Note: The commentary below is in response to recent articles appearing in various publications regarding subluxation “theory.” It is authored by Dr. Sal Martingano.
In reading Dr. Homola’s article in “Skeptic Magazine” and “The Scientific Review of Alternative Medical & Aberrant Medical Practices,” one has to wonder about his motives. His was not an expose on whether Chiropractic affords non-medical healthcare benefits but was instead a throw back to the 1960’s rhetoric that preceded the Wilk’s decision.
In 1969 Ralph Lee Smith produced a book entitled “At Your Own Risk,” the case against Chiropractic, in which much of the same statements Dr. Homola speaks about, can be found. The decade or so that determined the outcome of the Wilk’s decision also dealt with the subject of Dr. Homola’s article.
I will not comment on his statements validity because this is not the proper forum. Surely he can be taken to task “ad nauseum.”
The subject of the subluxation validity however, intrigues me. Many in our profession speak liberally about subluxation, its virtues and what effect it has on the human body and perhaps, as Dr. Homola points out, can not be proven to the exacting standards of scientific knowledge.
However, it must be recognized that science, by definition, is only valid based on the knowledge it has at the moment. Science is forever changing and perhaps has not yet found the words or technology to properly assess the subluxation. My point is that we must not equate the subluxation with science, as Dr. Homola and his predecessors have. The fact is that there is a preponderance of scientific evidence expounding the validity of the subluxation as evidenced through the work of Dr. Christopher Kent, in his review of “science” from peer reviewed medical journals. It appears that medicine is more enamored with the subluxation than Dr. Homola.
As a student of research and history in the Chiropractic profession, I find it interesting that Dr. Homola has taken such literary license. However, some of what he said had merit, however certain definitions need to be applied and understood.
1- Chiropractic is not a treatment for disease even though disease processes often change under its’ care.
2- Chiropractic is a profession and the adjustment is not a treatment for anything.
3- Chiropractic is not a subset of medicine.
4- The subluxation, has scientific validity.
5- The subluxation is the end product of a series of Chiropractic analysis’ that differ from traditional medical diagnosis.
Dr. Homola stated, “the name of the game is indoctrination in the belief that spinal adjustments are superior to medical treatment for many forms of disease.” Chiropractic philosophy says no such thing.
Dr. Homola repeatedly equates subluxation correction with disease. However, his implication that “unless the subluxation theory evolves into a properly limited medical specialty for the care of musculoskeletal problems,” is dubious at best. Unless Dr. Homola lives in an igloo, he surely must realize that the record of traditional medicine, although brilliant in times of trauma, has a dismal performance in “maintaining” the health of mankind.
We live in a disease care model therefore, if Chiropractic and the subluxation theory needs to be a limited specialty of medicine, then Dr. Homola is implying that subluxation correction does exist and can be considered a treatment of disease. This kind of rhetoric only demonstrates the inconsistencies in the nature of Dr. Homola’s remarks.
In terms of safety, Dr. Homola states, “the use of spinal adjustments as a method of prevention is unnecessary treatment that subjects patients to unnecessary risk.” I can only say that if Chiropractic and the Subluxation theory were so destructive and dangerous to the public, than why do the actuarial charts of every major malpractice insurance carrier rate Chiropractic at a fraction of the liability of traditional medicine?
I wonder why Dr. Homola became a Chiropractor? Surely with his in depth insights into what Chiropractic and the subluxation theory are not, he could have chosen a more honorable profession. To say that “there is no credible evidence that spinal subluxations play a significant role in health conditions,” is basically accurate. The philosophy of Chiropractic states that a body free from interference to the nervous system will be a better expression of life. If better health falls into this category, so much the better but to infer that subluxation correction WILL play a significant role in health conditions demonstrates Dr. Homola’s limited knowledge of Chiropractic philosophy.
Surely we all can agree that people seem to express a better adaptation to life under Chiropractic care, when Chiropractic care is properly employed. Even Dr. Homola must have experienced this phenomenon at least once in his 40 years of practice. Even if the subluxation theory is only partially accurate, how can you justify 100+ years of continued growth with the profession?
You see, this whole discussion is not about the word subluxation, it is about the concept that people express life at a higher potential when adjustments are justified and employed.
It is my opinion that there are forces at play that keep us content arguing over the type technology, the generation of new drugs or the degree of proficiency in scientific understanding of the subluxation theory while never really addressing the problem of diversity in the different approaches to healthcare. In other words we are content discussing the “candy” while the issue of running the “candy store” goes undetected. Dr. Homola’s obvious lack of understanding of basic human physiology, let alone his Chiropractic philosophy, leads us all to the inevitable conflicts that keeps our healthcare system in turmoil. I respect his right to freedom of speech in various journals but not at the expense of my profession. I have yet to hear a better explanation of why the human body performs better after receiving “whatever those mysterious things that chiropractors do.”
Face it Dr. Homola, your argument is old and weak. Let’s hear what you do think is happening when an adjustment is given. A fool is one who questions the essence of life. A bigger fool is one who tries to prove it.
planetc1.com-news @ 7:21 am | Article ID: 986998886
Comments are closed for this article!