Retracing is not an objective straight chiropractic phenomena. While it does address a legitimate chiropractic concept, that is, the body may go through stages in restoring normal function, when and if the nerve interference is removed, the physiological manifestations may be a product of limitations of matter, not a function of the forces of the intelligence of the body being more fully expressed. The phenomena of retracing is further complicated by the fact that we do not know whether any physiological change in the body is a product of those limitations or is an action of the innate intelligence of the body in restoring normal function (EASE). The bottom line is that objective straight chiropractic addresses the LACVS but does not address any apparent results or apparent lack of results of that procedure.
Art. 137. RETRACING.
Retracing is the course of restoration from dis-ease back to
health.
Question. Had “Stevie” said ….back to ease, would retracing be an OC concept?
Steve,
WHAT is it that is lacking ease due to VS?
Joe says: “The bottom line is that objective straight chiropractic addresses the LACVS but does not address any apparent results or apparent lack of results of that procedure.”
RW says: When a case retraces, it passes back through the successive
steps, in reverse order, that it passed through in getting worse.
My question then is: Even if we consider the transmitting matter to be the only location of dis-ease, LAFTCOVS (locating and facilitating the correction of vertebral subluxations) is a restoration process requiring time, is that not retracing.
Steve,
You have one foot in both ball parks. It never worked before, it won’t work today and will not work in the future no matter how hard you try. Retracing is therapeutic concept dealing with symptoms which are effects. –
– The fact that there is no process that does not require time is one of the thirty-three principles of chiropractic and is therefore authority. Either there is normal transmission (pri.27) or there is interference with transmission (pri.29) due to VS (pri.31). When the transmitting matter is lacking ease it further increases the limitation of e/matter (pri.24) which leads to violating principle #32… ALL of it based on the authority of the 33 principles… not “Stevie”, not DD, not BJ, not Reggie, not Strauss, not you and certainly not me. 😉
If indeed there is no restoration of old dis-eased matter, but actually a new flow of new MIs to new tissue in a constantly changing body, then retracing is an outdated concept.
Steve,
Retracing is not outdated… it is a therapeutic construct. You know… as in “getting sick people well”. The chiropractic objective IS a normal expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body (pri.27, 29)… HOW objective chiropractors practice the chiropractic objective is by LACVS (pri.28, 31). PERIOD! –
– Now, Steve, if anyone were to ask you WHY it is you WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective… WHAT would be your answer based on the authority of the 33 principles?
Claude, technically you are correct. Retracing is a therapeutic construct. I think, however. it is hard for many of us to say that BJ and all the chiropractors who had as their objective “to get sick people well” were mixing chiropractic and medicine. Hence the term Traditional Straight Chiropractor (TSC). At least its better than what some TSCors are trying to say, that vertebral subluxation made you sick so correcting a subluxation was getting a sick person well. Unfortunately “sick” has an accepted connotation that of having a medical condition and vertebral subluxation is not considered a medical condition regardless of which “ball park” you are standing in. TSC softens the harshness of calling old-time straights, mixers. The were practicing straight chiropractic as they understood it in those days. We should not be critical of them, they were doing the right thing, unfortunately for the wrong reason. I was doing the very same thing for the first 8 years of practice. That was their/my understanding at the time. On the other hand we also should not perpetuate their limited and hence false understanding. That inadequate understanding is what has caused most of our profession to slip into medipractic (legitimatizing the mixing of therapeutics and chiropractic).
I LAFTCOVS because they decrease life.
Steve,
I got what you said and what you did not say. My question is: Steve, if anyone were to ask you WHY it is you WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective… WHAT would be your answer based on the AUTHORITY OF THE 33 PRINCIPLES?
Steve, I think that statement is congruent with OSC philosophy. Perhaps I am not as tough a critic as Professor Lessard.
Is it possible, together without condemnation, to articulate WHY it is you WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective BASED ON the AUTHORITY OF THE 33 PRINCIPLES? –
– In other words, the answer would have at least ONE principle of the 33 that would SPECIFICALLY back it up and give it AUTHORITY. If a person were to ask you “Which particular chiropractic principle(s) are you restoring WHEN it is you WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective?” WHAT would that principle be? –
– Is chiropractic specific… or is it nothing? Smoking decrease life, eating junk decrease life, lack of exercise decrease life, lack of rest decrease life, taking drugs decrease life and of course LAFTCOVS also decrease life. The question really is: –
– Which AUTHORITY will you provide the public in order for them to make an elegant choice for their life?
“and of course LAFTCOVS also decrease life.” If this is true Claude, I am in the wrong profession.
All of the principles together suggest LAFTCOVS, none specifically, as there is no principle concerning the adjustment, that again is OUR conclusion.
… and of course VS also decrease life.
Steve,
I guess you missed my checking my slipping and my correction thereof?
Yes, I am sorry, I thought that was in addition too…
The fact is that innate forces operate through or over the nerve system (28)… they can be interfered with (29)… always directly or indirectly due to VS (31). VS violate one specific principle. Which one is it? –
– In other words, the integrity of which chiropractic principle is MAINTAINED when, we, chiropractors choose to practice the chiropractic objective?
Subluxations……..
#21. …cause the material of a “living thing” not to be maintained
#26. …prove no Innate Forces, means no construction
#30. …cause incoordination or dis-ease
#33. …disrupt the law of demand and supply in that they “kill the messenger”
Steve,
Are you saying that VS cause “not to be maintained in active organization” which means that when VS is present the body is not living? Or do you mean that coordination of action is not maintained?
P.21 says that, through disassociation of intelligence and matter the coordinating/organizing process of life is disrupted(not maintained).
Again, living is a relative term. In our digital/binary age, anything less than 100% intelligence+100% force+100% matter is not life/living.
Subluxations decrease life! ADIO
Steve,
You are confusing active organization which is the mission of innate intelligence (21) with coordination of action which is the function of innate intelligence (23). The presence of VS can ONLY exist in a LIVING body, not in a corpse. Therefore, VS is the cause of incoordination of action of ALL the parts of the LIVING body. It is definitely the principle of coordination that is NOT maintained. –
– In other words, the presence of VS violates the integrity of the principle of coordination (#32).
I think you are splitting hairs my dear friend, but that is why I stick around, for clarification.
P.23. The function of ii is to adapt force and matter, (for it’s mission, organization/coordination).
Which brings us back to P.29 Transmission, this is where Sux. are and why we adjust.
Your original question (if anyone were to ask you WHY it is you WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective… WHAT would be your answer based on the AUTHORITY OF THE 33 PRINCIPLES?) still yields the same answer, to increase LIFE(by the only authority, the 33)
No Steve,
Active organization also exist with the presence of VS. Coordination of action does not exist with the presence of VS. These two are different principles. They are NOT the same. Principle 21 is about the mission of innate intelligence which is to maintain the material of the body in active organization… with or without the presence of VS. It’s principle 23 which mentioned that innate intelligence adapts universal forces and e/matter, so that all parts of the body will have coordinated action for mutual benefit. It is crystal clear that you confuse these two principles and that’s why you struggle with LACVS “increase of life” (perhaps you mean increase of the quality of life? I don’t know). You know as well as I do that life is 100% or 0%. It’s an absolute. You cannot have between 0 and 100%. It’s all or nothing. There no in between. Tell me, Steve, which principle mentioned a decrease or an increase of life? Principles 2, 3 4, 5, 14, 18, 19, 20, 21, all mention life without an increase or a decrease of it. Life is 100% or nothing. –
– LACVS for a normal expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body RESTORES the integrity of principle of harmonious action of ALL the parts of an organism, in fulfilling their offices and purposes. That principle is called: The Principle of Coordination (32).-
– To follow the authority of the 33 principles, it is me WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective. WHY? To restore the integrity of principle of coordination. –
– In other words, –
– WHAT is the chiropractic objective? The chiropractic objective is a normal expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. –
– HOW does a chiropractor practice the chiropractic objective? Locating, analyzing and assisting the correction of vertebral subluxations. Period! –
– WHY a chiropractor practices the chiropractic objective? To restore the integrity of the principle of coordination. –
– The ONLY authority of chiropractic is the 33 principles… it is crystal clear… is it not?
Still a little murky from here.
How can active organization be said to exist with out coordination? Tell me Claude, do you think a dead body has ease? Or does the corpse have a complete LACK of ease with no active organization, demonstrated by no coordination.
Only principles are absolute. Life is not an absolute, if it were we would have only life and death. Most living things exist on a gradient of 100% intelligence with <100% force and/or <100% matter. Dis-ease is a partial loss of the fulfillment of the law of organization (which is manifested through dis-coordination), is it not? P.21 & 23 are what and how respectively, to the same point.(P. 22 is where)
Our lexicon,#26.) Objective of chiropractic: The objective of chiropractic is to [locate, analyze and correct vertebral subluxations] for the full expression of the innate forces of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! One might say our objective is to restore transmission, our purpose on the other hand is to encourage organization through coordination.
Steve,
Since this inquiry is about the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles, we deal with the fact of their being absolutes. It is you WHO choose to bring in YOUR view of life and HOW to fit it into the 33 principles. It’s the principles that are absolute and that don’t change. It is we WHO have a choice to adapt our view of life according to the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles… not the other way around. –
– Also, note what I posted: “Active organization also exist with the presence of VS. Coordination of action does NOT exist with the presence of VS”. Active organization and coordination of action are NOT the same thing. Do you see that?
How can active organization (AO) exist with subluxation? AO is the mission of ii and innate force cannot proceed through a subluxation. Possibly you could provide me with an example of active organization that is not coordination? What is the purpose of active organization if not for “coordinated action for mutual benefit”.
P. # 5, In order to have 100% life, infers less than 100% is possible. Where does it say life is absolute?
Sorry Claude, did not mean to ignore your question. (which principle mentioned a decrease or an increase of life?) P. # 29. Interference to the transmission of innate forces violates the Chiro. trinity of 100% I&F&M= Life. Then by extension P.#31, Subluxations cause interference. Can we not logically conclude that Subluxations/ interference decrease life?
Steve,
Principle #5 is an absolute that’s WHY it contains the expression “100%”. Universal life is no less than an absolute. Universal life is 100% or it is NOTHING. –
Remember that principle #5 is about universal intelligence, universal force and universal matter. These 3 are ALWAYS 100% within the universe due to the LAW of conservation of energy and matter. NOTHING is ever created, NOTHING is ever lost. According to the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles, UNIVERSAL LIFE is an absolute!
RW says different,IMHO.
Art. 313. THE PERFECTION OP THE TRIUNITY.
Principle No. 5.
In order to have one hundred per cent life, there must be one
hundred per cent of intelligence, one hundred per cent of force,
one hundred per cent of matter.
It is obvious that the three factors of the triunity are inseparable;
they are not separable in part, if one hundred per cent perfection is
to be maintained. Since intelligence is always one hundred per cent
perfect, and always creates one hundred per cent of force, it is
certain that if any imperfections of the triunity exist, (clinical
findings show that they do exist) that matter is the only part of the
triunity that can be imperfect. Since matter cannot be destroyed by
any lesser agency than the Creator, it is obvious that this
imperfection is not in matter itself, but in the quantity, quality, and
arrangement of matter. Hence, there are limitations in structures
of matter; in its imperfect building; its imperfect arrangements; the
wrong kind of matter for the purpose or even the lack of matter
which should be in that structure but is not. From this fact arises the
expression so often used fundamentally in Chiropractic. The
expression of intelligence may be hindered by the limitations of
matter.
Claude and Steve, are you two discussing apples (all matter organized on an atomic level,existence-Claude) and oranges (matter organized on an active level, living/innate matter=Steve). My question: which one is Stephenson referring to in article 313?
Good question Joe, had RW been discussing universal life he may have said (laboratory findings show they exist) but he wrote “clinical” which denotes living innate matter. This is why we abandoned the Green Book Study Club here in Columbia SC, we have no authority to give a definitive answer on questions such as these.
Although principle # 5 comes before any mention of innate intelligence, in chapter 6 of Dr Koch’s book he lists it among the “biological principles”, I think at this point we have to consider “life” to be a description most often applied to innate living matter.
As you write in your Chiropractic Philosophy Blue Book, (chap. 4), “We know that the matter can be less than 100%. It follows then that we can have less than 100% life”. Your next sentence, “However we know that life is absolute”, I believe refers to the principle not the actual.
Joseph and Steve,
Are “clinical findings” a result of observation of the existence electrons, protons and neutrons of e/matter through the law of organization or the configuration and velocity of the electrons, protons and neutrons giving rise to the multifaceted structures of e/matter through the law of active organization? –
– Article #313 deals with principle 5 with regard to existence of e/matter which is ALWAYS 100% and on the existential level of the universe… since, “e/matter cannot be destroyed” as Stephenson mentioned and is corroborated by the law of conservation of e/matter. On the other hand, with regard to the structural level of e/matter, the configuration and velocity of the electrons, protons and neutrons of e/matter are subjected to CONSTANT deconstruction by universal forces of their structural arrangements whether e/matter is non-living or living. Of course, if it is living e/matter, then the law of active organization CONSTANTLY adapts universal forces and e/matter configuring the electrons, protons and neutrons and their velocity for the purpose of CONSTANT construction giving rise to ever NEW structures of living e/matter at the rate of cellular replacement of 500,000,000,000 billion cells/day, thus maintaining the living e/matter alive without breaking a universal law. –
– Thus as Stephenson’s says: “From this fact arises the
expression so often used fundamentally in Chiropractic. The
expression of intelligence may be hindered by the limitations of
matter.” –
– Once again, simply brilliant!!!!!
Steve,
Article 313 validates the fact that universal life is an absolute since, according to Stephenson himself, “matter cannot be destroyed”. This is congruent with the law of conservation of e/matter. Therefore the triune of life is ALWAYS 100% intelligence, 100% force, 100% matter (pri.5). Indeed, universal life is an absolute! It is interference with TRANSMISSION of forces (pri.12, 29) that CAUSES a different “arrangement” (as Stephenson wrote in article 313) of configuration of electrons, protons and neutrons of e/matter and their velocity that is manifested as different MOTION by e/matter (pri.14). We have inquired, together without condemnation, about this very topic at length in past posts, have we not?
RW said,”matter is the only part of the triunity that can be imperfect.”, so it seems “LIFE” is not always 100%. Molecular life transfers over to body life. Remember the phrase you are so fond of Claude, “further limits matter”. And if it were not true we would have nothing to do, you and I.
Steve,
Precisely! It is about limitation of e/matter and time. It is NOT about imperfection, it’s about innate intelligence adapting universal forces and e/matter for the body without breaking a universal law (pri.24). Within the absolute of universal life is TRANSMISSION (read transfer of molecules if you prefger) that can be interfered with. Interference with TRANSMISSION further limits the limitation of e/matter violating the principle of coordination (pri.32).
Claude, “Life” is a product of a formula. I&F&M=Life. If ALL components are not 100% you have less than 100% life. If you will recall, this tangent started when you did not like my response to your question about my view of the objective. The effect of restoring transmission for the expression of innate force is more active organization and therefore better coordination of matter, in essence, more life. The original question of retracing is a good exampleof how concepts differ with point of view. BJ said if you are retracing you will have symptoms but you will feel stronger. If on the other hand you did not get an adjustment that promoted correction of the Sux. you will have simmilar symptoms but will feel weaker. So it seems to me BJ was disregarding to the symptoms and focusing on increased coordination(strength) and organization, or life. I understand the OC prefers to stop thinking after the adjustment has been made, although I don’t know how that point is determined if there are no post checks, but the logical material conclussion to our efforts is more life in the body.
SNSC
Steve,
Can there be active organization (that is what differentiate living from non-living) with interference of transmission? The answer is YES.
Can there be coordination of action of all the parts of the body for mutual benefit? The answer is NO. (BTW, this is the example you were asking previously). 😉
Therefore active organization of the body is NOT the same as coordination of the ACTIVITIES of all the parts of that body. WHY do you continue to equate the two? I understand that these two distinct concepts work together… yet you have to admit that active organization of the body is NOT the same as coordination of activities of the all the parts of that body. To use them as synonyms is faulty reasoning and brings about false conclusions.
Case in point: BJ mentioned stronger and weaker when describing the concept of retracing. That is a measurement involving the coordination of activities of all the parts of the body. Then you reason that the body has more “life”. This is a false conclusion. The body is living or it is non-living. In this case, active organization (life) is present in the body. It is the coordination of activities of all the parts of the body that is absent (not present).
The body of a person has active organization within the limitation of its e/matter. The body of a person with VS has active organization within the it’s furthering of limitation of its e/matter. On the other hand, the body of a person has coordination of activities of ALL of its parts. The body of a person with VS has NO coordination of activities of ALL of its parts.
We chiropractors WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective participate in the restoration of the integrity of the principle of coordination (32) based on the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles.
So Claude, are you saying active organization can be partial but coordination cannot? IOW the mission can be incomplete but the function is all or none?
It seem as you define life as coordination and I define life as active organization, how do we reconcile this conflict?
Would any body else like to comment?
Steve,
Re-read my last post and see that active organization is the life if the body and coordination of action is the activity of ALL the part if the living body.
I am saying the opposite of what you are reading.
Your body can still be alive with VS. Your body CANNOT have coordination of action of ALL its parts for MUTUAL benefit with VS. That’s WHY it is we WHO choose to practice the chiropractic objective based on the authority of the 33 principles.
The function of innate intelligence is for coordination of action without breaking a universal law. Interference with transmission further increases the limits of genetic adaptation of e/matter and innate intelligence will function within the “new” limit of adaptation of e/matter until a universal force (educated or not) can be adapted by innate intelligence to produce a vertebral adjustment.
On the other hand the mission of innate intelligence is to maintain the e/matter of the body LIVING… as long as there is TRANSMISSION with or without interference.
Interference with transmission will NOT decrease life unless the interference is severe enough to stop the transmission completely (as in death by hanging). You are “still” living or you are non-living. One or the other. No-in-between. It’s an absolute. However if it is the quality of life that you are talking about… then there are many things that increase the quality of life. As I asked before: WHY would an individual follow your “way” instead of another’s?
How do we separate active organization from coordination, is there AO without coordination? What other forms of AO are there? My thinking is that there is a lack of both below the subluxation.
Steve,
I was thinking these same questions.
So it is AO that makes something alive but only coordination of all action for mutual benefit makes it 100%?
How can there be transmission with interference?
Steve and Don,
I have checked the spine of a 17 year old boy with cerebral palsy every week for 16 1/2 years now. The law of active organization maintains the e/matter of his body LIVING… without breaking a universal law, regardless of whether or not ALL the parts of his body have coordination of activities. There might be incoordination of activities of ALL the parts of his body and innate intelligence will maintain his e/matter ALIVE, without breaking a universal law. When I check his spine, if VS is present, he is maintained alive by the law of active organization at that moment. If VS is not present, he is maintained alive by the law of active organization at that moment as well. Therefore, WITH or WITHOUT coordination of action of ALL the parts of his body, he is maintained ALIVE by the law of organization. Do you see that? –
– It’s quite alright if you don’t see that…. We will simply continue our inquiry together without condemnation, so we can see where it leads us.
So Claude, we have an athlete running a marathon as his twin brother lie in a coma, neither is more alive?
Steve,
According to principle #21, the law of active organization is maintaining both individual LIVING! Either they are alive or they are dead. There is no in-between. –
– If you recall, BJ is the one WHO chose to say: “Man is either alive or dead. If he is alive there is a reason. If he is dead there is a reason. Man is either healthy, or he is sick. If he is sick, there is a reason. If he is healthy, there is a logical, reasonable, and consistent explanation”. The first part of the quote deals with the presence or absence of the law of active organization. The second part, according to BJ, deals with the presence or absence of interference with TRANSMISSION.
–
Dr. Lessard,
Thank you for the post.
Even though, I would like to answer, I’m trying to… or a better way of saying it is…. I have chosen to seek clarification of terms first before I reply.
I enjoy hearing these anecdotes. That may be because I’m always amazed at the length of time some people stay under care.
I am even more amazed at the diligence with which they maintain a consistent schedule of weekly visits.
I do have two questions unrelated to the thread topic about the boy with CP. Hope you don’t mind.
Was that boy checked for those 16 1/2 year weekly?
and
How often (10%, 50%, 100%) would you estimate that he came in with vs on analysis?
Just curious.
Thanks.
Don,
The answer to your two questions are contained in my initial post about him. –
– Your first question: “Was that boy checked for those 16 1/2 year weekly?” My post: “I have checked the spine of a 17 year old boy with cerebral palsy every week for 16 1/2 years now.” –
– Your second question: “How often (10%, 50%, 100%) would you estimate that he came in with vs on analysis?” My post: “When I check his spine, if VS is present, he is maintained alive by the law of active organization at that moment. If VS is not present, he is maintained alive by the law of active organization at that moment as well.”
… in other words, it is me WHO continually choose to practice the chiropractic objective with ALL my practice members during every spinal check. After the spinal check, I have participated in maintaining the integrity of the principle of coordination based on its authority (pri.32). 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Thank you for the reply.
I was wrong. I did not read carefully enough. You did say every week. Thank you.
Sorry for my question about percentages. My math teachers were too good to me. They created a ‘thirst’ for numbers and analysis not forming questions eloquently.
I will try again as it seems my question was poorly worded.
Taking into account the number of weeks the 17 year old has been under care, what percentage of the time (ball park estimate is fine) would you opine that this 17 year old presented to the office and analysis revealed the requirement of a EUF? A rough estimate is fine.
If this is not something you can answer. I can accept that also. Thanks.
You may be wondering why the question so here is some background. People state that a PVA is a metric to gauge a practice. I don’t have a problem with that.
What I recently witnessed and have read many times before is a suggestion that a PVA of 23, 40, 50 or (insert your choosen #) is a healthy practice. I also read some numbers here which I found interesting:
http://www.chiroeco.com/article/1999/Mar/Prac4.php
When I hear a story like yours where someone has been under care for 16 1/2 years weekly, I am simply amazed.
I understand the author and the people i was speaking to most probably were not OSCors. it makes me wonder though, would the statistics vary greatly in an OSC office?
What are the metrics that a OSCor uses in practice to gauge the practice?
Thanks again.
Just went to the glossary for the definition of “active organization” and “coordination”. I would love to see them there! This will be a great resource!
Could we one succinct definition of both these terms so we have a clear idea of the language moving forward.
My apologies if this has been done already. I must have missed it.
Joseph,
Would you like me to address the definition of “active organization” and “coordination of action” for the glossary and we will see, together without condemnation, what will come of it for a start?