response to Jack P... long post Off topic

[Guest guest]

Jack:

Hi, and thanks.

Wanted to share an opinion, like that surprises you!

The warring factions are more concerning the difference between a " medical "

model of sickness. ie the SMT fellows of Chiropractic who actually believe

that there is no difference between SMT and an adjustment, and the

Chiropractic model of wellness and the prevention of dis-ease, ie non

homeostasis.

So while I have no particular problem with any DC practicing SMT, by

definition he/she is not practicing Chiropractic. Chiropractic has never

been defined as the pain model of SMT.

As you so aptly stated, there are indeed two models of health care delivery

in the Chiropractic profession and it is unfortunate that there is so much

animosity between the two groups. It just seems that the SMT group wants to

so narrowly define Chiropractic within the scope of dbl blind studies that

it is forgotten what Chiropractic really is and has been.

We didn't always have the same 10% of the sick population. We all got

insurance coverage and then got lazy in education of the patients. That ...

gasp... the patient actually had some responsibility in their own health.

That getting adjusted, eating the correct foods and exercising and

attending to the spiritual portions of their lives were important aspects of

maintaining homeostasis thereby preventing dis-ease. That the Chiropractic

lifestyle was a reflection of the paradigm of health. After all everyone

knows someone who has a spine that needs to be checked, but how many people

do you personally know right at this minute that has a bad back or neck. Gee

didn't you know that Chiropractor's only treat back pain and neck pain....

or was that our SMT guys selling us on the notion that we could " get them

in " with the back/neck pain and then " really " educate them as to what

Chiropractic does.

So while I have respect for those SMT Doctor's and the good work that they

do for people in terms of alleviating some/ or all of the patient's pain it

is a crime to denigrate the profession by disclaiming the defined concept of

the subluxation, attempting to hide behind the " it isn't proven " theory.

Yes, I said theory... the subluxation has been proven, read your neurology

texts... every single adjustment affects global physiology through afferent

stimulation and vertebral movement that moves the body to homeostasis

thereby alleviating dis-ease.

If you choose to ignore neurophysiology and claim subluxation as a theory

versus a fact, be my guest.. you are, however, ignoring the research that

has been done. The subluxation is and has been defined in peer reviewed

articles such as JMPT, and the effects/affects are known neurophysiological

results of the adjustment. What we do not know ... yet... are the full

components of the subluxation nor the full effects, such as vibrational

components , consciousness to consciousness components, etc.

The SMT Doc's, at some point are going to have to give up the notion that

they are the only ones who are right. If you want to persist in the notion

that there is no such thing as a subluxation, then go be a freakin physical

therapist. Do not, however, denigrate the profession by being incongruent in

your belief system.

Jack.. sorry you opened the door.

Always

Danno

" an amorphous disorganized group of various factions??

"

> Listmates:

>

> ....this is as close a term to Universal Basic Truth as I've ever seen

> used to describe any group that has consumed as many decades struggling

> to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory as chiropractic has....

>

> With the Big Picture hanging out of focus in our otherwise Pristine

> Universe, ongoing internecine scrimmages between chiropractic factions

> occupy the same niche as the fiddle-players at Nero's Roman

> Extravaganza....and to the same effect....is it true we suffer a

> Professional Cognitive Dissonance, a selective type of attention deficit

> disorder, which tricks us into ignoring one aspect of the human

> condition, while focusing on another???

>

> I believe we simply MUST overcome the notion EITHER:OR is 'Science'

> while " BOTH:AND " is something else....modern Physics, mathematics and

> the entire Silicon Lifeforms of Computer Science readily embrace both

> concepts are equally useful. Why can't chiropractors do that too?

>

> In the development of what we can measure OR define as being an

> essential part of chiropractic care, we continue to ram into the same

> issues. And we can continue to serve 10% of the population with the

> tools we have in place. Hardly a resounding victory in a world of

> grief and affliction.

>

> " Crazy " is continuing to do what we have always done and complaining

> about the results. " Insane " is doing what we've always done and

> expecting changes to somehow spring forth. I believe it's crazy to

> accept we only reach that 10%. I believe it's insane to not expect

> better from my profession.

>

> I've been an amorphous and disorganized individual my entire life....no

> wonder 'chiropractic' seems like home to me!! Personally, I feel quite

> comfortable in some circumstances acting as if " That Which Can Be

> Measured-orthopedic model " serves the patient best; while other

> situations a more effective choice is in the ineffable " Dynamic force "

> which isn't as easily documentable. And my chart notes are constructed

> in a way intended to convey those various nuances.

>

> The requirements of OBCE to demonstrate what it is I think I'm doing

> help better formulate exactly what I'm offering the afflicted patient.

> Or is this note too amorphous and disorganized to understand?

>

> Jack Pedersen DC

> Member, AmoDisVariFac

>

>

>

> OregonDCs rules:

> 1. Keep correspondence professional; the purpose of the listserve is to

> foster communication and collegiality. No personal attacks on listserve

> members will be tolerated.

> 2. Always sign your e-mails with your first and last name.

> 3. The listserve is not secure; your e-mail could end up anywhere.

> However, it is against the rules of the listserve to copy, print, forward,

> or otherwise distribute correspondence written by another member without

> his or her consent, unless all personal identifiers have been removed.

>