Published in:
Today’s Chiropractic, Sept-Oct 1998: 16-19

© 1999-2005 Bruce H.
Lipton, Ph.D.

The chiropractic philosophy
of D. D. Palmer provided an understanding of the principles employed in his
healing art. Palmer declared that life’s vital functions were “controlled”
by Innate Intelligence, which was under the guidance of an eternal Innate (spirit).
He further defined Educated as an “intelligence” that is acquired
through one’s life experiences. Educated provides Innate with an awareness
of the body’s environment and in the process, it serves to “keep,
fix, and adjust the skeletal frame…” in an ever changing environment.

1A
The perceptions acquired by Educated represent one’s “beliefs,”
and these beliefs guide the behavior of Innate. According to Palmer, “The
Educated impresses its thoughts upon Innate, directing its functions more or
less.”

1B If learning experiences are fraught with errors and misperceptions,
then Educated would inadvertently misdirect the activities of all-knowing
Innate. Palmer stated that “Educated bothers and worries Innate when trying to
direct that of which Innate knows far more of than Educated will ever know.”
1C He was referring to the fact that misperceptions in the Educated mind would
cause dis-ease if they misinformed the Innate. Palmer further asserted that
Auto-suggestion, the process of “self-talk” by Educated, represented
one of the primary causes of dis-ease.

1D
D. D. Palmer was expelled from the Palmer School of Chiropractic eleven years
after he founded the science. His chiropractic philosophy was subsequently
altered, removing the concept of “spirit” from Innate and eliminating Auto-suggestion,
the role of mind over matter, as a cause of dis-ease. These notions, considered
too metaphysical or religious, were eliminated in an effort to make Chiropractic
more “scientific,” more acceptable to the “conventional”
world.

Over the last eighty years, the profession has experienced an undercurrent
effort to align chiropractic with allopathic science, for biologists
have obviously made great strides in understanding the mechanisms of life.
Currently, conventional biology recognizes that the physical character and
behavior of an organism is defined by its protein building blocks. Since the
nature of proteins is “programmed”
in DNA, medical science recognizes the following hierarchy in regard to information
flow in living systems: DNA>RNA>Protein. Based upon this flow, contemporary
biomedical thought is preoccupied with the concept of genetic determinism, the
belief that an organism’s expression is primarily under the “control”
of its genes.

As we approach the new millennium, leading edge cell research now reveals
a profoundly different story. The primary difference concerns the fact
that genes are not self-emergent.2 This means that genes are unable to
turn “themselves”
on and off, genes can not “control” their own expression. Obviously,
this challenges the concept that genes “determine” our character.

How then are genes controlled? Within the cell’s nucleus, DNA (gene)
molecules are ensheathed within a layer of regulatory proteins. Concealed
(i.e., protein-encased) genes are inactive. Removing the protein “sleeve” exposes
the gene and allows for its activation. The binding and release of regulatory
protein is controlled by “environmental signals.”3,4 Consequently,
active
“control” of cell expression is in the hands of the environment
and is not in the domain of the genes.

In contrast to genetic regulation, the “revised” version
of information flow reveals that environment represents the prime
source of control:

2Environment>Regulatory
Protein>DNA>RNA>Protein

The processing of environmental information and its translation into biological
behavior is carried out by the cell membrane, the “skin” of the
cell.5,6 The membrane separates the external non-self environment from the
internal self, the cytoplasm. For the following, discussion refer to the
illustration below.

The cell’s INPUT devices are the protein receptors which extend from both
of the cell membrane’s surfaces. Receptors facing inwards “read”
the status of the cytoplasm’s environmental conditions. These receptors
receive information concerning cytoplasmic pH, salt balance, membrane potential,
the availability of metabolites and energy molecules and other parameters related
to the cell’s physiology.

Protein receptors displayed on the outer surface of the membrane provide the
cell with awareness of the external environment. Cells use information derived
from external receptors to “navigate” through their world. Internal
membrane receptors are concerned with visceral needs, externally deployed receptors
primarily regulate somatic behaviors. Consequently, information of the external
environmental profoundly influences the cell’s cytoskeleton and behavior.

To PROCESS the environmental information (i.e., convert signals into biological
responses), “activated” receptors couple with complementary effector
proteins. The activity of membrane effector proteins, which include ion channels,
enzymes and components of the cytoskeleton, is controlled by receptor proteins.
6

The OUPTUT behavior is mediated by activated effector proteins. Effector
proteins primarily serve as “switches” or “second messengers”
that turn on or off more complex protein pathways deployed within the cell.
Effector proteins regulate cytoplasmic pathways, which include motility,
digestion, excretion, and respiration among others.

The MEMORY system of the cell, the genes, are also controlled by the membrane.
Sometimes cells receive environmental signals necessitating specific responses,
however, the cell may not have the necessary proteins in the cytoplasm
to enact the required behavior. In this case, activated receptor-effector protein
complexes are able to target the regulatory proteins that mask specific
genes. These membrane “messengers,” known as transcription factors, alter the binding
of regulatory proteins causing them to detach from the DNA, exposing specific
genes that need to be read. 3,4 This is how “environmental signals”
control gene expression. As the cell experiences new environments, it is capable
of dynamically adjusting its genetic readout to accommodate any environmental
exigencies. Consequently, the structural and behavioral expression of the cell
is a reflection of the organism’s environment.

The primal role of “environment” in controlling gene expression
is revealed in recent studies of newly discovered stem cells. Stem cells, akin
to multipotential embryonic cells, proliferate forming large colonies of undifferentiated
cells. The developmental destiny of stem cell progeny can be experimentally
“controlled” by regulating their environment. Environmental signals
activate stem cell transcription factors, which in turn select specific gene
programs controlling the differentiation of these cells.7,8

Genes are coded “programs” that enable the organism as an individual,
and the species as a whole, to survive. Gene programs can be subdivided into
two functional groups. One group, representing “growth” mechanisms,
is expressly designed to provide for the physical construction and physiologic
maintenance of the body. However, an organism possessing only “growth”
mechanisms would most likely be called “food,” and would soon become
extinct. Environmental threats are managed by the second group of genes which
code for “protection” programs. These genes provide for physical
mechanisms and behaviors that are deployed in life-threatening situations.

9
Survival = Growth Programs + Protection Programs

Protection behaviors do not provide growth, and visa-versa. Both growth
and protection behaviors require an energy expenditure on the part
of the organism. An individual’s ability to grow and reproduce is ultimately based upon
the amount of energy available to support those processes. However, their ability
to protect themselves is also dependent upon the same energy source.

Organisms engaging in protection behaviors utilize energy from their
reserves, leaving less energy for growth processes. Under extreme environmental
stress, protection demands may deplete the energy budget to the extent
that the organism dies from an inability to sustain normal metabolic
functions. In simple economics, survival is inversely related to the
need for protection. More protection equates to less growth.

Survival = Growth/Protection

Growth behaviors are associated
with the character of attraction. Organisms are “attracted” toward
elements of the environment that support their life (e.g., food, water, air
and mates). In contrast, protective behaviors are most frequently associated
with repulsion. Protection responses to threatening stimuli are characterized
by a “posture” that reflects an avoidance reaction. Growth and protective
behaviors can readily be distinguished by observing the cell’s motility.
Cells expressing growth move toward (attraction) life-sustaining environmental
stimuli. In contrast, cells expressing protection move away from (repulsion)
life-threatening stimuli. The behavior of single-celled organisms appears “digital,”
they either move toward positive (+) stimuli or away from negative (-) stimuli.

Recent studies on molecular control mechanisms support this “digital”
nature of regulating behavior. It has been recognized that cells possess “gang”
switches which collectively shunt growth pathways into protection behaviors
in response to environmental stress.

10,11,12 Growth and protection appear
to be mutually exclusive behaviors in single cells; a cell can not be in
growth and protection at the same time. Simply, a cell can not move forwards
and backwards simultaneously.

The dynamic interaction between environmental signals and growth-protection
genes evolved an “Innate Intelligence” which enabled cells to “read”
environmental signals and invoke appropriate survival mechanisms. For the first
three billion years of life, the Earth was inhabited by unicellular organisms
that survived by employing individualized Innate Intelligence. Five hundred
million years ago, single cells came together forming “colonies,”
wherein cells could collectively share awareness of their environment. More
awareness increases an organism’s chance at survival.


The first communities were just “loose associations” of cells with
all individuals expressing the same functions. At any time, a single cell
could leave the colony, divide and start a new one on its own. Original cell
colonies contained as few as four and up to several hundred participating
cells. Multicellular communities necessitated a language of communication,
for survival depends upon organization and coordination of community activities.
In small groups of cells, coordinating communications consisted of the first
neurotransmitters, as well as vibrational frequencies, that were freely exchanged
among the close knit cells.

13 As communal intelligence mechanisms evolved, successful colonies could
support larger cell populations. A point came wherein colonies were so physically
large that it was inefficient for all cells to do the same “work.” Larger
communities began to subdivide survival-related labors among their population.
This resulted in differentiation, a process wherein cells began to express
specialized functions such as skin, bone, and nerve.

In physically large cell communities, most of the constituent cells are not
in direct contact with the environment. Out of necessity, a subset of the
cellular population became specialized in reading the environment and relaying
their “perceptions” to cells internalized within the community. These
information handling cells became the organism’s nervous system.

Today, individual cellular communities may be comprised of trillions of
cells. For example, human beings represent a social community of from 50
to 70 trillion cellular citizens. Each human cell, like an amoeba, is a
free-living entity, possessing Innate Intelligence and capable of appropriately
responding to its “local” (i.e., tissue-specific) environment. Through the action
of the nervous system, each individual cell is also influenced by a much larger
environment, that experienced by the whole organism.9 Your liver cell knows
what’s going on in your liver, but through the nervous system, it also
aware of what’s going on in your job or in your relationships.

As illustrated here, the
cell’s receive environmental signals via the central nervous system. In
truth, the cell’s receive a “perception” of the environment
as interpreted by the Educated brain.

Our nervous system tabulates approximately
four billion environmental signals per second. Its primary role is to “read” the environment and make
appropriate adjustments of growth and protection behaviors in order to ensure
survival. Memory systems evolved to facilitate information handling by storing
previously “learned” experiences. Memories, which represent perceptions,
are scored on the basis of whether they support growth or require a protection
response. In chiropractic philosophy, these learned perceptions constitute
the Educated Intellect, which is by evolutionary design, a derivative of the
collective Innate Intelligence.

As described above, the switch between growth and protection behaviors in
unicellular organisms is “digital.” An individual cell moves either forward
or backward. In organisms comprised of large numbers of cells, environmental
signals can elicit a graded, “analog” response, wherein some
cells are in growth and others are in protection.

The more relevant a stimulus is to the organism’s survival, the more polarized
(either + or -) the resulting response. In humans, the extremes of the two polarities
might appropriately be described as LOVE (+) and FEAR (-). Love fuels growth.
In contrast, fear stunts growth. In fact, someone can literally be “scared
to death.”

Perception of environmental threats suppress a cell’s growth activities
and cause it to modify its cytoskeletal in adopting a protection “posture.”
9,14 Suppressing growth mechanisms conserves valuable energy needed in exercising
life-saving protection behaviors.

In humans, a similar systemic switch functions to shut down our growth processes
and prepares us for launching a protection response.15,16,17 This switching
mechanism is represented by the Hypothalamus-Pituitary-Adrenal (HPA) axis. The
brain’s hypothalamus is instrumental in perceiving and assessing environmental
signals. The perception of stress causes the hypothalamus to secrete corticotropin-releasing
factor (CRF), which in turn, activates certain pituitary cells to release adrenocorticotropic
hormone (ACTH) into the blood.

ACTH stimulates the adrenal gland to secrete
adrenal hormones. These hormones constitute a “master switch” that regulates the systems growth-protection
activity and routes vascular flow in preparation for “fight or flight”
reactions. Firstly, adrenal hormones shunt blood from the viscera and redirect
it toward the body’s somatic tissues, which adopts a protective posture.
Reduced blood flow to the viscera, by definition, implies a suppression of
growth-related behaviors..

Secondly, adrenal hormones directly inhibit the action of the immune system,
the internal “protection” mechanism.

18 The adrenal system’s
function is to protect the body from threats it perceives in the external environment.
Adrenal suppression of the high budget immune system makes more energy available
to the somatic system. Consequently, the more stress one experiences, the more
susceptible they will be to dis-ease.

Adrenal hormones also reroute brain blood
flow by constricting forebrain blood vessels and dilating hindbrain vessels.
Fight or flight situations are more successfully handled using hindbrain-mediated
reflex behaviors. Constriction of forebrain blood flow suppresses “logic” or “executive reasoning,”
since slower thinking responses ultimately jeopardize fight-flight reactions.19
Have you ever experienced a loss of intelligence in response to adrenal-mediated
“exam stress?”

Collectively, HPA stress suppresses visceral-mediated growth, inhibits the
immune system and stunts intelligence. The degree of expression of these
influences is directly related to the level of perceived stress. The more
stress, the less growth. The interference with growth due to chronic stress
leads to dis-ease, since the body is unable to adequately maintain its metabolic
vitality.

In conclusion, conventional allopathic medicine is now beginning to realize
that genetic expression, which influences the character of the body, is under
the control of the environment. However, the growth or protection posture
of an individual’s tissues and organs is mediated by the nervous system’s
perception of its environment. Perceptions are beliefs. Misperceptions can inappropriately
increase or decrease physiologic mechanisms and produce dis-ease. The role of
perception and mind is now becoming a point of focus in allopathic healthcare,
as they try to unravel the mysteries of the placebo effect and the role of pyschosomatic
stress.

20
The power of perceptions or beliefs in promoting health or disease was originally
recognized by D. D. Palmer. In chiropractic, perceptions constitute the
Educated, and it is this Educated that so worries and bothers Innate. He
wrote, “The
determining cause of disease are traumatism, poison and auto-suggestion.”

1D
Auto-suggestion (personal beliefs, self-talk) produces “auto-traumatic
action directed to any organ or portion of the body, thereby modifying bodily
functions, exciting or relieving morbid conditions by mental processes independently
of external influence.”

1E
When Educated perceives an environmental stress, it will signal the requirement
for a protection response. Protection behaviors, mediated by the somatic
nervous system will adjust the spine to provide a defensive posture. Consider
the relationship between a powerful alpha-male dog and a dog of lesser
rank. The latter will acquire a protective submissive posture, lowered
head and body, in order to avoid inciting the wrath of the alpha-male.
After holding this posture for a long time (i.e., a chronic protection
response), the dog’s spine will
acquire obvious subluxations that would adversely impact its health. A spinal
adjustment would alleviate these subluxations. However, if the dog returns to
the same environment, it will continue to perceive a need for a protection posture.
Under such circumstances, the dog’s Educated mind will employ auto-suggestion
mechanisms that will return the spine to its subluxated condition. In addition
to the adjustment, the dog will need to either alter its environment or alter
its perceptions, in order to remain free of dis-ease.

As Palmer suggests, the
chiropractor needs to seriously consider the role of auto-suggestion in the
healing process. While adjustments alone can alleviate subluxations, problems
generated by an erring Educated, may require the need for “reeducation” as a means of reversing dis-ease producing beliefs.


In 1907, chiropractors rejected D. D. Palmer’s philosophy as being too
religious or metaphysical. In an effort to present themselves in a more “scientific”
light, the profession has been gradually moving toward allopathic science for
the last ninety years. Interestingly, allopaths have now begun to realize Palmer’s
truths. If things continue as they are, allopaths may soon be more “chiropractic”
than chiropractors!

References

1. Palmer, D. D., The Science, Art and Philosophy of Chiropractic 1910 Portland
Printing House Co., Portland, OR, A) page 753, B) page 681, C) page 97, D) pages
359 and 674, and E) page 360

2. Nijhout, H. F., “Metaphors and the Role of Genes in Development,” BioEssays
12 (9):441-446, 1990.

3. Lipton, B. H., “The Evolving Science of Chiropractic Philosophy,”
Today’s Chiropractic pp.16-19, Sept/Oct 1998

4. Graves, B. J., “Inner Workings of a Transcription Factor Partnership,” Science
279:1000-1002, 1998. (How proteins turn on genes)


5. Unwin, N. and Henderson, R., “The Structure of Proteins in Biological
Membranes,” Scientific American pp. 56-66, Oct. 1985.

6. Cornell, B. A., et al., “A Biosensor That uses Ion-Channel Switches,” Nature
387:580-584, 1997.

7. Pittenger, M. F., et al., “Multilineage potential of Adult Human Mesenchymal
Stem Cells,” Science 284:143-147, 1999.

8. Bjornson, C. R. R., et al., “Turning Brain into Blood: A Hematopoetic
Fate Adopted by Adult Neural Stem Cells In Vivo,” Science 283:534-537,
1999.

9. Lipton, B. H., Bensch, K. G., and Karasek, M., “Histamine-modulated
transdifferentiation of dermal microvascular endothelial cells,” Experimental
Cell Research 199:279-291, 1992.

10. Hannun, Y. A., “Functions of Ceramide in Coordinating Cellular Responses
to Stress,” Science 274:1855-1859, 1996.


11. Hemmings, B. A., “Akt Signaling: Linking Membrane Events to Life and
Death Decisions,” Science 275:628-630, 1997.

12. Raloff, J., “Sphinx of Fats,” Science News 151:342-343, 1997

13. Tsong, T. Y., “Deciphering the Language of Cells,” Trends
in Biochemical Sciences 14:89-92, 1989.

14. Lipton, B., Bensch, K. G., and Karasek, M., “Microvessel endothelial
cell transdifferentiation: Phenotypic characterization,” Differentiation
46:117-133, 1991.

15. Leutwyler, K., “Don’t Stress,” Scientific American
pp. 29-30, Jan. 1998.

16. Mlot, C., “Probing the Biology of Emotion,” Science 280:1005-1007,
1998.


17. Sandman, C. A., et al., “Psychological Influences of Stress and HPA
Regulation on the Human Fetus and Infant Birth Outcomes,” Annals of
the NY Acad. of Sciences 739:198-210, 1994.

18. Pennis, E., “Tracing Molecules That Make The Brain-Body Connection,” Science
275: 930-931, 1997. (Regulation of immune system by stress)

19. Arnsten, A. F. T., “The Biology of Being Frazzled,” Science
280:1711, 1998.

20. Brown, W. A., “The Placebo Effect,” Scientific American pp.
90-95, January 1998

Add This Entry To Your CureZone Favorites!