- Chiropractic Resource Organization.     Support Chiropractic Research!



Who Do You Think You Are? Your Perception Creates Your Reality

By |November 26, 2014|Philosophy, Uncategorized|

Who Do You Think You Are?
Your Perception Creates Your Reality

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE:   The Chiropractic Assistants Page

By Phil Mancuso, D.C.

“You are today where your thoughts have brought you;
you will be tomorrow where your thoughts take you.”
— James Allen

You and your buddy down the street have gone to all the same seminars,
taken the same busines management programs, learned the same techniques and formulae for success. Yet, his business is going like a Carnival Cruise liner full of MTV Spring Break revelers and yours is going ‘Titanic.’

Most times, the difference isn’t in the procedures, but in the person performing them.

Your friend down the street already knows the secret to practice and personal success.

What’s your buddy’s secret? Is he smarter than you? Is he a better person
than you? Did he go to a better school than you? Most likely not—he’s just
learned how to harness his personal power to allow him to become the
successful, self-empowered person he is. He’s learned how to create his own
breakthroughs, to allow him to move beyond his fears and limiting beliefs. He is accomplishing goals and realizing his true desires, turning dreams into reality, creating fulfilling relationships, and modeling the strategies of peak performers to produce a quantum difference in his life.

“Just what does it take to get ahead these days?

Why can’t I get motivated?

Why aren’t my personal life and career turning out the way I want?”

So, what gives? Who succeeds and why? What does it take to become the
best version of yourself possible? Is it the quality of the school you attended? Is it that grade you got on your licensing exam? The number of letters after your name?


Many of us know stories about people who were at the top of their class, yet,
somehow, never achieved success. In other instances, there are those who got mediocre grades, or didn’t go to the top schools, who become leaders in their chosen fields. It got me thinking:


The Evidence Informed Chiropractic Challenge

By |October 30, 2014|Philosophy|

Source The Evidence Informed Chiropractic Challenge

What’s the Buzz

A recent social media posting has generated a bit of a buzz in the world of chiropractic. It seems that a short essay by chiropractor Rob Sinnott on October 16th elucidating the role that chiropractic and the subluxation play in the regulation of the immune system created some disagreement among the ranks. To demonstrate his thesis Dr Sinnott chose a timely example. Ebola. As you read his piece you may have some doubts as to the wisdom of this choice. You can read his original post here.

At any rate, Dr Dave Newell, Director of Research at the AECC and long time chiropractic academic with over 25 years experience in the sciences and clinical research, felt the need to protest the claims presented by Dr Sinnott. Dr Newell expressed his concerns regarding Sinnott’s post in an email to the Annals of Vertebral Subluxation Research (AVSR), which is published by the Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation, where Sinnott is an advisory board member. You can read that letter here.

The Sinnott piece was then, in turn, defended by Dr Matthew McCoy in an article on his website, The Chronicles of Chiropractic – The source for news on conservative, traditional chiropractic. You can read that reply here.

The Evidence Informed Chiropractic Challenge

And so, the evidence-based group is convinced that the view expressed by Drs McCoy and Sinnott is a minority position and are challenging chiropractors to take a stand. Are you for or against the original article that they claim damages the profession as a whole.

You can cast your vote here.

Chiropractic: What does the future hold?

By |March 22, 2013|Philosophy|

The Institute for Alternative Futures (IAF) is a leader in the creation of preferred futures. Since its founding in 1977 by Clement Bezold, Alvin Toffler and James Dator, IAF has helped organizations monitor trends, explore future possibilities and create the futures they prefer. IAF draws on a robust selection of futures methodologies, such as environmental scans, forecasts, scenarios, visioning and its own “aspirational futures” technique.

Recently the institute released Chiropractic 2025: Divergent Futures (pdf) which was made possible by funding from the NCMIC Foundation.

Therein, 4 scenarios are presented:

Scenario 1: Marginal Gains, Marginalized Field

As health care reorganizes, the historical isolation of chiropractors hinders most DCs in joining integrated care provider organizations. The majority remains in solo and small group practices and face major challenges in building or maintaining an adequate patient base. Research to develop and demonstrate evidence-informed practice grows. This gets DCs more favorable attention, yet networks often use the data to limit fees and the number of visits. Five states assign broader practice rights to DCs. Focused-scope oriented colleges join leading academic medical centers in exploring quantum biology to explain healing and subluxation. However, four chiropractic colleges close. Low starting income for chiropractors in many settings, and limited career prospects for most DCs coupled with high student debt, hamper the growth of the profession over the decade leading to 2025.

Scenario 2: Hard Times & Civil War

Biomechanical Lesion: A Better Diagnostic Term for the Profession

By |September 19, 2012|Philosophy|

By John R. Bomar, DC
Source Dynamic Chiropractic

For those who may not be aware, the World Health Organization’s latest revision of the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) uses a new primary term to describe the major condition treated by chiropractic physicians.

The new term is biomechanical lesion and the code is M99, with decimal designations used for various sections of the body – e.g., M99.01, Biomechanical lesion, cervical region. It is thought that the ICD-10 system will be required sometime in 2014.

More than a few chiropractors, myself included, feel this change in nomenclature is much-needed. The present term, non-allopathic lesion (739 series), completely fails to communicate the nature of the problems we address daily in our offices, and the term non-allopathic implies the concept of “non-medical,” as if what we treat has little to do with a person’s health. Such a maldescriptive phrase does nothing to clear up the confusion and misconceptions associated with our work – misconstructions that only contribute to the apprehension and fear many feel when considering our profession.

Such vague and indistinct terminology also discourages appropriate referral from other health care providers. Important also is the current void in understanding that exists between chiropractic providers and the insurance industry. Complicating all this is the insistence by some in our profession that others conform to our definition of the word subluxation, which is in conflict with the accepted medical definition. The natural reaction in others to such uncertainty, obscurity, confusion and doubt is a hesitancy to involve oneself in such dealings, further isolating our profession and hindering growth. (more…)

Maintaining a Vitalistic Perspective in Chiropractic in the Postmodern Era

By |April 16, 2012|Chiropractic Care, Philosophy|

Maintaining a Vitalistic Perspective in Chiropractic in the Postmodern Era

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE:   J Chiropractic Humanities 2005; 12: 2-7

By Cheryl Hawk, DC, PhD, CHES

Professor and Director of Clinical Research
at Logan College of Chiropractic

Objectives: To discuss concepts of postmodernism with respect to the opposing worldviews of vitalism and mechanism, and to present an argument for a viable role for vitalism in chiropractic philosophy and research.

Discussion: Vitalism is only problematic if we begin with the assumption that a mechanist worldview or paradigm is the correct way to explain the world. In postmodern thought, a multiplicity of worldviews may coexist. One view is no more valid or correct than another and these divergent views are judged best by their utility under various circumstances. Exploring clinical practices and methodologies, such as whole systems research, arising from a vitalistic perspective could lead to innovations in both patient care and research, if pursued with flexible non-dogmatic thinking.

Conclusion: Vitalism, approached in a responsible and intelligent manner, may afford the chiropractic profession opportunities to further improve patient care and make contributions to new knowledge.


The 2003, the World Federation of Chiropractic conference convened a panel to address this question: “Is vitalism a strong foundation or quicksand for the chiropractic profession?” As one of the panelists, in order to address what I believed this question was really asking, it was necessary to first deconstruct the question, that is, to examine its underlying assumption. [1]

This underlying assumption is that a mechanist worldview or paradigm is the correct way to explain the world. Based on this assumption, anything that does not fit this worldview would be a potential threat to our profession’s credibility and, therefore, must be modified to fit this view or jettisoned. Vitalism, which entails a different way of perceiving the world, poses such a threat.

This assumption must be examined rather than simply accepted. Only then will it be possible to make a conscious choice of which worldview we want to function within and then thoughtfully and responsibly adhere to the principles of that worldview.



The Chiropractic Identity: Charting Our Future Roles

By |September 21, 2011|Philosophy|

The Chiropractic Identity: Charting Our Future Roles

The Chiro.Org Blog

SOURCE:   Health Insights Today

By Daniel Redwood, DC

For at least as long as any living doctor of chiropractic can remember, our profession has engaged in ongoing and sometimes heated debate about the proper role of its practitioners. Should our primary or sole focus be the spine? The nervous system? Vertebral subluxation? Back and neck pain? Should we be musculoskeletal pain specialists? Complementary care generalists? Primary care physicians?

Two new papers, one by Donald Murphy and colleagues in Chiropractic and Manual Therapies [1] and the other by Jan Hartvigsen and colleagues in British Medical Journal, [2] simultaneously point in the same direction—toward the role of primary spine care practitioner. The lead authors of both articles are chiropractors, Murphy from the United States and Hartvigsen from Denmark. Neither proposes the primary spine care practitioner role as the only option for DCs; both make a persuasive case that developing this role on a much more widespread basis will significantly enhance the effectiveness of the health care system’s neuromusculoskeletal (NMS) care delivery. In the process, they demonstrate why many practitioners may find work as a primary spine care practitioner attractive. To the extent that deeper integration of chiropractic is one of the profession’s primary goals, this may be one of the best vehicles for its achievement. At the very least, it’s a possibility worthy of serious examination.

World Federation of Chiropractic Identity Statement

The Murphy and Hartvigsen proposals are wholly consistent with the 2005 professional identity statement from the World Federation of Chiropractic, which grew out of an extensive consultation and consensus building process among the WFC’s membership, comprised of the national chiropractic associations of over 80 nations, including both ACA and ICA from the United States. (more…)