When I’m checking the spine of a newborn baby it will look very different from my examination of an adult, which will look different from my examination of a pregnant mom-to-be, which will again look different from my examination of a 6 year old child. I have had patients ranging in age from day 1 to year 90+. For a person to be a patient the only requirement is that their spine has vertebral subluxation. If their spine is perfect they don’t need me. The first step away from perfect is a small restriction of motion of any joint in the spine for any number of reasons. The next step from perfect would be multiple levels of restriction. From there we might see curvature loss, then early degeneration, then disc space loss, disc herniation, bone spurs, scoliosis, increasing loss of mobility, eventually total disability. The time-line from the first subluxation, most likely early in childhood or during the birth process, is long, taking years to decades. According to well established data, your spine is the most likely organ in your entire body to cause your total disability. The same data shows we will spend more money on the care of the spine than any other health problem we will ever have. And finally, your chance of significant back problems developing in your life is 90%. Only 1 in 10 people will NOT have back problems. To put this in another light, if you were Angelina Jolie you would have your spine removed to prevent the inevitable problems you are going to have. But that’s not really an option is it?
When it comes down to it you have only three options. Your first option is to do what everyone else does, deal with the problems as they come. But isn’t this the exact option that has resulted in the above statistical nightmare? That doesn’t seem such a good option, even if everyone else is doing it! The second option it to live in a gravity-free environment like space, and never do anything that could remotely cause spinal injury or strain. True, but a silly non-option. The last option is to take reasonable proactive steps to try to prevent a future disease that is nearly absolute.
Let’s look at this through a different lens, if you were told that you have a 90% chance of developing any other disease that you can imagine (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.) and that there were simple, cost effective, and reasonable steps you could take to drastically reduce your chances of developing that disease, would you or would you not take those steps? Perhaps not… But I know I would. But if you would, what age should you start? What is the perfect age to start these simple, cost effective, and reasonable steps?
I have my first grandson who is now 10 months old. I checked him then and every couple of weeks since. He has been adjusted a handful of times. The perfect age for him was the day he was born. I, on the other hand, did not get serious about my own chiropractic care until I was 39. Yes indeed, I was a poor example of a chiropractor during the first 13 years of my practice, but I freely admit it as a prime example of someone who knows better and still messes up. My lack of seriousness resulted in some serious spinal problems that I manage extremely well with the help of my chiropractors, but problems that I would not have had to deal with at all if I had taken these simple steps earlier. That said, the perfect age for me was apparently 39 (but I wish now it had been earlier).
I am reminded of the old adage, what is the best camera in the world? The one you have with you when you have a picture to take. The best age to begin to take a serious attitude toward the largest disabler on the planet, the disease that more money is spent on than any other, the disease that you have a 90% chance of contracting, is the age you are this minute.
When it comes down to it you have only three options. Your first option is to do what everyone else does, deal with the problems as they come. But isn’t this the exact option that has resulted in the above statistical nightmare? That doesn’t seem such a good option, even if everyone else is doing it! The second option it to live in a gravity-free environment like space, and never do anything that could remotely cause spinal injury or strain. True, but a silly non-option. The last option is to take reasonable proactive steps to try to prevent a future disease that is nearly absolute.
Let’s look at this through a different lens, if you were told that you have a 90% chance of developing any other disease that you can imagine (cancer, heart disease, diabetes, etc.) and that there were simple, cost effective, and reasonable steps you could take to drastically reduce your chances of developing that disease, would you or would you not take those steps? Perhaps not… But I know I would. But if you would, what age should you start? What is the perfect age to start these simple, cost effective, and reasonable steps?
I have my first grandson who is now 10 months old. I checked him then and every couple of weeks since. He has been adjusted a handful of times. The perfect age for him was the day he was born. I, on the other hand, did not get serious about my own chiropractic care until I was 39. Yes indeed, I was a poor example of a chiropractor during the first 13 years of my practice, but I freely admit it as a prime example of someone who knows better and still messes up. My lack of seriousness resulted in some serious spinal problems that I manage extremely well with the help of my chiropractors, but problems that I would not have had to deal with at all if I had taken these simple steps earlier. That said, the perfect age for me was apparently 39 (but I wish now it had been earlier).
I am reminded of the old adage, what is the best camera in the world? The one you have with you when you have a picture to take. The best age to begin to take a serious attitude toward the largest disabler on the planet, the disease that more money is spent on than any other, the disease that you have a 90% chance of contracting, is the age you are this minute.