q and a 5

Q and A #81-100
The following past entries are in descending order. The most recent letter is at the top.

Letter #100:
How about Harrison’s research? It's the best going.
Dr. H.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #100:
It probably is BUT, straightening spines and removing nerve interference are two entirely different things.

Letter #99:
I am just starting a UC practice. I don’t have many patients yet, but I think I’m doing okay. I’m picking up about 2-3new patients/mo. What I’m trying to find out is, am I on track? I opened my office 17 mos. ago.
Dr. L.__________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #99:
Building a UC practice from scratch is an interesting experience. You learn a lot about people and you learn a lot about yourself. The first few years are bound to be tough, possibly tougher than building a generic chiropractic practice. Why? Because with a generic chiropractic practice you fit the anticipated model of what your friends, neighbors and the public in general think a chiropractor does, and therefore if you are a generic you can benefit from that. You can attract more new patients – sore backs, sprained wrists, pulled muscles, etc., simply because, as I mentioned above, you are conforming to the concept that people now have about what a chiropractor does. Throw in some “nutrition” too (100% to 200% mark-up), maybe some heat of some kind, and some traction with a nice, relaxing spinalator, and people generally kind of like that. Also, you can advertise because you have a concrete, generic package to sell – people feel all those things that are done to them when they come to see you. When they leave your office they feel loose and relaxed and they have in their hands a bottle or two of something they can swallow. (That’s why a generic chiropractic routine is more amenable to an advertising program.)

On the other hand, when you are a pure UC DC people, in general, do not know what you do – they do not know that you can get truly sick people well. They have the wrong concept of you and what you do, and a big part of your job is education – changing people’s concept of you and what you can do. This is a much more difficult job, and in the long run, advertising will only cheapen and damage your ability to establish yourself – who you are and what you can do for sick people - in the mind of the public.

But when it does happen! When you do understand who you are and what you can do for sick people, be ready! You have a vastly superior product and the only problem you will have is finding enough energy to take care of all the sick people who will be coming to your office for the restoration of their health.

PS. If you will e-mail us telling us how many patients you are currently seeing per week, we will be able to give you a more definite answer as to your progress in practice.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
The experiments of N. L. Propper (a collaborator in Speransky’s research) are undoubtedly interesting, but they prove only one thing: If a local injury is inflicted on the nervous system at any point of it, this is reflected in some degree also in its other parts.

Letter #98:
First, It's good to see that California still has some Chiropractors dedicated to the Upper Cervical adjustment, down here in Georgia, we hear horror stories of what's going on out west, and the numerous Chiropractors selling their principles for more medical acceptance. My, name is Dr. P. D.C. and I practice about an hour outside Atlanta, I graduated from Life back in 94 and considered myself a specific straight Chiropractor, I now laugh in hindsight, to make a long story short For the last two years I've been adjusting upper cervical exclusively, the results are amazing, and I am now seeing cases that are truly sick, which I would have probably referred to the Medics just a few short years ago. Plus, I now once again, love what we do...(too many years of back ache, neck ache patients take that from you.)

Any how, I learned the upper cervical adjustment from Dr. Kale. I'm quite sure you've heard of him. What drew me to Dr. Kale's knee chest work, was that it didn't take me long to realize that everything I was taught wasn't anything new but was an exact duplicate of what Dr. BJ Palmer used in his research center with Dr. Lyle Sherman. Everything I was taught was Straight out of BJ's teachings (especially volume 18). The 37,000 hours of Research which BJ talked about "we did science with a vengeance" was on the knee Chest posterior arch adjustment.

This leaves me with many questions about other techniques? And I ask these questions not out of malice, but from a genuine need to understand, to learn, to grow. First question, I know of no other Chiropractor that produced the same research or results compared to that of BJ, why was there a need for other Chiropractors to try to improve on his methods? Why do some upper cervical practitioners not use the NCM? Why the change from the posterior arch contact to TP where some researchers believe it to be virtual impossible to contact such a landmark. Also, it seems that C2 is rarely adjusted in other upper cervical techniques, and BJ adjusted C2 two to one over Atlas. I really think all my questions relate back to the first, if BJ was the "Master" as far as results why the need to change, If had to speculate, I can see only two reasons to wander, couldn't make the adjustment or couldn't straighten the line.

I practice in a town where there are at least 5 Chiropractors that practice Grostic, but none exclusively, I would have asked these questions to them, but your web site lead me to believe, your a grounded Chiropractor that wouldn't mind sharing your insights.
Keep up the Fantastic work in California,

Yours in Health

Dr. P.__________, GA

Reply oncause to letter #98:
To answer your first question – what occurred in the B. J. Palmer Chiropractic Clinic WAS NOT RESEARCH. It seems as though DCs have a huge problem with the words researcher and research: deciding how something should be done, doing it and then saying that you proved that you were correct is not research done by a researcher.

B. J. decided that he would use the neurocalometer (neurocalograph) in a certain way in the B. J. Palmer Chiropractic Clinic. He also decided that he would X-ray and adjust patients in a certain way in the B. J. Chiropractic Clinic. This was the B. J. Palmer Chiropractic Clinic using the B. J. Palmer technique in order to prove that the B. J. Palmer technique was the superior technique.

Do you see any flaws in that program? Could there have been some bias operating there?

What question or questions were asked in that "research"?

How were the studies (experiments) designed? How were they conducted? How were they controlled? What other technique or techniques were compared or used as controls?

When the B. J. Palmer technique was used in the B. J. Palmer Clinic a certain number of patients responded in certain ways. How would those same patients have responded were they cared for under the same conditions by some other UC technique – Grostic, Blair, AO? Obviously no one knows. How about comparing the B. J. Palmer Clinic results to the results on patients adjusted by the Gonstead technique, Mears technique, S.O.T.? Again, no one knows, because there were no comparative studies conducted.

37,000 hours of research is a lot of research, and if it were true research, 37,000 hours would have produced a mountain of data – parameters, research design, controls, all of which should be open to professional scrutiny. Where is that data?

Before we go further with this, I’d like to mention that we in our practice have ultimate respect and reverence for B. J. Palmer. In our main office we have a bust of B. J. in our office manager’s office and three pictures of B. J. adorn our walls. One that I particularly treasure is autographed by B. J. with a personal note written by B. J. to me just before he died. Also, in the reception room of one of our office's we have a B. J. Palmer museum.

Without B. J. none of us would be here!

And it is just in that spirit of respect for B. J. that we object to so many of the statements that have been attributed to him since his death. Much of what he has been misquoted as saying is simply fabrication, put forth by opportunists who need something to hang their hats on. Who better to misquote for your own purposes than B.J.?

During my years at Palmer (`53 to `57) all adjustments were made in the side-posture position using the Palmer/Thompson drop headpiece. The overwhelming majority of contacts were made (or at least attempted to be made) on the atlas T.P. Even in the student clinic where H.I.O. was used exclusively, very few adjustments of the axis were approved. The general opinion was that any axis contact was not as effective as an atlas T.P. contact. NO POSTERIOR ARCH CONTACTS WERE USED, AND NO KNEE-POSTURE TABLES WERE USED.

I did personally attend a lecture by B. J. when he had come up from his residence in Sarasota in the spring and was on campus, in which he expressed great enthusiasm for the Palmer/Thompson drop headpiece, saying something like, "I told Clay (Dr. Clay Thompson) that he really hit the jackpot this time."

If you will check Volume XX (a record of 102 cases cared for in the B.J. Palmer Chiropractic Clinic)* you will find the following statistics:

OF THE 102 CASES LISTED ALL, WERE ADJUSTED USING AN ATLAS TRANSVERSE PROCESS CONTACT. NO AXIS ADJUSTMENTS WERE MADE.

Dr. P., from what source are you acquiring your information?

You are relatively new in chiropractic and a word of caution might help: when you make the statement that "some researchers say…" it really doesn’t mean anything other than someone said something. All you are saying is that someone who considered himself or herself to be a researcher made an assertive statement, which may or may not be true. That person is just asserting something that is most likely in his or her interest to assert. Assertion and research are two very different things.

Any research is vulnerable to bias. Bias is the bugaboo that plagues all research. However, when "research" is done by one person, especially when that person stands to gain professionally or monetarily from that "research", the bias factor goes through the ceiling. That is why in valid scientific circles the "peer review" system is employed.

Moreover, when you assert something that someone else has asserted, you are merely asserting your way to more assertive confusion.

One other point: it would seem that you are not doing the chiropractic profession any good by making the statement (asserting) that chiropractic, especially UC chiropractic, has not made any advancement in the last 50 or 60 years. About what other professions or field of science, or trade, for that matter, could you make a statement such as that? Medicine? Engineering? Physics? Chemistry? Optometry? Podiatry? Plumbing? Heating and Air conditioning?

I have another question for you: what are you measuring with your neurocalometer (neurocalograph) readings? What is making that needle swing? We have previously asked this question on this website. No one has answered.

Now, on to the very positive aspect of your letter: the reason you are beginning to attract truly sick people and enjoying your practice more and becoming more successful financially is because of the change within you. You are no longer of the frame of mind that you are selling adjustments. You are no longer a peddler in doctor’s clothing. You are a doctor who gets sick people well. That is the change that you, one way or another, have been able to achieve within yourself.

We respect you and congratulate you for what you have been able to accomplish within yourself.

You are approaching the Big Idea!
Keep up the good work!

*There were 100 cases enumerated at the beginning of Volume XX on page . However there were actually 102 cases listed in the text. Of the 102 cases, 171 adjustments were made for an average of 1.7 adjustments per patient while they were being cared for at the clinic.

Quote from A.D. Speransky:
"The study of the role of the nervous system in various pathological processes furnishes us daily with proofs that, in the development of many forms of degenerative phenomena at the periphery, the basic factor is the initial disease of the nervous system."

Letter #97:
In letter #89 you quoted A.D. Speransky. Who is he?
Dr. D.__________, AZ

Reply oncause to letter #97:
A. D. Speransky was the head of a major research project that took place in Russia between 1923 and 1934. This research is adumbrated in his book A Basis For The Theory of Medicine. I use the term "adumbrated" because the book is only an outline, an overview of his research. Speransky worked in the physiological laboratory of I. P. Pavlov at the Institute of Experimental Medicine in 1923 and 1924. The research, which he describes in his book, was done under his directorship at the Department of Patho-Physiology of the All-Union Institute of Experimental Medicine in Leningrad.

I am only speculating now, but from what I can tell, both from studying the book that resulted from his research, from references that I have acquired from the Bodleian library at Oxford University and from my knowledge of the history of the Soviet Union of that era, this is what prompted the Soviet Government to sponsor such a program: When the communists took control of Russia and formed the Soviet Union, in addition to changing the economic basis for their society, they also sought to do away with as many capitalist institutions as possible. They changed, or attempted to change art, literature, the theater, music and -- intending their changes to be as pervasive and complete as possible -- they also sought to change the fundamental basis for medical practice.

Speransky’s project, well-funded and sweeping in nature, was part of this all-the-institutions-of-capitalism-must-be-changed philosophy. It was provided with the best laboratory facilities and equipment of the day.

What does all of this have to do with chiropractic?

In my opinion the book that evolved from Speransky’s research could well have been titled A Basis For The Theory of Chiropractic.

Assuming nothing from the beginning of his basic research, bit-by-bit Speransky began to zero in on the nervous system as the culprit in the genesis of most disease processes.

In order to understand Speransky’s work, its direction, scope and thoroughness, it is necessary to read and thoroughly study his book.
As an example, here is one of the quotes from A Basis For The Theory of Medicine:

Whatever the properties possessed by the irritating agent and however isolated the place of its application may appear to be, the consequences express themselves in a number of nerve structures, which have never been in direct contact with it. There is no strict localization of this process within the limits of a particular part of the nervous system, since the irritation passes from the elements of the central nervous system to the sympathetic system and back again.

From time to time we will publish further quotes from Speransky’s research.

Letter #96:
Since you will not explain the UC technique you use in your practice, I won’t push it. But if you were to choose one of the techniques now being taught, which would you choose?
Dr. L.__________, WI

Reply oncause to letter #96:
It would be impossible to make a choice simply because there is no basis on which to make a choice. No UC technique has ever been subjected to anything resembling a peer review process. They are all just one or two person’s notions of how things should be done in the UC region of the spine. And they all work to some extent.

When the Blair doctor gets results by using the Blair technique that verifies the Blair technique in his or her mind. When the NUCCA doctor gets results by using the NUCCA technique that verifies the NUCCA technique in his or her mind. And so on, down through all techniques.

It makes no difference which UC technique you are talking about, if you are practicing that technique, you are just doing things the way someone else decided they should be done.

No UC technique has ever been subjected to any bone-fide, valid research program.
That is why there are many different techniques and that is why they all disagree with each other.

If any technique were ever developed by any valid research program, it would be – questions answered, problem solved, end of debate!

Letter #95:
Let's say a person starts your care with a right short leg for example; and after your post adjustment levels or becomes long. Then on the next visit, the opposite leg is short (the left in this instance), do you assume that the listing changed and readjust based on new x-rays or do you assume that since the right leg was the original pattern, that it is holding and muscles are readapting?
Dr. S.__________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #95:
Dr. S.,
Assuming that I will not get a threatening e-mail from you, I will answer your question directly.

There is no neurological mechanism that can cause the “short leg” to become the “long leg” immediately post UC adjustment.

The “short leg” phenomenon is a result of the paraspinal musculature on one side of the body being overdriven by aberrant CNS influences, and when those influences are changed, not necessarily erased, from the CNS, the legs balance – the SBT becomes negative. As we all know, the “short leg” comes down for varying periods of time.

After an adjustment is made, the nervous system begins to “reset” itself, and in the process of “resetting” itself, no one side of the paraspinal musculature will be overdriven. So the SBT will be negative. If the “short leg” does not come down post adjustment, you are not in the ballpark at all with your UC adjustment.
However, as the amount of force used in the adjustment increases that axiom no longer obtains.

Why? Because with high force thrusting and manipulative types of adjustments the nervous system reacts quite differently to the force that is being used. Most of the time the SBT will go negative even though no correction has been made. And even though the interference may have been increased, the nervous system is in a state of disorientation and neither side of the paraspinal musculature can dominate. So the SBT is negative. But in this situation, because the SBT is negative it does not mean that a restoration process has begun in that patient. It only means that the nervous system has been confused by the mechanical input, and it will not take long before the SBT will become positive again.

However, as we all know, if the UC adjustment is made properly the SBT tends to remain negative for long periods of time, and that is when restoration, deep healing is occurring within the patient’s system.

Now, it appears as though I have gotten kind of wound-up. So let’s get back to the question at hand – a practical explanation for what you are seeing in your office: to put it very simply and directly: 1) You (like every one else who uses the SBT) want to see the leg come down post adjustment, therefore you approach the test with a very strong bias; 2) As we have mentioned before, the SBT is a very subjective test – vulnerable to errors on the part of the doctor. Put these two factors together and it is very likely that often the “short leg” becomes the “long leg” post adjustment. You have “favorable interpretation,” – or another good term for this is “selective perception.”

But, I must mention that this is not an uncommon thing for a UC to do. In addition to “seeing” it, you have often heard it said by other DCs that they “see” the “short leg” become the “long leg” post adjustment. That is simply the nature of chiropractic science.

As we have mentioned before, you do your best work when you THINK FOR YOURSELF AND PLAY DEVIL’S ADVOCATE TO YOUR OWN BIASES.

Go back and review your SBT set-up (don’t lift, don’t force, proper eye angle, etc.) Do not give an emotional damn about what you find in your post-check. JUST DO THE SBT HONESTLY AND CAREFULLY AND BOTH YOU AND YOUR PATIENTS WILL DO BETTER.

Letter #94:
I must be honest with you, I am having economic problems in this so called recession. I am exploring various "sales" options to maintain my standard of living. I do not feel right about selling vitamins and pillows that I do not use myself. How do you think this will affect my practice? The salesman that I spoke with showed me charts and testimonials of increased revenue potential with selling his goods. I know your position from prior letters on such an activity, but I do not know what else to do. Any advice will be appreciated.
Dr. M.__________, NY

Reply oncause to letter #94:
Your have not mentioned the type of technique that you use in your office, but I assume that you are a relatively straight practitioner with probably an upper cervical slant to your work.

It would be a good idea to keep in mind that the main force that attracts people into your office is the fact that you are different from the other generic, retailing DCs around you, and as you slide downward into their collective consciousness you will inevitably dilute your own consciousness and your own conviction as to what you are doing and who you are. From there on, it’s all downhill.

Incidentally, there is never a recession in cause and effect chiropractic.

Letter #93:
On one of your replies you mentioned that you do not use AO procedure. But you do use an instrument. What instrument do you use? And what analysis are you using to come up with the LOC (Grostic, AO, NUCCA)? If it's your own analysis, what is the difference between what you're doing vs. these others?

Dr. S.__________, MI
Reply oncause to letter #93:
The difference is that all chiropractic techniques that were and are being taught have been influenced by the phenomenon of favorable interpretation – influenced by the mindset of the chiropractic researcher/technique-guru who is of a mind to promote his or her technique. There is always a dollar value involved, pending favorable outcome to hypothesized theory.

From the beginning, circa 1965, we have tried to be as honest and objective as possible in evaluating our own work and conclusions. What this amounts to is the continuous application of an attitude of skepticism – playing "devil’s advocate," if you will – with what we were seeing in our research; not jumping to conclusions that favor a preconceived notion. In fact, true research always works to disprove any conclusions that may have presented themselves. This approach is completely foreign to chiropractic.

Over the years, we have often heard that "so-and-so" is doing research to prove "such-and-such."

Guest what? The very fact that "so-and-so" is theorizing it, will tend to make "such-and-such" true. Now, add in the possible financial advantage to "so-and-so" if he can make "such-and-such" seem to be true, and you can bet the farm that "such-and-such" will be true – most likely a "breakthrough."

So, Dr. S., that’s the difference. We have researched in search of the truth, not in search of a chiropractically marketable product.

Letter #92:
I haven't read back too far in your questions recently, but the theme
on the upper cervical program seems to be the idea that having a diplomate will somehow increase your patient numbers and or make you more money. I am taking the program and that is not really my motivation at all.

I am getting updated on the new ideas in neurology which are quite fascinating (and they relate very well with upper cervical work- maybe neurology will finally catch up with us in another few decades..). I have in the short time since the program began already learned a lot about related ideas in upper cervical work that I had been unaware of before. I better understand the ideas behind the different ways we all work. This has allowed me to look at the biomechanics from some new perspectives.

I practice in a state where I fear that soon I will be required to adjust the hip if that is the complaint that the patient comes in with. This is unacceptable to me yet I can see the forces moving in that direction. It is my hope that the diplomate will allow me to continue to practice upper cervical chiropractic as a 'specialty'. The truth for me is that I have little faith in most chiropractors and they seem to be running toward medicine as fast as they can....I am hearing alot about tough times from those around me but my practice has continued at a pretty steady rate.

Dr. T. __________, Florida

Reply oncause to letter #92:
Dr. T.
I am aware that the comments that I previously expressed on our website vis-à-vis Sherman College’s certification program may have seemed rather commercial -- will this program increase the incomes of those in attendance? However, I do have a reason for taking that tact. The strength of any organization or movement is based on its financial underpinnings. An organization or movement that is financially weak is one with little capability and little control of its future. Thus UC chiropractic can only be as strong as its collective financial health -- the financial health of its individual practitioners.

But what we are seeing is a continuous, and it seems inexorable, decline in the financial health of the individual UC practitioner. If you disagree with this statement, please consider the results of the telephone survey that we took in 8/99, which actually led to the inception of this website: the number of straight, exclusively UC practitioners could be counted on the fingers of both hands. An overwhelming number of "UC" practitioners were mixing in all kinds of other techniques and modalities. We even ran across a well-known UC guru who was using spinal traction in his office, yet doesn’t hesitate to express his views in "Vector". Many telephones had been disconnected. Many UC DCs were sharing offices with other DCs (obviously to cut expenses). The taped messages on many phones indicated that the UC DC was in part-time practice.

Does this bode well for the future of cause-and-effect chiropractic? Oh course not! The whole thing is sliding downhill. You do not have to be Sherlock Holmes to figure that out. Negative? Yes it is! The truth of the matter? Yes it is!

Will the certification program at Sherman do anything to remedy the problem?
Possibly.

However, let’s look at this situation from a different, and maybe a more realistic point of view: "Getting updated on the new ideas in neurology which are quite fascinating," is no doubt an interesting way to spend a weekend. And no doubt Dr. Murphy is a very erudite chiropractic neurologist. But will attending such a class actually help the individual DC to build a better, financially stronger practice? In some cases, maybe. But in my opinion – having practiced pure UC chiropractic for the last forty-four years and having learned, either vicariously or from personal contact from the people who knew what they were doing when it came to building huge UC practices – I can’t see it being, at best, anything other than an interesting academic experience; at worst, a source of subliminal confusion which will show up as analytical doubt when the "certification" candidates are back in their own offices. Why subliminal confusion? Why analytical doubt? Because, as I mentioned before, Dr. Murphy (his encyclopedic knowledge of neurology notwithstanding) mixes different techniques into his own practice. What subconscious effect does this have on the aspiring "candidates" who are listening to his lecture?

This is very subtle psychological stuff. But practicing straight UC chiropractic is very subtle psychological stuff, and the people who I mentioned in the past as having the huge UC practices, would have enough fundamental sense to walk out of that class in a moment.

Does this mean that they were closed-minded? Not at all! What it does mean is, that they were smart enough and knew enough about the subtleties of UC work to say to themselves, "Don’t lecture me on UC chiropractic if you can’t do it yourself. If you have never practiced pure UC chiropractic, you know nothing of the miracle that a proper UC adjustment can bring to the sick and suffering." And a big part of achieving that miracle consists of leaving the case alone after the proper adjustment has been made and allowing the repair process to proceed within that patient’s nervous system unimpeded by additional jolts, jars and pokes which cause confusion within that system, many times shutting off the repair process altogether.

Now, let’s go back to the economics of what I mentioned above in the first part of this reply. You mentioned that, "I practice in a state where I fear that soon I will be required to adjust the hip if that is the complaint that the patient comes in with. This is unacceptable to me, yet I can see the forces moving in that direction."
Again, the issue, Dr. T., is one of economics. What do you think might happen if, in a state as populous as your own, there were just one hundred UC DCs who had net incomes of 100k per year (not at all an unrealistic figure), and each of those DCs decided to make a tax deductible donation of 1k per year to a UC organization that would hire a lobbyist in Tallahasse to speak for their cause? (That would cost them individually about six hundred dollars per year.)

This is obviously not going to happen. I am just writing hypothetically to make a point.

But if your fear regarding practice is realized, and you are required to "treat" the area of complaint, it will be because cause-and-effect chiropractic in your state has zero economic clout; it is economically impotent and you have had the fort over-run by the Medipractors who do have the clout.

So what we are talking about is an economic issue, not an-increased-knowledge-of –neurology-for-the-sake-of-increased-knowledge-of- neurology issue -- and the subconscious confusion that might result from acquiring that increased knowledge under those circumstances…

Letter #91:
I am a practicing DC in the Los Angeles area. What information do you have they would help me to learn the UC technique that you have experience with. Are there other forms of the techniques and if so, which do you reccomend. Also, how would I go about taking the courses.
Sincerely.
Dr. H._________CA

Reply oncause to letter #91:
Dr. H.
As we have mentioned previously on this website, we do not teach our UC technique.
For the answers to your other questions we recommend that you contact Sherman College.

Also, since you are relatively close to us, please feel free to pay us a visit. Make sure that you call ahead of time so we can arrange to have one of our staff available.

Letter #90:
With all due respect, I have to say this about one of your resent replies. Why were you so opposed to the UC Certification program at Sherman College? I have heard through a friend who was in attendance that it was a very educational program. Why is this not good for UC work?

Dr. M__________, AL

Reply oncause to letter #90:
My point was that UC DCs, or at least those DCs who are attempting to be UC DCs, are missing the POINT. The POINT is that UC work is in a continuous state of economic deterioration, and regardless of how much information is transferred to the field doctors in any of these classes, the actual financial benefit to the individual UC DC will be minimal. Information per se will not cause the individual practitioner to attract more patients into his or her office.

Keep in mind that in the past – in the 40’s, 50’s, 60’s and into the 70’s – the DCs who had the really big pure UC practices did not build those practices on any of the information that was presented in any “certification” program.

Think about it. Many of those DCs who had those huge practices with patients coming to their offices from all over the world never attended a UC certification program and they differed from one another in the UC technique that they used in their offices. So their practices were obviously not built on an accumulation of information from a lot of different sources. They had a whole other thing going on within themselves, and that was the key to their success.

Why do we not have those kinds of practitioners anymore?

Try this one: how long would BJ sit in a classroom listening to a lecture on UC work by someone who practiced a mixture of various chiropractic techniques?

Letter #89:
Dear OnCause,
You’re right. I started messing around with steel BB. (I could see it OK on the film. Probably lead would be better). But your are right. I haven’t been on TP very often.
Dr. I__________, Fl

Reply oncause to letter #89:
"The nervous system is an organ which cannot be altered locally. Local interference affects the whole nervous network; these changes pass away gradually and not completely, and give rise to a number of adaptations to the new artificial norm. The nervous system is a new object after the local lesion, and it reacts to stimuli in a new fashion."

A.D. Speransky
A Basis for the Theory of Medicine
You are an honest DC.

Steel BBs are okay, but we recommend lead, it appears sharper on the film.
Don’t know which UC technique you use, but let’s assume that it is some type of "vectored" technique and go from there.

Try this: When you take your nasium place a BB on each side of the neck over what you believe to be the TP. Then after you have analyzed your films and have decided on which side you will make your adjustment, turn the nasium 90 degrees in the view- box so that you are looking at the nasium in the side-posture position, simulating the way the patient will be lying on the table. In this way you can plot out the angle of the resultant force on that plane – the height factor in your adjustment formula. This is easy to do: simply tape a piece of blank notebook paper on what is now the top of the film, (the film being in the horizontal or side-posture position), use your protractor and plot out your resultant force (in degrees, if you are using degrees in your formulae; converting to degrees if you are figuring your formulae in inches) and using the location of where you have placed the shot (the point at which you have palpated the TP) as the point of entry of your adjustive force.

Plotting that adjustive force on through will show you where it will be expressed on the vertebral column.

Patients get well quicker and more completely when the adjustive force is applied to the anatomical structure for which it is intended.

At least they’re supposed to!

Letter #88:
Thank you for your last response.

I have just started the BB on the TP, procedure and it is quite interesting. Sometimes I'm close, others, well lets just say I'm glad the BB was there.

This however was not the question asked in the last post. What I would like to know is the meaning of life. If you can't answer that then here is an easier question. If you do not use an orthogonally based analysis, how do you determine the listing. I know your not into letting others know your secrets, so you don't need to be detailed but give me an idea of what structures are referenced or viewed and if there is line analysis involved.

A different view is always welcome, although never taken as fact.

Dr. P._________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #88:
Dear Dr. P,
What is life? What is beauty? What is truth? What is UC analysis?

Yeah, I know we didn’t answer your question. But we did make you think, didn’t we?

As we said at the inception of our website, we are not doing this to promote or establish any technique, or any technique concept, or method of analysis. There has always been more than enough of that, and we are not going to throw our work into the ring with everyone else’s. We are not selling anything. We are not, in any way, attempting to get our hands into anyone’s pockets.

The time that we put into this forum is, to some extent, time that we would ordinarily put into our practice. I use the term we because my computer skills are not up to handling website publication, therefore I have to have help from junior people in that aspect of the production. (But in a way this is a good break for them – from the janitorial work that they would ordinarily be doing.)

It’s just to see if we can get some wheels turning. That’d be pretty good for UC work, wouldn’t it?

Now, back to UC thought!

It seems as though we have stimulated some thinking in Dr. P’s mind, am I right? Something about contact location, which in addition to the general UC thought stimulation, should help him with his practice.

So it looks like we’re doing okay!

Stick around for more CervThought.

The Life, Truth, Beauty part? I’m working on it.

Letter #87:
I am writing reguarding a phrase used in the answer to question #85 "Spinal Mechanics" it related that only the intelligence of that body knows exacly what the spinal mechanics should be. The question is, If that is true then where does line analysis and orthogonality come into play? In other words if we are using this analysis arn't we trying to address what we believe to be aberant spinal mechanics? If so then what is the difference between that and "Spine Staightening"? Just an observation I had to ask.

Dr. P._________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #87:
Dear Dr. P.
Good question!
We do not use the atlas orthogonal technique in our practice. In fact, we very much disagree with that approach to cervical analysis and adjusting; therefore, we cannot defend it. But I suppose you could say that all "line drawing" analysis is basically "spine straightening." And I suppose the response of the line drawing people would go something like this, "We draw lines to list the atlas misalignment only. After the atlas is corrected the rest of the spine takes care of itself."

Be that as it may, if you really want to think about the problem in front of you (the problem in front of all UC doctors for that matter), you have to go back and examine all the information about UC technique that has been taught or, one way or another, has been handed down to you.

Let’s start back in there somewhere, okay?

What we are talking about here is a theoretical question – line drawing -- ATLAS ORTHOGONAL, NUCCA, ORTHOSPINOLOGY, THE VARIOUS HYBRIDS AND THE VARIOUS VARIATIONS OF THESE AND, IN ADDITION, EITHER AND/OR A BUNCH OF OTHER UC TECHNIQUES THAT MAY OR MAY NOT USE LINES TO ANALYZE, SUCH AS H.I.O., BLAIR, ETC.

Now, again, remember that what we are talking about in these various technique issues are issues that are controversial, have a great deal of emotional tone to them, and are, in fact, belief systems. If they were not belief systems, we would have some organized, objectively researched guidelines and directions (which I’m afraid does not include the typical chiropractic, proprietary version of "research,") for proceeding with our UC work, and we would simply go about our work to the best of our ability in the proven best way. The technique issues would be drained of the elements of controversy and emotion. We would all know how to proceed in a way that got the most patients well the quickest. We would all of us (UC doctors) get along much better, we would get far more sick people well, we would have a far greater degree of unity within the UC community, we would have much more clout within chiropractic itself, the referral network would be much stronger, professional, respectable, etc.

But guess what? The atlas TP is not where UC doctors think it is! It can’t be palpated from the surface with any degree of accuracy. Let’s figure out how to locate the atlas TP. How about that for one starting point?

There are many more starting points, but for now, let’s talk about that one.
A big leap from my train of thought in the previous paragraphs? I don’t think so. Let’s carry this thought further.

How many UC techniques are centered on the premise that the adjustive force should be introduced into the atlas TP? How many have developed a system that teaches the DC how to locate that anatomical point (the TP of atlas) which he or she intends to adjust?

I went through Palmer at the height of its HIO era, yet none of the instructors, regardless of how much theoretical conviction they had, had ever developed any method, other than palpation, to find the atlas TP.

"Put your ‘chiropractic index finger’ right here. There it is. Feel it?"

But it isn’t "THERE." They had never even questioned the accuracy, or better yet the reality of what they were teaching their students and what they themselves were practicing.

So we have a basic, fundamental, a priori ASSUMPTION that has been handed down, decade after decade, never questioned, WHICH IS ABSOLUTELY INCORRECT.

To prove my point, take the "lead shot" test -- palpate for the atlas TP, mark, place a lead shot at your point and take a Lateral film. Do this on a dozen or so Laterals. I guarantee that you will be amazed. Where have you been adjusting? Is the technique you are using designed to have the adjustive force introduced into the atlas TP? Once again: WHERE HAVE YOU BEEN ADJUSTING?

So now we have ever increasing and complex methods of drawing lines on films, plotting vectors, all designed to introduce the adjustive force into the atlas TP, but consistently missing the mark, many times by as much as an inch. (UC techniques that adjust below C1, locating their contact point by palpation, are obviously just as far off the mark.)

AND THIS IS JUST THE VERY BEGINNING OF THE ERRONEOUS ASSUMPTIONS THAT HAVE BEEN SERVED UP AND UNQUESTIONABLY SWALLOWED DOWN!

Dr. P., I may have drifted a bit in answering your question, but I trust you see my point.

Let’s, for the time being, forget the theoretical questions and controversies and really take a hard look at fundamental information, think for ourselves, think and question everything that has been put on us in the guise of fact.

Letter #86:
I guess I am a almost year late on the palpation Q. But it seems that the importance of palpating, or actually further said, locating the TP of C1 is crucial as we all know for adjusting the neck.

Sometimes in scanning palpation it seems on some people that there is a density perhaps caused by the TP underlying those tissues.

The greater leverage factor required in the adjustment, or frontal plane angle of adjustive force, which I think we all call Height Factor or Vector; requires greater lead on the T.P. of C1 to make introduced forces arrive at the Atlas T.P. Thus for some people that requires getting kind of far up into the area between the mastoid and the mandible.

Thus hand adjusting for me was so difficult on some alignee's; and, thus why I am in the Atlas Orthogonal program using their floor mounted instrument and its stylus.

When the alignee is on the table and the head properly positioned (???...brings to mind some of your other articles) and especially when you raise the headpiece to auto lower an inferior spinous of C2 and "pre-set" or lower the plane line...it is at or during these sequences when it seems that some T.P.'s can be palpated or at least the denser tissue over them...and as others have experienced; post adjustment that tissue becomes much "lighter", perhaps as a result of some degrees of correction.

What are your thoughts on some, any, or all of my comments here. Thanks,
Dr. T._________, HI

Reply oncause to letter #86:
Dear Dr. T.
Commenting on your comments:
Your comment - "Sometimes in scanning palpation it seems on some people that there is a density perhaps caused by the TP underlying those tissues. "

Our Comment - Sometimes, maybe. But strictly coincidentally.

Suggestion: Next time you can clearly palpate the atlas TP, mark the spot and do the "lead shot" test. I suggest you do this on all new patients for a while.

Yours: "The greater leverage factor required in the adjustment, or frontal plane angle of adjustive force, which I think we all call Height Factor or Vector; requires greater lead on the T.P. of C1 to make introduced forces arrive at the Atlas T.P. Thus for some people that requires getting kind of far up into the area between the mastoid and the mandible. "

Our comment: Yes, it definitely does. And you can plot it out if you know how far the TP is from the surface of the skin on that plane. The best way to do this is to leave the lead shot on the skin (where you have placed it for the Lateral) when you take your Nasium. This will give you a reference point for your "height factor" - how far the TP is from the surface of the skin on the "frontal" plane. Taking into consideration the inherent enlargement (which varies, of course, depending on your individual Tube Distance/Part Distance – not difficult to figure out), you should be able to get on target with your vector. If you do this, I suspect it will amaze you where that TP is on both the "Lateral" and "Frontal" films. And how far off you can be, especially as you say, "that requires greater lead".

Yours - "…some T.P.'s can be palpated or at least the denser tissue over them...and as others have experienced; post adjustment that tissue becomes much "lighter", perhaps as a result of some degrees of correction."

Our comment – Is the denser tissue over the TP?

Letter #85:
A couple of questions:
First, as I've been an upper cervical D.C. for last 16 years, I find that it is getting harder to get people to understand subluxation from the standpoint of being the "cause" of disease. Actually, it's easier to relate to organic malfunction and disease than pain syndromes. But I wonder how it would be if we started relating subluxation principle to healing and restoration of normal function.

An example would be, if a person injures their low back lifting something heavy. I find it very difficult to get a person to understand how the subluxation of C1 caused the weakness that led to the injury. I've expressed this on this forum previously. To me, as a patient, that would seem rather far-fetched, leading to even more skepticism toward UpC chiropractic.

Supposed we related to the patient instead, that yes, they injured soft tissue in their low back such as muscles, discs and nerves, but there is pressure in the upper neck that will keep the body from being able to repair the damage as all healing is controlled by the brain through the CNS.

To me, this seems a more acceptable way of getting the patient understand specific UpC chiropractic than relating it as the cause, (at least in pain syndromes).

Secondly, there seems to be this thing in UpC about trying to relate Chiropractic with "spinal balance" or a biomechanical approach vs. a neurological nerve interference approach. What is your opinion of this? Sincerely,
Dr. S._________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #85:
Try looking at it this way: the subluxation may or may not have caused the "weakness that led to the injury." If we express the opinion that the subluxation caused the weakness and precedes all injuries, we are just being doctrinaire, adhering to philosophical dogma. People injure their arms, legs – pull muscles by over-lifting, over-work, etc., therefore it would figure, wouldn’t it, that they could do the same to spinal muscles.

I think the correct approach is just exactly what you have suggested in your 3rd paragraph – "Suppose we related to the patient," etc.

Regarding your last paragraph – "Secondly, there seems to be this thing in UC, etc. … "
Obviously there is a mechanical factor involved when we are dealing with a patient who is experiencing a typical low-back syndrome. However, I believe that the further we move away from the concept and explanation of interruption of nerve impulses, the further we move away from our principle.

After all, isn’t this just what has happened in the continuing downward spiral of the scope and the largesse of chiropractic – a watering down of the enormity of the neurological principles that we are (or should be) dealing with daily in our offices?

Who is interested in cranking spines around trying to straighten them?
I wouldn’t be in practice today, nor would any of the other doctors on our staff, if that’s what we thought we were doing.

Stick with your principle. The patient’s CNS is the only entity that knows it’s own spinal mechanics, and it is the only entity that can properly correct spinal mechanics.

One further comment: DCs have always been good at cutting their noses off to spite their faces, and the "spine straightening" approach is just another example of this.

Over the years we have noticed that patients who have had a considerable amount of "spine straightening" manipulation before we see them have a certain rigidity of the spinal musculature that we don’t see in first-time chiropractic patients. Also, as a general rule, it is more difficult to get a much-manipulated patient to "hold". Generally they have to be adjusted more frequently, especially in the early stages of their care.

What the DC (or any other practitioner, for that matter) sees in the "alignment" of the spine--the three-dimensional configuration of the spine--is what has to be there as a result of the state of the neurology of the patient they are examining.

Letter # 84:
I practice up in Silicon valley and my practice has declined substantially with the economic "tech wreck". Many of my patients are now unemployed and cannot come in for care. My account balances are swelling and it is affecting my financial health. Unfortunately I bought a bigger, much more expensive house during the seemingly endless economic expansion. Now I am concerned about how I am going to pay my bills. The idea of adding nutritional supplements to supplement my income is sounding more attractive. I have even considered adding a (YUCK) ultra sound machine to increase my revenue stream. How have you managed during the economic downturn?
Dr. A_________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #84:
I have been practicing straight, exclusively UC chiropractic for 44 years and have never seen any indication that the general economy of the country, either bull or bear, has had any bearing on this practice.

However, from what I have read about Silicon Valley, that may be a different story up there now.

But, regarding our own practice, I must say that the initiation of Managed Health Care did impact us negatively for the first year or two. Now however, we are back to steady growth while most of the other health care professionals around us, both MD and DC, as well as dentists, are complaining about their practices.

Why?

I can only speculate on this. But I think it is fairly evident that people are confused regarding their health care providers. They are generally suspicious and distrustful, and they are looking for someone in whom they can place their trust.

But I feel that Managed Health Care is not the only culprit that has undermined confidence; it isn’t even the main culprit. The general air of suspicion and distrust has been caused by the commercialization of health care and the psychology and behavior of the health care providers that goes along with that commercialization.

Traditionally, in western society, the doctor has been a person who is considered above commerce, above the cunning of the marketplace. And when you think about it, it has to be that way. Why? Because of the fact that the patient does not have the special knowledge and training that the doctor has; the patient has only his or her trust in the doctor to rely on. Therefore, the doctor necessarily had to have had a certain respect in town far above his net worth or business status.

Obviously, we have always had scallywag doctors of all types. But in general, the doctor-patient relationship has had to be based on trust. It has had to be that way. It was the only way it would work.

But now there is an increasing tendency in all health-care fields to sink into commerce and bottom-line thinking.

Is it any wonder that people are suspicious and distrustful?

What does this have to do with the UC doctor?

How about looking at it this way: we are there to do as little as possible to the patient.

We are there to remove the cause of their problems--no drugs, no exotic medical dances. We do not cover up symptoms. We do not sell them anything other than the removal of nerve interference, which is the most powerful thing that can be done for their health. We get them well properly, and we can do it quickly, efficiently and very affordably.

That is the essence of the wisdom of doing less to the patient. It is the essence of the wisdom of "cause-and-effect" chiropractic.

For both results and trust, how can anyone beat that? Fact is: we don’t have any competition – if we practice the cause-and-effect principle.

Letter #83:
I think I understood your comments on the UC Diplomate program but I want to double-check. You do not feel that the program will help DC’s build busier practices, is this correct? How could it not help them to be busier, they will be better educated and understand more of the UC problem?
Dr. D.__________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #83:
For the most part you attract patients into your office by what you have in your mind, and when you are exposed to a multiplicity of techniques what you have in your mind is uncertainty. You will inevitably acquire analytical doubt as to just how you should proceed with the case in front of you. Is it what this doctor said or is it what that doctor said? And the patient will sense that uncertainty. This does not mean that as a practitioner you should be an unquestioning dolt. But what it does mean is that, as we have said all along, you will be much better off if you get your head into your own work, whatever it is, and think about it. Ask tough questions about it. Are there contradictions? Think for yourself. Are there areas that are not based on anything other than Dr. So and So said to do it this way? Maybe you would be better off if you figured out your own way to do some of those things rather than listening to a multiplicity of conflicting opinions.

Letter #82:
That was an interesting letter from Dr. L in Colorado (letter #80). I am not surprised that such an attitude exists. The author is probably a faculty member that only treats low back pain. Your response was perfect. I myself have seen some asthma cases. The letter from the mother of your patient was a nice case history. Do you have any other case histories like that?
DR. M._________,AZ

Reply oncause to letter #82:
We have had other requests for more case histories. Click here to read another interesting letter.

Letter #81:
What are your thoughts on S.B.T.'s all done with aligenee's being barefoot? Would you see that as an increase in accuracy...considering your very well written articles on headpiece placement; leg checks with shoes and socks on allow, in my observation, room for error as one shoe may be laced tighter as well as other possible variables.

Thanks,

Dr. T.__________,Hawaii

Reply oncause to letter #81:
The shoes should be laced tightly (not uncomfortably). Loose fitting shoes, boots, any high-top shoes are hard to work with and will introduce a much greater chance for error. (The S.B.T is difficult enough to do with consistent accuracy without adding variables.)

I don’t think that checking barefoot would be a good idea since what you want is two similar planes to set up and measure with your eye. And while we are on this subject, in our offices we do not compare the soles of the shoes – one to another, nor do we compare the heels – one to another. We set up the entire plane of each shoe as similarly as possible without forcing –forcing always produces variables. Then we compare, down the entire length of the shoe, the crease where the last (shoemaker’s terminology) meets the sole. In our opinion, the last/sole juncture is the only constant in a whole slough of variables, i.e., soles of the shoes, heels of the shoes, internal malleoli, etc.

Just as a general comment on this subject: I cannot exaggerate the importance of the when factor in the adjustment. We have had a number of favorable comments on the case history (letter #80, the little girl with asthma) that we just published, and I must say that, based over forty years of practicing UC work exclusively, it is my very firm opinion that if that case had been adjusted at the wrong time, or if she had had her backbone twisted and popped along the way, the outcome would not have been as favorable. Her nervous system would have been in a state of confusion rather than a state of repair and there would have been a good chance that she would not have gotten well at all, or at best, that her progress would have stopped somewhere short of full recovery.