Chiropractic Background and Innate Intelligence

My search for papers and books using the term “Innate Intelligence” led me back to this gem from CMT – by Simpson and his student. I started a blog post about it a few years ago and promised to write more. It is still in the works.

In the meantime, I just noted their three uses of the term “Innate Intelligence.” Each one has its unique problems.

One cites Reed Phillips’s wrong approach that anyone who incorporates Innate Intelligence into the chiropractic paradigm is a “believer.” They rely on his argument as if it makes sense. Phillips’s article creates a straw man fallacy by suggesting that all chiropractors who focus on vertebral subluxation are “believers,” and those who are “mixers” must be true questioners. The whole premise is false. 

Another use of the term cites Donahue’s 1986 paper. But their reference to Donahue’s interesting article is lacking. See for yourself. They write,

“For Palmer with his belief in vitalism and spiritualism, the only explanation for observations of the healing capacity of the body was a supernatural one, thus UI and II came into being. Unfortunately, DD Palmer’s conclusions about Innate Intelligence greatly overreached the scientific knowledge of the era [27]. To put this into perspective, Bernard’s concept of internal stabilisation of the body arose from the mid-1800s with the word homeostasis not arriving into the physiology lexicon until Cannon coined it in 1926 after which Cannon’s publication of The Wisdom of the Body in 1932 made ‘homeostasis’ a household word [34].”

Donahue wrote an entire paper that builds to this point, amongst others. He writes,

“By 1900, after a great deal of studying, he felt the conclusion he could reach about the marvelous complexity and healing capabilities of the body was that it was guided by a supernatural intelligence. 51 It was at this time that he said he was the first person to equate this intelligence with God. 52 This became the basis of his innate philosophy, but was a serious scientific flaw because his conclusion far outreached the available data. His conclusion, of course, was in line with his religious and vitalistic philosophical views. In his defense, his idea preceded by over a decade the now generally accepted principle of homeostasis elucidated by physiologist Walter Cannon (1871-1945).”

Now, “his conclusion far outreached the available data.” Does he mean his conclusion that the intelligence was equated with God? What data would support that exactly? Is that what they are referring to? This rhetorical strategy seems dubious at best. D.D. had not even written the word Innate yet by 1900 and did not bring God into the picture until 1905. I think all of these authors are just missing the mark, in big ways.

The paper uses the term a third time. They write,

“Carver’s curriculum rejected DD’s concept of Innate Intelligence healing the body, favouring a naturalistic view in which physiologic processes reconstruct the body [47].”

Reference 47 is to Lerner’s Report. Lerner mentions Carver but never says he rejected D.D.’s concept of Innate Intelligence. Lerner does describe the discussion between Palmer and Carver about Suggestive Therapeutics. That is covered in The Definitive Guide. Check it out there.

Are there no peer-reviewers at this journal? More to come!

References

Chiropractic Background: https://www.institutechiro.com/chiropractic-background/

Phillips R. Philosophy and chiropractic: dimensions and directions. J Chiropr Humanit. 1995;5:2–7.

Donahue JH. D. D. Palmer and innate intelligence: development, division and derision

The Definitive Guide

**Note – The Lerner Report should be read as a play not as facts. It is peppered with facts and insights but much of it is made up.

The modern chiropractic peer-reviewed literature started in the late 1970s. The literature had challenges from the start. The challenges included bias, limited availability of historical sources, and a trend to shift the focus of the profession towards the term “manipulative therapy.” This short video clip is part of a 2-hour lecture presented to The Chiropractic Philosophy Forum in Seattle on November 4, 2019. The full talk is available for TIC Members.

Some crucial conference proceedings that were published in the late 1970s and early 1980s included:

• Proceedings from The Research Status of Spinal Manipulative Therapy (1975)
• Proceedings from The NIH workshop on the neurobiologic mechanisms of
  manual therapy (1977)
• Proceedings from The ICA conference on the principles and practice of
  chiropractic (1979)

This period was also the start of peer-reviewed history literature in chiropractic. The launch of the Association for the History of Chiropractic was a breakthrough in this regard. The journal Chiropractic History continues to be an excellent source of historical data and context for the profession. A more critical view of the actual articles from the first two decades of the journal is needed. We know so much more today that we need to ensure this older literature is corrected if there are factual errors.

The Summer 2019 issue includes a systematic content analysis of the Morikubo Trial. Several lectures on this paper are going live each month for TIC Members.

Other more recent documents in the literature, discussed in this short clip of the talk include:

• The ACC Paradigm
• The Three-year Delphi study – Consortium for Chiropractic Research
• Foundations of Vertebral Subluxation (2005)
• Chiropractic in North America: Toward a Strategic Plan for Professional Renewal (2006)
• The McDonald Study: How Chiropractors Think and Practice (2004)

The documents associated with these conferences and studies demonstrate the consensus around vertebral subluxation throughout the profession.

The issues brought up in this short clip have been addressed in two recent papers:

• The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 8: Terminology, Definitions, and Historicity From 1966 to 1980.
• The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 9: Complexes, Models, and Consensus From 1979 to 1995.

Many of B.J. Palmer’s central subluxation theories were developed based on various types of research. This brief video clip was taken from a longer talk developed for the ZOE Symposium. That talk explored the distinctions between D.D. Palmer’s theories and B.J. Palmer’s. The full talk is available for TIC Members here: Differentiating between D.D. and B.J.

This aspect of the history of research into the chiropractic vertebral subluxation is important to understand. There are several books and articles in the literature with mistakes about these ideas. Some of those were highlighted in recent articles:

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 2: The Earliest Subluxation Theories From 1902 to 1907.

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 3: Complexity and Identity From 1908 to 1915.

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 4: New Perspectives and Theorists From 1916 to 1927.

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 5: The First Research Era From 1928 to 1949.

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 6: Renaissance of D.D. Palmer’s Paradigm From 1949 to 1961.

Many of the insights from these papers are expanded on in courses available for TIC Members. Join TIC Today: Sign Up.

It is time to take the show on the road. In the coming weeks The Institute Chiropractic will be sponsoring Simon Senzon’s lectures in Barcelona, Paris, Spartanburg, Wisconsin, and Seattle. The lectures will cover a wide range of topics on the history, theory, and philosophy of chiropractic. Each set of lectures will be unique.

BCC September 27 – 29

The first group of lectures will be at Barcelona Chiropractic College’s Lyceum.

The BCC Lyceum lectures will include two talks and a workshop. The Friday night talk includes an overview of the research to date at The Institute Chiropractic and a report on the PhD dissertation underway at Southern Cross University.

The PhD is being supported by the Foundation for Vertebral Subluxation, which has granted a tuition scholarship to Simon Senzon. All ongoing research at TIC is supported by TIC members and other contributors.

Lyceum Talks

The workshop at Lyceum will cover the gaps in the literature based on the 10 papers recently published in the Journal of Chiropractic Humanities. If you have not read the papers yet, please see this brief overview: The Senzon Papers.

The Saturday talk will be about the Morikubo Trial. This talk is based on the latest paper on the topic. The paper is the first project towards Dr. Senzon’s dissertation. It was recently published in Chiropractic History as The Morikubo Trial: A Content Analysis of a Landmark Chiropractic Case. The talk will go into detail about the context of the case, the impact, and the way it has been distorted in the literature for the last 50 years.

The Future of Chiropractic in Paris October 4-5

The 12 hours of talks in Paris will be hosted by L’Association Française pour l’Histoire de la Chiropratique. These talks will be comprehensive and cover:

Birth of the Chiropractic Paradigm: The Work of Gaucher-Peslherbe, D.D. Palmer’s Paradigm.

The Subluxation Denier Movement: Trouble in the Chiropractic Literature, The State of the References.

D.D. Palmer Renaissance: The Chiropractic Literature of the 1960s, The Paradigm and Research in the 1970s.

Bias in the Chiropractic History Literature: History and Philosophy in the 1980s and 1990s, The impact of Keating, Gibbons, and Rehm.

The Importance of Worldviews in Chiropractic: Five levels of thinking, Perspectives on Chiropractic.

The Life of B.J. Palmer: B.J. Palmer’s major contributions, Consciousness, Research, and Practice.

The Four Quadrant Viewpoint: Four perspectives, Four domains of chiropractic.

Social Power and Chiropractic: Dominance of Worldviews, Schools, Journals, and Laws.

The Paradox of Chiropractic Science: Systems Science in the 20^th century, Chiropractic Models.

Citation Networks: Quantitative views of the literature, Mapping the Intellectual Field of Chiropractic.

Discourse Analysis: 3 levels of discourse, Dominance in the Discourse.

The Future of Chiropractic: An Integral Approach to Chiropractic.

IRAPS – October 12-13

Dr. Senzon will present the research findings of his newest paper at IRAPS on October 12th. This talk emphasize the research methodologies and the data collection. The new paper on the Morikubo Trial includes 190 primary sources and more than 50 secondary sources. The paper documented a new timeline for this landmark trial with many new details. It was demonstrated that 52 documents in the literature include incorrect facts about Morikubo’s trial. These included books, papers, and dissertation.

It was also demonstrated that there is no evidence that Langworthy or the book Modernized Chiropractic had any impact on the defense’s case. Nor did it impact early chiropractic theory and philosophy in any significant way.

CSW – October 17-18

The Chiropractic Society of Wisconsin’s Health and Wellness Summit will include four hours of lectures by Dr. Senzon. The conference will be at the Glacier Canyon Lodge – Wilderness Resort, Wisconsin Dells.

Dr. Senzon’s talks will include an overview of essential chiropractic theories from chiropractic’s first 100 years. This will include the three chiropractic paradigms, the impact of the literature, and the recent challenges to the chiropractic paradigm. Important chiropractic theorists will be highlighted. The talks will also explore the role of science and theory in the chiropractic discourse. The importance of the Morikubo trial on the current literature will be highlighted as well.

The Philosophy Forum – November 4

Dr. Senzon will be returning to The Chiropractic Philosophy Forum in Seattle on November 4. This two hour talk will explore The Chiropractic Green Books. The talk will be based on the first several chapters of the recent book Chiropractic Green Books: The Definitive Guide.

The talk will emphasize new facts and insights about The Chiropractic Green Books that emerged during research for the book. Few chiropractors realize several unique elements to the books. For example, empirical research impacted theory development at least from 1911 through the 1950s. Many chapters published in the 1950s were actually written decades earlier. B.J. Palmer’s philosophy of Innate Intelligence evolved in his later books as did his vertebral subluxation theories.

If you want to prepare for these talks sign up to TIC today. And do stop by and say hello.

If you want to prepare for these talks sign up to TIC today. And do stop by and say hello.

All I have to do these days is peek at a Facebook discussion group at 1am on a Friday morning, and, boom, I have enough content to write another blog post. The latest blistering critiques I observed involved one chiropractor poking fun at chiropractors’ use of the term “salutogenesis,” as if it was a new fad. This was responded to by comments referring to a “fringe” group in chiropractic and feigned ridicule that the term salutogenesis emerged from medical research, so there must be some paradox here.

This barely took me five minutes to read and the amount of error, illogical thinking, and shear confusion about the chiropractic paradigm was astounding. Forget about the obvious lack of any historical perspective.

Chiropractic and Medical Research

Let’s start with some perspective. The chiropractic paradigm and vertebral subluxation theory has integrated the best of medical research since the earliest days of the profession. Good science is good science. If research is undertaken that bolsters, supports, or leads to new valid hypotheses, chiropractors have always been at the forefront of integrating it. Here are a few examples.

It is well documented that D.D. Palmer was “into the literature.” In his 1910 book, Palmer demonstrated a mastery of medical textbooks on the topics of anatomy, physiology, and surgery. Historians were able to document the fact that he cited a wider range of textbooks than the average medical student of the time was required to read. He was even able to cite some earlier editions going back 200 years. His theory of neuroskeleton was a contribution to the literature on neurectasia and nerve-stretching.

In 1911, B.J. Palmer integrated the full text of a JAMA article on spinal cord tension. He included the entire article with 12 case studies of spinal cord surgery in order to expand his model of vertebral subluxation. This was so that he could account for the neurological distortions at the ends of the spine. He and his students expanded on and researched the cord pressure model well into the 1940s.

One instance of early chiropractic history is very interesting on this topic. O.G. Smith, who was D.D. Palmer’s 10th student, did extensive dissections of the IVF and intervertebral discs. He even took photos of microscopic ligamentous adhesions. Smith’s student, Harold Swanberg, wrote the first textbook on the human IVF. It was the standard work in medical schools for decades.

Other examples include the integration of Speransky’s textbook, Basis for the Theory of Medicine, throughout the profession in the 1940s, 50s, and 60s. Also, the chiropractors were amongst the first to integrate Selye’s research into subluxation theory. In fact, I concluded in a recently published research paper that it is impossible to discuss post 1950s vertebral subluxation theory without including Seyle. Homewood captured this well when he wrote,

“Selye may be said to have investigated the ‘physiology’ of stress, whereas the chiropractic profession has concerned itself with the ‘anatomy’ of stress.”

Homewood is a great example of how the integration of medical research into subluxation theory wasn’t just conducted at the “straight schools.” After all, he graduated under Budden at Western States (Budden bought Western after he left his position as dean of National), and became president of CMCC.

Another great example is the integration of Breig’s spinal cord surgery paradigm of adverse mechanical cord tension into vertebral subluxation theory. Breig’s research was integrated into the profession as early as the 1960s by Faye and in 1970s, 80s, and 90s, by several others including Joe Janse, Lowell Ward, J.D. Grostic, Donald Epstein, and William Ruch.

Salutogenesis

Is it any wonder that chiropractors are integrating salutogenisis into their models and research? I think not.

Even though Dr. Kent was writing about the term in 2002, the first time I heard it in conversation was at a lunch at John F. Kennedy University about ten years ago. My colleague and good friend, Joel Kreisberg (trained chiropractor and gifted homeopath), brought up the term when I was discussing the concept of Innate Intelligence to our mutual grad students. He said that he chose to use “salutogenesis” rather than the traditional chiropractic terminology.

I studied the term soon after and read all of the works of Antonovsky, as well as some of the more current research on the sense of coherence scale. This perspectives was included in some of the recent CVS papers.

The next time I heard the term in a public forum was an excellent presentation at IRAPS by Dr. Donofrio, Vice President for Academic Affairs at Sherman College of Chiropractic. Dr. Donofrio explained how the language and models of salutogenesis were congruent with theories put forth by Ralph Stephenson in 1927 and D.D. Palmer before him. Stephenson’s model of the momentum of health was Donofrio’s example. It was a great comparison.

Interestingly, Antonovsky used the term “dis-ease” with a hyphen in the 1970s to distinguish the philosophical approach towards the genesis of health and away from medical disease perspectives. As you may know, D.D. Palmer first coined the term “dis-ease” in an 1887 ad, when he was still a Magnetic Healer. It was at the core of his chiropractic paradigm and distinguished the overall outlook of chiropractic in respect to the pathogenic perspective of biomedicine.

The similarities to their outlooks on the creation of health are very similar. Antonovsky wrote,

“The important question, the fundamental question in scientific, humanitarian, and philosophical terms, became: How do some of these people manage to stay reasonably healthy? I was beginning to be freed from the pathogenic orientation.”

In a similar perspective, almost 80 years earlier, D.D. Palmer wrote,

“One question was always uppermost in my mind in my search for the cause of disease. I desired to know why one person was ailing and his associate, eating at the same table, working in the same shop, at the same bench, was not. WHY? What difference was there in the two persons that caused one to have pneumonia, catarrh, typhoid, or rheumatism, while his partner, similarly situated, escaped? WHY?”

The Fringe

It is time we stop the doublespeak in the chiropractic profession. There is enough nonsense in the media these days in terms of “fake news” and the “post-truth” world. It is shear propaganda to keep shouting the same incorrect facts and expect it to catch on as a Meme or even worse, as a belief system.

It is well documented that a very small group of academic chiropractors have been stoking the fires of the chiropractic discourse, saying the same things over and over again, for years. Unfortunately, some of these things are incorrect and published in the peer reviewed literature. You know what I mean, the subluxation is not researched, philosophy is only a legal ruse, there is some divide between vitalistic and holistic thinking that cannot reconcile with science or evidence. The list goes on.

As you know, none of that is true.

The biggest lie in all of this is this idea of “the fringe” or “the minority” in the chiropractic profession. There is some research on how chiropractors think and practice. Most of it is methodologically flawed for various reasons or at the least, limited.

Interestingly, one paper noted a comparison between the views about subluxation between “All DCs” (based on a study) and a group of academic researchers surveyed at a conference. Ninety percent of “All DCs” felt chiropractic should keep the term “vertebral subluxation complex.” Only thirty-one percent of participants at the conference felt this way. Thus, we refer to the 70% of academic researchers at such conferences as, the fringe, the minority, and out of touch.

The Chiropractic Paradigm

The chiropractic paradigm, which emphasizes the correction of vertebral subluxation so that the neurologically mediated expression of health, from the body’s inherent source of intelligence, may be more fully expressed, is well supported in the medical literature. Scientific research is vital for us to establish this paradigm more fully in the literature. Salutogenesis and its Sense of Coherence Scale are important ways to move that agenda forward.

A Few References

Antonovsky A. Health, stress, and coping. San Francisco. 1979.

Antonovsky A. Unraveling the Mystery of Health-How People Manage Stress. 1987.

Antonovsky A. The structure and properties of the sense of coherence scale. Social science & medicine. 1993;36(6):725-733.

Donofrio J. Incorporating salutogenesis in a new chiropractic paradigm. Paper presented at: 9th Annual International Research and Philosophy Symposium2012; Sherman College of Chiropractic, Spartanburg.

Gaucher-Perslherbe, P., Chiropractic, an illegitimate child of science? II. De opprobira medicorum. European Journal of Chiropractic, 1986. 34(1986): p. 99-106.

Gaucher-Peslherbe P. Chiropractic: Early concepts in their historical setting. Chicago: National College of Chiropractic.; 1993.

Gaucher-Pelherbe, P., G. Wiese, and J. Donahue. Daniel David Palmer’s Medical Library: The Founder was “Into the Literature.” Chiropr Hist, 1995. 15(2): p. 63-69.

Kent, C. Salutogenesis. 2002.

Kent, C. Giving Birth to Health. Dyn Chiro 2011. 29(7).

Lindström B, Eriksson M. Salutogenesis. Journal of Epidemiology and community health. 2005;59(6):440-442.

McCoy, M., Kent, C. Vertebral Subluxation Research: An Agenda to Explore the Epidemiology of Vertebral Subluxation and the Clinical Outcomes Related to Management. A. Vert Sub. Res. Aug 5, 2013:29-32.

Rome, P. Terminology Relating to the Vertebral Subluxation Complex and the Manipulative Sciences. Part 2. Chiropr J Australia 2017;45:90-130.

Senzon, S. The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 3: Complexity and Identity From 1908 to 1915. J Chiropr Humanit 2018;25C:36-51.

Senzon, S. The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 5: The First Research Era From 1928 to 1949. J Chiropr Humanit 2018;25C:67-85.

Senzon, S. The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 7: Technics and Models From 1962 to 1980. J Chiropr Humanit 2018;25C:99-113.

Smith D. Functional salutogenic mechanisms of the brain. Perspectives in biology and medicine. 2002;45(3):319-328.

Triano, J., Goertz, C., Weeks, J., et al. Chiropractic in North America: Toward a Strategic Plan for Professional Renewal-Outcomes from the 2006 Chiropractic Strategic Planning Conference..J Manipulative Physiol Ther 2010;33:395-405.

April was an outstanding month at The Institute Chiropractic. The new course, The CVS Lectures, was launched, ten new papers on The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation from 1897 to 1997 were published, and a fantastic book review on Palmer Chiropractic Green Books: The Definitive Guide was posted. We have so much more to come.

The CVS Lectures

The first week of The CVS Lectures is now live. All TIC Members have instant access to this 16-week course on The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation (CVS). The central lectures of the course involve the arguments from the ten papers discussed below.

The first week includes an introduction to the concept of mistakes in the historical literature and how they may affect practice.

Part two is a nine-minute lecture on the “Bohemian Stuff.” That talk is a precursor to several lectures on the Morikubo trial and its impact on chiropractic practice. The complete schedule of The CVS Lectures will posted soon.

Ten Papers on The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation

The yearly issue of Journal of Chiropractic Humanities was published four months late. Volume 25 was published. The volume includes 168 pages of text. Simon Senzon’s new series begins on page 10 and completes on page 168. The journal is open source. More blog posts will explore the themes in coming months. The new course will involve discussions of all ten papers. Here are the links to read them online or download the pdfs:

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 1: Introduction

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 2: The Earliest Subluxation Theories From 1902 to 1907

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 3: Complexity and Identity From 1908 to 1915

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 4: New Perspectives and Theorists From 1916 to 1927

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 5: The First Research Era From 1928 to 1949

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 6: Renaissance of D.D. Palmer’s Paradigm From 1949 to 1961

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 7: Technics and Models From 1962 to 1980

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 8: Terminology, Definitions, and Historicity From 1966 to 1980

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 9: Complexes, Models, and Consensus From 1979 to 1995

The Chiropractic Vertebral Subluxation Part 10: Integrative and Critical Literature From 1996 and 1997

The Book Review

Steve Agocs, chiropractic history professor at Cleveland University, just posted an excellent review of the new book Palmer Chiropractic Green Books: The Definitive Guide. Dr. Agocs posted the review to facebook and wrote,

“To summarize: every chiropractor needs to own and read a copy, the amount of work that went into this is STAGGERING, and after 20 years of studying chiro history and 12 of teaching it, I found a lot of stuff I didn’t know and pictures (there are over 600! In color!) I’d never seen. It’s a work of heartbreakingly staggering genius.”

Steve does a great job of capturing the significance of this book. He also acknowledged the excellence involved in categorizing 123 distinct Green Books. And, as an historian he truly appreciated the work that it took to explore the context of each book.

The review itself is on Steve’s page and it may be found here: The Book Review.