|
Well, it's no wonder you found the NACM to be ... curiously 'chiropractic'"
The NACM, after all, was comprised of CHIROpractors and the "C" in "NACM" does (after all) stand for "CHIROpractic." The fact is, the NACM's chiropractic fate was sealed early, when its members first signed-on to The Good Ship Chiropractic and headed-off into chiropractic waters. Once at sea, afloat on a chiropractic tub, their "mutiny" would always be one of reaction to their more inebriated shipmates rather than insight into the entire chiropractic matter and into their professionally untenable chiropractic situation. In other words, the NACM was always a dysfunctional association of chiropractors responding dysfunctionally to a dysfunctional chiropractic profession.
Before anyone starts booing, though, let me post something I wrote to chirosci-list in 2002 ... when the NACM was alive and about as well as it ever was going to be. Note that the questions are to a NACM DC (TM) from a NON-NACM chiropractor (Dr. BT) about the NACM and some of its positions on "chiropractic." Hopefully, for anyone who's interested, the post will expand on some of what I'm saying above:
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
From: TEO
Subject: NACM questions and chiropractic barbers
Date: September 24, 2002
To: chirosci-list
|
Without a chiropractic cultural and historical context, there's NO way to appreciate and understand our observations, explain the "what and whys" of any-and-all chiropractic behavior, and/or _ever_ arrive at the bottom of a chiropractic barrel --never MIND climb out of one, once you notice the byzantine and entangled web in which DCs are caught.
For example, without the chiropractic context and culture I'm referencing, your questions sound like those of tourist in chiropractic country asking rhetorically and in horror, "How CAN those people eat the brains of their ancestors?" And, as Chiros in ChiroLand, neither you nor the NACM will ever find the cause of your Chiropractic KURU. Rather, you (and future generations) will remain drooling and demented DCs --relative to the biomedical culture that surrounds you, that is.
I don't know what the "invitational" aspect of the NACM is about; but I suspect, given the _meaning_ this organization has for most chiropractors, it appears to be the expression of a guarded cautiousness we'd expect from any stranger in a strange land. Again, look to the context in which an organization like the NACM exists. They're not really very popular with most DCs, in case you hadn't noticed. So, it's reasonable (or at least, understandable) they would ask chiropractors expressing an interest in their organization, if they're just lost and in need of directions to one of the "mainstream" clubs --like the ICA, ACA, WCA, for example --or, do they have a genuine interest in supporting the RELATIVELY controversial positions the NACM represents.
|
|
Sure. It is the opinion of the NACM that all individuals under twelve (12) years of age should be seen only in conjunction with a licensed medical\osteopathic pediatrician. Seriously, if you consider that the NACM is "answering" this question in the context of a "chiropractic" that Adjusts newborns and babies for "birth trauma," and kids for bed-wetting, earaches, and ADD, then a position statement like this one should make sense --EVEN if you don't agree with it. But then, if you OPPOSED their position on chiro-pediatrics, it's not likely you'd want to support this organization with a donation and/or membership.
Remember, the NACM wasn't spontaneously generated. It was a reaction to a "chiropractic" out of control --run-amok with fig-newton doctors yelling and selling Subluxationism. You can't ASK your questions as though they weren't preceded by over 101 years of chiropractism and full-fledged, unabashed chiropractic imbecility. You could, of course, but that would be like beating your wife for ten years and asking the shelter in which she eventually took refuge, why they don't send her home. It should, at least, make sense to you --not only that one form of chiropractic "shelter" exists --but that some chiropractors might want to take refuge there --if only temporarily while they "think things through."
|
|
Well, if you COULD "introduce a force" (yeeeeee, is THIS ever a tired chiropractic imbecility) at a "quicker speed" and with more "predictable amplitude," then why wouldn't ALL chiropractors use this method ALL the time --except, of course, when slower and sloppier "Adjustments" were indicated :-| Well, don't worry, Dr. BT --even Dr. Donaldson (the Activator expert on Scientific American Frontier's "A Different Way to Heal?") didn't notice his open chiropractic fly. He said that WITH his 3rd generation Activator, he could Adjust the nervous system [sic] "faster" --obviating the need for all the bone cracking that other chiropractors do. After all, he inadvertently argued, he got the SAME results.
Besides, aren't you forgetting something, doctor? The demonstration of subluxated fairies dancing on chiropractic pintips should PRECEDE the targeted and precise treatments that DCs maintain can manage and treat them. What value is PRECISION in the context of an amorphous "glob" of patient and an arbitrary diagnosis? I mean, as far as "instrumentation" goes, I SUPPOSE, if you COULD establish that your patient was Suffering Needlessly (tm) from not "parting" their hair accurately, then a DC using one of the Hair Styling chirodigms might well argue that using a chiropractic COMB was better and more "precise" than using their fingers :-|
By the way, Dr. BT -- while you're at it, could you take a little more off the sides? :')
~TEO.
***********************************************************************
***********************************************************************
|
Again ... more than "curiously chiropractic." More like, totally "chiropractic" ... and not unrelated to the plight of the NACM which similarly lacked insight into their own chiropractic predicament and the naive belief that a chiropractic Humpty Dumpty CAN be "put back together again." Doctor Botnick is a whole lot more "chiropractic" than many of the drooling enthusiasts of whom he is supposedly critical. And, that IS, to be sure, ironic. More than once, I've pointed to the chiropractic chicken sitting on his head and as late as this morning, not ten minutes ago, he responded, "I don't see your point."
Yikes
My point has always been that the problem with "chiropractic" is "chiropractic" and that the solution for the chiropractic profession has always been to get rid of any of the signs and symptoms of "chiropractic." Doctor Botnick's criticism of "chiropractic" (cf the chiropractic profession) has never amounted to more than assertions that chiropractors are just not doing "chiropractic" correctly ... NOT that (contrary to The First Credulity of the ChiropracTOR) the Chiropractic Spine does NOT hold the secret of health and disease. In other words, the solution to the chiropractic problem is not likely to be another brand or sort of "chiropractic."
So, yes ... Doctor Botnick is more than "curiously chiropractic." He needs to give up his Chiropractic Ghost or get himself to a chiropractic nunnery. Let me put it this way: How does Doctor Botnick know that his spinal asthma therapy works? Why, he tried it on himself and it cured HIS asthma ... begging the now 115 year old question, "Just how many chiropractors DOES it take to screw in a chiropractic lightbulb?
~TEO.