January 2009

Research and philosophy are not mutually exclusive

by Dr. Terry A. Rondberg

In a thought-provoking article for the October 2008 issue of The Pivot Review (a publication of the Foundation for the Advancement of Chiropractic Education), Joseph Strauss, DC, put forth his reasons for rejecting chiropractic research.

In the article, "Research -- The Greatest Threat to the Future of Chiropractic," Dr. Strauss states: "... the research that most in our profession are looking for and the research that the medical community is demanding will not benefit the chiropractic that was intended by our forefathers to benefit all of humanity."

Although I respect Dr. Strauss greatly and acknowledge him as one of the foremost defenders of subluxation-centered chiropractic, I must disagree with him on this notion that research cannot benefit the profession and, as a result, the entire population.

Dr. Strauss refers to an article I wrote in The Chiropractic Journal promoting neurologically based chiropractic and the NeuroInfiniti instrumentation, which allows us -- for the first time -- to show objective evidence of the neurological impact of subluxations and adjustments.

He says that the inference I made was that "we need research and documentation to validate our professional objective." In that, he's correct.

However, he goes on to say: "We find ourselves in this position because of our profession's low self esteem, which has caused us to walk around with slumped shoulders while the medical profession has castigated us because we have no research to back up our claims of chiropractic's effectiveness. The problem is that the medical profession does not know what we do."

Frankly, I don't care whether the medical profession does or does not know what we do. Even if they do know, they aren't going to embrace us. We're their worst nightmare: health without drugs or surgery!

Nor do I suffer from low self-esteem, as anyone who knows me will attest! I'm proud of chiropractic and I've spent the last two and a half decades of my life shouting it from the rooftops. I've published a newspaper, a research journal, three books and countless articles and press releases, all promoting chiropractic as a way to unleash the body's innate ability to optimize health.

Everything I've ever written has stressed the fact that chiropractic is NOT a medical treatment of diseases and conditions. I've headed global efforts to make sure chiropractic is not considered a therapy and that it was beneficial as a wellness approach for all people, including those without any health concerns or symptoms.

Yet, I still am a strong advocate for chiropractic research, as long as it's geared to proving that subluxations have a negative impact on the human system and that chiropractic adjustments can help reduce or eliminate that impact.

As a result of 25+ years in the chiropractic profession, I know without a doubt that chiropractic works. I know it can help people live healthier, happier lives. I saw in my own practice how adjustments can help the body address a wide range of health problems, enhance immunity, and increase overall well-being.

But there's a difference between saying "I know it works, and I can prove it" and "I know it works but you'll have to take my word for it."

That's why we need research! People today aren't willing to just take our word for it. Particularly with access to the Internet, they can find hundreds of personal testimonials about chiropractic. But they can find an equal number of complaints about those "quacks who crack backs." With the pro and con arguments canceling each other out, how are people going to be convinced that chiropractic might help them?

Research is the only solution I can think of. Dr. Strauss has a different solution: keep telling the chiropractic story to everyone. "The more we research, the less we will talk about, focus upon, or educate the public about innate intelligence and it is that concept and that alone that separates us from medicine," he warns.

I don't see any reason why we can't do research and talk about chiropractic.

In fact, in all my articles about chiropractic research, I've stressed the fact that we don't need more "chiropractic for back pain" studies. We have enough of those and they only tend to shove us into a very limited therapeutic box.

What I want is research that will show, for instance, that correcting subluxations allows the body to normalize blood pressure. Or that without the interference of subluxations, so-called "infertile" woman can conceive children. Or that people under regular chiropractic wellness care have fewer incidents of colds and flu, indicating a stronger immune system.

Dr. Strauss notes: "Here is the problem and the reason research is such a threat to our profession: the more conditions we research to demonstrate the benefits of chiropractic care in the alleviation of those problems, the more we become part of medicine (treating diseases)."

Here again, I disagree. Yes, I think research can demonstrate that chiropractic is effective in addressing a wide variety of conditions, but only as a result of subluxation correction. We correct the subluxations and the body corrects the problem -- as shown by the research.

Otherwise, we're left with trying to explain why we correct subluxations, without ever referring to any practical and concrete reasons for doing so. That wasn't enough in BJ's time (which is why he devoted so much energy to research) and it surely isn't enough today.

I have to also take exception to a couple of other statements made by Dr. Strauss. At one point he says, "some in our profession claim that medicine does not work, yet medicine has the data (their research) to prove that it does." Actually, most medical research does NOT prove the effectiveness of medical procedures. Just the opposite is true. Most research points up the ineffectiveness and dangers of most medicine and surgery. Many of those that supposedly "prove" some pill or procedure is effective are tainted by bias, funded by drug companies, or conducted on small and non-representative samples.

Chiropractic research based on objective evidence compiled with accurate instrumentation can prove the benefits of chiropractic as a non-medical health care approach, but only if we stop thinking we can progress into the 21st century with outmoded notions about how science somehow sullies our philosophy.

The last point made by Dr. Strauss that I feel obligated to address is his rather cutting remark that my article was "an infomercial for some new recordkeeping software." That's totally untrue and unfair. Yes, I support, promote and frequently refer to the NeuroInfiniti instrumentation. But what I wish Dr. Strauss and all my colleagues would realize is that I promote NeuroInfiniti because I believe neurologically based chiropractic is the best way to guard our "sacred trust" -- not the other way around.

BJ Palmer taught that there was a neurological component that could not be measured by x-ray. That's why he promoted the neurocalometer. Would Dr. Strauss, or anyone else, dismiss BJ's writings on this topic as "infomercials" simply because he advocated the use of a device that he felt would help accomplish his goals for chiropractic?

In another article in the same issue, Dr. Strauss looks back fondly to a time when "we had three straight schools as well as a straight accrediting agency recognized by the federal government as equivalent to the CCE." Has he forgotten that I was instrumental in starting that agency and getting it recognized? Or that I started The Chiropractic Journal in great part to promote those schools and personally donated hundreds of thousands of dollars to them?

I have worked hard for subluxation-centered chiropractic for many years and I will continue to do so until I die. But if I can help convince chiropractors of the need for sound research that supports the neurological component of the subluxation, I'll consider it my greatest contribution to the profession I love.