User talk:33chiro

Hi wiki-world, I am a licensed chiropractor seeking to better inform the public. Just adding an approach to chiropractic adjusting that was listed on Web MD, reported on by The American Chiropractor magazine, the Canadian Chiropractor magazine (both about 5 years ago), supported as a chiropractic continuing education course by Life University in Georgia, USA, and portions of which are taught as part of the basic curriculum at New Zealand College of Chiropractic. At least 3 campuses in the US have student clubs as well. Will make a basic BGI page shortly. thanks. any help you can offer is appreciated!

GCC's disavowal of the vertebral subluxation
For your edification/enlightenment, here's a link to the GCC's disavowal of the VS: Guidance on claims made for the chiropractic vertebral subluxation complex -- Brangifer (talk) 18:48, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

Principled Chiropractic's perspective on subluxation
I see that the GCC is in the UK. we have several organizations in the USA with different positions. Here is another, for your edification/enlightenment: Vertebral Subluxation as the Sole Rationale for Care Many subjects in the world are controversial, but it is great that they are all open to discussion. 33chiro (talk) 19:38, 4 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm very familiar with the ICA/WCA position and know what "principled chiropractic" is all about. It's the original chiropractic position. The GCC is taking another approach by integrating scientific knowledge into their way of dealing with chiropractic's future. This situation is very similar to the struggle within Christianity. Conservative Christians who hold to creationism and refuse to accept any form of evolution still press forward with attempts to claim that their faith-based beliefs are scientifically proven when they advocate the oxymoron "Creation Science". It's similar to the chiropractic oxymoron "scientific vertebral subluxation" (per JVSR). The dispute is between those chiropractors who espouse a metaphysical/religious belief in vertebral subluxation, versus those who accept that there is no scientific evidence for its existence, as supported by scientific consensus, one which the GCC recognizes. It knows that chiropractic has no future if it holds onto ancient beliefs.


 * The dispute involves beliefs in vitalism, Innate Intelligence, and the resultant misuse/overuse of spinal adjustments and creation of myriad fictive diagnoses, where well-known diseases and conditions are renamed with esoteric chiropractic diagnostic terms, always in terms of "vertebral subluxation". Then, going back to the original strategy to avoid prosecution for practicing medicine without a license, they claim that they don't diagnose or treat disease.


 * Yes, I know it well. Basically, as a chiropractor, one can choose to stay in the past or move on into the future. Those who hold onto old beliefs are an increasing embarrassment and impediment to the profession, and a source of ridicule within the medical and scientific community. -- Brangifer (talk) 21:24, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

I glean from your perspective that you are happy to diagnose and treat in the allopathic model. A fine choice, and one I do not share. I see chiropractic moving forward, regardless of your opinion or mine. One with your opinion can deliver allopathic treatment and I can deliver subluxation-based care. I do not treat conditions, I leave diagnosis and treatment to allopaths. As a principled chiropractor, I assess the persons system and adjust subluxations. I give them an opportunity to be seen from a different perspective, and profound changes occur, even conditions that may have diagnoses that I am not treating. Placebo or no, matter and energy interplay - even in the lab. An observer's expectation can effect the outcome of a particle's behavior. You choose particle, I choose wave. Neither of us are wrong. Both are expressing, and thus observable depending on one's perspective. Your analogy to religious arguments feels inaccurate to me. I hold that we know "metaphysics" by such a term because people's experiences, observable phenomenae, have heretofore been out of reach (above/meta), as we have not yet been creative enough to determine how to measure and track the complexities and emergent properties of natural systems, and the subtleties of their energetics, in order to carry out satisfactory science. To me this is an invitation to advance science into realms it has been too limited to yet touch. What is ancient and yet true cannot hamper advancement. For example, yoga is no less profound in its essence in this millenium than it has been in the last 5 or so. And like consciousness, and matter (as Einstein observed), truth is relative. Our observations will always depend upon our point of view. Thank you for sharing your perspective.