Isn’t it sad that many chiropractors want to leave chiropractic where its philosophy paused in 1961 and not carry on by continuing to develop the great thinking that was given to us up to that time. I believe that the understanding of any great idea either goes forward and grows or stands still and withers. Are you part of its growth or atrophy?
It really is sad.
And that is the difference between the TSC’or and OSC’or. What truly baffles me is that they can recognize the refinement of the philosophy by Reggie and of course you, Joe. They can identity and acknowledge it as truth, yet at the same time, dogmatically remain in 1961 because “BJ said”.
Some even argue that the deductive refinement of the philosophy is an attempt at changing it and that there is no need for it or the terms of describing the different factions as we have today. They don’t like the terms TSC, OSC or even now NTOSC and long to be “just a chiropractor”.
They fail to recognize that due to all the factors involved, we are so far past the point of being “just chiropractors” and that using terminology as that only further serves to continue to confuse and confound the public as to the true nature of our objective and purpose. They are happy with just the “What” (LACVS), but until the “Why” becomes as important, if not moreso, we will be relegated to remain to seeing the same 1, 3 or even 5% of the population or worse become further absorbed into medicine.
Well stated! I see the ‘how’ Reggie, Thom G and Joe have contributed to our growth is our understanding that people can come into our office WITH a particular body-parts concern, as opposed to coming in FOR the particular part.
Well said Micheal, the why is as I see it the hardest thing for most to grasp….Many fellow DCs will argue that we must LACVSs 1961….
I agree that our philosophy continues to evolve but would bet that many OSCors’ are stuck in the “this is what Reggie said” mentality.
Case in point: 80% of the nervous system is housed in the cranium while the rest is made up of the spinal cord and nerves. Yet, OSCors focus solely on the Vertebral Subluxation and leave the remaining 80% of nervous system interference (due to cranial subluxation) in place to further decrease their practice members health and life potential.
Bryson,
Until someone comes along and further refines the philosophy to a significantly greater point than what Reggie has, you may be right. However, when and if that occurs, I (and I am sure most OSC’ors) will embrace it. It is about philosophical refinement and clearer objective, not a particular person said or did.
With regard to 80% of the nerve system housed in the skull and cranial subluxation. The objective of chiropractic general and NTOSC in particular, is to locate and facilitate the correction of vertebral subluxations, because they in and of themselves, are a detriment to the expression of ii and therefore life.
The objective is not to remove all causes of nerve interference. Lots of things can cause nerve interference, but we only address one. While there may be nerve interference to the nerve system due to problems with the cranium, that is a different objective and profession. No different than a brain tumor or aneurysm is the job and part of the objective of the neurosurgeon.
Another thing is that OSC’ors have defined their objective amd limited recognize the scope of their practice by choice as not to encroach on the profession of others and provide duplicative services, and at the same time protect our objective from duplication by others.
Dr. Duncan and Bryson,
You both have brought up great points. Dr. Duncan makes an excellent point of the non-duplicative nature of the NTOSC objective.
I have had discussions with others regarding this very topic; whether a cranial bone interfering with the nervous system is part of the objective of chiropractic. In these discussions there is always agreement that the objective is to locate and correct subluxations. Where it often reaches an impasse is when we define the term subluxation. It seems that the cranial bone is not in keeping with the definition of subluxation found in Stephenson (Article 26) and I am not sure if this is one that needs to revisited. IMO, this one seems to be the best definition.
Hi Don,
Another point here to be made since you brought it up is that Stephenson’s definition of “subluxation” inherently contained the term “vertebra”, which made it unecessary/redundant to call it “vertebral subluxation” as we often do today to make our objective clearer. It also specified interference to “metal impulse”. However, over time the terminology has clouded and been situationally modified to fit different objectives to rationalize care or methods. Just using the term subluxation and loosely defining it allows the seemingly rational inclusion of just about ANY type of “nerve interference” as long as it is amenable to the chiropractic scope of practice. Be it from cranial bone as used a previous exame or even in the extremities (e.g. in the wrist from carpal bones or the elbow). And IMO, for the same reason that terms like TSC, OSC and now NTOSC have been created, so too it has become necessary to say “vertebral subluxation” to make sure we are talking about the same thing.
“Nerve interference” is NOT solely the domain of the chiropractor. “Subluxations” are NOT solely the domain of the chiropractor. The “spine” is NOT the domain of the chiropractor.
Locating and facilitating the correction of Vertebral Subluxations, because they, in and of themselves, are an interference to the expression of ii…and therefore life IS the domain of the chiropracTOR.
Mike, I’m appreciating your insight and input.Thank you.
Dr. Duncan.
I have heard from many on this blog that defining terms is critical in the process of determining the logic of thought. I thought understanding what someone is referring to when they say the terms “subluxation” or vertebral subluxation” was simple enough but today I learned, thanks to Bryson, that even the anatomists have challenges in their terminology. (Bryson, I would love a reference for this if you have it).
IMO, this lends more credence to what Dr. Strauss and others on this blog propose, that the why/the objective of what we do is most important.
I like the fact that you stated our objective is the “Locating and facilitating the correction of Vertebral Subluxations, because they, in and of themselves, are an interference to the expression of ii…and therefore life IS the domain of the chiropracTOR.”
I used summarize this with LACVS….I am now considering the acronym, LAFCVS = Locating, Analyzing and faciilitating the correction of vertebral subluxations”. The facilitation seems more accurate to me. Sorry, can’t make the leap to add sphenoidal cranial bone and I personally don’t facilitate corrections of the coccyx so I can’t comment. I just don’t know if it is a vertebra or not. Thoughts?
Getting back to the evolution of what we understand to be a “vertebral subluxation” would involve the spinal segments. As you may know, there is disagreement between anatomists regarding the naming of the spinal segments. Historically, the British anatomists stated the the spinal cord began at the level of atlas, therefore, the atlas is the 1st spinal segment.
The Italian (and other) anatomists stated the the spinal cord starts at the level of the sphenoid. Therefore, this is the 1st spinal segment (and would make atlas the 3rd; occiput would be 2nd). Anatomically, the top of the spinal cord attaches to the sphenoid and anchors at the coccyx.
If we are to focus – solely – on the Vertebral Subluxation and not on Subluxations (wherever they may be found) am I correct to assume the no OSCor will ever adjust the occiput, ilium and/or coccyx? They don’t meet the criteria to be a Vertebral Subluxation (i.e. Misalignment of the vertebra, Occlusion of a foramen, Pressure on nerves or spinal cord, and Interference to the transmission of mental impulses).
Bryson, the fact that thre are so many opinions among scientists, I see no reason why we cannot have ours. That is why we call it NTOSC. Remember what we are doing is based upon an objective. It seems to me that the objective of many of the techniques,at least in my experience is to correct the cause of some medical condition either real or imagined. That is not Non-therapeutic chiropractic. If we cannot agree where the spine begins and ends,(simple anatomy then I thnk we have to allow for technique differences of opinion. But the objective is never to treat a medical condition.
One other point….
Doesn’t it seem odd to critique some DCs for clinging to what BJ said in 1961 and then go on to state that we should all adhere to what Stephenson wrote in in 1927?
I like how you are thinking Bryson. As reading the comments paused to reflect on what had been said and thought the same thing that you then posted in the last two comments. Is “locating and facilitating the correction of ‘cranial subluxations’ because they in and of themselves, are a detriment to the expression of ii and therefore life” not Chiropractic only because Stephenson said so? I can certainly understand, respect and agree whole heartedly that we should not encroach on another profession. As far as I know there is no profession that does address the cranial area with the above stated objective. I might be wrong though. I do not do any cranial adjusting in my office but the cranials and any other joint for that matter could be assessed with the same objective in mind. Do we even have any evidence that an interference to the mental impulse actually exists in relation to what we do? I know there are some studies that suggest it. I also think that even without the studies we can logically conclude that interference to the mental impulse is possible and the body is better off with a good nerve supply then without. But if that logic holds then it should hold just as well for all the rest of the joints of the body.
Actually Travis, the medical profession addresses problems in the cranium. I have no argument with any profession having that objecive… but if it is a medical problem then addressing it is meeting a medical objective and is not NTOSC. It is the practice of medicine. Remember the objective of NTOSC has two parts. The correction of VS and enabling the forces of the ii of the body to be expressed more fully. Unless both and only both are being addressed, I don’t see how the NTSC objective is being met. Can you explain how correcting a “sphenoid VS” to addresss a headache or a chronic low back pain that does not respond to any other technique meets the non-therapeutic objective? It seems to me that you are making the same assumption that the traditional chiropractors have neen making for the last 100+ years, that if and when “the body is better off with a good nerve supply”…it will cure any/all medical conditions. We in NTOSC do not want to go that far and feel that where we draw the line is acceptable to many people.As Joe D. use to say, it’s where you put the period (and I might add it’s also where you put the inference)And the inference is that XYZ technique can remove the interference because with XYZ technique, the condition goes away better/faster/more completely than with other techniques.Perhaps if you are selling a technique seminar, that is necessary but I’m not sure it is good chiropractic philosophy.
It’s almost like an individual cell has it’s own LF and n8 INT and can survive on it’s own. As a collective though, the tissue will exhibit little function.
I often hear about “the main difference b/w a corpse and a living human though all the parts are there is LF, thus health is a function of whether or not LF is in appropriate proportions within the tissues”. I get it but I can’t reconcile this paraplegic idea in my head. The tissue isn’t getting Nerve supply (this LF) but still it lives, it isn’t a cadaver. The legs of a paralyzed man don’t turn black, rot and fall off.
Cheers. Matt
Joe,
Can you explain this a bit further. I couldn’t follow this..
It’s almost like an individual cell has it’s own LF and n8 INT and can survive on it’s own. As a collective though, the tissue will exhibit little function.
What is n8 INT? innate intelligence?
Don, that was part of another post that somehow got attached. Sorry. My cognitive functions are apparently not yet totally back to normal. Although some people would question whether they ever were!:)
Joe,
I never said anything about adjusting cranial subluxations to “treat” any medical conditions – I agree that is the practice of medicine. I locate, analyze and correct (adjust) cranial subluxations because the person can more fully express their innate health and life potential when their cranium (and spine) are subluxation-free.
Point: some medical professionals address the cranium but they do not address cranial subluxations. Therefore adjusting subluxations when found in the cranium does not make it the practice of medicine. I’m not following this line of reasoning – for example, if an orthopedic surgeon addresses the spine, does that make adjusting VSs the practice of medicine? (I doubt that is what you wanted me to obtain from your rationale but I did.)
I’m not trying to offend anyone.
I agree with Bryson and just like him Joe I did not say anything in my post about addressing the cranium for the treatment of any medical condition, please read my post again. I said, (Is “locating and facilitating the correction of ‘cranial subluxations’ because they in and of themselves, are a detriment to the expression of ii and therefore life” not Chiropractic only because Stephenson said so? I can certainly understand, respect and agree whole heartedly that we should not encroach on another profession. As far as I know there is no profession that does address the cranial area with the above stated objective.)
Travis, everybody(using xyz technique) only talks about “addressing the cranium and facilitating the correction of ‘cranial subluxations’ because they in and of themselves, are a detriment to the expression of ii and therefore life” when they talk to me or another NTOSC. But all they seeem to mention is the better resultsthey get in healing people and the inference or it is actualy stated that it is the healing of a medical condition. Or they talk about getting results where other tchniques failed. The ‘results” always seem to be symptoms, not better expression of ii and therefore life. Or they equate the two. Medical treatments get “results”sometmes even after chiropractic “treatments” have failed. Getting results is not a criteria for the successful meeting of the NTOSC objective.(If it was there would be no reason to check/adjust an asymptomatic person) It is, however, the stated objective of the practice of medicine. I guess you could give an aspirin to correct a VS, for the better expression of ii and therefore life but I think you would be hard pressed to convince anyone that you were practicing chiropractic. You make a great point that there is”no profession that does address the cranial area with the above stated objective”. Perhaps there should be. Why doesn’t Dr.X of xyz technique start a profession to do just that. Just don’t call it chiropractic and create greater confusion in an aleady confused public. He could even suggest that xyz chiropractors should also be able to prescribe drugs. Oh wait, another group of chiropractors has already done that.
Actually Bryson, we have had many heated discussions on this blog about “:clinging yo what BJ said in 1961 and even “what Stephenson wrote in 1927.”That is the whole point of the non-therapeutic model. Does is meet the criteria of deductive logic. If so , I don’t care when it was written or said. If not, well whether BJ,RW,or RRG said it does not make it so.
The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –
– The objective of chiropractic is based upon deductive reasoning starting with the major premise and its following 32 principles. In other words, it is formal logic that characterizes the philosophy of chiropractic. –
– In order to clarify the conflicts within chiropractic, all NEW information should ALWAYS be measured by the philosophy, BEFORE, being incorporated within the practice of chiropractic. Otherwise, the practice of chiropractic has no coordinated foundation to stand on and becomes whatever appeals to individual chiropractors. When this lack of coordination happens, it creates further conflicts. –
– It is NOT about WHAT people said in 1895 or 1927 or 1961or last week that matters (even though we may quote them from time to time). Think about it… it’s about WHO you chooses to BE, as a chiropractor, today, in relationship to the objective of chiropractic.
“The objective of chiropractic is to LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body.”
The objective of Chiropractic is to maintain a subluxation-free nervous system (cranial, spinal and/or extremity) for the fullest expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body.
See the difference?
Oh yes, I do see the difference Bryson. You just threw away principle 31 and the definition of subluxation to fit WHAT appeals to you as a chiropractor. You have not used the tools called the 33 principles to measure the logic of your reasoning. If you would have, you would have seen that it is faulty reasoning.
Bryson, thanks for pointing out the difference, The first definition is that of NTOSC, the second is somthing different. The word (V)ertebra is missing from the second. That pretty much describes these techniques, they are interestrd in “subluxations” in other places beside the vetebral column. Subluxation is/ has a medical connotation in other places beside the spine. (Apparently they, the medical profesion, do not believe vertebrae subluxatein the chiropractic sense). So that is why I conclude it is a medical condition that is being treated. Does that make sense?
Dr. Lessard and Dr. Strauss and Bryson,
With some slight variations classically the spine is defined as 24 moveable bones and two sets of much less moveable bones 5 sacral and 4 coccygeal.
What do you say about the definition of vertebrae and number of segments in the spinal column also including the sphenoid that Bryson suggested?
Would Principle 31 include the sphenoid (previously a cranial bone)?
Lastly, from my limited knowledge, sphenoid is the only bone in question here Bryson because if this is true then we have to concede that the other bones of the cranium (e.g. partietal, occiptial and hyoidal) are not vertebral bones or bones of the spine according to this definition. Do you agree?
Don, I’m not that familiar wih these techniques. But they never seem to address correcting subluxations, simply because they(the VS) in and of themselves are detrimental to life (the NTOSC objective) but because they are the cause of a medical problem.(always the medical objective and the “traditional” chiropractic objective). The only difference between medicine and traditional chiropractic is what is the cause of disease.
Drs. Lessard and Strauss,
I agree that you have made your points. I’m not trying to be argumentative but no one has answered my question regarding the adjusting of a “subluxated” ilium. This cannot be a “vertebral subluxation” because the ilia are not vertebrae. Is it outside of the OSC scope of practice to adjust the ilium?
A subluxation is the condition of a vertebra that has lost its proper juxtaposition with the one above or the on below or both; to an extent less than luxation; which occludes an opening, impinges nerves and interferes with the transmission of mental impulses”
Stephenson’s Chiropractic Textbook – 1927
Interesting, adjusting the sacroiliac joint by contacting the ilium, does it fit the definition? Great question, Bryson.
Assuming the objective was LAFCVS for the full expression of IF of ii of the body, I would say no because an ilium contact is neither a vertebra nor directly juxtaposed to a vertebra.
Assuming the objective was LAFCVS for full expression if IF of the ii of the body, would you say a sacral Apex or base contact fits Stephenson’s definition?
You just answered your own question Bryson. NTOSCors are interested in VERTEBRAL subluxations. Do some NTOSCors “adjust” things other than vertebral subluxations? Probably. There’s no NTOSCor Police running around watching dogging every NTOSCor. Hey for that matter there was one noted president of a chiro college who was quoted as saying he would adjust a subluxation where there was no nerve interference present. Go figure!
Tom,
I understand that the adjustment is made by the ii of the body however would the term “adjust” apply in these instances? It seems the presence of a vs must precede the adjustment otherwise it is something else?
Would another word seem more appropriate or do I have this wrong?
Don,
You are absolutely correct and we have addressed this issue in previous blogs.
That’s WHY we call WHAT we deliver: An adjustic thrust –
#29. of the glossary states: Adjustic thrust: An adjustic thrust is a specific educated universal force introduced into a subluxated vertebra of a living person by a chiropractor with the intent that the innate intelligence of the body of that person will produce a chiropractic adjustment. –
– First, presence of a subluxation. –
– Second, location of the subluxation. –
– Third, analysis of the subluxation. –
– Fourth, introduction of the adjustic thrust by the chiropractor (which is YOUR facilitation phase). –
– Fifth, the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member will or will not adapt the educated universal force into an innate force. If it does adapt the educated universal force, then the innate intelligence of the body of the practice member produces the adjustment. –
– Does this answer your question Don?
Dr. Lessard,
Yes it does answer this question. It also makes me even more curious of your thoughts on my other question. (Don 02/14/2013, 9:54 pm:).
More exactly, if the vertebral subluxation is present in the sacroiliac joint and how?
Don,
I think Tom answered that question very well 2/13/13, 11:51pm. 😉
Dr. Lessard and Tom,
Sorry to be persistent, I just need to clarify. Please, let me know if this is correct.
The contact point or choice of technique is a non-issue so long as the objective is to correct the vs at the vertebral level.
The vertebral level or the vertebrae are deemed to be and inclusive of those bones of the spine juxtaposed either Atlas(C1) or L5 or any segment between.
Vs to be a vs must satisfy the definition “vertebra that has lost its proper juxtaposition with the one above or the on below or both”.
This implies that a vs (loss of juxtaposition AND nerve impingement/occlusion of an opening CANNOT occur at the following levels since the vertebra does not have proper juxtaposition to another one at these levels:
CO-C1 level
L5-S1
Sacroiliac joint
This might get some up in arms however, I suggest that regardless of technique or where the force if put in, to have the objective of facilitating a correction at these levels would be to “adjust” things other than a vertebral subluxation as Tom has suggested and possibly not practicing the objective of NTOSC since a vs is not present. Does that make sense?
Don, just a quick answer for right now, as I’m busier than a 1 arm paper hanger today as Reggie would say! lol
This implies that a vs (loss of juxtaposition AND nerve impingement/occlusion of an opening CANNOT occur at the following levels since the vertebra does not have proper juxtaposition to another one at these levels:
CO-C1 level
L5-S1
Sacroiliac joint
I would say that YES, a vs CAN occur between CO-C1 and L5-S1 as the occiput/sacrum in whole act as a vertebra. But no to SI as while sacrum acts as as a vertebra, the illium does not. More later.
Tom,
Haha! One arm paper hanger.
Sounds absurdly hilarious! 🙂
BTW, thanks for the answer.
Don,
Once again, I do like Tom’s preliminary answer. Location of subluxated vertebra and its analysis will provide the chiropractor with a choice of technique suited to introduce a SPECIFIC thrust at the level of the subluxated vertebra.
It is you WHO is free to choose to BE the chiropractor that YOU are called to BE. The art of chiropractic, is just that, an art, and is NOT a yardstick to measure if one is practicing the objective of chiropractic. –
– Years ago the profession learned the hard way. There has been more factions rising within the profession based upon the art of chiropractic than upon anything else. Full spine versus HIO, hands on versus instruments, x-ray analysis versus palpation, Logan technique versus Blair technique. An art is an art. Just that! –
– It is you WHO is free to choose WHO to BE in relationship with the art of chiropractic… first within yourself, and BE very confident about it. You are questioning very eloquently and you are providing food for thoughts to all WHO read this blog. You even get Tom’s brain going 😉 It is up to ALL of us to live the questions, sometimes without clear answers. I am firmly convinced that a deeper understanding of the philosophy will bring about “making whole” rather than “fragmenting into more factions”. It is critical to keep ourselves open to the NEW. This blog is about creating a NEW structure of understanding in order to receive the NEW and grow into WHO we are called to BE…. TOGETHER.
– It is you WHO is free to “hold” the tension intrinsic to the art of chiropractic within yourself… without judgment and keep the conversation open with your colleagues by sharing your journey as a chiropractor. –
– With regard to service, honesty is not the way…. it is the only way!
It begins with oneself! 😉
Dr. Lessard,
Thank you for the reminder.