I originally posted this in January 2014, at the start of my second year in chiropractic school. I removed it at graduation while I was applying for internships - for some reason I was worried this would look poorly, but re-reading it now, it feels authentic and true, if only a little naive, which would be expected of a second year chiropractic student.
I love new technology. Not just gadgets and toys, but processes and activities that involve new technologies. One of my favorites is podcasting. I listen to hours of podcasts each week on subjects ranging from word etymology to Apple news to, of course, health and chiropractic. Actually, I have my own podcast about chiropractic. One of the newer chiropractic related podcasts I've been listening to is Spinal Column Radio by Dr. Thomas Lamar in Washington. It's a long running, long form podcast focusing on principle-based chiropracTIC that features well known, outspoken chiropractors such as Dr. James Chestnut, Liam Schubel, and Patrick Gentempo. Unfortunately, the show is coming to an end in the next few weeks.
Just a few days ago, Dr. Schubel shared this to commemmorate the show's long run:
It's strange how people can have such different perceptions of similar events. I honestly don't know what is meant by this "worldwide shift" of chiropractic. I don't know what it means to "clean house". I fear that Dr. Schubel and others want modern day chiropractors to practice just as they would have back in the early 1900s.
D.D. Palmer with first Portland class which included John E. LaValley, John Marsh and Leroy Gordon.
In "The Chiropractor", D.D. Palmer wrote about rachitis, a disease today known as rickets. It is now well known that the major cause of rickets is a deficiency of Vitamin D, most commonly in young children. In 1914, however, when D.D. was writing this book, the medical community had not yet understood the cause of the disease. That didn't keep him from confidently pronouncing the true cause of the disease:
“All rachitic conditions are because of displacement of the twelfth dorsal [thoracic] vertebra; this is an established fact. […]
A natural insight of your teacher, untrammeled by superstition or education, assisted by revelation and an investigation from a chiropractic viewpoint has enabled him to throw an illuminating light on the etiology of this heretofore mysterious disease.”
Is this the history that made chiropractic great in the first place? Is this the type of chiropractic that these principle based doctors are calling for in a worldwide shift? If so, count me out!
I appreciate the history of the profession. I admire what D.D. and B.J. Palmer offered to the world of healthcare, especially the focus on treating the cause of illness rather than the symptoms. I don't have an interest in being a medical doctor and prescribing antibiotics and recommending surgery as a first attempt at treating a condition. I also value the scientific method. It is important to evaluate plausibility as well as the evidence in support of a claim. D.D. Palmer's explanation of the cause of rickets may have been plausible with the limited scientific knowledge of his era, but is easily shown to be incorrect based on what we know today thanks to scientific research. If D.D. had just taken the time to design a blinded observational study to evaluate the 12th dorsal or thoracic vertebrae of patients with or without Rickets, he likely would have been able to reveal no such correlation.
When I listen to chiropracTORS preaching about "innate intelligence", I don't hear scientific validity. When they mention their belief in vitalism, I wonder how they can accept a doctrine that was disproven nearly 200 years ago. This type of chiropractic is what gives the profession it's "quackery" title.
I hope to practice another kind of chiropractic, one based on principles of science and sound biomechanical principles. There's a bit of a division among chiropractors, especially if you pay attention to what is being said in certain social circles online. Some of them want to progress along with scientific advancements being made throughout the world. Others want to hold tight to the original dogma and philosophy from over 200 years ago.
“Chiropractors can’t have it both ways. Our theories cannot be both dogmatically held vitalistic constructs and be scientific at the same time. The purposiveness, consciousness and rigidity of the Palmers’ Innate should be rejected.”