Not sure I'm the one to comment on this.. but, here goes. Also, keep
in mind that most of my comments on the chirozine is an attempt to stir
discussion. In that sense I sometimes may create ambivalence toward my
viewpoints since I seldom receive feedback from these statements;
assuming people think these are personal comments and ignore them. My
purpose, really, is to _educate_ our profession (and others) to the
fact that other ideas exist besides the chiropractic idea (whatever
that is for the moment) and that we must incorporate other ideas in
order to understand our own unique approach to health care. With
everything I've been posting, more of the research should confirm that
what I have stated is, essentially, on the right track. Our problem,
for the profession, remains....
We don't know what it is we are looking for!
I say this particularly with regard to the studies, as an example,
of the low back as indicated in the Cooperstein/Perle article below. To
understand how a technique influences a low back condition, and then
attempt to prove it, is futile in our present state of knowledge. I say
this because, from my observations (not published except on internet),
the basis by which to understand how a technique influences a low back,
as an example, must be provided through outcome studies that somehow do
not penetrate beyond a superficial understanding of the technique. IOW,
we make presumptions (linear, reducable lesions) and then try to prove
them by a reasonable outcome. My question is: does this really prove
anything about a technique or about chiropractic?
IOW, we don't seem to know what to ask about our technique or about
what it is that makes it all happen! IOW, there is more to it than high
velocity, low amplitude. We are still focused on osseous lesions when
we may be dealing with cognitive, reflex patterns that are
communicative in reaction. This is entirely different from an osseous
lesion which is a result of that cognitive reaction. IOW, we are
content to alter the osseous lesion, explain it from that perspective,
but fail to understand that the brain is still trying to alter the
synaptic strengths in neurons to, from my viewpoint, make the
adjustment 'hold.' At least, for now, that is how I have to pursue this
since I think much of what we do at local levels is really tied into
brain function. (check some of the articles I've posted at the
ChiroZine).
You, as an SOT practitioner, should recognize that much of what you
do for the low back may not be directed entirely _to_ the low back.
IOW, you may 'treat' the subocciput and somehow influence the low back,
sufficiently as to 'leave it alone to allow the body to readapt,
thinking that strength to the low back is the answer, etc." But what
has happened with that treatment? Is your explanation sufficient, etc.?
I'll have to illustrate my approach just to give you some idea of
how I might interprete the problem of low back treatment as a
nonosseous problem and yet, treatment is directed toward an osseous
component. My approach to low back treatment is with the assumption
that reflex, communication patterns may be the only way to evaluate the
integrity of an osseous joint, including the low back, specifically, as
e.g., L5 and or sacrum/SI. There are. IMO, a number of ways to
challenge this relationship to reflex activity. Muscle testing is one
(including arm fossa), leg length in whatever position desired;
however, since I am looking for 'dynamic' lesions rather than static
ones, I choose to observe my patient in standing position (because I
will further evaluate as the patient rotates the pelvis, etc.). I find
that checking for leg length variations by veiwing the pelvic
relationship to the iliac crests (there is research confirming this as
valid), that I can, in turn challenge other areas on the body
topographically that might provide a clue as to a source for treatment
...if it is reflex in nature. So, I challenge a ventral spatial contact
(one I've already extrapolated as a computational algorithm) and
proceed to 'decouple' (for want of better description), that reflex
activity. I use either a manual instrument (activator) or an electric
gun type with single burst to the predesignated spinal level indicated
in the algorithm. Depending on my indicators, I will do this laying
prone, or I will do it standing. I recheck, and have patient twist the
body, check while maintaining that postural challenge, identify ventral
contact, and adjust _while in the twisted postion_ to decouple the
reflex. Often very severe, restricted ROM problems appear to disengage
rather suddenly and the patient is surprised at the altered ROM without
pain in a matter of a _very few_ specific releases along the spine
(extracted from mathematical algorithms from computer analysis). I
guess this would be farfetched for some since our original idea is that
a specific level/lesion is due to joint mechanics and 'pinched nerves.'
Sometimes, playing around in experimentation, I can do this by applying
a simple brush of my thumb along the spine at each level indicated by
the algorithm. The patient describes a sensation in which they are more
aware of something occurring than when more engaging manuevers are
directed toward the osseous lesion. What I interprete in this is that
if the light reflex (brushing with thumb) can do something like this,
then the osseous adjustment is probably doing the same but perhaps
deeper or more capable of recruiting annexial tissue, etc.
Now, (and I really hate this writing business), why haven't I tried
to publish anything on this? I have but somehow haven't been able to
communicate the basic idea. Too much rewrite and noone understands the
basic context, maybe because the research hadn't caught up. It is only
recently that the research is beginning to support some of my ideas
(brain/body; posture and the brain, etc. see articles at zine). That
may be why some might think I have a 'propensity to take personal
dream-like journeys into chiropractic Never-Never Land.' Badanes was
accurate in that description, something I've recognized, and why I've
had to bring out other ideas first before I can expect anyone to
understand where I might be coming from. Unfortunately for
chiropractors, we still maintain that to 'fix it we've got to adjust
it' mentality. And, I am still amazed that as the research on
brain/body relationships is coming out, our people still don't seem to
catch on that this business with innate is really part of the
body/brain relationships. We've got to look beyond the subluxation and
spinal cord to find our answers...
Now, that brings me to another point. I have never felt that the
technique entrepreneur is capable of researching and proving his
technique. IMO, we should be far enough along in our understanding of
things, in our sophistication, that we can recognize that some things
_cannot_ be researched by the originators of technqiue. Partly because
the requirement for sophisticated methods is beyond access to the
technique originator (TO) is something that only someone trained in
this is capable of providing. I would think that we have advanced far
enough for our profession to recognize that now it is time to offer an
extended hand to the TO rather than demand the TO proves something.
Just because someone finds something in technqiue that appears to do
something worthwhile does not mean he is capable of providing the
answers as to why it works. Haven't we had this problem with the
Palmers? It's a ridiculous stance and I won't fight it; I'm waiting to
see the literature changing in regard to this notion. It's another
tautalogy. Also, what I may have uncovered is really more than just a
technique; rather, it appears to be able to challenge whatever
technique we might apply by revealing probable lesion areas as part of
computational probability analysis. IOW, it seems to provide responses
that can evoke questions rather than mere acceptance of something
working, if you get my drift. It reveals other possibilities for
another technique to work in a similar manner...
Virgil Seutter DC
Editor: ChiroZine
virgils@chiro.org