You must know your enemy. Our enemy today is an outside-in, mechanistic, naturalistic viewpoint. It is not a person, not an accrediting agency or any organization. It is a way of thinking. We don’t have to fight against people or organizations, just change their way of thinking until it reflects our vision. We can only do that by overwhelming them with the common sense logic of our position. That will not occur until we have removed the last flaws and inconsistencies in our philosophy and/or our practices even if some of those flaws are part of traditional chiropractic.
I agree Dr. Joe. Chiropractic went wrong right from the beginning when it decided to attempt to get sick people well. Once we correct that flaw and take the position that health and disease status are irrelevant to the need for chiropractic care, we can confidently profess our ADIO viewpoint to the world.
“Chiropractic went wrong”, are you kidding me? If Chiropractic did not help the sick get well it would not exist. If you recall DD was trying to reconnect the spirit to the matter, try selling that to your patients. It was only because Chiropractic “got people well” that it warranted further investigation. After all it was BJ who first said the removal of the subluxation was reason enough for Chiropractic to exist, regardless of the symptoms or lack thereof. Chiropractic today is still a miracle for some sick people and yes we now know more of the professions potential, but who knows what is yet to be discovered. In this case you should blame the players not the game.
Steve, thanks for your comment. I wasn’t suggesting “getting sick people well” was a poor outcome. I am suggesting, as many others have, including reggie, that having an “objective” based on getting sick people well was a mistake. Simply because it’s not true. Not all sick people get well under chiropractic care. A benefit? Sometimes, yes, but as an objective, it’s a false premise.
I’m forever indebted to our pioneers. However, to say if chiropractic did not get sick people well it would not exist is a logical fallacy. It’s plausible that if originally practiced from the logical supposition “all people are better off free of subluxation”, we may have had a much bigger impact than we have had.
I don’t think serving less than 5% of the population is proof that we didn’t “go wrong”. As long as we aim to get sick people well, we’ll fall far short of our full potential.
All the best.
Some good points Jaime. I think that 5% number is a drop from previous years/decades/generations and that now we are relegated to people with musculoskeletal conditions and with the physiatrists, massage therapists, etc. that number may go down even further. Another factor is that medicine has improved in its efforts “in getting sick people well” since 1895. They’re no better in restoring health just in relieving symptoms and making people feel like they are well. In getting “sick people well” chiropractic has had little improvement in its procedures at least in comparison to the improvements in the practice of medicine. Perhaps that is why almost half our profession (recent survey) would prescribe drugs if they could. If we had started off with an “all people are better off free of subluxation” model, I don’t think we would be any worse off than we are now, keeping in mind that some of the 5% being served are coming for that (free of VS model)reason.
Easier said than done brother….I’ve been trying to get to the center of the woods for 12 years-shoulda tied a string to that first tree-but its been a heckuva ride!
Your comments are valid only if you assume that the organizations to which you refer are peopled by honest folks who want only Truth and what is best for their stakeholders. My experience is that most, if not all, of the organizations in Chiropractic have ulterior motives and hidden agendas…..now what???
Joe D. I agree with you. I find that to be true in communicating the chiropracTIC message also. If someone has an open mind and is searching for the TRUTH, the chiropractic philosophy just makes sense to them, but if they have their own agenda and just “want what they want” from our office then it is harder to teach them. The statement that always rings in my mind with educating the public is it must be “caught” not taught. I feel that my life must make such an impression on them that it “interrupts their thought pattern” and then see where I am coming from.
With an organization that is more difficult. They want to convince everyone that their way is best.
I agree the organizations are for the most part made up of people with an agenda. But the majority of chiropractors do not belong to the ACA, ICA, FSCO, WCA, CCE or any state organization. Those who do belong probably either do not know what the organization stands for, or belong in spite of it. We need to educate them, change their thinking and those organizations will change from within and kick out the “hidden agenda” people. If you read any of the Facebook groups you know they are filled with people who are clueless as to what chiropractic is. Unfortuantely we have depended on the schools to teach them. And the school’s entire agenda appears to be one of perpetuating themselves. When some could not comptete on the open market, they formed an organization that would force all schools to compete on the same basis, sort of level the playing field. As a result, the school’s curriculum and enrollments are becoming the same… and going down. Now what?…..I believe our last hope is the internet, places where students and chiropractors can go and learn about chiropractic.
Sorry to interrupt, pray-tell, where are the “inconsistencies” in our philosophy. In our schools, our agencies, even our delivery to the public, yes. Our philosophy however, has withstood the test of time and the tests of reason. Can we add to it, sure. Could it be developed further, I hope so. Possibly clarified, you betcha. So lets build upon what we have and pass on a fuller understanding, not tear apart the foundation.
I’m surprised that you see no “inconsistencies”, Steve.
1. When our Founder and Developer equated ui and ii with Deity, and many chiropractors still do, capitalize them and denigrate those who don’t,
2. When you say it “could…..possibly be clarified”, it seems to me that clarification indicates inconsistencies,
3. When there are philosophical differences like, where ii is located, the character of the mi, there is disagreement in our philosophy, no unity,
4. When some chiropractors believe and say that vs is the cause of all disease or that DIS-EASE is the cause of disease,
5. When many of our opposition still think we believe we can cure all disease,
6. When some chiropractors maintain that vs does not occur below Axis,
7. When chiropractors want to honestly “add to it” as you say and are told they are wrong because BJ didn’t say that.
8. When chiropractic leaders who are supposed to be straight say we should address or treat the cause of vs with nutrition, orthotics and pillows, etc.
9. When the technique you use to correct vs is an issue that divides us, sometimes bitterly,
10. When chiropractors belong to and extol the virtues of national chiropractic organizations that have supported morally and financially the CCE for 35 years and continue to do so,
11. When we are not united as chiropractors on what our objective is,
I would say there are inconsistencies in our philosophy or at the least how we are articulating it, and”out of the mouth proceeds the thoughts and intents of the heart”
Hey Joe, good points, but most of the inconsistencies appear to be not with the philosophy but with the philosophers. As Anais Nin stated, “we don’t see things as they are.. we see things as we are”.
1. DD was a spiritual man. He believed (saw) Magnetic Healing reunited man with god. It seems Chiro. was an extension or evolution of that same idea. However that was DD, not the philosophy. The beauty of our philosophy is that we recognize the organization/intelligence without the need to attribute it’s source(available to believers and non-believers alike)
3. As long as we work with the metaphysical there will be interpretations, that seems to be the nature of the beast. It is difficult to explain something that is intangible.The 33 principles do not designate a location for II. They merely state it’s existence.
4&5. Obviously dis-ease and disease are not the same. Noncritical thinking allows the association, again disease is not part of our philosophy.
6,7&8. This too is due to personal paradigm not the philosophy.
9. Our philosophy does not mention a technique, that is an ego problem.
Finally 10. We are not united as a people ie. politics, religion, life viewpoint. Diversity stimulates growth, condemnation kills it.
Please let me add, I am not trying to be argumentative or contrary, in fact I think this is a great medium for discussion. I also think our philosophy is a beautiful concept. It is both comprehensive and logical. In fact I see our philosophy as the Innate of our profession. It explains, it defines, and it guides us. I like to think BJ and his cronies might have sat around and fleshed out ideas much like we do here. THANX Joe for this blog and your continued effort to improve our profession.
You’re absolutely correct Steve. Most of your response demostrates that as a profession, we have not been able to separate the man from the message, the philosopher from the philosophy. It’s ironic that the person best able to do that was BJ, who rejected or clarified most of his father’s inconsistencies. But somehow we have been afraid to change one jot or tittle of his writings as if that would besmearch the reputation and the great contribution he has made to this profession. Granted there are a few arrogant iconoclasts out there who have an”ego problem” but most seem to sincerely want to advance the philosopy, art and science. People like you give me hope that this profession still has a chance to make a contribution to the world that is worthy of the philosophy it espouses. Thank you for taking the time to share your thoughts and your (beyond your years) wisdom.
Could a deep and good loving look INSIDE ourselves (self observation) be the very thing that has the power to both democratize, reform, and mature chiropractic? It alone does not demand major education, does not need a hierarchy of decision makers, does not need to argue about philosophical issues in leadership or practice, does not need accreditation super power, and does not need membership requirements that include and exclude.
As you write, Joseph, “out of the mouth proceeds the thoughts and intent of the heart”… so, could it be that LOOKING from our INSIDE at the process of the ABOVE DOWN in the INSIDE long enough, we would come to appreciate its magnanimity? And then, perhaps we could realize, that this looking’s non-verbal character makes all our arguments about the “how we are articulating it” and the perfectly correct understanding of those words largely useless? Then OUT of our mouths, perhaps, would proceed different intents?
Deeply and consciously BEING on the INSIDE, would we see the outside and the in-between simply reconnecting everything at its core and within ourselves? And let us be honest… didn’t B.J., in all his many green books, wrote a lot more about the amazing intelligence running the human body, about reflecting on the true nature of the chiropractic principles and about SEEING their reasonable and logical deductive organization than any of the issues that continue to preoccupy most of our practices? Could it be that, the healing we need “that divides us sometimes bitterly” , is INSIDE ourselves and that all of us, together, would benefit from a long loving look INSIDE?
The green books and the blue books need not only be read. We need to reflect upon their content over and over and over and over again… and as we LOOK deeply INSIDE, perhaps we will SEE the AMAZING organization of everything and deductively conclude that ALL is well.