SEARCH KNOWLEDGE BASE: 10.000 Q&A

Re: chirotalk

(2 discussions)

Chris you ask a question as old as Chiropractic itself.My reply will be in 2 posts because it is to long for the post regulations.A few of the big reasons are: differing philosophies, misunderstanding, and competition. The philosophy of Chiropractic is central to practicing it.
There are at least 5 different schools of thought on how important the philosophy is in the education and practice of Chiropractic.
Some don’t think it should be taught and some think it should be taught way more than it is.
The basic tenent of Chiropractic philosphy deals with perceptible (or empirical) vs imperceptible (deductive reasoning). For instance if I add 1 ml of water to 10 ml in a 20 ml graduated cylinder does the water level change?
Sure it is easy the level goes up, that is emprical knowledge or knowledge that is provable (typically what is used in pharmacy based healthcare).
If I add 1 ml of water to a swimming pool does the water level change?
In theory yes the water level goes up (ignoring evaporation and splashing). But can you prove it?
Well no there are no insturments to my knowledge which could detect a change that small in volume level. But it can’t be emprically proven, that makes it deductive knowledge.

Best Answers

DC student

DC student

Now lets take these two concepts and put them into Chiropractic. You remember Christopher Reeves right? He fell off a horse and broke part of his neck which impacted his spinal chord which reduced his body's ability to function. He became paralyzed and later died as a result of it. That is empirical, if you have a MAJOR gross alignment of the spinal column the effects on the body are easy to prove. Instead of his hand, arm, foot, and leg muscles working at 100% they worked at 0%. The signals from the brain couldn't reach the muscles so they couldn't function. Now what if instead of breaking his vertebral column we just move it a little off center of where it should be. We know from the empirical model above that a big change causes an effect and we use deductive reasoning saying that if a big change can have a big effect then it stands to reason that a small change can have a small effect. Perhaps instead of your muscles working at 100% efficiency they only work at 90% efficiency. That is deductive reasoning and the reasoning behind Chiropractic. But Chiropractic goes beyond muscles. You have nerves that come out of your midback that go to your heart, lungs, digestive tract, liver, sensoredual organs, basically everything in your body is innervated by your spinal nerves. So why wouldn't it stand to reason, just logically, that if you can effect motor function you can also effect these other organs. That is what the 'traditional' or allopathic medical model does not see. And a major reason that they don't understand Chiropractic. And I will say to you that it really isn't the fault of the practitioners. They aren't taught to understand the Chiropractic model, they don't think in a way which is consistent with the Chiropractic model. So why would the understand it?

DC student

DC student

Now on to the other points. As I look back I kinda touched on the misunderstanding but lets go a little deeper. Most MDs, and DOs to a degree, don't know enough about Chiropractic to talk about it on a professional level. Again they aren't taught to so why would they? They see Chiropractic as unscientific, a bunch of snake oil sellsman or quacks (their words not mine). Because Chiropractic works 1 on 1 and directly with a patient it cannot be tested under the traditional research model that pharmacutical based care can be, double blind randomized study. Also Chiropractic is not just a philosphy, a science, but also an art. Take painting for example each person is different. They may take the same classes but each person does it at a different level, some are better than others, and some just do it via a different method. There are over 100 different techniques for adjusting the spine, that is right over 100! Some people prefer 1 method and others prefer another, and some are better than others at specific techniques (and then again some are just better than others). So in addition to not seeing Chiropractic in the right context MDs could watch 10 adjustments on 10 different people for 10 different conditions, assuming the DC is treating with the same technique, and think that the DC is doing the same thing to all of them but they are looking from the outside. DCs can perform a lumbar roll in many different ways, with many different contact points, with many different force imputs, and all these subtle changes make the adjustments different. But to an untrained eye it may look like they are doing the same thing to everyone. This last point is not very hard to see. Chiropractors can help people without the use of drugs. Without traditional medical provider's help. So the money isn't going to the traditional medical providers, wouldn't you be at least a little upset if people stopped coming to you for something you had and started going somewhere else?Here is something you may not know For more information on the Wilks case here is an article. sensored://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1987/oct/oct1987a.htm


2 comments

    DC student

    9 10

    Now lets take these two concepts and put them into Chiropractic. You remember Christopher Reeves right? He fell off a horse and broke part of his neck which impacted his spinal chord which reduced his body’s ability to function. He became paralyzed and later died as a result of it. That is empirical, if you have a MAJOR gross alignment of the spinal column the effects on the body are easy to prove. Instead of his hand, arm, foot, and leg muscles working at 100% they worked at 0%. The signals from the brain couldn’t reach the muscles so they couldn’t function. Now what if instead of breaking his vertebral column we just move it a little off center of where it should be. We know from the empirical model above that a big change causes an effect and we use deductive reasoning saying that if a big change can have a big effect then it stands to reason that a small change can have a small effect. Perhaps instead of your muscles working at 100% efficiency they only work at 90% efficiency. That is deductive reasoning and the reasoning behind Chiropractic. But Chiropractic goes beyond muscles. You have nerves that come out of your midback that go to your heart, lungs, digestive tract, liver, sensoredual organs, basically everything in your body is innervated by your spinal nerves. So why wouldn’t it stand to reason, just logically, that if you can effect motor function you can also effect these other organs. That is what the ‘traditional’ or allopathic medical model does not see. And a major reason that they don’t understand Chiropractic. And I will say to you that it really isn’t the fault of the practitioners. They aren’t taught to understand the Chiropractic model, they don’t think in a way which is consistent with the Chiropractic model. So why would the understand it?

      DC student

      9 10

      Now on to the other points. As I look back I kinda touched on the misunderstanding but lets go a little deeper. Most MDs, and DOs to a degree, don’t know enough about Chiropractic to talk about it on a professional level. Again they aren’t taught to so why would they? They see Chiropractic as unscientific, a bunch of snake oil sellsman or quacks (their words not mine). Because Chiropractic works 1 on 1 and directly with a patient it cannot be tested under the traditional research model that pharmacutical based care can be, double blind randomized study. Also Chiropractic is not just a philosphy, a science, but also an art. Take painting for example each person is different. They may take the same classes but each person does it at a different level, some are better than others, and some just do it via a different method. There are over 100 different techniques for adjusting the spine, that is right over 100! Some people prefer 1 method and others prefer another, and some are better than others at specific techniques (and then again some are just better than others). So in addition to not seeing Chiropractic in the right context MDs could watch 10 adjustments on 10 different people for 10 different conditions, assuming the DC is treating with the same technique, and think that the DC is doing the same thing to all of them but they are looking from the outside. DCs can perform a lumbar roll in many different ways, with many different contact points, with many different force imputs, and all these subtle changes make the adjustments different. But to an untrained eye it may look like they are doing the same thing to everyone. This last point is not very hard to see. Chiropractors can help people without the use of drugs. Without traditional medical provider’s help. So the money isn’t going to the traditional medical providers, wouldn’t you be at least a little upset if people stopped coming to you for something you had and started going somewhere else?Here is something you may not know For more information on the Wilks case here is an article. sensored://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/tcj/1987/oct/oct1987a.htm

LEAVE A REPLY

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *