Re: [CHIROLIST] Moron-o-practic

Subject Re: [CHIROLIST] Moron-o-practic

Date: 12-24-02

Dr. Michael M: If you're not learning, you're not growing. If you're not growing, you're not evolving. Please name any science/art that did not evolve over time.

Well, if you're thinking that "chiropractic" is either a "science" and/or an "art" --never MIND the insipid "philosophy" we always hear about --then, I've always maintained that it's a profession that hasn't evolved since its inception in 1895. You say that "growth" is a prerequisite to what you're calling evolution. I suppose "chiropractic" has mutated a bit here and there; but, to argue it's "evolving" instead of bloating, or HAS "evolved" -- this is over 100 years short of accurate. It hasn't --and isn’t likely to, either.

About ten years ago, for example, I asked a group of cyber-DCs, to name five or ten things that had been discarded from "chiropractic" because any of them had been demonstrated to be stupid altogether, or less effective than something else when compared with another therapy within the Chiropractic Byzantium or one outside its walls. When nothing was cited, I asked for ONE thing, in that case. Chiropractors are still silent into the 21st century. In fact, the chiropractic house has everything it ever thought or "bought" on display in its living room, too --its attic and basement remaining unusually empty and clean for its 107 year history. In case you hadn't noticed, for individuals and cultures, as well as professions, discarding what's demonstrably useless and "wrong" is necessary for growth and health.

The point, in case you hadn't noticed, is that "chiropractic" never acquired a secondary autonomy from its original medically neurotic conception in 1895. In fact, many DCs maintain there's no need to change ANYTHING. It's _perfect_ the way it is. The implication is that "chiropractic" was Immaculately Conceived with Vertebral Subluxation representing The Original Sin. In this sense, "chiropractic" doesn't differ from any other Alt Med --all of them complete and perfectly designed at their beginning. Compare this with the sort of active and lively development we routinely see in medicines that do their best to rely on the scientific process. What's new on the chiropractic horizon, for example? ;')

Moreover, "chiropractic" is unlikely to evolve --from the inside-out, anyways. To do this, they'd have to change at the level of the chiropractic genome. This would phenotypically alter the profession to the point that it would barely be recognizable and would make too many people anxious. DCs would grasp even harder at their chiropractic straws. Moreover, any growth and development would have to occur without the usual "excision and repair enzymes" in place. In other words, the chiropractic status quo and non-evolution are practically guaranteed. Take a look, in case you don't believe me.

Growth and development? I don't _think_ so. Evolution? You're kidding --right?