q and a 6

Letter #120:
Interesting web site. Thank you for providing this forum. I am working on building my practice and in your opinion what is the most important element in U.C. practice building?
Dr. J.__________, WI

Reply oncause to letter #120:
I'll keep this short and simple. The most important fundamental is: knowing who you are because of what you can do.

Letter #119:
I read in a previous reply that you adjust patients if there is any leg length discrepancy. My thoughts are this. If a patient comes into the office and they have been subluxated for 45 years or even 20 years there has been an adaptive change thruought the persons structural frame. If a person comes in with a right short leg of 1/2 inch meaning there pelvis is contractured by this amount and this results from muscluar contraction of muscle groups in the right pelvis area due to interference tot he brainstem; haven't the muscle fibers shortened due to this adaptive change and haven't the ligaments and other soft tissues adapted to this situation? If an adjustment is made at the atlas which relieves the pressure on the brainstem which caused this problem doesn't it make sense that this adaptive structural change would take time to unwind and "ungrow" back to muscular balance? Just a logical question isn't it? I mean how can you expect the body to to "ungrow" 30 years of soft tissue change in 2 days? It makes sense to me that if a patient came in with a 1/2 short and the presented with a 1/4 short 3 days later and that it might be a good idea to leave it be. I am new at upper cervical work but I am a ruthless questioner sometimes perhaps to my own detriment. What are your thoughts?
Dr. H.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #119:
You are obviously thinking, and I can see your reasoning -- from a theoretical standpoint, that is. However, the fact is that a functional "short leg" (positive Spinal Balance Test) can be eliminated temporarily with a crude, thrusting type of cervical adjustment, or even many times with a "diversified" manipulation. Any force that changes spinal mechanics, especially when that force is delivered into the cervical region, will usually affect the nervous system enough so that the + S.B.T. will be temporarily disrupted. Moreover, this disruption will be immediately observable with the application of the proper S.B.T.

But, this immediate response means nothing at all from a restoration standpoint. You have only accomplished an input into the body’s neuro-mechanical system, enough so that the static aberrant state has been temporarily disoriented. However, if nerve interference has not been eliminated, the system will soon return to its previous aberrant state. Sometimes this will only take a few minutes, sometimes a few hours, sometimes it will take a few days for the nervous system to settle back down and display the disturbance that is occurring within it.

If the adjustment was not made accurately enough to remove the interference – proper, 1) contact, 2) vector, 3) depth, 4) acceleration profile, the functional "short leg" will inevitably return as we mentioned above, sometimes within a few minutes, sometimes within a few hours, sometimes it will take a few days for the nervous system to resume the display of its disturbed state. But the closer you are to the proper corrective force -- the proper 1,2,3,4, -- for that individual case, the better your chances are of having the S.B.T. remain negative for longer and longer periods of time. And it goes without saying that the long-term holding in the negative S.B.T. state is what induces the deep healing within the entire economy of the patient’s body. That is what gets really sick people well --produces results that no other method oof healing can produce, and concurrently produces the steady, solid, growth of a practice.

While I am on this subject, I might mention that one of the best ways of playing tricks with the S.B.T. and thus confusing both the patient’s nervous system and your own chiropractic analysis is to is to impact the spine with forces that disrupt the nervous system at the improper time and in the improper way and cause a false obliteration of the S.B.T. When this happens the patient’s nervous system will eventually become confused. The alarm display, which is exactly what the C.N.S. is doing by manifesting the positive S.B.T., will eventually wear down. The alarm will either stop displaying itself or begin to display itself very feebly, and the possibility of accomplishing the miracle results that are the very basis of a thriving UC practice will begin to rapidly diminish.

One other point: We, in our practice, consider the S.B.T. to be every bit as important as our X-ray work and the actual adjustment. And we also know that the proper application of the S.B.T. requires training, concentration and a continuous process of "Slipping and Checking". Why? Because there are so many variables that are inherent in the S.B.T. that might allow the patient to leave the office still carrying nerve interference, or be adjusted at the wrong time thus creating new, or reestablishing old, patterns of nerve interference.

Letter #118:
I would like to have your advice concerning lower angle reductions with an ipsilateral (to the lower and upper angles) C2 spinous. What is the most critical factor in an adjustment that would change lower angles : height vector, torque, headpiece placement or other ?

I know you do not adjust by a technique in particular and neither do I (I use either a triceps flick or triceps pull depending on what we see on the radiographs). I am also conscious that I didn't include radiographs with my question. If you cannot answer with what I gave you, that's alright. I just had an intuition to e-mail you about that subject.
Have a wonderful day,
Dr. M. R.__________Canada

Reply oncause to letter #118:
Dear Dr. M. R.
We do adjust by a "technique in particular" – our own.
Therefore, although I am familiar with the cervical mechanics that you describe and the terminology that you use in your question, they are not in any way germane to the cervical work that we practice in our offices.

They are the descriptions and terminology of an entirely different concept of cervical adjusting.

Sorry I could not be of more help in this matter.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"The microbes that were discovered in chronic non-healing ulcers in our animals were secondary and accidental colonists. Their presence did not intensify the process, nor did their removal abolish it." ..... "Hence, local distortion of the nervous influences is sufficient both for giving rise to and maintaining foci of chronic inflammation."

Letter #117:
Dr. M, Thank you for your attempt at answers to questions 1 - 5 [letter #115] that I asked.

You did answer question 1: 1. "Is it your position that it is impossible to determine if there is a change in laterality of C1 compared to C0 using the Grostic series of films?" Your answer was: no, thank you.

And you did answer question 2: 2. "Is it your goal to stimulate thought and debate as to if the laterality changed on a specific set of pre and post nasiums?" Your answer was: Yes. In my experience over the years this has been a very important point, since doctors frequently employ favorable interpretation when reading their films. More often than not they read-in a reduction on the post where there was actually no reduction and then they migrate elsewhere in the spine for answers to the patient's health problem and the cause remains uncorrected. Thank you, I could not agree more!

I assume your answer to question 3 is no. I enjoyed very much the grading sheet that you scanned to be admitted to the May Grostic class 1964! That was very interesting. But, the fact of the matter is you have never been tested for intra examiner reliability. This test is done something like this, you are given 10 cases with lateral, nasium and vertex films. You analyze the film and send them back to us or any objective researcher. The researcher records your readings, erases all lines and then the cases are sent back to you for re-analysis at a later date. You send the analyzed film back to the researcher. The examiner can compare your readings and determine a standard error of measurement in degrees. What you have shown is one pre, one post and Dr. John F. Grostic's opinion of your analysis. While your score is impressive on that one case and the historical value is excellent, you still have not been tested for intra examiner reliability.

Question 4 I asked: What is the accuracy of the person that will be determining the "accuracy" of the chiropractor submitting the film? Accuracy means that there is a known correct answer to compare your measurements against. Obviously, no one knows the correct answer concerning the measurement of atlas laterality in a given person! One way of testing accuracy is using a 3D computer model of the skull and cervical spine. A researcher can create a specific misalignment and print simulated nasiums that can be analyzed and compared to a known value. Again, I don't believe you have been tested for accuracy.

Number 5: The magnitude of right image rotation remaining on the nasium film with a S-line like the one in the Orthospinology article will not create a left laterality based on our published research, especially one of the magnitude shown. You a just plain wrong in this case. Orthospinology, and I, have done a great deal of research in this area. We have also PUBLISHED our findings in peer reviewed journals. Rochester RP, Owens EF, Patient Placement Error in Rotation and Its Affect on the Upper Cervical Measuring System. Chiropr Res J, 1996; 3(2):40-53 If you have different findings please direct me to were you have published them.

I would thoroughly enjoy reviewing your research in this area. Thank you for answering the first two questions and your scanning of your J. F. Grostic Score sheet. 2 / 5 questions and a piece of history, well, thanks.
Cordially,
Dr. R.__________, Georgia

Reply oncause to letter #117:
Sounds like an impressive drill, Dr. R.; and according to your claims, it should lead to a high level of "intra examiner reliability" – uniformity when the X-ray analysis of one doctor is compared to the X-ray analysis of another doctor.

But, how about "inter examiner reliability – where a doctor’s measurements in one film are compared to his own measurements in another film (same measurments - same view)?

As I pointed out in the Oncause posting of letter #109, regarding the Pre and Post Orthospinology films by Dr. Eriksen published in the March/April 2002 issue of Today’s Chiropractic.

Quote from letter # 109:
"You do not have to look closely at the two films to see that on the Pre the lower cervical lines are drawn through very different anatomical structures than they are on the Post.

There are gross errors throughout both of these films, but the following are the main ones:

On the illustrations that you see in the magazine, if you will measure the width of the lines that demark the width of the lower cervicals on the Pre film, you will see that the lower cervicals measure 13mm, and on the post film they conservatively measure 16mm – an increase in the width of the lower cervicals by 3mm on the shrunken down magazine illustration. Keeping in mind that the originals were 10 x12 films that had been shrunken down in the illustration by a factor of 3, the lower cervicals have gained 9mm in anatomical width from the Pre to the Post."
Quite an adjustment!

It would seem as though the measurement of the width of the lower cervicals is one of the simplest and most straightforward measurements in cervical analysis. And it would also seem that "inter" would be more straightforward and easier to control than "intra".

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"If the peculiar reaction of a given point depends on the peculiarity of its nervous connections, it ought to be sufficient to alter these connections by some means or other for the reaction to be altered."

Letter #116:
Long time reader, first time writer. I enjoy your web site. I am a struggling U.C. practitioner who wishes to grow my practice. I have not found much information about practice building courses on your web site. Would you recommend one that might help in building an upper cervical practice?
Dr. A.__________, Iowa

Reply oncause to letter #116:
A. I would not recommend any so-called "practice-building course" for anyone who is planning on building a large UC practice.
Why?

Because, since an exclusively upper cervical practice is the purest form of "cause-and-effect" health care, and it is not dependent upon gimmicks and sales routines, it must issue from within the doctor himself or herself. The building of a UC practice must come from within --"from above down, inside out." ( Obviously this is not a term that we have coined -- we all know the source, or should know the source of this quote). It is much less expensive and much easier to just understand what you can do with your work-- remove the cause of disease -- understand, therefore, who you are, annd behave accordingly in all phases of your life. When you do that, you own your own practice-building course, it’s always there with you day and night, and you never need to go back for a "refresher."

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"They once more confirm the thesis that any portion of the nervous system can become the starting point for processes of a neuro-trophic character."

Letter #115:
For the past month or two, behind the scenes and unbeknownst to our many readers, Dr. R., (Orthospinology representative) and ONCAUSE have been engaged in a friendly, yet spirited exchange regarding certain "Grostic based" theories and procedures and the nasium reward that we have offered. The following are excerpts from our dialogue.

Dr. R. asks:
1. "Is it your position that it is impossible to determine if there is a change in laterality of C1 compared to C0 using the Grostic series of films?"

2. "Is it your goal to stimulate thought and debate as to if the laterality changed on a specific set of pre and post nasiums?"

3. "I notice that you state that you/someone will be checking the accuracy concerning X-ray analysis, I am curious, has this person been tested for inter and/or intra examiner reliability or standard error in measurement of C1 laterality?"

4. What is the accuracy of the person that will be determining the "accuracy" of the chiropractor submitting the film?

5. The problem that I have with your comment is that you insinuated that the left laterality on the X-rays in the Orthospinology article (March/April 2002) [oncause question #109] was due to right image rotation and that is NOT correct. You see the central skull line does favor a left laterality if you ONLY look at the central skull line. The plane line of the atlas is also affected by right image rotation and to a GREATER degree than the central skull line and favors a Right Laterality. Right Image rotation cause [sic] the Central Skull line [to] tilt to the left, (as your quote correctly points out), But the plane line rises on the right at an equal or quicker rate and right image rotation remaining on the nasium film, if large enough, with [sic] create a "Right Laterality" not a Left Laterality as you has [sic] mistakenly indicted (and published for all to see with the potential to perpetuate non factual information). The last time I checked it takes the central skull line and the atlas plane line to determine atlas laterality.

ONCAUSE answers the questions in order:
1. No.
2. Yes. In my experience over the years this has been a very important point, since doctors frequently employ favorable interpretation when reading their films. More often than not they read-in a reduction on the post where there was actually no reduction and then they migrate elsewhere in the spine for answers to the patient’s health problem and the cause remains uncorrected.

3. Please refer to the following link.

4. Please refer to the following link.

5. I didn’t insinuate it, I said it. But again please refer to the following link. If you will notice, on the grading sheet – which was graded by J. F. Grostic, Sr., – on point # 8, the error description is stated simply and clearly: "Head rotated to the right or left". There are no qualifiers listed.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"Hence, local distortion of the nervous influences is sufficient both for giving rise to and for maintaining foci of chronic inflammation."

Letter #114:
Doctors,
I have often read and heard Upper Cervical doctors refer to a quote by Roger Sperry, PhD and Nobel Laureate concerning the brain's use of energy. It goes something like this; 90% of the brain's energy is used for the purpose of stabilizing the body against the forces of gravity. The inference being that the other 10% is what is left for all of our body functions, thought, etc. The point they often make is that if there is an upper cervical subluxation it subtracts from that remaining 10% and can cause sickness and dis-ease.

My problem with this lies in the fact that, while it sounds great and I would love to use it in my health care talks, I can not find any actual published reference to back it up. Dr Sperry's Nobel Prize was won for work concerning right brain/left brain and nothing is mentioned about percentages of brain energy.

Do you have any references which would support this "quote"? Have you heard of it?
Thanks,

Dr. W.__________, Washington

Reply oncause to letter #114:
First of all, sorry about the amount of time it has taken me to get back to you. It’s been a busy time – vacations for staff and doctors, none of which were mine unfortunately.

Now, as to your question: In my experience in chiropractic I know of no reference to the work of Dr. Sperry. That doesn’t mean that there are none. Checking the Internet for what we could find, it looks as though his work was done mainly in the area of brain lateralization.

But my question here is: why do DCs so frequently talk to their patients about verification of their work from some source outside of their own profession? Does Sperry quote DCs to verify his work?

To quote Dr. H, Chance, an old-timer who was on the faculty when I attended Palmer, "Do ya get it!?"

Letter #113:
Determining when to adjust. Suppose a person came in with a left short leg 1/2". Obviously you wouldn't adjust if the legs were balanced, but would you adjust it if the legs were just an 1/8th or 1/4" off or would you wait until it pulled back up to the original 1/2' or greater?

Dr. X.__________, Michigan
Reply oncause to letter #113:
Once any amount of leg-deficiency appears, the patient’s nervous system is in a state of impedance, spinal musculature is imbalanced and an adjustment is indicated.

Now, having said that, I’m sure we will receive e-mails from DCs who have a differing opinion.

Okay. Let’s hear them!

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"Hence, here also there was a repetition of the rule (already noted previously on many occasions) that, in estimating the effect of a particular procedure applied to the nervous system, it is necessary to take into account not only the form of this procedure but also the act of interference itself which originates a whole group of processes."

Letter #112:
Dear Sir;

Recently I submitted my wife's x-rays to you for review. Based on AO (Grostic) analysis, they measured as a right atlas with an ipsilateral spine (into the kink) with a high plane line on that side. My question is, what other factors are you looking at to determine the listing because you changed her to a left listing despite the line analysis? Incidentally, I believe that she has been doing better since adjusting her from the left side, although she is still not holding as long as I believe she should, although better than when adjusting from the right side.

Other questions based on previous posts:

Do you rest people after an adjustment?

What is your reasoning behind adjusting straight in on the atlas vs. a vectored angle of correction?

I was reading something in BJs Clinical Controlled Research that the patient must be sold chiropractic before an analysis is ever done. When do you begin to explain to patients what cause-effect UC care is?

Sincerely,
Dr. X.__________, Michigan

Reply oncause to letter #112:
Dear Dr. X.
Thanks for your letter, and glad to hear that your wife is doing better.

But before I answer your questions, I would like to compliment you, this time publicly on our website, as I did in our private E-mail correspondence, for the very high quality of your film work and also of your line-drawing analysis.

Now on to your questions:
Do you rest people after an adjustment?

Yes, most of the time. However, if they live within a mile or two of our office, we let them go home to rest at least ½ hour after an adjustment, and we stress that that is on the honor system.

What is your reasoning behind adjusting straight in on the atlas vs. a vectored angle of correction?

We do not adjust "straight in" in every case. It just so happened that that is what we recommended in your wife's case.

On the first office call we don’t explain much about Cause-and-effect, UC chiropractic. We do our "spinal balance" tests, tell the patient what we’ve found, and then tell them that we are now going to take a more complete case history and a set of cervical X-rays.

On this subject, I might add that I suspect that most UC DC’s talk too much. It is not how much you say, but how you say it. And more to the point, it’s what is behind what you are saying – what is in the consciousness of the Dr. who is saying it.

That is why having people who are not successful UC practitioners trying to teach UC practitioners how to practice will almost always have a down-side effect on the consciousness of the UC Dr. and his or her practice.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
The endeavour to attribute the cause of allergy to a toxin - whether of exogenous or endogenous origin is absolutely arbitrary. We have seen that nervous dystrophy can be produced alike by physical, chemical or biological irritation applied to one point or another of the nervous system. The presence of an external agent in the inflammatory foci is not at all indispensable and, moreover, proves nothing, since it can be accidental.

Letter #111
Dear Doc,

Please briefly explain what is meant by a cause and effect chiropractor. Thank you in advance for your time in answering this note

In Health,

DR. P. DC_________, State unknown.

Reply oncause to letter #111:
Good question!

It seems as though the entire chiropractic profession might ask itself this question.
Locate and remove the cause (subluxation). Eliminate the effects (symptoms) by restoration of normal function. LEAVE EVERYTHING ELSE ALONE AND LET THE BODY HAVE A FREE HAND IN REPAIRING ITSELF. If the patient needs physical therapy, allopathic medical treatment, psychological treatment, dietary supplement or herbal intervention, (the need for all of which are far less often then the profession as a whole realizes), refer to the appropriate health care professional.

If you are practicing CAUSE AND EFFECT CHIROPRACTIC, you do not have time to play around in any of those therapies or palliatives because you are kept too busy LOCATING AND REMOVING THE CAUSE. Regardless of what all of the "practice builders," vitamin, supplement, adjunct and modality peddlers say, the more you understand the CAUSE AND EFFECT PRINCIPLE and are able to make it work by learning to LOCATE AND REMOVE nerve interference, and the more you forget about the other mountain of confusion that has been visited on the DC profession, the more rewards you will receive from your practice – both in your personal satisfaction and your professional success.

Dr. P., this has been a very general response to your question.
However, your question was very general.

If you would like more specifics, let us know with specific questions.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."

"All this gives rise the idea that the injury to the nerve creates not only a point of irritation at the periphery but also some kind of pathological focus in the center. The elucidation of the condition for the origin of this focus became the subject of our work."

"Neuro-dystrophic processes are not confined to a limited sphere, that they enter into the composition of all pathological processes without exception, are not separable from them, and, consequently, do not constitute and cannot constitute a separate chapter in pathology."

Letter #110:
Assuming x-ray and analysis are correct, which upper cervical instrument makes the best corrections: a percussion instrument with no forward excursion (such as AO) or a forward excursion thrust instrument such as Life Cervical or Orthospinology?

Dr X._________,Michigan

Reply oncause to letter #110:
It is our very firm opinion that you will be much better off with some excursion - with the probe barely touching the surfface of the skin 1/8" to 1/4" of travel, depending upon the contact point and density of the tissue.

Incidentally the no-travel business is a mythological remnant of Grostic days when the lightest adjustment was considered the best. All other things being equal -- you were considered a good adjustor if your adjustment was light, a poor adjustor if your adjustment was heavy. That notion was theatrical in its origins, and like any notion, you can see how D.C.'s could carry it out to absurd extremes.

Letter #109:
I do not portray myself to be a U.C. expert, but I do adjust the atlas on every patient. I ran across something interesting in the March/April issue of TODAY'S CHIROPRACTIC in a articled titled, "The Orthospinology Adjustment And Outcome Assesment." The article shows a reproduction of a pre and a post film. In the film it appears that the line drawings for the lower cervical on the pre are different then the line drawings for the lower cervicals on the post. I would like to think that I have misread the films. Am I reading the films correctly?
Dr. G. __________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #109:
You are seeing just what you described in your e-mail.

You do not have to look closely at the two films to see that on the Pre the lower cervical lines are drawn through very different anatomical structures than they are on the Post.

There are gross errors throughout both of these films, but following are the main ones:

Keeping in mind that the originals were 10 x12 films that had been shrunken down in the illustration by a factor of 3, the lower cervicals have gained 9mm in anatomical width from the Pre to the Post.

As to the atlas/skull measurement, I cannot comment because the structures are not clear enough and have been reduced too much in size.

However, if you will look at the inner-skull line on the Pre you will see that there is a great deal of head rotation in the film – the left inner-skull space (above the mastoid) is grossly larger than the right inner-skull space. This indicates very gross right head rotation.

On the Post film, this difference in the inner-skull spaces is not as great, but still significant enough to have a major effect not only on cervical mechanics, but also on the construction of the central-skull line -- right head rotation will cause left laterality to appear greater than it really is, and when right head rotation is diminished, as in the Post film in this case, left laterality will appear diminished. Thus we have an atlas left laterality listed as reduced on the Post film.

Letter #108:
Great web site. I am a confused U.C. wannabe. For some time I have gone back and forth, up and down the spine, but thanks to you I am more focused on correcting the subluxation and leaving the rest alone.
Thanks again
Dr. L. __________, MN

Reply oncause to letter #108:
Great!! Stay on cause and you will get more sick people well and be more successful in many other ways.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
A much greater role may be played here, not by the part which has been subjected to irritation, but by the act of [nerve] interference itself, which becomes the originator of a whole group of new processes.

Letter #107:
You have had many letter questioning you on the theoretical: x-ray, rotation, leg checks, etc. What I want to know is how do I build a busier practice. What do you think is the most common non-technical, patient management mistake that D.C.'s commit?
Dr. A. __________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #107:
That’s easy: Proper Self Awareness – the lack thereof.

Letter #106:
Thank you for putting this site up. I have practiced Nucca for 2 years. I just bought an AO instrument. I love this work. It has helped me tremendously. I just find that no one person in NUCCA does same thing. They say they are but they are artists. They all have their spin on things. I haven't mastered my game yet. That is why I bought the AO instrument. But I haven't been very successful with that. I am ready to quit all of this stuff and do F/S. So many people out there doing that help people and have fun. I am exhausted. I have been around all the greats doing this work but it is so inconsistent work.
Thank you for your time.
Dr. S. __________, State unknown

Reply oncause to letter #106:
Yeah, that was also my problem with N.U.C.C.A. back in (I think it was 1968) when I went back to Monroe for the last time. And, as I have mentioned before, what turned me off was the authoritarian nature of the program. "Do as I say, because I say so."

Yet there were gross inconsistencies underfoot, and not only were those inconsistencies not allowed to be addressed, but they were actually used to assert an aura of advanced knowledge, such as making the statement that, "The force that emanates from the triceps–pull adjustment is a force that is, as yet, unknown to science."

In my opinion, statements, such as the above, do enormous damage to the progress of U.C. work.

That’s why, as you say, we have so many DCs "having their own spin on things."
And that’s why you are confused and frustrated. You are confused and frustrated because you are looking at the situation objectively and honestly.

But you have to keep in mind that you are talking about a field of quasi-science and assertion; the most authoritarian and dominant carry the day.

Whether you use an A.O. machine or the hand adjustment, you are much better off thinking and working on the problem of where, when and how on your own.

The why, we already know, and that’s the reason to stick with it! Because, as you yourself said in your E-mail, "I love this work."

Letter #105: (Refers to Q and A entry # 104)
I heard from my Uncle that Dr. Grostic had his big days M, W, F on these days he was seeing around a 100 patients a day.

Keep up the good work. Your web site does its job -- it makes me think.
Dr. M. __________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #105:
That’s more like it. With the other days, which were primarily devoted to X-ray work, that would be about 330 – 350 office calls per week. That sounds about right – a huge practice, especially when conducted by only one person.

Still, four patients per week are far too few to support that number of office calls.

Obviously Grostic took on more than four new patients per week.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
Any nerve cell, wherever it may be situated, is a receptor apparatus for any other nerve cell if it can be connected with the latter directly or indirectly by the transferred stimulus.

Letter #104:
I ran across the following quote in Today's Chiropractic January/February 2002 issue in a article written by Dr. Eriksen regarding Dr. Grostic Sr.:

"As the seminars grew, so did the reputation of Grostic's legendary practice. He averaged seeing 96 patients per day and usually accepted only four new patients per week, with a waiting list of up to eight months."

I do not think this is accurate. My uncle told me far different numbers than what Dr. Eriksen is stating. What did you observe?
Dr. M. __________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #104:
Think about it. Do the math. If John Grostic, Sr., saw 96 patients per day, that would be 480 office calls per week. At the rate of 4 new patients per week, where were all of those office calls coming from? If the adjustment is made properly, 4 new patients will not maintain a practice of 480 office calls per week. 4 new patients per week will soon drop 480 office calls per week down to less than half that number. Therefore, the only conclusion that can be drawn is that Dr. G. saw far more than 4 new patients per week, or that the adjustments he was making had very little holding power, thus requiring many more office calls per case.

We, in our practice, see far more patients per week than Dr. Grostic did. BUT, in order to maintain that daily number of office calls, we have to see far, far more than 4 new patients per week. If we only saw 4 new patients per week, our daily number of patient visits would soon begin to drop precipitously… FIGURE IT OUT!
We would like to know what you heard from your uncle on this, and we invite Dr. Eriksen to respond to this question and answer with any other information he may have on this topic.

And on that same subject: we also have recently been informed (see Q and A #98) that in the B. J. Palmer Chiropractic Clinic the adjustment was made on the axis 50% of the time. However, examination of the published records of the B. J. Palmer Clinic indicates that of the 102 cases listed all were adjusted on the atlas T.P.

It seems as though DCs, being traditionally free and unrestrained by facts, just say and/or write whatever suits their purposes – kind of a verbal and written free for all.

Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"The facts obtained are not only evidence of the existence of the neuro-humeral regulation of physiological processes; they once more confirm the thesis that the nervous system has a really direct influence on the chemical processes in the tissues."

Letter #103:

We (oncause) received a letter from a Dr. D. from Ca. in which he asked the specific page on which our last quote - letter #98, from "A Basis For the Theory of Medicine" - appeared. He also wanted to know what our interpretation of that quote was. The quote he referred to read:

"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."
Dr. D. __________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #103:
Dear Dr. D.
The quote that you inquired about is on page 54 – 2nd paragraph.

What that means to me is that it is impossible to affect the nervous system locally. The nervous system invariably behaves as a unit. Any offense (what the chiropractic profession has chosen to term interference) to the nervous system has global and far-reaching effects throughout the entire N.S., and so to the entire economy of the body -- thus, the wide range of conditions that we see responding to our care when that offense is located and removed.

Letter #102:
I really enjoy this site. But there is one thing that really, really bothers me, so I want to get it off my chest. I have seen time and time again where people would ask questions, sincerely seeking answers that would make them a better upper cervical doctors; asking for advice and suggestions from you, because you seem like a very principled upper cervical doctor with many years experience; but instead of giving a straight to the point answer, you answer like a politician in vague generalities and ambiguities. I don't think that's fair, especially for some of these new doctors coming out of school with little to no experience and who really do need answers. In the future can you maybe give a simple direct answer to a simple direct question?

Me personally, I don't want to think for myself with regards to how I practice. I want to find somebody who's doing it better than me, see what he has, how he does it and use that information to strengthen my weak areas. I don't want to reinvent the wheel. I just want to make what I do better so that I can attract the types of cases that I want (the cancers, leukemias, epilepsies, palsies, quadra and paraplegics, etc) and get these people better.

To me, that means how do I perform an accurate leg check?; What variances and assymetries do I need to look for to make sure that my right listing is a right listing and not a left. How can I more accurately analyze my vertex. Is there a better way than I'm presently using? Is there certain biomechanics taken into consideration for table placement? Is this a big secret?

Isn't the purpose of this site to make us better upper cervical doctors?
To me, it doesn't make any difference if BJ's work was how he did it in the BJ clinic. That doesn't solve the essence of what I need to know to be a healer rather than a pain specialist. Bottom line was, he got sick people well and he shared that knowledge with the profession to make us better. And he was ridiculed and scorned for it. That's the best that was available at the time and he shared it. Then Grostic came along, and he shared his ideas and work. And that's primarily what I (and I assume everyone else) who writes you with a question is wanting, for you to share your knowledge and experience and ideas with us so that we can be better upper cervical doctors.

Anyway, that's what I've noticed; I hope that in the future you would provide more precise and direct responses to those questions that are sincerely looking for the how tos of developing the upper cervical
philosophy and practice.

Sincerely,
Dr. S. __________, MI

Reply oncause to letter #102:
Dear Dr. S.,
Thanks for your letter.
If you will search throughout all of our responses in our website, you will find that we are very forthcoming on all topics with the exception of references to the mechanics and neurology of the subluxation.

We understand your frustration. However, let’s take a look at this issue with a sense of real world reality:

First of all, as I mentioned in my last reply, chiropractors have a great problem with the word “research”. Real research in the real world requires an enormous amount of time, effort and money. It is the act of questioning, questioning with an unbiased and open frame of mind. Studies must be carefully designed so that they may yield answers to the question, or questions asked by the researcher. Just the designing of a study, in itself, is not an easy task. Once the study has been designed so that it will yield answers, the research can then begin.

The bottom line element that must be present is an objective honesty -- an obedient subservience to the facts – the answers that evolve from the proper design and accurate performance of the studies, regardless of where those answers lead.

Keeping those real world considerations in mind was the base line protocol for our research, which began in the late 1960’s.

But before we go further, let’s go back again and take a look at the overall regimen under which research is conducted in the real world.

Bona fide real world research comes from two basic sources: industrial research -- research that is done by a corporationn for the purpose of originating a product on which that corporation can make a profit. At times the research is funded by the corporation and contracted out to universities. Funded is the key word, because virtually all research requires many people-hours, and usually costly facilities and materials. It is an economic endeavor: a certain risk is taken by the corporation with an eye to making a profit, and therefore the funding can be justified economically.

The pressure is there for the research to be conducted properly because obviously if it is not done properly, if it is done in shoddy manner it will probably yield false data, and thus, may put the corporation in difficult economic times if it acts on that research. (I’m sure this happens. We’ve seen quite a lot of shoddiness lately, and generally speaking, if the research yields false conclusions on which the corporation acts the result will be economic loss, and one way or another heads will probably roll).

I’m sorry if I am being tedious on this, but I have to go on through this in order to fully answer your question. (compaint?) So let’s go on.

Much of the real world research is, of course, done at the universities without funding from corporations. The funding comes from various research grants to the individual researcher, researchers or grants to the university itself.

Again the key word is funding: funding for salaries, facilities and materials.

In the instance of grant funded research there is no less pressure for the research to be done in an unshoddy, accurate manner because the reputation of the researcher depends on it.

That is why in all real world research, the design and specifications of the research is published along with the results. And since the design and specifications have been published, other researchers should be able to duplicate the study and achieve the same result. You had damn well better be correct, because if subsequent researchers follow your published research design, and do not produce the same data, not only is your reputation damaged but also your funding dries up and your career takes a severe down-turn. It is very much a dog eat dog world. If you publish, you had better be able to defend.

NO PROCESS LIKE THIS EXISTS, NOR HAS IT EVER EXISTED IN THE CHIROPRACTIC PROFESSION.

Who has designed their research to ask questions, to question their own theory?

Who in chiropractic has come up with an idea of how it should be done, then researched that theory and had the “research” disprove that theory? Strangely enough, all chiropractic technique originators, if indeed they claim to have done research at all, have done research that proves their own theory.

Why else would we have such fundamental and hellacious disagreement within the profession? There are currently approximately 250 chiropractic techniques listed.
Why else are there16 different techniques taught at chiropractic colleges, all contradictory to each other?

In chiropractic, assertion has no downside.
Now, why do we not release the data that I and the other doctors on our staff have produced? Simply because we have gone about it differently. We have done real world research. And in accordance with real world research, it has been expensive, labor-intensive, time consuming (decades) and most of the time very defeating. Over 90% of our work has led to the discarding of theories concerning spinal mechanics and neurology. The reason for this is that we have never put ourselves in the position of doing proprietary research- - research that promotes a technique or a product. Thus, we have had the freedom to be scrupulously honest with the design, and application of our research and the conclusions that we have drawn. With the statement “I don’t know,” comes a great deal of freedom; that statement can never be uttered by a technique guru simply because he would not have many students in his next seminar. It would hurt him economically. He would in effect be putting himself out of business!

All of the doctors on our staff who have participated in our research agree that because of the way in which we have gone about our work and because of what it has cost us in time effort and money, it would make no sense for us to deliver our data to the chiropractic profession.

In other words we would not “throw our hat into the chiropractic ring.”

Sounding like a politician again?

The best we can do for you is to direct you to work at your science and art, and think and reason for yourself. Try it. It’s a lot of work, but it’s also a lot of fun and enormously rewarding. Any time you are getting closer to the answers, more efficient at getting sick people well, it has to be rewarding.
We will help you as much as we can.

Letter #101:
I have not seen you listed on the NACUCC web site, How come? You are not supporting the future of U.C. care by not supporting this group.
Dr. L. __________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #101:
No doubt a well-meaning endeavor, but, in our opinion, it is very naively conceived and shows a lack of experience. We would like to know who is giving Louella her advice on U.C. chiropractic.