Question
Greetings Dr. Healey,

First of all, I'd like to thank you for your thorough and well-written response in regards to explaining the difference between chiropractic treatment and osteopathy. I think it is safe to say that comparing the two is a classic case of apples and oranges: both are fruit, both promote good health, but that抯 about it. Having said that, I have had a few discussions with people who have turned to both forms of treatment for various reasons and it seems as though in certain cases a combination of both practices can be beneficial in order to achieve optimal health and overall wellness. Would you agree?

On a personal note, I am currently dealing with tension in my neck, stiffness, etc; which is causing pain in my upper left shoulder area near my left shoulder blade, restrictive movement and some sleepless nights. After a consultation with a chiropractor, I was told this tension/pain stems from a displacement to the right of the first vertebrae. This over time has also shifted a lower vertebrae, possibly the fifth or sixth, to the left causing a slight curvature to the right in my lower back to compensate for the imbalance in my neck region and in turn lifting my pelvis and unbalancing my legs/feet. My question is: based on this description, is this what you would characterize as a vertebral subluxation? Also, I see how without adjustment this can lead to other complication such as lower-back problems later on in life. However, I am still debating whether or not chiropractic care is the best course of action. Therefore, I was hoping you would be so kind as to shed some light on some of the short or long-term risks involved, if any, with such treatment.

Thank you kindly,

Frank Cameron
Montreal, Canada

Answer
Dear Frank,

Thank you for your follow-up question. I am glad the information about non-therapeutic straight chiropractic was useful to you.  

In discussing vertebral subluxation in my earlier message to you, I used the word misalignment.  I am not talking here about curvature of the spine or an uneven leg length, however, among the things you list, and such variables are not interchangeable with the term vertebral subluxation.  The misalignment that I address is that of a specific segment of the spine.  Technically speaking, we have to get even a bit more advanced in what is meant by misalignment to make this clear.  The question is, Misaligned with respect to what?  It is possible to describe the body geometrically, reasoning that we are bilaterally symmetrical and concluding that there is a measurable 搈idline?or that our hips and shoulders should be 揵alanced?on a perpendicular line to this proposed 搈idline?or that the body can be presumed to take on a certain geometry in other planes as well.  The problem with this thinking is that it assumes we are simply machines and ignores that we are alive, capable of movement, adaptation, growth, etc.  At any given moment, there is an optimum state for us to carry out life to our best abilities.  That optimum state will vary depending upon the circumstances, both within us and of our environment.  There are many examples to illustrate this.  If you carry something heavy with one hand, you must lean away from it, putting something of a curve into the spine, to keep yourself balanced.  Does that mean the body is failing because there is imbalance or a curve, or is it instead being quite successful in adapting you to the situation?  In another example, consider that those who argue for geometric balance or symmetry would be hard-pressed to explain why the carpenter who swings a 28-ounce hammer all day with his right arm only would have certain physical adaptations that favor his right side.  Should the carpenter have some of the tissue removed from his arm, hand and back so that it is equal to that on the left?  Or is he merely adapted to his circumstances?  The point I抦 getting at is that there is an individually determined, innately normal position for the body that cannot be described by geometry.

From the non-therapeutic standpoint, then, an adjustment is not a process with the goal of straightening a spine or leg length or one that requires a series of visits to shape a spine; it is a procedure that is accomplished immediately.  Repeat adjustments are made if and when a subluxation is detected ?and only then.  There is no schedule of adjustments involved nor is there a specific amount of time that must pass.  It would require prophetic powers to know with any certainty when and where someone would be subluxated in the future, even though the causes are very common and, therefore, being subluxated is certainly a likely event.

As I said in the original response, in order to know if someone has a vertebral subluxation, it is necessary to have that person抯 spine checked by a non-therapeutic straight chiropractor using a method of "analysis."  When a vertebral subluxation is detected this way, it is obviously important to correct it as soon as possible.  The term for this is 揳djustment,?and can be accomplished in a variety of ways, depending upon the unique vertebral subluxation and the individual person.  

Realize that the goal in a non-therapeutic straight chiropractic model is not for the purpose of treating tension, back 損roblems,?stiffness, or even forcing geometric patterns into your spine.  These are not the type of objectives that would be used in the proper delivery of non-therapeutic straight chiropractic.  This doesn抰 mean they抮e bad, it just means it is entirely different than what I would advise you on.  I will not comment, then, on the therapeutic goal of attempting to prevent back problems or create any particular straightening of your spine or balancing of the leg length or even whether it will be possible to do so.  

You say you see non-therapeutic straight chiropractic and osteopathy as apples and oranges, yet you also still view them as somewhat similar.  I would encourage you to re-read my initial response and note that what we are talking about is more a statement that they are even more separate and distinct than that.  There is no similarity in the objective ?the reason why for whatever is done.  The osteopathic model is entirely therapeutic ?it is directed at the treatment of an ache, pain or ailment.  Non-therapeutic straight chiropractic is entirely non-therapeutic.  

It may help to use a simile ?food.  I抳e never gone to a restaurant with the goal of treating something.  There are no columns or headings on the menu for disease treatments, even though I may fall below my optimum function if I never ate food.  Most people eat food simply because they are better off nourished than they are starving if they expect to get the best out of their potential.  Being nourished doesn抰 yield the same thing in all people or even the same thing in one individual from day to day.  If you eat brussel sprouts today, your body may use them to make new skin cells, yet tomorrow they may be used for energy.  The thing is, we can still agree that being nourished is better than being starved, no matter how that is expressed.

Think of non-therapeutic straight chiropractic and its objective of allowing someone to live as free of vertebral subluxations as possible similarly.  Simply stated, the person is better off nourished with the life-guiding brain messages than starved of them.  Period.  It抯 not for the treatment of anything.  It抯 about a person realizing their unique potential.  

So, when you try to contrast the two professions, you will not be able to make a meaningful comparison.  The heading you chose for your submission, 揇ebating Chiropractic Care,?reveals that you are still trying to do so.  Besides the differences between my profession and osteopathy, keep in mind that there is also the same major difference between non-therapeutic straight chiropractic and therapeutic mixed chiropractic.  In reality, these are two completely separate and distinct professions under one public name, which is why there may be so much confusion in the consumers?minds.  

In terms of the short or long term benefits and risks associated with vertebral subluxations, it抯 quite simple: they are always and immediately bad for the body and having them corrected is always and immediately better.  As we saw in my original response, though, because of the multitude of variables from one person to the next, how that will be expressed in each person is impossible to predict.  

As we抳e covered, not all chiropractors are of this non-therapeutic viewpoint.  In case you wish to experience first-hand what we抮e talking about and perhaps have a chance to have a direct discussion, there is an interview method for locating a non-therapeutic straight chiropractor without the benefit of a direct referral.  I encourage you to review my initial response to your question so that you can approach this as a well-informed consumer.  Use the local telephone directories for this interview process:

1.   Call the office and ask, 揑s this a straight chiropractic office??or 揂re you a straight chiropractor??br> 2.   If the answer is, 揘o,?go on to the next phone listing and repeat step 1.  If the answer is, 揧es,?ask, 揥hat do you take care of??or 揥hat sort of conditions do you deal with??br> 3.   If the answer is, 揤ertebral subluxation only,?or 揘erve interference due to misaligned spinal bones,?or some similar answer that indicates this, then make an appointment.  Otherwise, go on to the next listing and repeat step 1.

The reason you would ask these two questions in this order is because not all chiropractors are non-therapeutic straight chiropractors, though some will erroneously identify themselves as such.  The second question helps you know if they truly understand and practice according to those principles.

Again, thank you for writing, and I wish you the best in understanding what non-therapeutic straight chiropractic has to offer.  

Sincerely,
James W. Healey, D.C.