If we measure a physiological function in a person who is also found to be subluxated and we adjust the vertebral subluxation and the physiological function changes, does that mean we have corrected the vertebral subluxation and the body is now functioning closer to normal?
It depends, was the measurement of that physiological function used to determine the presence or absence of a subluxation, ie. tight muscle, NCM pattern?
This question seemed to have two parts; one about physiological functional indicators and normalcy. For the sake of discussion, I’d like to set aside the topic of normalcy aside for a minute.
Also, I don’t know the answer to the questions above by it I do have a thought.
My assumption (correct me please if I am wrong here) is that if one is assessing the presence or absence of a vs there will be indicators used. There are a variety of indicators that have and are being used by chiropractors around the globe. I assume these indicators are all physiological.
If those indicators are not physiological then I may not understand completely understand what or how the the presence or absence is being determined. Maybe someone can fill me in here.
I think every form of analysis/determination of vs presence uses some form of physiological function/indicator (e.g. Working muscle, thermal reading, galvanic skin response, pattern analysis, etc.)? Even in OSC office.
Is this true?
Yes, the next question is, do you want to use a reaction as your analysis/determination or a response or both?
Joe,
Thanks for answering my question. I feel you have a way of explaining concepts in a way I can grasp them easily.
Unfortunately, I think you gave me too much credit. I’m not clear on what reaction and response mean.
Could you please explain.
I will be sure to answer as best I can after that.
Thanks.
Don, it would have helped if I had explained the difference between response and reaction. Unfortunately, although I thought I had published it, it I still in my “draft” pile. I will publish it on Monday. Sorry.
Joe, I look forward to your reading your article on response and reaction.
I’ll check back sometime next week.
I have to admit I find it difficult to find my old comments and pick up the thread lately so I’ve pasted it here below. Hopefully, I won’t lose it this time.
***
FROM Q&A # 52
Joe
This question seemed to have two parts; one about physiological functional indicators and normalcy. For the sake of discussion, I’d like to set aside the topic of normalcy aside for a minute.
Also, I don’t know the answer to the questions above by it I do have a thought.
My assumption (correct me please if I am wrong here) is that if one is assessing the presence or absence of a vs there will be indicators used. There are a variety of indicators that have and are being used by chiropractors around the globe. I assume these indicators are all physiological.
If those indicators are not physiological then I may not understand completely understand what or how the the presence or absence is being determined. Maybe someone can fill me in here.
I think every form of analysis/determination of vs presence uses some form of physiological function/indicator (e.g. Working muscle, thermal reading, galvanic skin response, pattern analysis, etc.)? Even in OSC office.
Is this true?
Btw, this question plagues my understanding of the practical aspects of an objective straight office and how it is run.
Any help would be appreciated.
If we have made an “adjustment”, and a correction occurs, the body IS functioning closer to normal.
Physiological changes may or may not be related. It could be totally coincidental that the baby’s fever broke within minutes of the adjustment. It could be explained in many ways as to why the headache eased following the adjustment. There could be numerous factors determining enhanced life experiences following Objective Chiropractic care. We can never know for sure.
Steve, you wrote, “If we have made an “adjustment”, and a correction occurs, the body IS functioning closer to normal.” I would add …closer to normal than it would be if an adjustment/correction had not been made. A person experiencing the effects of cumulative negative survival values may be dying but they are dying in a healthier state (or living longer) than if they had not been adjusted.
Do you think that Prin. #17 negates the possibility of anything being “totally coincidental” and that the “numerous factors determining enhanced life experiences following Objective Chiropractic care” could be a cause but totally unrelated to that care?