Chiropractic Healthiness

Question:

>No.  I’m asking you what the significance is of your observation that organs >don’t function after removal from the body.

        It’s to underscore the limitation of using a purely reductionist paradigm. >You have posted material that states that subluxations are the root cause of >most dis-ease, no?

        We’ve been through this now at least five times. And it’s clear that you still don’t understand what it is that I posted. http://www.geocities.com/cbpdoc/Subluxdefine.html     Please show me where I stated that subluxations are the cause of disease. Please show me where.  The fact is that I said no such thing. In fact, I explicitly said "Is a Subluxation the cause of all disease?  There is no one cause for all disease.  If there was, we would have probably found it by now. There are numerous causes for disease." >You brout up the issue of "Universal Intelligence" and a few other >paranormal terms.

        Do believe that the universe has order? >The mechanism of ASA is pretty well understood now.  

http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/asa_cp.htm Clinical Pharmacology: "Acting centrally, it would appear to produce analgesia at a hypothalamic site in the brain, although the mode of action is not known." >So, again, since chiropractors usually don’t agree on a diagnosis, how >can it be trusted?

        Why do you feel that they can’t agree on a clinical impression?     >if a patient gets sick or their condition degrades after >a chiropractic adjustment, then the chiropractic treatment is to blame?

        Not necessarily. Since chiropractic is not used for disease care (disease care being the domain of allopathy), chiropractors should take neither credit nor blame. Chiropractic is best used for wellness and prevention.

Response:

> >No.  I’m asking you what the significance is of your observation that organs >don’t function after removal from the body. > It’s to underscore the limitation of using a purely > reductionist paradigm.

Who uses "a purely reductionist paradigm"? >You have posted material that states that subluxations are the root cause of >most dis-ease, no? >     Please show me where I stated that subluxations are the cause of > disease. Please show me where.  The fact is that I said no such thing. > In fact, I explicitly said > "Is a Subluxation the cause of all disease?  There is no one cause for > all disease.  If there was, we would have probably found it by now. > There are numerous causes for disease."

Like germs?  Do germs cause disease?  Were you taught that subluxations are at the root of most disease? >You brout up the issue of "Universal Intelligence" and a few other >paranormal terms. > Do believe that the universe has order?

What does this loaded question have to do with Universal Intelligence"?  Are you going to present the watchmaker argument now? >The mechanism of ASA is pretty well understood now. > http://www.rxlist.com/cgi/generic/asa_cp.htm > Clinical Pharmacology: > "Acting centrally, it would appear to produce analgesia at a > hypothalamic site in the brain, although the mode of action is not > known."

Read the article again.  As I’ve been saying, it’s pretty well understood. But I understand that until EVERYTHING is understood about it you will use this as an excuse to defend the subluxation theory of dis-ease. >So, again, since chiropractors usually don’t agree on a diagnosis, how >can it be trusted? > Why do you feel that they can’t agree on a clinical > impression?

Because they haven’t been able to prove that they can consistently give similar diagnoses to a patient.  Are you not aware of this? >if a patient gets sick or their condition degrades after >a chiropractic adjustment, then the chiropractic treatment is to blame? > Not necessarily. Since chiropractic is not used for disease > care (disease care being the domain of allopathy), chiropractors > should take neither credit nor blame. Chiropractic is best used for > wellness and prevention.

You said: "If a patient is experiencing a problem, gets chiropractic treatment, and the problem goes away, it seems clear that the chiropractic methods used showed efficacy." Are you now going to say that "problem" doesn’t mean "disease"?  That "disease" isn’t the same thing as "dis-ease" at all?  What are you claiming here?  You first said that an improvement in a problem after chiropractic attention is clearly a result of said attention.  Then when it is pointed out that, by exactly the same logic, a worsening of a problem would also be due to chiropractic attention you start dancing with semantics by claiming that chiropractic isn’t "used for disease".  So what is your definition of a "problem"?  If one of these "problems" gets worse after chiropractic attention is chiropractic to blame?  Yes or no? erf

Response:

For an in depth discussion of holism see  ~Nature’s Holism http://members.nbci.com/ecotao/huevo/index.html      :-)Human Evolution http://members.nbci.com/ecotao/std-1.htm                    ~Nature’s Holism In article – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > What is reductionism? > reductionism (r