I was recently discussing the issue of objective straight chiropractic versus traditional straight chiropractic and conservative mixer with one of my friends who is not fond of the term objective straight. He thinks you are either straight or you are a conservative mixer. I jokingly told him that I made up the term because I was not about to admit that I was a mixer for the first seven or eight years in practice. Aside from my ego, however, is the problem of having to tell Reggie Gold, Thom Gelardi, Lyle Sherman, Joe Donofrio, and even B.J. Palmer that they too were mixers back in those days! We all practiced the same model of chiropractic. The change took place with the acceptance of the CCE in the mid-seventies when those who are now referred to as objective straight chiropractors refused to agree that chiropractors should do medical diagnostic tests. The discrepancy in philosophy has broadened over the years as the traditional chiropractors have incorporated nutritional counseling and sports rehabilitation into their procedures. They still, however, refuse to admit they are no longer straight chiropractors or they try to get rid of the term altogether which is ironic since they claim to adhere to B.J.’s chiropractic and he used the term for over 50 years. Most claim that they correct the cause of disease and what they are practicing is “B.J. chiropractic,” which implies that it therefore must be straight chiropractic (who would call B.J. a mixer?). There is no doubt that the (objective) straight chiropractic of today is much different philosophically than the chiropractic of B.J. Palmer. Contrary to the charges of some straight chiropractic detractors, the philosophy of chiropractic is not dogmatic. It is continually evolving. There are a number of differences between B.J. chiropractic and objective straight chiropractic, although the former has led to the latter. We could not have reached the understanding that we have today had we not been given the vision of D.D., B.J. and others. But chiropractic philosophy continues to evolve. As scientific knowledge increases and as our understanding increases, we change. I believe that in the evolution of any idea there are great leaps, breakthroughs in thinking. Surely when D.D. gave the first adjustment, that was a breakthrough. Another was certainly when B.J.recognized the metaphysical aspect of chiropractic, removing interference to the expression of the body’s innate intelligence. I believe the most recent breakthrough is the idea that chiropractic should not be arbitrarily or traditionally defined but that it should be defined by its objective. We have made some relatively small breakthroughs since that time including, for example, the idea that chiropractic is not an alternative to medicine, that we are not in competition and, in fact, our approach and the disease approach are entirely different. Consequently, the modern-day straight chiropractor does not comment on anything medical. Each breakthrough creates an accompanying change in thought, in philosophy and, as a result, in practice. As these changes occur, in some ways we move further and further from B.J.’s model of chiropractic. In other ways we can see that we are practicing that model in a purer manner, in a way that was closer to what B.J. seemed to have had in mind.Will chiropractic continue to change and evolve? Of course it will. But in defining chiropractic by its objective, we have very definitely limited the manner and degree to which it can change. That is good in that it will preserve the idea of correcting vertebral subluxations. It is also a detriment. For if something better, something more effective in enabling the innate intelligence to be more fully expressed over the nerve system (or in any other way) is discovered, objective straight chiropractors will still be stuck with only correcting vertebral subluxations. Unless, of course, we want to call what we do something other than objective straight chiropractic (e.g., intelligence enhancing chiropractic). You see, our objective cannot change. Our philosophy definitely will. In fact, I believe we will see some major philosophical changes in the next decade or so, ones that will more clearly support, explain, and clarify our objective. Will that make what we are doing now mixing? I do not think so. But perhaps practitioners twenty years from now will be calling us “ultra conservative mixers.” Was D.D. a mixer? Was B.J.? Were those who are leaders in the straight chiropractic community today, mixers 30 years ago? It seems to me that when one scrapes away the confusing issues like the cause of disease and getting sick people well, the objectives were and are correcting vertebral subluxations so the inborn wisdom of the body can be more fully expressed. They simply did not fully understand that objective or have a clear way to explain it as we do today. Consequently, there is no longer a need to present chiropractic in the confusing way it was explained 30 years ago. Our forefathers expressed chiropractic philosophy the best they could with the information and knowledge they had. The important thing for all of them was that they strove to get rid of confusing issues in the philosophy of chiropractic, to refine it, to bring it to a point rather than add things to chiropractic as some are doing today, sending out mixed messages. If that makes D.D., B.J., mixers and Reggie, Thom, Lyle, Joe D., and me, for that matter, former mixers, so be it.
Thoughts
As a profession, we do not want medical doctors adjusting vertebral subluxations but we want to treat disease.Why is it medicine can be so adamant that a displaced (herniated) disc can impinge upon the cord and spinal nerves and cause all kinds of problems affecting the function of the nerve system? They are so confident this can happen that they actually perform major surgery to reduce that impingement. Yet they are just as adamant that a misaligned bone cannot have the same effect.The strength and greatness of chiropractic is and always has been in the chiropractor’s realization of his or her own limitations. When chiropractors cease to realize their weakness and dependency upon the innate intelligence of the body to accomplish their objective, chiropractic will cease to be great. v15n3