Wiese G
Palmer College of Chiropractic.
Chiropr Hist. 1996 Jun;16(1):72-87.
After briefly reviewing the development of the germ theory of disease, the author delineates the opposition that the germ theory met from many practitioners, especially chiropractors. This paper explores the evolution of chiropractic's position regarding the germ theory of disease and its dominance in medicine's approach to prophylactic therapy by surveying the chiropractic literature. If the number of monograph and journal publications is indicative of the degree of chiropractic sentiment against the germ theory, the opposition to the theory was heaviest in the 1940's, trailing off to only the occasional monograph or journal article in the 1970's and beyond. Although the development of penicillin and the Salk vaccine may be tied to the demise of most published chiropractic opposition to the germ theory of disease, the basic differences between medicine's approach and chiropractic's approach to disease still remain. Although the differences may be ones of degree, the approaches taken as to whether disease is caused and cured from within the body or from outside the body remains a very real philosophical distinction between the two methods of health care.
在简要回顾了疾病微生物理论的发展之后,作者描述了该理论遭到许多从业者,尤其是脊椎按摩师反对的情况。本文通过查阅脊椎按摩文献,探讨了脊椎按摩学在疾病微生物理论方面的立场演变,以及其在医学预防治疗方法中的主导地位。如果专著和期刊出版物的数量表明了脊椎按摩学对微生物理论的反对程度,那么在20世纪40年代对该理论的反对最为强烈,到20世纪70年代及以后则减少到只有偶尔的专著或期刊文章。尽管青霉素和索尔克疫苗的发展可能与大多数已发表的脊椎按摩学对疾病微生物理论的反对的消亡有关,但医学方法和脊椎按摩学方法在疾病方面的基本差异仍然存在。尽管这些差异可能只是程度上的,但关于疾病是由身体内部还是外部引起和治愈的观点,仍然是这两种医疗保健方法之间非常真实的哲学区别。