mirrored file at http://SaturnianCosmology.Org/ 
For complete access to all the files of this collection
	see http://SaturnianCosmology.org/search.php 
==========================================================

_The Evolving Science of Chiropractic Philosophy_
© 1998 Bruce H. Lipton, Ph.D.

One of the primary reasons behind the enduring rift between
conventional medical science and chiropractic, is the contrasting
nature of their basic philosophies. Philosophical "truths" in Western
civilization are validated through a process employing scientific
methodology. "Truths" related to health science, until recently, have
only been generated through research conducted by organismal, cellular
and molecular biologists, biochemists, pharmacologists and medical
doctors. Consequently, chiropractic has been at a distinct
disadvantage in acquiring recognition as a valid healing art. However,
the leading edge of cellular and molecular biology research is
heralding a radical departure from its traditional theories and is in
turn, creating a new philosophy.

The mission statement of Modern Science was defined by English
philosopher Francis Bacon and adopted shortly after the Scientific
Revolution (1543). Accordingly, science's purpose was to "control and
dominate Nature." The primary purpose of scientific inquiry was to
gain an understanding of the "natural laws" of bodily action. Through
this process, it was expected that man would obtain mastery over
Nature.

Before humans would be able to "control" Nature, it was first
necessary to identify what "controls" the expression of a living
organism. Western civilization has focused its attention on two
mutually exclusive sources of this "control." Control from without and
control from within. These two discordant philosophies were first
elaborated during the Golden Age of Greece. Plato divided humans into
two parts: body and soul. Soul is generally regarded as an entity
related to but distinguishable from the body--the spiritual part of
human beings that animates their physical existence and survives
death. The soul, often referred to as the psyche, spirit, or life
force, represents an externalized vitalizing force that activates the
human body.

In contrast, followers of Democritus, called atomists, believed that
living organisms were "machine-like" structures made out of atoms. The
character and quality of life was thought to be controlled by the
interaction of the physical atoms that comprised the body. Atomists
were "materialists" that believed life was controlled by the chemistry
within. Consequently, atomists rejected all supernatural sanctions of
human behavior. Additionally, the atomist's perception of a
machine-like quality to life led to the concept of healing as
representing a "mechanistic" process.

The debate over whether life is controlled by spiritual or material
forces peaked in the nineteenth century. By this time, scientists
endorsing "spiritual" control began to refer to themselves as
"vitalists." Vitalism, according to the Merriam-Webster dictionary, is
the doctrine that the processes of life are not explainable by the
laws of physics and chemistry alone and that life is in some part
self-determining. Vitalists contended that some vital factor, as
distinct from physiochemical factors, was involved with "controlling"
the body's structure and function. Since the definition of vitalism
emphasizes that its character is beyond the laws of physics
(measurement), vitalistic mechanisms were outside of the defined
parameters of modern science. In spite of its metaphysical nature,
vitalism was still endorsed by many traditional nineteenth century
scientists.

The support for vitalism was soundly shaken in 1859 when Charles
Darwin published his Origin of Species. In his treatise on evolution
theory, Darwin emphasized that internalized "hereditary factors" (the
existence of genes had not yet been recognized) were responsible for
controlling the character of evolving species. Within a decade of its
presentation, Darwinian theory was endorsed by the majority of
conventional scientists. Darwin's theory of evolution denied the role
of spirit or life force in the unfoldment of life on this planet.
Consequently, scientists myopically focused on the search for the
internalized material elements that "controlled" biological organisms.

D. D. Palmer was very sensitive to scientists' displeasure concerning
concepts related to spirit and vital forces. In formulating the
original science of Chiropractic, he coined the terms Universal
Intelligence and Innate Intelligence to refer to the inherent
organizing intelligence of the Universe and of life.

In the early years of Chiropractic I used the terms Innate (Spirit),
Innate Intelligence (Spiritual Intellect), Universal Intelligence
(God) because they were comprehensive, and the world was not prepared
to receive the latter terms just mentioned in parentheses. It may be
even now premature to use them. (page 542, The Science, Art and
Philosophy of Chiropractic).

Since vitalism is at the heart of chiropractic philosophy, and
vitalism is perceived as metaphysics, the philosophy of chiropractic
is not recognized by conventional medical science. Though modern
medicine consider chiropractic as "unscientific," it has not been able
to ignore the large number of their patients that have been
increasingly satisfied with chiropractic care. The success of
Chiropractic in recent years has fueled the antagonism between
conventional medical physicians and chiropractors. Biomedical research
scientists are at a loss to explain the efficacy of chiropractic
adjustment for it is in direct opposition to contemporary knowledge
concerning biological "control" mechanisms.

Ever since the nature of DNA had been revealed, biomedical science has
been grounded in the belief that the structure, function and health of
an organism is directly or indirectly regulated by its genes. This has
led to the concept of the Primacy of DNA, the belief that our physical
and behavioral traits are controlled by genes. Scientists took a leap
to the next level and subsequently evolved the idea of genetic
determinism, the notion that our health and fate are "predetermined"
in our heredity. Consequently, the fact that an "externalized"
chiropractic adjustment can alter the expression of the system flies
in the face of conventional medicine.

A principal source of dissension between practitioners of allopathic
medicine and chiropractic is evident when one examines how each
practice perceives the flow of information in living systems. The
schema for allopathic medicine is as follows: Genes represent the
internalized source of control; gene-mediated cell expression of
peripheral tissues and organs is relayed internally to the spinal
cord, that information is then sent up the cord to the brain.
Essentially this path can be described as
Outside>Inside>(from)Down>(to)Above (O-I-D-A).

In contrast, the basic philosophy of Chiropractic, as defined by D. D.
Palmer (before its modification by B. J. Palmer), perceives the flow
of information from an externalized source, Universal Intelligence. An
eternal "metamerized" portion of that intelligence, referred to as
Innate, is needed by each individualized being (pages 494 and 496, The
Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic). Although Innate is not
localized, its seat of control is the brain. From the brain, Innate's
intelligence travels down the spinal cord, and from the spinal cord
outward to the periphery, a pathway referred to as
Above>Down>Inside>Out (A-D-I-O).

The crux of the controversy lies in the philosophical foundation of
each practice. The A-D-I-O principle of Chiropractic is diametrically
opposed to the O-I-D-A principle in medicine. By virtue of "might
makes right," the populous membership of conventional science
acknowledges its certitude in its dogma and disavows the beliefs of
the smaller group of chiropractors.

However, profound philosophical changes are in the air. Leading edge
research in cellular and molecular biology is currently offering a
radically new understanding of the mechanisms that "control" life and
evolution. These new findings will inevitably integrate and unify the
truths of both biomedical scientists and chiropractors.

Conventional medical research has emphasized that genes are the
responsible elements "controlling" health and disease. It is implied
in the Primacy of DNA dogma that genes function as self-regulatory
elements. Fundamental to this assumed truth is the requirement that
genes must be capable of "controlling" their own expression. By
definition, genes must be able to switch themselves on and off, as
suggested in the concept of a cancer gene "turning itself on."

However, the notion of the Primacy of DNA has been soundly challenged
by current research which reveals that the existence of a
self-regulatory property for genes is a patently incorrect assumption.
An important article by H. F. Nijhout (Metaphors and the Role of Genes
in Development, BioEssays 12:441, 1990) describes how concepts
concerning genetic "controls" and "programs" were originally conceived
as a metaphor to help define and direct avenues of research.
Widespread repetition of this compelling hypothesis over time has
resulted in the "metaphor of the model" becoming the "truth of the
mechanism," despite the absence of substantiative supporting evidence.

Nijhout elegantly and succinctly redefined the truth as follows, "When
a gene product is needed, a signal from its environment, not a
self-emergent property of the gene itself, activates expression of
that gene (emphasis mine)." Simply stated, a gene can not turn itself
on or off, it is dependent upon a signal from its environment to
control its expression. Genes are indeed involved with the structure
and behavior of an organism, however they are not the source of
"control."

Gene expression is under the influence of specialized proteins
referred to as regulatory proteins. Regulatory proteins bind to DNA
and mask the activity of genes. In order to activate a specific gene,
its regulatory proteins must be removed from the DNA strand. The
binding and release of DNA regulatory proteins is controlled by
"environmental" signals. Rather than recognizing the Primacy of DNA,
it is more correct to acknowledge the Primacy of the Environment as
causal in shaping biological expression.

The fact that the cell's nucleus and its enclosed genes do not
represent the controlling element or "brain" of the cell is easily
verified in studies wherein the cell is structurally or functionally
enucleated. Cells in such experiments continue to express complex
behavioral repertoires and purposeful interactions with their
environment and may survive for months despite the absence of
functional genes. Consequently, genes can not be invoked to be the
source of "control" in regulating cell behavior.

Even though genes are not self-regulating, they do encode the
characteristics of our physical body. All of our genes are derived
from parental DNA, therefore it could still be argued that our
expression (physiology, health, behavior) is "predetermined" by our
genetic heritage. Even that assumption has now gone by the wayside. In
1988, geneticist John Cairns published what has since become a
revolutionary paper entitled On the Origin Of Mutants (Nature 335:142,
1988). Cairns recognized that gene mutations were not solely the
result of random chemical events as is currently perceived.

Cairns placed bacteria, possessing a defective gene for the enzyme
lactase, in Petri dishes that contained only lactose as a food source.
The mutant bacteria were not able to metabolize the substrate. After a
short period, the stressed, non-replicating bacteria began to thrive
and proliferate. Upon examination, it was found that the bacteria
specifically mutated the unresponsive lactase gene and repaired its
function. Cairn's research revealed that, in response to environmental
stresses, organism's can actively induce genetic mutations in selected
genes in an effort to survive. These mutations would represent
mechanical "adaptations" that are induced by the organism's response
to life experiences.

Though Cairns' results have been vehemently challenged by
traditionalists, a molecular mechanism accounting for his observations
was substantiated by Harris, et al., in a paper entitled Recombination
in Adaptive Mutation (Science 264:258, 1994). This latter publication
revealed that organisms, as primitive as bacteria, contain "genetic
engineering genes." This newly identified class of genes can be
actively accessed by the organism to selectively mutate existing
genes. Through successful "adaptive" mutations of selected genes,
organisms are able to create new proteins, whose altered structures or
functions may afford a better opportunity in surviving stressful
environments.

Based upon this new perspective, David Thaler published an important
revisionist article entitled The Evolution of Genetic Intelligence
(Science 264:224, 1994). Thaler's new perspective recognizes that
biological expression is actively defined by the individual's
perception of their life experiences. Thaler emphasizes the
significance of perception, not only in its ability to regulate the
body's expression by dynamically switching gene programs, but also in
its ability to induce the "rewriting" of existing gene programs in
order to better adapt to environmental stresses.

When put into perspective, the newly emerging view of conventional
biomedicine reveals a profound change in fundamental beliefs. The
Primacy of DNA is giving way to the Primacy of the Environment.
Essentially, conventional science has shifted the source of
intelligent control from the internalized genes to the externalized
environmental "signals.". These regulatory "environmental" signals
appear to be, in part, related to D. D. Palmer's concept of Universal
and Innate Intelligence.

In addition, it has been demonstrated that in response to life
experiences, the organism may actively alter "Innate" gene programs as
a means of mechanical adaptation to perceived environmental
conditions. When perception of the environment is biased by the
"educated" brain, then "educated" may bother or worry Innate by
selecting inappropriate gene programs and producing dis-ease.
Conventional medicine is now recognizing that "educated" may also
induce a rewriting (mutation) of Innate programs. Consequently, a
perceptual bias by "educated" may lead to genetic dysfunction and
cancer.

There is clearly an upheaval of conventional thought brewing in the
allopathic ranks. The interesting nature of these new considerations
is that it is bringing conventional biomedicine into closer alliance
with D. D. Palmer's original Chiropractic Philosophy. The uniqueness
of chiropractic is that it has a vitalistic foundation. Leading edge
cellular and molecular research is now proving that Chiropractic
should embrace and promote its vitalistic roots.