contradictions.
I do think someone could understand the philosophy of chiropractic well and realize that how to fuel the body is a separate entity as well. Ideally they’d apply ADIO to fuel and present it that way – clarifying that it is NOT chiropractic but the same philosophy (ADIO) that leads one to understand chiropractic could also give us insight into fuel requirements for the human body.
I think this person could do a fine job presenting.
Jamie,
Chiropractic is separate and distinct from EVERYTHING else regardless of any world view. WHY?
No. I don’t think so. No thank you.
The question was can a person who teaches nutrition as part of Chiropractic and believes that Chiropractic is an alternative to medicine. This person does not have a clue on Chiropractic philosophy, and can not be trusted to teach it because they do not own it or believe it.
Let them teach nutrition seminars……
To claim anything in Chiropractic as an alternative ‘treatment’ for any medical / therapeutic / body parts,systems is contrary to Chiropractic’s vitalistic philosophical construct. It is my opinion that I would NOT trust their opinion with respect to chiropractic philosophy as I know to be.
True Bob, if chiropractic is considered to offer an alternative it should be within the realm of thinking. Chiropractic offers an alternative way to think about health. This, unfortunately is not what the etsablishment says nor how they define it.
What you are speaks soloudly that people cannot hear what you say.
More importantly, what about those same individuals teaching this to chiropractors to be..the students in chiropractic schools??
There is a problem and the answer is not separate from the problem. Let us, together without condemnation, inquire into the problem. As we do, we might begin to understand what’s going on inside and outside of ourselves. Understanding is crucial in order to see the solution which is NEVER separate from the problem itself. It will require, however, that a different level of thinking.
– Let us begin with the question: –
– WHAT is the problem?
I would be lying if I say I am looking forward to sticking my neck out again but okay Dr. Lessard.
IMO individuals choose to practice the objective of chiropractic or not.
Those that teach nutrition as chiropractic define chiropractic not by the objective.
Don,
Thank you. You are guiding us in the right direction. –
– WHY are there individuals, in America, WHO choose to NOT practice ONLY the chiropractic objective and WHO choose to define chiropractic by something other that its objective?
Because it is a lot easier to give people what they want. It takes time, effort & persistance to educate people & even then some people don’t buy what we offer. People are happier when their symptom doesn’t feel as bad when they leave your office as opposed to when they came in.
Also you can charge for each additional service you provide on every visit & if it makes the chiropractor more money & helps the practice member feel better then that’s a good reason there are individuals in America who choose NOT to practice ONLY the chiro objective
.
Straight,
Could we say that individuals create conflicts within themselves and pass those conflicts onto those with whom they interact as a way of dealing with those conflicts? In other words, could we say that, for individuals to NOT take time, effort and persistence with ending their internal conflicts, the only logical thing to do, is to act out those conflicts and inflict them to others?
Dr. Lessard,
Two reasons: 1)they may be unaware of what the objective is (I was one of these) and 2) what StraightDC said.
Don,
– Would you say that unaware people stay unaware when they are taught by unaware teachers?
Same question that I asked before:
– Could we say that individuals create conflicts within themselves and pass those conflicts onto those with whom they interact as a way of dealing with those conflicts? In other words, could we say that, for individuals to NOT take time, effort and persistence with ending their internal conflicts, the only logical thing to do, is to act out those conflicts and inflict them to others?
Hey Straight,
Not everyone was trained in a “straight” school. My guess is most weren’t. Not only do they not find the extended definition offensive, most probably miss the the irony. Think about it. Most Chiropractors are mixers, most straights are therapeutic, how many do you think can classify themselves truly as Objective Chiropractors? I know I am still in transition. I was raised with and was taught Chiropractic heals without drugs. I still find it difficult to limit my thinking to the subluxation detached from outcomes. And yes I’m sure many do it for the money as well.
Steve,
The word subluxation isn’t even used let alone taught in some schools. Unless, it is the medical definition being used meaning a “partial dislocation of a joint or organ”.
The truth is that there was and still is so much miscommunication between therapeutic and non-therapeutic practitioners that many simply throw their hands up in the air.
It’s unfortunate.
I am also finding it difficult to detach from outcomes completely.
For instance, if vs has nothing to do with symptoms and symptoms are always a medical condition, is it in the best interest of the PM’s understanding, care and the congruency of my practice to always avoid providing forces into a painful area of any pm?
This is a hard one to let go of. I see the benefits but then again….
Hey Claude,
From what I read, Chiropractic philosophical mixing has been going on at least since 1906. Dr, Howard, the founder of National School of Chiropractic incorporated exercise, diet and eventually hydrotherapy. To him and his followers that is also Chiropractic. He was however drugless. According to his memoirs he had DD’s approval and felt he was saving Chiropractic from BJ’s “narrow” view.
Steve,
Thank you. WHAT you are pointing to is ultimately a conflict that is still going on to this day. Right?
Hey Claude,
Yes and it seems the gap is widening don’t you think?
Steve,
Let us continue our inquiry, together without condemnation and ask the question: –
– Since it is the individual WHO created the conflict within himself (and we are ALL of us individuals), is it possible to put an end to the conflict?
Hey Claude,
Are you saying Dr. Howard was conflicted.
Steve,
You can only give WHAT you have. Right? Conflicts beget conflicts. Right? –
– The real question is, can we end OUR conflicts and HOW?
Hey Claude,
Until they realise they are conflicted there will be no changing them.
You’re right Steve, the gap is widening with the other side growing exponentially. And as Reggie was famous for quoting, “you can’t unscramble scrambled eggs”.
Tom,
Do you think that this quote of Reggie could point to the end of conflict?
Yes, but probably not as OCs would hope it to.
Tom,
What would the end of conflict look like in the above context, that “we cannot unscramble scrambled eggs?
Don,
With regards “to always avoid providing forces into a painful area of any pm?”… That’s WHY subluxations have majors and minors. Since each subluxation is detrimental in and of itself, we conclude that to address any one of them… the body will be better off. Introduce your adjustic thrust in the subluxated vertebra of choice determined by your educated professional expertise with the intention that, the EUF will “most likely” be adapted by the innate intelligence of the practice member’s body and then… let go of the outcome. There’s ALWAYS another day for the practice member to be checked… even if your choice is to send them home without an adjustic thrust today. That is the responsibility that comes with Chiropractic being a Learned Profession, as compared to a “Trade Profession”. –
– The key is to GET OUT of the way! WE are NOT about outcomes! WE are about the chiropractic objective! PERIOD!
Dr. Lessard,
The question now is if I or anyone chooses to not provide forces into a painful area of the spine for the sake of the understanding, care of the PM and congruency if the practice, do we also forgo the analysis of the area in question?
This would be an even more difficult to do for me given I used mix.
New PM comes in.
New PM (NPM): “Hey, my low back is in agony today.”
OC: I understand that must be difficult for you. (Explain objective)
Whenever there is pain, it is indicative of a medical condition. So, let’s check your upper back and neck to make certain you are free of vs and have as good a nerve supply of coordinating impulses that you can have given this low back situation.
Don,
Remember what Joe D. said: TMITWDITO. If you have given you PMs a pre-care orientation, most will comply by the rule of “80-10-10”. The analysis is performed ONLY after the pre-care orientation… that way, the PM knows your objective which hopefully is to practice the chiropractic objective. –
Dr. Lessard,
Often many forget the objective and this still occurs.
What is the 80-10-10 rule?
I understand that it is a choice to avoid the painful area and check and adjust asymptomatic spinal regions only.
Let us inquire… 🙂
Would this be incongruent with the objective of the OC?
Don,
80% of the PMs will ALWAYS comply, 10% will question and may or may not comply, 10% won’t comply no matter what. It you WHO will choose HOW to deal with each one. –
– The objective of the OC is the chiropractic objective. Ours is to perform the adjustic thrust. It is up to the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member to adapt the EUF for the CORRECTION of VS. –
– The LOCATION and ANALYSIS part is ours to do. It is we WHO choose the LOCATION of choice, with the technique of choice in order to perform the adjustic thrust with the intent and hope that the innate intelligence of the body will adapt our EUF and adjust the subluxation. –
– If we live up to ONLY our tasks, are we or are we not congruent with the chiropractic objective?
… and as for those PMs WHO forget the chiropractic objective, it is you WHO might choose to BE “pro-active” by telling them about the chiropractic objective EVERY visit in as many creative ways as you can. Then they won’t forget as easily. 😉 –
– It is really you WHO might choose to tell the story over and over and over and over again… Remember what I mentioned before: Repetition teaches us that the things we do are not confined to their practical value.
Dr. Lessard,
Our role is also to communicate the objective of chiropractic in as many ways as possible, is it not?
Actions and words should be congruent. Intent is not always visible. If we choose to leave the area alone, does it not speak volumes about the non-therapeutic intent?
Don, I tell my people it is my goal to check their entire spine for vs, regardless if pain is present or not. If my analysis locates a vs, I will introduce a gentle, specific, refined force. If for any number of reasons it would not be comfortable to receive that force, I will not introduce it. Their comfort is my number one concern as MY number one rule is NEVER introduce a force into an area of resistence. Tomorrow is another day, they do not have to walk out of my office totally vs free. That would be nice, but my feeling is if they walk out with one less vs than they walked in with that person is ALWAYS better off than when they walked in. Mission accomplished.
Tom and Dr. Lessard,
I agree, their comfort is always paramount. I also agree that if they walk out with one less vs that are ALWAYS better off. This is the thinking I used. What I believe is still fuzzy is the perception of the office objective. Dr. Lessard mentioned telling the story over and over. I interpret this to mean with words as well as with ACTIONS.
This is what I mean by telling the story with actions…
If there is a lower spine complaint of pain. I then check the cervicals and thoracics (provided there is no pain complaint there to begin with if there was then it is an absolute contraindication to care.). The pm then leaves the office and cannot directly correlate the refined forces delivered to the increase or decrease in pain that ensues, if at all.
However, if I introduced refined forces in the same region they were initially complaining of, will it not be an uphill battle to get them to understand that the intervention was non-therapeutic when the pain gets better. More to the point, if the pain gets worse! Then I have to explain “retracing”.
So, just to push the envelope a little bit more, my final question to Tom (although I know what your answer is from your last post) and Dr. Lessard and anyone else reading this….
“is the complaint of pain in a region of the spine (e.g. subjective report of lower back pain) an absolute contraindication to objective chiropractic care (delivering refined forces) for that particular region of the spine?”
Sorry I meant…..The pm then leaves the office and HAS LESS LIKELIHOOD OF directly correlate the refined forces delivered to the increase or decrease in pain that ensues, if at all.
Didn’t mean CANNOT.
Hey Don,
Sorry I could not attach to your comment on 4/20.
I don’t think you can have it both ways, ie. I don’t adjust for symptoms and I don’t adjust because of symptoms. A symptom is a symptom is a symptom. Pain is no more of a contraindication than are the hiccups. If all analytic indicators determine the location of a subluxation then that is where you apply the adjustic thrust. Yes you may have to modify your approach or technique. Do you have a light force technique in you repertoire? Remember the phrase, REGARDLESS OF THE PRESENCE OR ABSENCE OF SYMPTOMS. I guess you could say we are not attached to the outcome or the income(p.i.), subluxations deserve attention because they in and of themselves are a detriment to the body.
Steve,
I assume this is the post:
Don 04/20/2013, 3:33 pm:
Dr. Lessard,
Often many forget the objective and this still occurs.
What is the 80-10-10 rule?
I understand that it is a choice to avoid the painful area and check and adjust asymptomatic spinal regions only.
Let us inquire… 🙂
Would this be incongruent with the objective of the OC?
I have neither a light force or non-force technique. I wouldn’t know which ones to try. I will take suggestions and look into them if there are any.
As for having it both ways, I am in agreement with you that the presence of a symptom requires a modification of technique. I’m not sure I know what ‘pain is a pain’ implies though.
I am working under the assumption that for an OC a symptom is always a medical condition. True or false?
Let’s try a different tack.
Assume a person comes in with heart trouble (irregular heartbeat). They researched somewhere that care for the cervical spine could correct such a condition (TSC website).
The OC mentions the care is non-therapeutic. Vs’s noted on analysis at 5th cervical and 5th lumbar.
The chiropractor gets to work. Does s/he give forces to both areas or just one?
I believe that this person’s chiropractic schema does affect the care provided. Some may disagree.
With every new person I see, I face the same scenario. Not provide forces for the correction of the vs and leaving it in place and running the risk of that person not committing to lifetime care or do it, be clear as you can be and let them think what they will.
The burden is to educate and allow them to make a decision regardless of outcome. Can more education be had by the person if I leave it alone?
Hey Don,
Actually I was referring to 4/20/1:16 am. I would suggest you look into Torque Release or Activator techniques, both are light and have excellent analysis included. These I am familiar with and use but I am sure there are more. Both can be done without instruments if you are opposed to the use of tools.
What I said was we must try to disconnect from the income as well as the outcome. Your example of a PM with a heart condition, do you think knowing that and being aware of the mentioned research might influence you to focus on a certain aspect of the spine and possibly be less objective? If symptoms are not the qualifying factor of results they should not be the qualifying or disqualifying factor of initiating care. BJ said, what is the difference between a headache and a heart attack…….LOCATION(of the subluxation). To the Chiropractor, nothing more, you still LACVS regardless of symptoms.
In my opinion the only time to forgo the adjustive thrust is when you can foresee injury as a result. Temporary discomfort is not the same as injury. Would you hesitate to remove the sliver from your child’s finger because it may hurt to be removed? Or would you consider the greater good? In some cases of torticollis you may have no choice but to apply your tech. to the painful subluxated area or dismiss the PM.
I guess it comes down to this, would that person be better off with or without subluxations? Then, can you help them without injuring them? If so, then go to it man. As they say in the south, “Git Er Done”
Steve 04/23/2013, 2:13 pm:
In some cases of torticollis you may have no choice but to apply your tech. to the painful subluxated area or dismiss the PM.
Steve why would you have no choice? Doesn’t one always have a choice? That is unless the intent is to get the pt out of whatever situation they present with. This is where the therapeutic chiropractor is under the gun, to get results (getting the person out of pain). The non therapeutic chiropractor is under no such gun as they recognize their goal is much different than their therapeutic colleagues, that they have a lifetime to work with their people, and that all people don’t have to walk out of their office totally vs free on each and every visit.
Hey Tom,
The Chiropractor’s goal is always the same, LACVS. What you are referring to is the motivation.(TSC/OC) The point was if the ONLY subluxation was at the site of pain, you adjust or let the patient walk. Those are the choices. Regardless of whether or not you adjust or dismiss, the patient education should be the same. You see, Don’s question was about pain as a definite contraindicator. My point was, it is not.
What you’re saying is that my job is to LACVS and if I do that ,ok. If I don’t do that, well that’s ok too????? So how does that work? “Welcome to my office, I found a subluxation, I am not going to address it, see you later”.
Steve,
Thanks for the recommendations. I didn’t know activator could be done without the instrument.
You stated that it is the job of an chiropractor to LACVS. It seems you are suggesting that if he doesn’t accomplish the objective of LACVS any and all in the spine then he hasn’t done his job.
Is this always the case?
Joe’s text on Case management touches on this subject.
He writes about modifying care in an instance where situations call for it, sometimes to the degree where the chiropractor DELAYS care. Delaying care is a modification under this definition.
I found the chapter on contraindications very interesting. It made sense to me.
You may want to give the chapter a glance. Let me know what you think.
Hey Don,
Let’s back up. You wanted to know if avoiding a painful area was a good teaching point, correct? My answer was you LACVS where you find them. Obviously there will be times you need to modify your technique to suit the situation and there are definite reasons (fracture, surgery, open wound) when/where you should not thrust, I just don’t consider pain to ALWAYS be one of them. I too struggled with this as a young Chiro. ( because I didn’t want to hurt people) until my dad and another seasoned doc (50+ yrs. in practice) reminded me of the principle of the “greater good”. As a Chiropractor I am morally and ethically bound to address subluxations, in man or beast. JOMO
I have read the Blue Books and understand Joe’s points on education being most important but you don’t deny care just to teach people a lesson.
As for the activator, if I remember correctly the technique predated the instrument. It was done with overlapping thumb tips and micro-thrusts.
Don,
You posted: “Our role is also to communicate the objective of chiropractic in as many ways as possible, is it not?” Was it not what I said when I posted: “… and as for those PMs WHO forget the chiropractic objective, it is you WHO might choose to BE “pro-active” by telling them about the chiropractic objective EVERY visit in as many creative ways as you can. Then they won’t forget as easily”.? –
– Anyway, I hope I understand your comment. Let us continue to inquire, together without condemnation. –
– Would you perform an adjustic thrust into a subluxated vertebra with a hair line fracture? Would it not be contra-indicated? You may ask: How would I know that there is a hair-line fracture? Personally, I wouldn’t know, therefore, I practice by the wisdom of: “WHEN IN DOUBT, DON’T!!!” That’s part of WHY we perform an analysis is it not? Is it our responsibility to know WHEN and WHEN NOT to perform the adjustic thrust? It’s ok to let it go for a while and observe what’s going on. The innate intelligence of the PM’s body is at work 24/7 using all the available UF, no matter what. Don’t you think it’s good to know our limitations… as Detective Harry Callahan said?
Dr. Lessard,
You are correct. Variety is key.
Repetition is often a great teacher however, IMHO repetition isn’t the only teacher nor necessarily the best in all instances.
To answer your questions:
I believe the presence of a hairline fracture is a medical diagnosis. I do not have the ability in office to find one. So, I cannot comment on that situation.
You wrote, “Personally, I wouldn’t know, therefore, I practice by the wisdom of: “WHEN IN DOUBT, DON’T!!!” That’s part of WHY we perform an analysis is it not? Is it our responsibility to know WHEN and WHEN NOT to perform the adjustic thrust? It’s ok to let it go for a while and observe what’s going on. The innate intelligence of the PM’s body is at work 24/7 using all the available UF, no matter what. Don’t you think it’s good to know our limitations… as Detective Harry Callahan said?”
Could you clarify if you mean by “let it go for a while and observe”?
Does that mean you would perform an analysis of the painful region or not?
Don,
I check the spine. If I’m in DOUBT about whether or not to perform an adjustic thrust, regardless of the reason, I DON’T perform the adjustic thrust and I ask the PM to come back the next day. Then I repeat the same steps that I did the day before. Much happens in 24 hours as 500,000,000 cells were replaced. Today is a NEW day, with a NEW spine and I’m NEW as well. I will repeat this process as long as I don’t doubt any longer. As an example: It’s similar to the process of what upper cervical pattern work is, while the OC waits for the pattern to show up before performing the adjustic thrust.
Dr. Lessard,
How is the term doubt different than contraindication?
For myself, I define contraindication as Dr. Strauss has in his texts.
Don,
Contraindication is definite. I know what NOT to do. Doubt is when I don’t know whether it is a contraindication or not. In that case, when in doubt… I DON’T! –
– What do you do when you just don’t know whether or not it is a contraindication?
Dr. Lessard,
I ask someone like you who has the experience and wisdom. 😉
If that isn’t an option….I err on the side of caution just as you. I also admit that I just don’t know if it is or if it isn’t and don’t.
Is there an instance where complaint of pain in the spine would not cause doubt, Dr. Lessard?
Don,
Why would a complaint of pain be an issue? Would you then be compliant with WHAT the PM wants? Meaning relief?
Dr. Lessard,
I am thinking in all instances the complaint of pain would cause doubt about whether or not to provide refined forces in that area of the spine. If we choose to apply the wisdom of “when in doubt, don’t!” then any instance that causes doubt would cause one to not provide the refined forces. Doubt equals no refined force delivery.
If this happens in every instance of doubt in a chiropractors practice is this appropriately recognizing her/his limitations or going overboard somehow? I am just not sure. Thanks, your input is appreciated.
Don,
It is you WHO choose to make pain be a criteria for doubt. Why not consider resistance during your muscle palpation? Is it not part of your analysis?
Dr. Lessard,
I guess this does eventually become a technique question doesn’t it.
I do use muscle palpation however, can this be answered without reference to technique in case others do not use it?
Hi Don,
As I read this thread, I had many thoughts going through my mind. Many of which are questions that I have asked myself over the years.
Is/does pain HAVE to be a “contraindication” or “doubt”? Is the presence of pain anymore of a contraindication/doubt than the absence of pain IS NOT a contraindication/doubt?
I agree with what Claude and Tom have said, and also many things you’ve said, but I wonder if you are not dwelling on the “pain” issue a bit too much? I mean many of the examples you used, could have easily gone the other way. Let’s use your lower back pain example for instance. What if they come in with lower back pain and out of the desire to reiterate the chiropractic objective (either by words or actions or both) of not even addressing past the thoracics because you don’t want them to associate any analysis/adjusting thrust with being therapeutic, you avoid it altogether, would that have been an act of total honesty or OC? What if, in reality, had you analyzed it (still chiropractically ONLY, of course), you find a VS and determine that even though there was pain/discomfort, you could have applied an adjustic thrust and facilitated a correction. Would you determine then that to have been a contraindication/doubt and acting outside OC?
If we simply use pain as a contraindication/doubt factor, there will be many folks that will leave our offices with VS that could have been safely and effectively had an adjustic thrust applied to that area. I see either one as an opportunity to reiterate
Obviously, we never want to cause more harm or discomfort ro any reason, however, I don’t know if merely the presence of pain is an “absolute contraindication”, but we all have to listen to our gut. And when in doubt, we would be certainly responsible and within our objective to err on the side of not applying forces.
For me, each instance with each person this may occur at is an isolated event and I tend to subscribe to how Tom and Claude described. Resistance to the application of the adjustic thrust, albeit from pain/tenderness or otherwise may raise doubt and cause us to avoid that particular VS or region, at least for that visit.
Again, there is always tomorrow and another opportunity.
Dr. Duncan,
It’s great to see your posts again.
Yes, I have dwelt on the pain example too long. Please see my reply to Steve.
You wrote, ” Is the presence of pain anymore of a contraindication/doubt than the absence of pain IS NOT a contraindication/doubt?”
You are right.
On that first day, what is MOST important?
a) ALL vs’s are provided refined forces
b)They understand the objective of the OC
c)That they come back again
Steve,
I didn’t know about the thumb tips with activator Thanks!
SO, you use both TRT and activator tools and analysis?
So, in your opinion fracture, open wound and surgery are contraindications.
You also wrote, “understand Joe’s points on education being most important but you don’t deny care just to teach people a lesson.”
I agree with the first part on education being most important. I also agree that denying care to teach people a lesson isn’t the best approach.
I do think that each chiropractor must decide how and if the actions and message displayed in office are congruent with one another. I think on this we can agree. 🙂
Claude Lessard 04/20/2013, 10:58 am:
Tom,
What would the end of conflict look like in the above context, that “we cannot unscramble scrambled eggs?
I believe it will find the OCors practicing under a different name as the larger, controlling group/s (everyone else) will dictate the direction of the doctors of chiropractic.
I’ve heard Reggie say a number of times that BJ was to have said, “Chiropractic will probably disappear and appear again under another name.” Does anyone have a reference for this? Thanks.
Hey Tom,
DD wrote in 1910, “We are informed that a number of Chiropractors met some time ago for
the purpose of renaming the science of Chiropractic. That was not the first
effort to rename it. The science still retains the name given it by its
founder.”
I guess this identity problem has been a concern since the beginning too.
Hey Tom,
BJ also lamented the possibility of the day medical Dr.’s would be practicing Chiropractic and Chiros would be practicing medicine. Are we there yet?
Steve what md’s are doing already and have been for a long time is adjusting/manipulation. I don’t consider that chiropractic as adj/manip without the philosophy is just that, adj/manip. In order for them to truly be practicing chiropractic they would have to give up their philosophy and accept ours. Not likely to happen. What has happened however is a considerable portion of the chiropractic profession giving up the chiro philosophy and if not accepting medical philosophy then moving at light speed toward toward the practice of medicine in order to be accepted by the medical establishment (as well as the insurance industry). So yes to at least half of your question.
Tom,
You bring an interesting point for all of us to consider. You stated: “I don’t consider that chiropractic as adj/manip without the philosophy is just that, adj/manip.” –
Let us, together without condemnation, go back in time. The date is September 17, 1895 and everyone reading this blog are invited to the office of DD Palmer the next day to observe what will be going on between DD and Harvey Lillard. It is we WHO choose to go and the next day, on September 18, 1895, we observe DD having a conversation with Harvey. It is DD WHO choose to be directing Harvey to lay down on the bench. We observe that it is Harvey WHO choose to willingly lay face down. We observe DD hunching himself over Harvey’s upper back. Then, we observe DD shoving his hands into the back of Harvey. Those are the facts we have observed. –
– WHAT really happened in this exchange between DD and Harvey?
Tom, I have to disagree with you. The mixers that I know are not trying to be accepted by the medical establishment – they are totally against drugs & surgery. What they are for is anything & everything that is “quote NATURAL” for treating symptoms & making people happy. There are 2 DC’s in my area that have gone totally overboard with their “NATURAL” weight loss program. They advertise that they themselves have come up with this foolproof program that always works. So why do DC’s do this??? It gets a LOT of people coming to their offices without having to educate them about what chiropractic really is. So as I said above, chiropractors that do not practice with the “principle” as their guide end up being more concerned about having syptoms disappear using anything that’s “NATURAL” or going into left field with toxic cleanses, osteoporosis treatment, supplements,weight loss etc.
Claude,
In answer to your question: “Would you say that unaware people stay unaware when they are taught by unaware teachers?”
I think a lot of people stay unaware by choice even if taught by an AWARE teacher. I do think most people coming to a chiropractor’s office still come because of a back symptom & are coming for some relief & are not prepared at that time are not ready to accept the depth of what we have to offer. I’m not saying it doesn’t happen, but I see Dr. Strauss’ idea of getting chiropractic out of heath care & putting it into it’s own category because of the value it has to offer which is more than symptom relief.
Straight, ever hear of the American Academy of Chiropractic Physicians? Just as there are varying degrees of straight practice there are varying degrees of mixers as well. These folks are about as medical as one can be without actually having the coveted md after their name.
Don,
Do you remember that, together without condemnation, we have concluded that VS is NOT static and is in constant motion? It is about understanding that it is the innate intelligence of the body adapting UF (educated or not) and transforming them into IF that produced the adjustment of VS. It is understanding that our part is to know WHEN and WHEN NOT, WHERE and WHERE NOT, HOW and HOW NOT to introduce an adjustic thrust. That calls for professional judgment and is about WHO you choose to BE in relationship to your practice members. Chiropractic is philosophy. Chiropractic is science. Chiropractic is art. Chiropractic has ONLY one objective. 😉
Maybe Joe could speak to this issue.
I understand comfort as a factor in my decision in providing forces.
Does that mean that there are now two objectives, LACVS AND comfort for the person???
I guess I am mixing..lol 😉
Don,
Joe wrote an entire chapter on contraindications and never mentioned comfort being a criteria. What he mentioned was safety. He also mentioned that it is we WHO should adhere to a few simple principles.
“Case Management for Straight Chiropractors” p.194-195. –
– Chiropractic has ONLY one objective. It is the WHO will choose WHEN and WHEN NOT, WHERE and WHERE NOT, HOW and HOW NOT to introduce an adjustic thrust. –
– This is WHY practice members come to have their spines CHECKED by chiropractors and not ADJUSTED by chiropractors. It is the innate intelligence of the body that is adapting universal forces (educated or not) for the purpose of producing a vertebral adjustment (see glossary for definitions). –
– EVERY visit is an opportunity to further educate the practice members about chiropractic philosophy, science, art and its objective. EVERY practice member, deserves to have a deeper understanding of chiropractic. Their lives depend on it!!!!
Don, If in your opinion as a Chiropractor LACVS is interfered w/ by patient comfort you might want to learn some some other Chiropractic techniques that overcome that obstacle for you and your pms, they are out there…..however I think you might be projecting this to be a bigger problem then it is in reality.
Dr. Barone,
You may be correct. Maybe I will look into Toftness technique 😉
Don, just revisit the Gentle Adjusting video, end of story. 🙂
Tom,
Really good video on the do’s and don’ts of adjusting.
And did you see that the technique of that guy with the moustache. WOW! ‘Old smoothy …’ 🙂
Oh you mean that clown that wore his wrist watch while adjusting???? Tsk, tsk!! 😉
In the words of Reggie…”I really wish he would take that watch off! BJ would flip if he saw that…and so would I”
Tom, you really should have known better…haha
“Just watch Tom with this one…he’s an old smoothy!”…love ya, bro!!!
He actually IS by the way!
Yep that’s Ol’ Smoothy!
He had a “manly” moustache. I felt STRONGER just looking at it.
Don,
To answer your question above, the most important is “B”. “A” may or may not be a possibility, be it the first or any subsequent visit. And “C”, while we hope they return, its importance is not at the expense of “B”, but hopefully BECAUSE of it!