Q and A #141- #160
 

oncause entry #160:

Thanks for the website. I am a student at LACC. I don't like to call it SCU [Southern California University of health Sciences] because of all the oriental medicine ????. I was curious as to what you think of Dr. Eriksen's book.

Anonymous student for his own protection.

Reply oncause #160:

Dr. Eriksen has collected an enormous amount of information and assembled it in a comprehensive, scholarly manner. The, Upper Cervical Subluxation Complex is a book that is long overdue.

It's nice to know that someone at LACC is interested in removing nerve interference.

oncause entry #159:

Please post the following questions. I am a Palmer student practicing NUCCA in the clinic. My questions are in reference to contact point. Do most upper cervical practicioners look for contact point location on the lateral and/or the nasium films? Is it correct to measure on the film for the contact point and then subtract 1/3 for magnification for films shot at 40" with a small focal spot? Is it correct to "lead" the measured CP to account for the soft tissue between the adjuster's hand and the transverse process?

Thank you for your dedication to Upper cervical chiropractic. Your work is greatly appreciated.

From ADIO,

Palmer Intern B.

Reply oncause #159:

I can only speak regarding Grostic and H. I.O.
In classic Grostic work, the location of the T.P. was taken from the lateral film only. Where the T.P. lies within the entire image of the atlas was not studied; it was only assumed to be somewhere in there, within the shadow of the lateral mass. In truth, guessed at and marked on the listing card with a dot located with reference to the mastoid and the ramus of the jaw – an extremely inaccurate system which in essence winds up being merely palpation.

The H.I.O. that I was taught at P.S.C. relied on palpation exclusively, and made no other dots, claims or assertions on the palpation issue.

Don't know about other U.C. techniques.

With regard to the use of the nasium for contact location: it is absolutely necessary to use all three films, the nasium along with whatever film you use for determining the rotation factor, (B.P. or vertex).

If the entire rational for your technique involves introducing the adjusting force into the atlas T.P., it would make sense, would it not, to make sure that your adjusting force is introduced into the atlas T.P.?

Your first job is to locate the T.P. within the shadow of the atlas itself. (see Q and A entry #'s: 137, 132, 129, 87, 56 )

As I mentioned previously, I suggest that you mark the spot on the surface of the skin that your palpation tells you is the T.P. with an erasable pen. Then shoot all three views with that shot in place. If you will do this, you will see that the spot you have marked is almost never the location of the T.P., usually one to one and a half inches off, and had you adjusted the patient at that point, the force would have been delivered somewhere into either the body of the axis or at times C3. Which may be okay. But, if all the calculations, etc., that you previously went through were designed for an atlas T.P. adjustment, the whole thing will work a lot better when the force is delivered at its intended point.

Your figures regarding magnification are correct, and yes, it is appropriate to "lead" to account for the soft tissue.
However, as mentioned above, calculations mean nothing if you do not know where your "TARGET" LIES WITH REFERENCE TO THE SURFACE OF THE SKIN.

If you are on target with your adjustment, you will obtain far better results. After you graduate and start a practice, you will get a much higher percentage of sick people well a lot quicker if you are on contact with your adjustment. This will result in more referrals. You will attract more serious, more interesting cases. More sick people for you to get well. More fun. More enthusiasm. More professional and financial success.

One last thought: if you have the opportunity while at P.C.C. to play around with the following suggestions – 1) use the lead shot technique, 2) use all 3 films to locate the T.P., you will learn an enormous amount about cervical work, and, in the process, make a much better doctor of yourself.

oncause entry #158:

Dear Dr R., (Georgia)
In your last letter you wrote:

"Dear Oncause,

Read these questions precisely concerning upper cervical chiropractic procedures.

Do Grostic, Orthospinology, NUCCA, Sweat, Pettibon etc. agree with SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY, the side of Atlas Laterality?
Answer: YES (even with these 'gigantic and irrefutable holes' that you point out)

Do Grostic, Orthospinology, NUCCA, Sweat, Pettibon etc. have a SCIENTIFICALLY ACCURATE measurement system?
Answer: NO

Do Grostic, Orthospinology, NUCCA, Sweat, Pettibon etc. have a SCIENTIFICALLY RELIABLE measurement system?
Answer: YES."

Oncause's response:

Given the nature of your obviously sincere and intrepid search for truth, let's go back to an early, basic step in both the technique that you espouse and the other techniques that you mention above, the first step in determining the direction and amount of atlas misalignment. Let's confine our dialogue to that one basic measurement upon which all other calculations proceed.

It is the basic contention of the technique that you employ and all of the techniques you mention that the laterality of the atlas can be determined by constructing the following two lines on a properly positioned and exposed nasium film: line #1) is drawn through the vertical, geometric center of the skull, and line #2 is drawn through the inferior attachments of the posterior arch of the atlas. By measuring the acute angle formed by the juncture of line #1 and line #2, you arrive at both the direction and the degree of atlas laterality – i.e., atlas R3 or atlas L3, etc.

Question: How did you, or any of the techniques that you mention, establish that the angle formed by those two lines reveals atlas laterality?

 

oncause entry #157:

I have two questions for you - do you ever shoot 10x12 films? I have a few patients over 6' 6" and I do not nelieve that they would fit on a 8 X 10 film.

Second question can you discuss the pre and post angles?

Dr. T.__________, LA

Reply oncause to letter #157:
We do have 1 10X12 cassete. But, we very seldom use it. I suppose we would if Shaq came in.


Answer to your second question: According to "Grostic theory" when the LOD is correct, the angles should reduce in ratio; and if they do not reduce in ratio, you can determine whether your LOD was to high or too low. All things being equal of course.

                

oncause entry #156:

Thanks for the response, but I do not understand the need for 8 X 10 films. I was taught to use 10 X 12 films. Can you elaborate please? It seems like whatever you can put on an 8 X 10 you can get on a 10 X 12. Am I missing something here?

Dr. G.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #156:

We received this very quick response to our last entry, and we will respond to it quickly.

Obviously, the skull and cervical spine can appear on the film regardless of what size film you use. The problem is that if you use a 10 x 12 film, in order for the atlas to appear near the center of the film you will have to move the bucky (cassette holder) down further into the patient's upper dorsal region. This will cause you to have to slant the bucky (cassette holder) at a steeper angle, which in itself will cause elongation. If you do not set the bucky (cassette holder) at a steeper angle, it will tend to push the patient's dorsal region forward, causing the patient to have to tip the head up and back in order to make contact with the bucky (cassette holder). As a result of this, you will have to raise the tube angle in order to get the proper "S" listing. The chin will not come down as far relatively because you are pushing the dorsal region forward, causing you to have to tip the skull up. If you do not move the dorsal region forward, then you will have to set the bucky (cassette holder) at an extreme angle to the source of radiation. Both of these factors will contribute to elongation and difficulty in penetrating and visualizing the lower cervicals.

What we have seen in the films submitted so far is most likely a result of this combination of errors that occurs when the patient is positioned to accommodate a 10x12 cassette.

As I mentioned above, obviously you can get the same image on a 10 x 12 that you can get on an 8 x 10 – providing that you place the bottom of the bucky (cassette holder) at the same point on the patient's upper spine. But if you do this on a 10 x 12, you will have a large amount of film at the top that is wasted, and the anatomy will be located much more at the bottom of the film. This will give the film an overall unbalanced appearance.

Also, exposing a 10 x 12 requires a 50% larger field of radiation – 80 sq. in. vs. 120 sq. in.
 

oncause entry #155:

Long time reader, first time writer. I am working my way through a Grostic based technique and I have a question: I understand why the tube angle, on the nasium film, has to be high enough to visualize the attachments, but will you create any other errors with the tube not at the "optimal" angle?

Can you give me any insight? Thanks

Dr. G.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #155:

Good question! J F. Grostic, Sr., was adamant about proper tube angle, both for the nasium and vertex films. With regard to the nasium, his main point was that the tube should be high enough so that the inferior attachments of the posterior arch of the atlas can be visualized. If the tube is too low, you cannot see the points of the attachments; what you do see and mistake for the attachments is where the posterior arch curves out and crosses the lateral margins of the lateral masses. This will often result in an erroneous attachment line.

The other tube angle errors are:

 

• If the tube is too high, the attachments will appear fuzzy and undefined, indefinite enough so that they can be easily marked incorrectly.
  
   
• Taking the film with the tube too high will elongate the skull and make it appear much flatter on the sides than it actually is. Consequently, when you are determining the "head-piece setting," you will necessarily set the headpiece too flat for that skull. This will often result in a "parietal support" of the head on the head- piece. THIS IS A BIG NO-NO! Why? Because with the fulcrum located in the parietal area, the adjusting force will cause the skull to rock down, further increasing the laterality. According to classic Grostic technique, "a parietal support" is always very incorrect, especially when adjusting into the "kink."
  
  As a side note here, a high percentage of the nasium films that we have reviewed show a marked degree of elongation of the skull. This is most prevalent with the DCs who are using 10 x 12 cassettes. Grostic insisted on the use of 8 x 10's for the nasium film, making the point that the only reason that 10 x 12's were being used was that the doctors using them found them necessary because they were not using proper placement technique. Skull elongation either by A) shooting the film with the tube too high, or B) improper placement, i.e., not having the patient tuck the chin down far enough are to be avoided. Usually both errors come into play when the skull is elongated in the nasium film. The use of 10 x 12 cassettes makes it more difficult to fit the cassette holder (bucky) to the patient's neck because the cassette holder (bucky) extends down into the upper dorsal region and, in most cases, this will block the patient from bringing the chin down. Bringing the chin down is extremely important because it allows the doctor to bring the tube down and avoid skull elongation. It also brings both the upper and lower cervicals in closer to the film (reduces part distance), thus providing greater detail of the cervical spine, and less image distortion.
  
   
• Another error resulting from improper tube angle is that when the tube angle is too high, the condylar and axial circles are distorted.
  
   
• An additional possible error as a result of the tube angle being too high is that the axis/spinous becomes difficult to locate because portions of the skull, primarily the nasal cavity and the nasal septum, make the spinous process of the axis difficult to locate.
  
   
• Also, when the tube is too high, the lower cervicals become more difficult to visualize because of the increased amount of tissue that must be penetrated – if the exposure is appropriate for the UC region, it will be too light for the lower cervicals, and visa versa.
   

Proper placement by use of the proper cassette size and proper tube angle makes everything so much clearer and so much easier to see; that's why J.F.G. insisted on 8x10's.

'Nuf said! Hope this helps.

oncause entry #154:

Dear Dr. R.

Thank you for your correspondence of 8/4/04.

Eventually we hope to address all, or at least most of the points that you advance in your learned and lengthy disquisition.

For starters, let's examine the statement you made in your first paragraph.

Dear Oncause,
Read these questions precisely concerning upper cervical chiropractic procedures. Do Grostic, Orthospinology NUCCA, Sweat, Pettibon etc. agree with SCIENTIFIC ACCURACY, the , side of Atlas Laterality? Answer: YES (even with these "gigantic and irrefutable holes" that you point out)

Dr. R.,

That seems quite "apriori-ish" for a man of your obvious scientific bent.

Granted, the techniques you have listed above do follow the basic Grostic assertion for determining "side of atlas laterality"

So what if they do?

What you are saying is that Grostic constructed a couple of lines through certain anatomical points and then said, stated, asserted that, if your film is shot properly and those two lines are constructed properly, VOI-LA!, you have before you "atlas laterality".

To substantiate your contention (that what Grostic asserted to be true is true), you state that "Grostic, Orthospinology, NUCCA, Sweat, Pettibon, etc," all use the method that Grostic asserted.

Again, so what? You have not proven anything with your argument!

You have merely jumped on the same bandwagon, and become extremely doctrinaire about what is nothing more than an assertion.
 

oncause entry #153:

Dear Dr. X.,

We decided to publish anonymously, one of the points that we critiqued on the films that you sent us.

The reason we are mentioning this on our website is that it is a common error, one that we have observed for many years.

The shadow that you picked up and marked on the one side of the atlas as the posterior arch attachment is not the attachment but the point at which the inferior border of the posterior arch crosses a translucent crest that frequently appears on the film superimposed over the lateral mass. That crest is the inner aspect of the maxillary sinus, and since the inferior margin of the posterior arch is viewed as crossing that crest and that crest is frequently in close proximity to the lateral aspect of the lateral mass it is frequently mistaken for the attachment.

oncause entry #152:

Based on the films that we have received to be considered for reward, it appears as though there is a major misconception regarding "head rotation" on the nasium film, and this seems to tie in with a misconception regarding the Atlas Plane Line. So, lets take a look at these two factors.

First, the Atlas Plane Line: The A.P.L is just that, the plane on which the atlas lies on the nasium film. It is one of the "4 elements," which in the Grostic technique are used to arrive at the "final listing." It is constructed by drawing a line through the Rt. and Lt. inferior attachments of the posterior arch. The deviation from the horizontal of this line is measured in 16ths of an inch from the point at which it crosses the lateral margin of the ramus of the mandible on one side as opposed to the point at which it crosses the lateral margin of the ramus of the mandible on the other side. The measurement of the aperture of these lines (or deviation from the horizontal), is always made on the side of atlas laterality, and, as mentioned above, is expressed in 16ths of an inch. Each 3/16'" is given a one inch value as one part of the "4 elements". Depending on whether the A.P.L. projects above or below the horizontal, that value is express as either + or – respectively when included in the sum of the "4 elements".

THE "ATTACHMENT LINE" MENTIONED ABOVE IS ALSO USE IN THE CONSTRUCTION OF THE ATLAS LATERALITY ANGLE. IT IS THE HORIZONTAL LEG OF THE ATLAS LATERALITY ANGLE.

The angle formed by the junction of the horizontal line, which we mentioned above and referred to as the A.P.L. and the "Central Skull Line," expresses atlas LATERALITY – the amount of translation of the atlas around the condyles of the skull expressed in degrees.

THIS IS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT MEASUREMENT FROM MEASUREMENT OF THE DEVIATION OF THE ATLAS ON THE HORIZONTAL PLANE.

Therefore, it is obvious that, while "head rotation" may or may not affect the PLANE of the atlas in the horizontal, BECAUSE THE SKULL IS AN ELIPTICAL OBJECT, "HEAD ROTATION", WILL INVARIABLY AFFECT THE LATERALLY MEASUREMENT.

We may have a significant atlas subluxation with an A.P.L. that is close to or, in some cases, actually horizontal, or even lower than horizontal on the side of atlas laterality. On the other hand, we may have a slight atlas subluxation with a high A.P.L. of some magnitude on the side of atlas laterality.

Since the skull is an ELIPTICAL OBJECT, if it is rotated on the nasium film and you wish to construct a line, which is intended to geometrically divide the skull, you obviously cannot achieve the correct result.

Keep in mind that the angle formed by the junction of the "Central Skull Line" and the attachment line gives us the amount of atlas laterality. Therefore, it is easy to see that an accurate atlas subluxation measurement is impossible if there is more than a slight amount of "head rotation" on the nasium film, regardless of how much that rotation does or does not affect the PLANE at which atlas lies on the nasium film.

ALTHOUGH ATLAS ATTACHMENT LINE IS USED IN BOTH THE A.P.L. AND THE ATLAS LATERALITY MEASUREMENT, EACH OF THESE MEASUREMENTS EXPRESSES AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT FACTOR – ONE, THE PLANE OF THE ATLAS ON THE NASIUM FILM, THE OTHER, THE AMOUNT OF ATLAS LATERALITY.
 

Letter #151:

Dear oncause,

Haven't heard from you guys in a while. I assume that you have been busy getting sick people well. When will you publish again?

Dr. G.__________, MN

Reply oncause to letter #151:

Good question!
We began this website five years and approximately 300 pages ago with the intention of providing a forum for the advancement and preservation of "cause-and-effect" chiropractic. To that end we have provided information and debate covering everything from, 1) UC history, to 2) philosophy, to 3) office procedure, to 4) practice development, to 5) technique.

Numbers 1 through 4 are "soft topics"; no doubt they can be debated from one standpoint or another. However, in category # 5 (technique) we have pointed out a number of gigantic, irrefutable holes in the "Grostic-based" technique. They are as follows:

Notch transverse distance variations from one adjustor to another. See Q and A entry # 16
Head placement variations. See Technique # 1.
Transverse process angle variations. See Technique #5.
Mythical torque. See Q and A entry # 136.


Mix all these variations together and you have a procedural randomness that does not by any stretch of the imagination qualify for the use of the term "scientific." Yet we have seen DCs go through wild gyrations in attempts to deny the reality of what we have pointed out.

In addition, we have seen the coining of the term "Grostic-based technique," obviously a self-serving neologism that allows for the practitioner to practice and use the name of a technique originator who was adamant about not mixing any other technique in with the practice of his technique. Grostic stated that if you did mix his technique with other technique, you were not practicing his technique! No ifs, ands, or buts!
We have asked UC spokesmen to explain this. No reasonable response!

We have challenged UC DCs who are using "torque" in their adjustment to explain how rotary moments of force can be transmitted through a semi-solid medium. No reasonable response!

We have challenged UC DCs who use thermographic instruments to explain how those instruments reveal the "when factor" for the adjustment. No reasonable response!

We have seen UC X-rays that were rife with fundamental errors published in a chiropractic journal and when we pointed the errors out, both in private correspondence and on our website, what we got back was just more gyrations, or no response at all.

All of this would tend to make one think, would it not?

We have offered a $200 reward (which is still on the table) for first a pre, and post nasium that shows a 2 degree reduction. Next was a $200 reward for a 3 degree spinous correction. Next a $100 reward simply for a nasium film taken to Ann Arbor standards measured for laterality - so far we have only paid one DC the reward money and that was for the last category. Easy enough – just take an accurate nasium film, analyze it and send it in and we will send you a check for $100.

Now, in spite of all of the above deficiencies in scientific thought and reasoning - more likely as a result of these deficiencies, we are predictably told that UC DCs are the target of an organized conspiracy.
That is our problem now!

Or, better stated: that is our problem now????
Somewhere along the line we remember something about "THE CAUSE BEING WITHIN."
So let's focus on the cause, and forget about those "bad guys" out there who are scheming and plotting against us.

Thinking about it, let's bump it up and offer a $200 reward now for just a nasium film taken to Ann Arbor standards and measured for laterality.

It's all economics, doctors. . Jumping up and down, sending in self-generated "case studies" to prove your own self-interested point will not accomplish anything. Do you really think that having received your self-generated favorable case studies, the "baddies" are going to say, "Oh, we see! Our mistake! Sorry!"

The only way UC DCs can be fortified is through economic strength - flourishing practices that produce solid economic underpinnings and the resultant legislative clout.

In the future, ONCAUSE will stay on as a website, but we will publish less often than in the past. We have other things to do in our own work that will better serve the advancement of "cause-and-effect" chiropractic.
 

Letter #150:
Greetings, inferring from your criticisms of the current UC techniques that are out there, when did you abandon Grostic work? What led you to that decision?
Dr. L.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #150:
Check out Vectored Adjusting a critique, Vectored Adjusting a critique of a critique and Vectored Adjusting further comments.

Furthermore check our comments regarding the vector discrepancies with regard to arm length (notch transverse resultant) of the adjustor. letter #16
Also, read our comments with regard to torque.
These are for starters, but stay tuned.
 

Letter #149:
I have been following your reward offer. Unfortunately I have not yet had a viable film that I thought was worth sending in. Could the rotation of my Nasium films be from a misaligned x-ray tube?
Dr. P.__________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #149:
Very possible. Incidentally the reward is still available.
 

Letter #148:
What do you think of Parker? You have been around Chiropractic and I am sure you have an opinion on the Parker seminars. When I go I always get recharged, but a month or two later I am back to where I was. I also feel that I do not get as much meat from the seminars as I used to, but I get more filler.
Dr. M.__________, AZ

Reply oncause to letter #148:
If you have the ability to get sick people well, why would you need to go to ANY "practice building seminar"? When you think about it, that should maintain your enthusiasm!
 

Letter #147:
Who were your role models as you developed as a practioner?
Dr. G.__________, MN

Reply oncause to letter #147:
B.J. Palmer, Ted Williams, Aldous Huxley with a minor in Bertrand Russell.
Quote from A.D. Speransky, "A basis for the theory of medicine."
"The alteration of the normal nerve function, however, resulted in the disease and even death of tissue elements at the periphery."

Letter #146:
Dear Oncause,
In deference to J.Grostic, [requiring the center of the head-clamps to be placed over the T.P.] moving the clamps 1 inch [above the T.P.] will give better support to the skull and take the pressure off the jaw. If the clamps are positioned per J.G, just the mastoid processes alone are contacted. J.G probably wanted to avoid any possible interference with the natural inclination of the skull. I appreciate that and therefore angle the clamps to the shape of the skull.
Dr. X.__________, 
(This discussion grew out of a "reward film" submission.)

Reply oncause to letter #146:
Dr. Dr. X.,
When we commented on the films you sent us, we mentioned that the comments were with regard to Ann Arbor standards.

So let’s go back and get J.F.G.’s reasoning for placing the center of the head clamps over the T.P.’s. The reason is, as you mentioned, that it is important to preserve "the natural inclination of the skull"; and maybe your placement procedure is as good or better than J.F.G.’s. So it is obviously a debatable point. However, I can tell you that J.F.G. would not agree with your head clamps placement, and he would be very adamant about it.

But you have to look at it from J.F.G.’s point of view. He researched and developed the technique he was teaching; therefore, he wanted things done his way, and that, of course, is to be expected.

However, he had another reason for constantly pushing for uniformity, and that was because it was important to have uniformity among the field doctors. He spent a good portion of class time preaching uniformity, and in spite of that, it was simply amazing how people consistently subtracted steps and added variations to the X-ray placement and analysis method, not to mention the adjustment. Actually all phases of the Grostic technique were consistently and randomly mutated by the field doctors. There seemed to be a constant force, almost like the Law of Gravity, pushing toward sloppy, careless film technique. Many of the D.C.’s films that were reviewed in class with an overhead projector were virtually unrecognizable as Grostic films. Many times even though the D.C. had attended five, six, seven or more review classes, his or her X-ray technique would mutate and deteriorate in the six months or one year between classes that he or she attended. That is why Grostic used the X-ray grading sheet that we have published on this website. He was a real stickler, and some times not very nice in his comments about the errors. His comments in class would typically go something like this (with, of course, only the offending doctor knowing who he was talking about:) "Now this doctor has attended six of my advanced classes, and what we see here on his films is that he still does not understand the importance of taking films that do not have head rotation in them." Or he might say; "Now this doctor does not have his mind on his work. Even though he has been to seven classes, he still does not believe that you cannot get an accurate atlas laterality listing when the posterior arch is shot too low." At times the critiques were far more barbed than those above.

We have five D.C.’s on our staff, and one of the things we work for constantly is uniformity in the application of all phases of our work. If you don’t push constantly and push hard for uniformity, all you will have is a collection of people who are having at it according to their notions and personality traits, and over a period of very little time the original procedure usually becomes virtually unrecognizable, and the whole concept of what you are doing will deteriorate into a random grab-bag. From there, what usually develops is a symptom-based practice employing various full-spine techniques and modalities. Why? Because the doctor has lost control of what he or she is doing and is only trying to symptomatically cater to the patient. Symptoms are his or her only reference point.

‘Nuf said about why uniformity.

Now, let’s go back and look at the Grostic rational for the procedure in taking the nasium and vertex films.

First let’s look at vertex placement :

In taking the vertex film, you are examining and listing only one articulation, only one relationship – the relationship of the atlas vertebra to the condyles of the skull. According to Grostic theory, you can manually tip and manually rotate the skull to place it in the proper position for the film. Manually tipping and/or rotating the skull should not disturb or affect what you are measuring, because, as I mentioned above, you are measuring only one articular relationship and that relationship will not change.

Now, lets look at the nasium:

When you place the patient for the nasium you have an entirely different set of circumstances to contend with, because you are measuring a number of different relationships. When, as you termed it, you "interfere with the natural inclination of the skull," either by clamping incorrectly or by manually moving the skull, you affect two major elements of the "four element" analysis. According to Grostic theory, atlas laterality will not be affected, but two very important factors will be affected – the Atlas Plane Line and the Lower Cervical Angle. And since these two elements are used in the "four element" analysis, when placement errors occur, they will cause a significant error in the calculation of the height factor of the L.O.D. Also, when you remove head rotation by manually rotating the skull, you affect the axis spinous listing.

Head rotation, and only head rotation, should be removed in the nasium film; and that should be done only by turning the patient’s head by turning the patient’s body by turning the X-ray chair, not by turning the head manually.

If, as in the vertex view, only the one articulation- the atlas/skull articulation – were being analyzed and listed in the nasium film, the skull could be moved manually into position and the head clamps could be placed almost anywhere on the head or neck.
 

Letter #145:
Q: I am new to your site and am curious, has anyone received the $200 reward for the Nasium posts?

A: oncause: Not yet.

Q: No one has shown a 2 degree reduction?!?!
Are you saying it can not be done or just you have not seen it yet, (outside of your own practice)?
Dr. B.__________, OH

Reply oncause to letter #145:
Dear Dr. B.,
A: oncause: Up until now we have not said anything. What we have done is to offer rewards of varying amounts to any DC whose Pre and Post nasium films, which are taken and analyzed according to Ann Arbor standards, show an atlas laterality reduction of 2 degrees or more.

With two exceptions, the films that have been submitted to us have been of such poor quality – gross placement errors, poor detail and contrast, and careless and grossly inaccurate line construction, that one look at them and J.F.G would have hit the ceiling.

The two sets that were the exception were of decent quality, but had enough head-rotation difference between the Pre and the Post that it would be impossible to make a determination as to the actual amount of atlas laterality reduction.

Therefore, in view of this, we are now making the following offer: a $100 reward for any one nasium film, Pre or Post, taken and analyzed for atlas laterality (central-skull line and atlas attachment line) according to Ann Arbor standards. See J.F.G.’s grading sheet. Reward Rules.
 

Letter #144:
I have enjoyed this website for its honest no nonsense discussion. I agree with your viewpoint of followers of technique gurus. We have people who do not think, not only n the chiropactic profession, but in society as a whole. With that said, if we did not have technique gurus in upper cervical there would be no exposure of upper cervical to students and practitioners alike. What if there were no grostics, no Bill Blairs, sweats? I think the follower is to blame not the messenger. Information is to be synthesized and then disgarded or retained based on its validity. I am grateful for the dedication these people have made to the profession. I have thought to my self quite often why there are so few upper cervical doctors in practice. In the 50's when B.J. was at the helm he was a strong leader. And as a consequence thousands followed his lead. We had many hio chiropractors. But what needs to be done is what you are talking about. People need to be empowered to think. they must first understand why upper cervical. Once they have the philosophy engrained within them they can work to the end you are working towards, objectice science toward more answers. To answer one of your questions: why are there so few upper cervical doctors? My response would be we no longer have a strong "guru" leader in the upper cervical work. As a result we have no followers. The schools are inept at teachign upper cervical in fact only two still teach it that I know of. We also have a huge gap in chiropractors understanding of what chiropractic is. 99 percent of chirorpactors are practicing chiropractic with a medical philosophy. It is an oxy mooron as you have stated. The more you practice chiropractic with a medical philosophy the poorer your service and the poorer your pocket book. Conversely the more focused you get on adio philosphy and the removal of atlas subluxation the more attraction and affinity you have for those who are suffering. I have found the more dedicated I become about my work the better my results and the greater the referalls. duh. and the hell with all the naysayers.

One question: do you feel you are making an introduction of force into the t.p of atlas in your office? And do you feel the atlas is locked out of postion articulary producing nerve interference to the brainstem? what do you feel is the meachanism of unlockment when the adjustment is given? And one last question. I have found many patients to clear with some of my "weakest" toggles. There have been times when i made such a light adjustmetn i felt that it was inpossible for it to clear and it did. what are your thoughts. Sorry about the long e-mail. But I got questions. And I like your objectivity and insight. BY the way I have been practicing atlas only for 2 years and it is going beautifully. clearing atlas subluxations is priceless!
Thanks
Dr. H.__________, CA

Reply oncause to letter #144:
Dear Dr. H.,
With regard to the first paragraph of your E-mail: we totally agree. That, in essence, is what we have been saying on ONCAUSE.

With regard to the first part of your second paragraph: as mentioned before, we do not discuss the various aspects of our technique.

Now, on to the last part of your second paragraph asking my thoughts on the extremely light adjustment: the very light adjustment is absolutely the way to go. Stick with it. The heavy, thrusting type adjustment is not nearly as effective in reducing nerve pressure. That does not mean that patients will not respond to a heavy thrust. Obviously they will at times, and at times you will see some pretty miraculous results with the heavy thrust. But who knows what has actually happened to that subluxation? To use a baseball analogy, we are talking percentages here. The fact that a player can occasionally hit a home run, a few extra-base hits and an occasional single does not make him a candidate for the major leagues. In the major leagues the most valuable players hits for a high batting average and a high slugging average also, which includes extra-base hits and homeruns.

As in any field, it’s a matter of consistency of performance that pays off, and you will get far more consistent and better results with a very light thrust.

 

Letter #143:
Thank you for your apparently deep focus on the science of upper cervical care. With chiropractic philosophy engrained in me since birth, I find myself most highly intrigued with understanding the scientific reasons for generally accepted principles in upper cervical care.

With uc subluxation patterns generally described as contralateral (opposite angles) and ipsilaterals (same side), I have been told that Dr. Grostic noted that typical Atlas rotation in contra patterns is Anterior and typical Atlas rotation in ipsi patterns is Posterior. The only anatomical/biomechanical possibility I have heard to explain this is that the C2 spinous is influenced to the opposite side of the lower angle, and the ligament attachments of C1/C2 cause the Atlas to favor the same rotation. This seems to make sense, but factoring in patterns with counterrotations of C1 and C2 clouds the clarity of that theory. If you have any resources to assist in my understanding, I would appreciate it.
Anticipating your response.
Dr. P.__________, FL

Reply oncause to letter #143:
Dear Dr. P.,
To be quite candid with you, I never heard Grostic Sr. make such a statement.
Having said that, I must say that I may have missed it. But, also keep in mind that much of Grostic work has mutated posthumously.

This is inevitable, particularly where a personality cult is involved.

Now before you bristle at the term "personality cult" being applied to Grostic work I suggest that you consider the following:

We, on this web site, have pointed out gross errors and contradictions in the Grostic technique (see entry #12 and Technique #1) regarding LOD calculation with reference to head placement on the head piece - how it has not been taken into consideration that a very slight change in the position of the skull on the head piece will necessarily cause gross misdirection of the rotation vector. Also see entry #16 gross LOD misdirections which result from variations in notch transverse distance caused by arm length differences from one adjustor to another.

In addition, we have just concluded a discussion of the effect of "torque" on the axis spinous. Again no one has come up with anything resembling to a logical explanation for the Grostic assertion regarding torque.

What does all this mean with regards to the Grostic / NUCCA type practice? It means that these are gigantic holes in the cheese that have simply been ignored, (head in the sand type of reaction), and this does not portend well for the future of UC work in general.
 

Letter #142:
Hi there, I'm a bit confused as to which upper cervical technique your office uses. I'm presuming it's Grostic. If it is Grostic, is there a difference between it and NUCCA? I thought there was, but some doctor's offices claim they are one in the same. Is this accurate? Thank you.

Reply oncause to letter #142:
Oncause recently received this e-mail, from a person we assume is a potential UC patient.
Can anyone out there answer this?
 

Letter #141:
Torque does not correct the spinous process of axis directly. It effects the rotation of atlas, either to the anterior or posterior position in it's rotational plane. The spinous of axis just appears to have moved because of this.

Dr T.__________, State unknown

Reply oncause to letter #141:
Dear Dr.,
We are back to square one! You have explained what happens, but you have not explained, "how or why" it happens.

Could you explain exactly "how or why" torque affects the rotation of the atlas.