Subluxation – An historical concept? We dont think so ! The UCA starts the fight back.

As one of the original founder members of the UCA, can I say how delighted I was to get this postcard in my post todayUntitled-2. We formed the UCA to defend traditional chiropractic practice and in recent years the UCA has failed to recognise the light at the end of the tunnel was a train coming straight at traditional chiropractors.

Traditional chiropractors check the spine for Subluxations and correct them, they do not treat conditions or diseases as stated by those ignoramuses on the GCC’s Education committee. Subluxations are not pseudo religious constructs you can feel them and I have seen them in dissected cadavers. The medical professions uses the term in relation to a hypermobile joint. Traditional chiropractors use the term to describe abnormalities throughout the full range of joint motion in relation to spinal joints. Having realised last year there was no use explaining subluxation theory to medics who referred to a “Back Bone”  in relation to manipulation and the NICE guidelines. I decided to rebrand my clinics as “Spinal Joint”  put all these back pain specialists in one place and let them treat back pain. After their back pain was gone, they could  have chiriopractic care and subluxation correction if they wanted. There is no point trying to explain to skeptics why they might

To help readers understand traditional chiropractic and to illustrate the downright misinformation and crap coming from the GCC and their main ally, BCA president Richard Brown. I will quote again from the  book that most accurately describes the teachings of the Palmers which was written by R.W. Stephenson’s in 1920 .  Thats ninety years ago so its fair to say it’s not something that I just made up, you would think the fools on the GCCs Education Committee would have known something about the principles of chiropractic before making their ill-informed pronouncements on subluxation and disease for the benefit of skeptic beliefs and prejudices about chiropractic. Having read their blogs I can confidently say they know fuck all about what I do in practice and they know fuck all about the supposedly “deluded” people who seek my services. In fact sceptics seem to base their views on chiropractic on the activities of a minority of unethical chiropractors, which is akin to me defining medicine on the activities of Harold Shipman..

The principles of chiropractic are what make chiropractic a separate and distinct profession from medicine. It was necessary to outline these  differences because chiropractors were being arrested for practicing medicine without a licence and they had to make the case that chiropractic was separate and distinct from medicine and the GCC brand of chiropractic quackery. Herbert Ross Reaver gives a fascinating account of his experience. How times have changes, I know a number of UK chiropractors who have spent time in the cells after the GCC reported them for practicing chiropractic without a medical licence.

Stephenson compiled a list of “chiropractic principles” in his“Chiropractic Textbook”, BJ Palmer the son of DD and the person credited with developing Chiropractic, praised Stephenson for compiling the principles of “my writings into systematic organised manner so anyone could easily find “what chiropractic is, Is not; What it Does and does not; how and why it does what it does not”

So lets see exactly what Palmer says about disease so even a child could understand BJ Palmers  play on the word “disease” to get Dis – ease, “corny” perhaps for the sophisticated Googler in 2010, back then the judges  thought it was a sensible explanation, because they stopped arresting chiropractors.

I dont criticise skeptics for asking  questions as I know its great fun  questioning people who dont know the answers or even better when the make up an answer to sound like they know what they are talking about. However when you know the people answering the questions are just blowing hot air you have to wonder about the integrity of the people using these answers for their own ends.

For example when “professors” like Edzard Ernst ignore  explanations of  Dis – ease which has an entirely different meaning to disease and continue with his mantra, this week he states on his pulse blog in relation to the GCCs denouncement of the subluxation  “It seems to be a clear break with the traditional philosophy of chiropractic assuming that most human conditions are caused by subluxations of the spine and are thus treatable with spinal adjustments” . I explained all this to Ernst Ernst in my critic of his New Scientist article however he chose’s to ignore it and blow more hot air about chiropractic in Pulse and has the gall then to say I “unfairly criticize” him for his views.

Principle 30 “The Causes of Dis – ease”. Stephenson clearly states in the book “Disease” is a term “used by physicians for sickness. To them it is an entity and is worthy of a name hence diagnosis”.

Stephenson describes Dis – ease (with a hyphen) as “a chiropractic term meaning not having ease. It is a lack of entity It is a condition of matter when it does not have property of ease. Dis – ease is the condition of tissue cells when there is uncoordination”. Stephenson goes onto say, “if tissue cells are not coordinating some tissue cells will be made unsound, therefore they are sick and not at ease. By deconstructing chiropractic down to a vitalist level of cell communication we are going beyond nerve interference and into the realms of neuroscience that Candice Perth would describe as the “Molecules of emotion” 80 years later. Anyone who would state “subluxation chiropractors” claim to cure all “disease” is either disingenuous or ignorant. In the case of the GCC, its probably more a matter of integrity.

People like Ernst and the sceptics have essentially arguing with chiropractic representatives that shared their views and both sides were too ignorant to see the similarities, The fact the BCA sued Simon Singh was ridiculous and now they are trying to get the sceptics join their attack on traditional chiropractic . Since 2002 I have been saying that There is very little difference between the views of Edzard Ernst and the Members of the GCCs education committee like David Byfield, In fact the only difference would be that Byfield would argue that chiropractic is more effective on treating back pain than Ernst gives credit.

With my health promotion hat on and being fortunate enough to have had one of the great Professors of  public health care Theodore MacDonald as my mentor, I say to Professor Ernst et al, if  you want a good debate on chiropractic challenge  a real chiropractor not a quack chiropractor.

The UCA postcard is but small act of defiance towards the GCC/BCA alliance, but hopefully it will ripple throughout the UK profession and motivate chiropractors to get off their knees and tell Margaret Coats, Peter Dixon, and Richard Brown; you do not speak for us. Professor Edzard is entitled to say “The existence of spinal subluxations has never been established. Thus chiropractic was built on sand” however it should be for traditional chiropractors to defend the principles of chiropractic rather than the pseudo medical GCC.

The front of the card simply poses the question the GCC stated as fact; Subluxation – An historical concept? On the back is written; We don’t think so! and an invitation to join the UCA who can offer their members a much better deal in the light of Simon Perry and Zenos complaints against over 600 BCA chiropractors.

As I blogged to Skeptic Barista, we will live to thank Zeno and Simon Perry for their complaints to the GCC. 

Share Button

32 comments for “Subluxation – An historical concept? We dont think so ! The UCA starts the fight back.

Comments are closed.