Response and Reaction

76

A response is the normal innate activity as a result of an abnormal situation. It occurs in the absence of or in the presence of vertebral subluxation. (Just a little better without vertebral subluxation) A reaction is the abnormal activity in the body due to limitations of matter which may or may not be the result of vertebral subluxation.
There is a difference between the response or reaction of the innate intelligence of the body to a disease, condition, or symptom and the response of the innate intelligence of the body due to a vertebral subluxation.
The response of the innate intelligence of the body to a vertebral subluxation is to try to correct it by using innate forces and any universal forces that can be and or have been adapted including but not limited to the purposeful universal force introduced by a chiropractor. Chiropractors should be evaluating (analyzing) the response of the innate intelligence of the body to a vertebral subluxation rather than the response/reaction of the body to a disease, condition, or symptom in as much as the former is our objective (LACVS) and the latter is the objective of medicine (to treat cure, alleviate and prevent disease, conditions, their cause or symptoms). The body’s reaction/response to a back pain may be to bend over due to the condition or symptom, educatedly knowing, (usually by trial and error) that a particular position relieves or lessons the pain. In this case the medical doctor in all likelihood,would address the condition and symptoms by giving muscle relaxants, pain pills and/or some other therapeutic procedure. The chiropractor should address (LACVS) the subluxation if it is present, regardless of the body’s response or reaction to the condition or symptom. Another example would be an elevated fever. The body might react/respond to an invasive microorganism by elevating body temperature. Again the chiropractor would address the vertebral subluxation and only if present. The point is that we cannot know whether any condition or symptom is a response by the innate intelligence or a reaction , the result of a limitation of matter. To adjust someone for any other reason than solely because you have found a vertebral subluxation or not adjust them because you have not found a vertebral subluxation, at worst, is in the former, the practice of (drugless) medicine and in the latter, poor chiropractic.

Be Sociable, Share!

This article has 76 comments

  1. Steve 12/22/2014, 4:24 pm:

    I will not comment now because my response would be reactionary.

  2. David Suskin 12/22/2014, 4:41 pm:

    Can’t a reaction point the Chiropractor to a particular area of the spine, to determine, IF subluxation is present, and within a major/minor system, determine
    a. if an adjustment is required now (guestimation of course) or
    b. If an adjustment is performed, get a listing, adjust with pre and post checks (all within the technique that is used)

  3. Don 12/23/2014, 1:57 am:

    Thanks for the post Joe.
    I can see how you are using response or reaction now.

    I’m not certain how it addresses my question though. I’m probably missing an intermediate step somewhere I’m sure.
    Please elaborate if you can. Thanks.

    Here is my question again,
    I think every form of analysis/determination of vs presence uses some form of physiological function/indicator (e.g. Working muscle, thermal reading, galvanic skin response, pattern analysis, etc.)? Even in OSC office.
    Is this true?

    • Don 12/23/2014, 2:00 am:

      Here is the rest so there is some context.
      Thanks again Joe!

      My assumption (correct me please if I am wrong here) is that if one is assessing the presence or absence of a vs there will be indicators used. There are a variety of indicators that have and are being used by chiropractors around the globe. I assume these indicators are all physiological.
      If those indicators are not physiological then I may not understand completely understand what or how the the presence or absence is being determined. Maybe someone can fill me in here.
      I think every form of analysis/determination of vs presence uses some form of physiological function/indicator (e.g. Working muscle, thermal reading, galvanic skin response, pattern analysis, etc.)? Even in OSC office.
      Is this true?

      • Steve 12/23/2014, 2:19 pm:

        DD used bio-toning, BJ used NCM, everybody uses something tangible, something physical, because we work in the physical realm. We use physical force to move a physical bone to release a physical nerve, under the assumption this process will improve the transmission of a metaphysical force, which we can not measure and have no way to verify. Why do we do this? To improve physiological function. To restore coordination. Of what? The Matter.
        We had an instructor at Life whose wife read auras. She saw a blue dome over a chronic subluxation and a red cone over an acute subluxation. This is as close to a metaphysical analysis as I have ever heard of. Although it was not metaphysical to her, for she actually saw the domes and cones with her eyes.

        • Don 12/23/2014, 9:33 pm:

          Steve,
          Thank you.
          Ok. The point I hear being made is that we use something tangible in order the improve physiological function and restore coordination of the matter.
          As an aside, I think the subject of auras as an indicator may be a topic of debate for some.
          Am I wrong?

          • Steve 12/24/2014, 3:39 pm:

            Don,
            I am not suggesting auras are the way to detect subluxations, just that our analytical tools (hands, eyes, instruments) are physical, our applications (adjustic thrust) are physical, our “perceived” results (reduction/ correction of subluxation) are physical, yet we conclude philosophically there is a super-physical (restoration of the mental impulse) benefit.

          • Joe Strauss 12/24/2014, 8:21 pm:

            Steve, I don’t think “we conclude philosophically there is a super-physical (restoration of the mental impulse) benefit.” In fact I think we have only concluded the physical benefit of the restoration of that metaphysical phenomena (the body works better). The difference is that we OCtors refuse to limit, or theorize the length, breadth, or depth of those benefits. Broad scope chiropractors tend to limit those benefits and TCtors tend to theorize them.

          • Joe Strauss 12/24/2014, 7:04 pm:

            Don, if we were looking for a method less tangible and even more unreliable than symptoms, I think auras may very well be it.

  4. Tom 12/23/2014, 2:15 pm:

    Don, this article may help to answer your question.

    “Analytical Certainty” by James Healey, DC

    Chiropractors use many methods in attempting to correct vertebral subluxations. Logically, with more than one method, one must be the best and the others something less. Like the preschool toy consisting of a box or board with various shaped holes and an array of shaped blocks, it’s sometimes possible to get the hexagonal block in the round hole, but the round peg fits the best, and square pegs don’t belong in round holes but can be made to go in with a big enough hammer. It is logical that for a given subluxations there is a perfect adjustic force, having the greatest potential for correction and the least potential for trauma. The key to great technique is to find that force. The key to finding that force, however, is in knowing the nature of the subluxation.

    A technique based on sound understanding of the subluxation will prove to be the best. When one uses a valid means of determining vertebral subluxations, it becomes a relatively simple matter to use pre- and post-checks to know whether the technique effected an adjustment. The introduction of an adjustic force may have many different forms and must be tailored to the individual subluxation. There will be no “best” technique, except the one that allowed the adjustment to take place at that moment in a particular person. The benefits can only be realized, though, when we think more critically about our methods and when analytical certainty becomes our expectation.

    Methods or techniques must be validated as to their appropriateness within chiropractic. A technique is not validated by whether it changes a select group of parameters or by the assertion that it is intended to find or correct subluxations. Neither is validity defined by consensus or popularity. One can talk about technical excellence at length, but if the method does not have sound philosophical roots it is like a cut flower stuck into the ground. It will impress at first, but soon it will wither and die. Alternately, claiming allegiance to philosophy without actually or practically achieving it is like gardening without seeds. Wanting to have flowers, even if you really want them, is impossible if you don’t take the steps necessary to grow them or if you do something else entirely unrelated such as build a birdhouse. So it is with chiropractic methods of analysis and adjusting. Philosophical pertinence and practical reality are essential.

    The pursuit of technical excellence without philosophical roots can seem quite productive but, as said earlier, it will ultimately result in failure of the system. It usually stems from confusing precision with validity. Precision is the degree to which the measurements or standards of the parameters can be known. As an example, it is possible to measure the length of a board with a grade school ruler, let’s say, to the nearest 1/8 inch, the smallest unit on the ruler and taking into account that we have to move the ruler to make multiple measurements if the board is more than a foot long. It would be more precise to use a quality carpenter’s tape measure with a greater span and divisions as small as 1/64 inch. A concern for technical excellence, in this case, would mean that one would choose the carpenter’s tape measure for the greater precision it offers over the ruler. There may even be other methods or other devices for measuring the length of the board which offers still higher precision. I imagine it’s possible now, using scanning beam microscopy, for instance, to actually count the number of atoms lined up along the edge of the board. It may not be necessary to be so precise, but if it is, then that requisite method should be used for technical excellence to be achieved.

    Validity is much different – and much more important. It is the philosophical precedent of precision, if you will, in that it determines why the particular method of measurement is used. To know if something is valid, the question has to be asked, Does it actually do what it’s supposed or purported to do and does it help me know what I need to know? In our example, the goal was to determine the length of a board. Length-measuring procedures and devices are valid ways of measuring length. If the goal was to determine the weight of the board, though, all the length-measuring devices in the world will not be as good as even one simple bathroom scale. The scale is a valid way to measure weight. Using a tape measure, no matter how precise, to measure weight lacks validity. It doesn’t matter if it was your intent to use it to measure weight; it simply lacks validity in that realm.

    Similarly, a chiropractic analytical method is not validated simply by precision or intent. Multiple parameters of the human body can be measured, many with amazing precision, but not all of them reveal useful information about vertebral subluxation. It’s not enough to say that the parameter you’re using is related to subluxation. It must actually be so. It is necessary to use analytical data that are consistent with vitalism, with the physiological reality of the body and with a chiropractic understanding of life. It is certainly necessary that they be measurable and that the mensurations be repeatable, but that alone is not enough.

    Sometimes, however, it may be impossible to make a direct measurement. That doesn’t automatically mean the method is not valid. It will, more ostensibly, require that we have a sound deductive premise from which to work and employ sound reasoning. Much of what we still use as our model for the workings of the universe came from the thinking of Albert Einstein whose deductions allowed him to predict the results of measurements that wouldn’t be practically possible until years or decades later! His premise and his reasoning, though abstract, were sound and logical. Despite coming much later, the measurements that confirmed his calculations were real and the validity of his thinking was tested and established.

    Chiropractic analytical methods must be valid before precision is even to be considered. If the goal of analysis is to locate and characterize vertebral subluxations, then the analytical method must be pertinent to doing that. That means they must either measure the subluxations directly or measure reliable sequellae.

    Measuring vertebral subluxation directly presents certain challenges. The subluxation has four fundamental components or, for sake of this discussion, parameters; i.e., misalignment of a vertebra, occlusion of an opening, impingement of nerve tissue in such a way as to disturb its function, and interference to the transmission of mental impulses. Let’s look at these to determine how or if they may be measured in valid ways.

    Misalignment of a vertebra, the occlusion that occurs at the level of the intervertebral foramen or the neural canal, and the impingement of nerves are three virtually inseparable elements. Impingement occurs because the opening is occluded because the vertebra is misaligned. One unavoidably follows the other. The key consideration here is that the primary factor, the misalignment, cannot be measured. Now, I know some of you are thinking, “Whoa, wait a minute! I learned x-ray analysis in chiropractic college. I can measure misalignments down to a fraction of a millimeter.” To that, it needs to be asked, Misaligned with respect to what? Where should the vertebra be? There’s no doubt that x-rays may be taken in such a way as to reduce distortion, assure reasonably consistent subject placement, etc., but let’s not forget that, even measured with precision, it’s not possible to measure Innate Normal position. Innate Normal position is that position determined by the Innate Intelligence of the body to be optimal for the given circumstances. It’s not always geometric normal position. It’s not even a constant location! Well, then, if you can’t know where the bone should be in space, you can’t possibly know if it’s not in that position based on such a measurement. X-ray findings, or anything else that is designed to measure spinal or skeletal geometry (including motion studies, which are, in effect, no more than many individual positions considered sequentially), for this reason, have no philosophical and, therefore, no practical relevance to the finding of a vertebral subluxation.

    Would it be of value to measure mental impulses? Yes. In fact, it would probably be the most direct means of determining when and where a subluxation existed. The mental impulse is the only one of the four elements of a subluxation that has a uniquely vital quality. Bones, openings and nerves are present in a corpse; mental impulses are not. Mental impulses represent the interface between the immaterial nature of the principle of organization (i.e., Innate Intelligence) and the matter that is being organized to exhibit what we recognize as life. The mental impulse, then, is certainly the best or most direct indicator of the activity of the Innate Intelligence of the body in this context. If one could actually measure the mental impulse then it could also be determined when there was interference to its transmission.

    Is it possible, though, to measure a mental impulse or interference to the transmission of mental impulses? No, at least not at this time. Mental impulses are not the same as nerve impulses. Mental impulses embody information. They’re not simply electrochemical events. If we can allow ourselves to over-simplify the subject through analogy without trivializing it, there’s a huge difference between a telephone repair technician’s ability to measure some activity on a phone line and his ability to actually know that it’s a meaningful conversation and what’s being said. It may be that the activity on the line is nothing more than static. It may be that the line is actually being used in a conversation but that it’s in a language the technician doesn’t understand. It may even be nothing more than meaningless gibberish.

    To date, there is no way of deciphering or detecting a mental impulse. I doubt there ever will be. We don’t understand the body’s language. How would you know if there was interference to the message if the words – the individual building blocks of those messages unique to the individual – were foreign or unintelligible to begin with? Beyond that, we see technology advance exponentially and, still, it’s estimated that we know only a small percentage of what the body does or is capable of doing. Imagine trying to understand its language or just its vocabulary for all the things we don’t even know about.

    A better approach is to determine what happens in the body when a subluxation is present – and even that is a difficult proposition. For any measurable parameter, it is impossible to know empirically what it should be (with respect to what Innate Normal is) and, therefore, equally impossible to know when it’s deviated from that point. Chiropractors readily acknowledge that one cannot know what the body temperature should be, what the blood pressure should be, what quantity of bile the liver should produce each day, etc., but, ironically, they measure leg lengths, muscle reflexes and strengths, breathing cadences, skin and core temperatures, etc., as if they know what they should be. The chiropractor can’t know – only the Innate Intelligence of the body can know – therefore, these are not valid ways of determining whether what is happening in the body is representative of improper function due to a subluxation.

    Pattern work is a system of using parameters in a different way. Rather than attempt to interpret the measurement compared to some absolute value of what it should be, the assumption of pattern work is that the parameters’ values should change. The idea is that living things exhibit adaptability and, therefore, should be constantly adapting. The conclusion is that the parameters will change (as a result of the adaptations) with the corollary that a stagnation, or fixed pattern, of those parameters indicates that subluxation is present, interfering with the body’s ability to effect their change. It is intended to be used as a method of determining when a subluxation is present.

    The idea that the body adapts (or, more accurately, attempts to adapt) to changes in its surroundings in incontrovertible. It is a sign of life. The assertion that one can knowingly measure this, however, does have some weaknesses. The expression of the Innate Intelligence may be so successful in how the whole body is used for adaptations that a single, particular parameter will not need to be changed (e.g., body temperature may remain constant even if the person goes from a warm house out into wintry weather). Indeed, the change may be so slight as to escape measurement (e.g., upon going outside, the body temperature may change a fraction of a degree but less than the instrument can reliably measure) or so quickly as to be missed (e.g., the body temperature may drop for a moment but be restored within a matter of seconds and the measurement done a few minutes later will not reveal the change). It is possible that the measurement is taken at a time when the parameter is the same as it was during prior measurements (e.g., body temperature may fluctuate during the day and as it moves up and down it will pass through the same values repeatedly), though it is reasonable that the likelihood of this coincidence would diminish with multiple measurements. It’s also possible that, even under varying circumstances, a given parameter should be kept stable at a specific value to maintain optimum expression of organization (let’s not forget, another quality of living is homeostasis). Lastly, it’s possible that the circumstances may be relatively stable or so subtle such that an adaptation will not be required. In each of these cases, the parameters will have been found to be clinically unchanging, interpreted as stagnant or (applicable to this method) in “pattern,” even though there is no subluxation. It is also possible that one’s adaptability may be compromised by something other than subluxation. In such a circumstance, the parameters will be unchanging and a “pattern” will be detected, despite that fact that no subluxation is present.

    Additionally, with pattern work, there is still the matter of determining where the subluxation exists. Patterning can conceivably be done in conjunction with many different analytical systems of determining the location and character of the subluxation. It is, therefore, only as strong as the chosen system. But if the system to locate and analyze the subluxation is sound, it begs the question, Why would one need to determine when the subluxation was present if the subluxation itself could be pinpointed? Quite logically, if a subluxation were found, it would be unnecessary to determine also when it was there.

    How does a subluxation affect the body? Only the Innate Intelligence of the body “knows.” Rather than measure things and try to guess if they’re right or wrong, it is infinitely better to rely on the ability of the Innate Intelligence to do it with certainty. Certainty is a wonderful thing, especially when it comes to chiropractic analysis.

    Let’s examine the issue of certainty. Imagine, for a moment, that you are given the task of determining the weight of an item, say, a drinking glass. You are given an array of measuring devices: a light meter, a tape measure, a graduated cylinder, an audiometer and a scale. You could try the light meter first, measuring how much light the glass transmits, reasoning that a light weight glass would probably transmit more light than a heavy weight glass. You measure and find that it transmits a great deal of light. You take this as an indicator that it’s probably of light weight. Next, you try the tape measure, measuring all dimensions of the glass. The reasoning here is that a small glass would probably be lighter than a large glass. You measure and find that it’s several centimeters in diameter and height, a small size for drinking glasses, and take that as an indicator that it’s probably a light-to-mid weight glass. You then try the graduated cylinder, submerging the glass to measure its volume by displacement. The reasoning here is that a glass with low displacement will probably be light and one with high displacement will probably be heavy. You find that the glass displaces several milliliters and take that as an indicator that it is probably a relatively light glass. On to the audiometer, to measure how much sound the glass makes when dropped from a few centimeters onto the table. The reasoning here is that a light glass will make less of a thud than a heavy one. You drop the glass and note that the sound is just a few decibels above the room noise and you take that as an indicator that it’s probably light. At this juncture, you have several indicators that the glass is probably light. Finally, you use the scale and measure the weight (mass) of the glass to be 103.6 grams. With this last bit of information now available, and based upon this one measurement alone, you are able to conclude – with certainty – the glass is, indeed, 103.6 grams,

    The point of this is that if your analytical system lacks an item of certainty, it must rely on multiple items of probability (often called indicators and, because they are only probability indicators, the more the better) to arrive at an approximation of the circumstances. A system with just one item of certainty is enormously better than a system with a multitude of items of probability. It would be best, then, for our purposes of chiropractic analysis, to determine what, if anything, can be actually known with certainty about the body pertinent to vertebral subluxation. Admittedly, the list will not be very long. It doesn’t have to be. Recall that in our exercise of measuring the weight of a glass it was necessary to have only one particular measurement to know the weight with certainty. So, too, will our ability to determine subluxation with certainty be possible with only one particular parameter. The key is choosing the right one.

    How a vertebral subluxation affects the body – i.e., in what way and to what extent the function or anatomy of the body is other than what would be Innately determined – cannot be known on our educated level. As mentioned earlier, and consistent with our understanding of the vitalistic doctrine in the explanation of life, only the Innate Intelligence of the body is capable of evaluating whether something is right or wrong about the body. The Innate Intelligence of the body readily knows the four fundamental components of the vertebral subluxation. The parameters of misalignment of a vertebra, occlusion of an opening, impingement of nerve tissue in such a way as to disturb nerve function, and interference to the transmission of mental impulses can be measured Innately. There is immediate Innate awareness of when something is not Innate Normal. Naturally, there is also an immediate Innate response to attempt to restore it to Innate Normal.

    It is reasonable to deduce that the Innate Intelligence of the body recognizes vertebral subluxation as detrimental, as outside of Innate Normal. It follows that the Innate Intelligence will respond by attempting to correct the vertebral subluxation. If it were possible to observe the Innate efforts to correct the subluxation, then it would be possible to know, indirectly but with certainty, when and where a subluxation exists. Such observations would constitute an immensely reliable and valid analytical system. Based on an Innate awareness of both Innate Normal and the subluxation, this type of analysis would answer key questions about the vertebral subluxation.

    It would reveal when the subluxation is present. The mere presence of such analytical findings indicates that the subluxation currently exists. There would be no Innate effort to correct something that wasn’t there!

    It would reveal where the subluxation was present. The findings in this system represent the efforts of the Innate Intelligence of the body to attempt to correct the subluxation. Those efforts would be directly related to the subluxated vertebra(e).

    It would reveal the nature and character of the subluxation. By observing the Innate efforts to correct the subluxation, it can be known where the vertebra(e) shouldn’t be.

    It would also reveal the direction of the adjustic force the chiropractor should use in the process of effecting correction. The Innate efforts will be in the direction of correction, of course. It would only be necessary to match them, ideally (but because of the limitations of our matter and educated mind, it is more likely that a best approximation will be performed in the delivery of the force).

    Does such a system exist? Is it possible to observe Innate efforts to correct subluxations? Yes and yes. The premise behind muscle palpation analysis is consistent with vitalism. It is necessary only to accept that the Innate Intelligence of the body abhors subluxations and would attempt to correct them. The rest follows logically from that.

    Muscle palpation analysis is based upon the reasoning that, when there is an Innate awareness of a subluxation, the Innate Intelligence of the body will use the muscles, the Innate “tools” of movement, attaching to the subluxated vertebra in an attempt to move the it; i.e., restore it to Innate Normal position. The chiropractor’s ability to palpate the muscles being used – the “working” muscles – will reveal when and where the subluxation exists. Because the Innate Intelligence of the body has perfect awareness of the direction the vertebra should be moved to effect an adjustment and because the body is equipped with muscles which are fashioned in such a way as to allow movement in all anatomically possible planes, observation of the working muscles will reveal where the vertebra shouldn’t be and the direction in which the Innate Intelligence would have an adjustic force move it. This system will provide the chiropractor with a complete and useful valid method of analysis.

  5. Don 12/23/2014, 3:05 pm:

    Tom,
    As you know I have always maintained that James Healeys article is one I enjoy reading.

    The reason I am asking those who understand OSC better than I the questions above is because there was a post about physiological function and vertebral subluxation presence or absence.
    I think the post is Q&A #52.

    With that said, I’m thinking all systems of analysis use some physiological function to determine what happens next (i.e. introduce a force, not introduce a force or investigate further something else).
    Putting aside how it is interpreted, which James Healey explains marvelously above btw, is muscle palpation a physiological function or is it not? And if a OSC chooses to use it, is it accurate to state that the OSCor is not using physiological function to determine where and when to apply their technique?

    Found the post here it is…
    If we measure a physiological function in a person who is also found to be subluxated and we adjust the vertebral subluxation and the physiological function changes, does that mean we have corrected the vertebral subluxation and the body is now functioning closer to normal?

    I don’t know if admitting that is is is necessarily a negative, then again I haven’t thought about it that much however I would love to hear your thoughts and Joe’s on the matter.

    Thanks again for the read!
    Merry Christmas everyone reading this!

    • Don 12/23/2014, 3:09 pm:

      I don’t know where all those “is’s” came from.
      For the record, I often fail to re-read my posts before I post.
      Just in case any of you reading may think I actually talk like this….I don’t..that would be weird 😉 All the best!

      • Claude Lessard 12/23/2014, 6:14 pm:

        …Canadians are known for being weird, eh? Joyeux Noël! 😉

        • Don 12/24/2014, 4:00 am:

          I prefer the term eccentric.
          What else would you call a person who chooses to wear plaid that much. 😉 (I should be careful, some may believe this to be true…yikes!) 8)

          Bonne année et bonne santé Dr. Lessard!

          • Steve 12/24/2014, 3:43 pm:

            And for the monolinguals, MERRY CHRISTMAS to all

          • Joe Strauss 12/24/2014, 8:24 pm:

            Thank you Steve. The same to you, your family and everyone else on this blog. Joe and Iris.

        • Joe Strauss 12/24/2014, 6:54 pm:

          Claude,I think it is due to hitting your head on the ice too many times while playing hockey.

      • Joe Strauss 12/24/2014, 6:52 pm:

        Don,I usually re-read my posts at least 6-10 times before posting them and still manage to make errors. Hopefully, not as many as if I did not read them at all.

        • Don 12/24/2014, 9:03 pm:

          Merry Christmas to you all!

          I have read the comments above and didn’t see the answer to my question about physiological indicators immediately.

          Steve, I also recognize that you did not suggest auras to detect subluxations. Even if you did, it wouldn’t be my place to pass judgement on it. Unless you were detecting mine. 😉
          I agree with much of your last post. I’m still wondering if all indicators of vs detection are physiological functions and is there an exception for the OCtor’s chosen method? We can even use any example of technique system out there. I choose muscle palpation simply because it seems to be the most common method used among the writers here based on my observations alone.

          I will have to return to this later.
          In the mean time, I may have missed it so if anyone has the cole’s notes version of the answer to my question that is found above please post it. Thanks. 🙂
          All the best!

          • Don 12/24/2014, 9:04 pm:

            Dictated but not read 😉
            -Don

  6. Claude Lessard 12/24/2014, 11:26 pm:

    According to the AUTHORITY of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science, innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal and its function is ALWAYS normal (pri27). We conclude that innate FORCES, being the net result of the function of innate intelligence, are ALWAYS normal. There can be interference with TRANSMISSION of innate FORCES (pri29) which is ALWAYS directly or indirectly due to VS (pri31) and will cause incoordination of DIS-EASE (pri30) which, in turn, violates principle #32. If you see no faulty reasoning in these principles, and you LACVS for a full (normal) expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD., principle #32 will once again prevail. –

    – If you follow this rational logic, once you locate VS, analyze VS and introduce your Educated Universal Force (EUF) in the form of your adjustic thrust, with the HOPE that innate intelligence will adapt that EUF into an IF and produce a vertebral adjustment, you have accomplished your task until the next visit of that PM. Its time to move on to the next PM. Does this mean that you can’t do “post-checks”? Absolutely not! –

    – In Healy’s “analytical certainty” it was mentioned that “The parameters of misalignment of a vertebra, occlusion of an opening, impingement of nerve tissue in such a way as to disturb nerve function, and interference to the transmission of mental impulses can be measured Innately. There is immediate Innate awareness of when something is not Innate Normal. Naturally, there is also an immediate Innate response to attempt to restore it to Innate Normal.” This is due to principles #23, 27, 29, 31 and 32. Therefore, his conclusion that “It is reasonable to deduce that the Innate Intelligence of the body recognizes vertebral subluxation as detrimental, as outside of Innate Normal.” is true. –

    – Using highly trained, refined sensitization of their fingertips as an instrument of investigation, chiropractors, WHO choose to use AMP (Advanced Muscle Palpation) as a practicing technique, have been able to examine the interrelationship between METAPHYSICSAL innate intelligence and the physical TRANSMITTING matter of the living body as they are immediately experienced in the presence of VS. This does not mean that their observations are not theory laden. After all, we are dealing with the ART portion of chiropractic and its applications. Indeed, a chiropractor using AMP as technique, before beginning advanced practices for the LACVS, normally first receive theoretical instructions on subtle para-vertebral myo-physiology consisting of distinctions between spastic muscles, flaccid muscles, tense muscles and working muscles. Such theory plays a strong role in the subsequent AMP practices. –

    – With the aid of a given theory, the chiropractor using AMP, observes a subtle network of working muscles, used by innate intelligence, performing a variety of functions in order to correct VS. These working muscles, within the vertemere, that are used by innate intelligence, are thought to be responsible for the correction of ALL VS. For chiropractors using AMP, it is not merely a conceptual abstraction by an element of perceptual experience. The scientific methods have yielded much knowledge about e-matter as I previously discussed over the last few years on COTB, and I often pointed out that they have produced no evidence of being able to measure the mental impulse. This is due to the metaphysical component of the mental impulse. It is the Encephaloneuromentipograph at the BJ Palmer Clinic that eventually convinced BJ to abandon that research. It is highly questionable whether such methods using inorganic instruments of research will ever shed light on mental impulses that are essentially related to organic living things. This in no way refutes the existence of working paravertebral muscles that are accessible to chiropractors using AMP. –

    – With the application of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science, AMP does indeed “provide the chiropractor with a complete and useful valid method of analysis.”

  7. Claude Lessard 12/25/2014, 3:07 am:

    … and just for the records, “vertebraille” was first illustrated and put into words as a way to analyze VS in the winter of 1976, at Reggie’s house in Spartanburg, S.C. with Miguel Bolufer and myself (I still have a copy of the original drawings of Miguel). We had to be off campus as it was against Sherman’s policies at the time (at the risk of being expelled) to learn any technique except HIO using “upper cervical pattern work” with the NCM, NCGH, the timpograph and Blair x-rays analysis with A-P open mouth, lateral and vortex views. –

    – “Vertebraille” was introduced at ADIO Institute of Straight Chiropractic in January of 1978 under the title of “Muscle Palpation” and was taught by Ben Tanner, PJ Martin, Michael Frigiola, Reggie and myself. Later on in 1980, it was Nicholas Spano WHO chose to take on the task of refining the technique and call it Advanced Muscle Palpation, also know as AMP. Nick has done magnificent work in teaching AMP at seminars around the world. –

    • glenn allen 12/30/2014, 4:39 pm:

      Claude, I would like to ask you for a favor.
      I do not question your word about Reggie putting “vertebraille” into words back in 1976. What I question, is, did he say “vertebraille”, or just compare muscle palpation to “braille”, to better define what one feels with their fingers, such as is felt when palpating a human hair under the pages of a phone book, to better help palpaters to understand what the blind feel and refine with their fingers?
      For “vertebraille” to be introduced at ADIO under the title of “Muscle Palpation”, is the same as saying that it was never introduced at all. If it was, it would have been called “vertebraille”. I was at ADIO in the beginning, and “vertebraille” was never once mentioned, even up to my time in clinic, where that terminology would have been extremely helpful. And, muscle palpation was nothing “new” to ADIO, because we were doing muscle palpation at Palmer in 1974, and Sherman was doing it before ADIO, because Sherman supplied us with our muscle charts in order to use as a basis for palpation, along with the Sherman graduates who were our instructors, and who were already doing muscle palpation. And, as you said, “for the records”, although I wish I had the benefit of your experience, I never had you for a technique instructor and only for one day when you filled in for philosophy.
      I was also there at the beginning of Spinology, and we used muscle palpation up to the point where Reggie decided to change
      all terminology that even hinted of a Chiropractic origin. As unique as Spinology was, Reggie insisted that everything about it be unique to him. No more subluxation,(spinal abtrusion), no more Innate Intelligence,(although privately it was acceptable, otherwise “Wisdom of the body), no more patient,(recipient), and again, for the record, the words “practice members” where inacurately credited to Reggie and Spinology, as I read in a recently published book, and were never used in Spinology from our first days to the very last. I was there from beginning to end, and the first time I heard “practice members” mentioned, was in association with Joe Strauss and his practice, years after Spinology. There were a number of other terms that were changed, but I am sure you get the point.
      As far as “vertebraille”, Reggie assured the class, the morning he announced the introduction of the word, that it and the use of it, came to him the weekend prior to that Monday. That was in 1980. Reggie was known, as was B.J. and others, for making claims that have since become questionable, and claiming the works of others, for themselves. I have been spending decades trying to compare the information that has been floating out there regarding Reggie, Chiropractic, Spinology, back into Chiropractic and the actual why behind it all, with what I actually know to be true.
      What I am asking Claude is, if you can send me proof that Reggie
      used the word “vertebraille” and not just braille back in 1976, it will go a long way towards helping to clear up a number of other things that I have questioned for far to long.

      • Claude Lessard 12/30/2014, 7:29 pm:

        Glenn,

        I first heard the word “vertabraille” 40 years ago, when Reggie mentioned it at his home in Spartanburg. We were 6 students, off campus: Walter Giddings, Arnaud Burnier, Miguel Bolufer, Patti Martin, Christine Graham and myself. It was then, that Miguel undertook the task of drawing diagrams of working muscles along with putting into words their “working” actions. I was assisting him in that task. The title of the “booklet” was called: Muscle Palpation, by Miguel Bolufer. It is probably those drawings that were sent to you at Palmer. The word vertebraille was NOT used in any literature, as far as I know, not even the “SPIZZERINCTUM”. The word vertebraille was NOT used at ADIO. It is the word “muscle palpation” that was used. I don’t know why Reggie, in 1980, “assured the class, the morning he announced the introduction of the word, that it and the use of it, came to him the weekend prior to that Monday”. That’s five years after I first heard of the word “vertabraille”, when I was a student at Sherman. I will attempt to dig through some old notes, to at least verify the accuracy of my first hearing of word “vertebraille”… for it definitely was the word “vertebraille” that was used, back in 1975 at Reggie’s house.

        • Claude Lessard 01/02/2015, 3:34 am:

          Glenn,

          Moving forward with your request of a favor, I dug up pretty much all I could from my archives, including “Volume 1, NO. 2” of the Spizzerinctum dated, December 10, 1974, and no mention of the word “vertebraille” appeared in those early issues. I, also have “VOLUME 1, NUMBER 2” of the Cactus Flower dated, December, 1977, where Reggie was interviewed about the starting of ADIO in January of 1978 (which I don’t recall, you being part of the pioneer class), and no mention of the word “vertebraille” appeared in those early issues either. The closest I have gotten to see the word in print, is on the a page of “ADVANCED MUSCLE PALPATION.NET” where Reggie gives his endorsement of the technique in stating that he’s been using advanced muscle palpation for over 50 years and he called it “vertebraille” which according to him is the same thing. Check it out. Perhaps Nick Spano can shed some light on this? –

          – As for what I heard back in the winter of 1975 at Reggie’s house when he was teaching us, how to LACVS, full spine, I recal vividly that it was Chris Graham that I was palpating. Reggie was observing me and said something like: “Claude, close your eyes, and feel for the working muscles. Lighten your touch! It’s like when a blind man is learning braille… you’re learning “vertabraille”. I chuckled and I thought that it was a clever way to put it. I really never forgot it. Could it be that Reggie forgot that he had mentioned that word 5 years before? I don’t know. –

          – Also, are you aware that at some point during the early years of ADIO, we used to call muscle palpation, “ADIO ANALYSIS” in the classrooms? That I presented its philosophical introduction at Lyceum 1981? You can read the article about it on ADIO Institute of Straight face book.com 😉

  8. Don 12/26/2014, 1:51 am:

    Thank you for that.

    The point I am hearing is that there is theoretical instruction in myo-physiology with distinctions made in various working muscles.
    Later, when practicing muscle palpation a chiropractor observes muscles that are working.

    This sounds like muscle physiological function as it is described.
    Are the indicators used in muscle palpation physiological functions or is the point being made that here that they are not?

    Also, is it safe to say that a person practicing in the manner described above is not using physiological functional indicators to determine a vs before providing the next action?

    • Don 12/26/2014, 6:31 pm:

      Reporting these two questions for readers to chime in.
      Even if you aren’t sure, I’d value your put.
      Please let me know f you practice OSC. Thanks.

      Are the indicators used in muscle palpation physiological functions or is the point being made that here that they are not?
      Also, is it safe to say that a person practicing in the manner described above is not using physiological functional indicators to determine a vs before providing the next action?

  9. Don 12/26/2014, 6:32 pm:

    *input

    • Claude Lessard 12/26/2014, 7:38 pm:

      Don,

      The AUTHORITY of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science does NOT address the art form of chiropractic and rightly so. Art is highly subjective, as you know, from both the artist and the “receiver” of the art form. When I posted: “…before beginning advanced practices for the LACVS, normally the student first receive theoretical instructions on subtle para-vertebral myo-physiology consisting of distinctions between spastic muscles, flaccid muscles, tense muscles and working muscles”, it is to understand, as Einstein pointed out, that “it is the theory that determines what can be observed”. This insight while profound, is not a recent one, Kant wrote, “experience is itself a species of knowledge which involves understanding.” Understanding of WHAT, may you ask? Of the 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science. Innate intelligence is ALWAYS normal and its function is ALWAYS normal (pri27). Therefore, the law of ACTIVE organization continually adapt universal forces AND e/matter for use in the body, so that all parts of the body will have co-ordinate action for mutual benefit (pri23). That includes the correction of VS through vertebral adjustments by innate intelligence (pri27,28, 29 and 31). –

      – The theoretical understanding of AMP is, that it is innate intelligence that produces the vertebral adjustment through paravertebral myology within the vertemere. That is WHY the students first receive theoretical instructions on subtle para-vertebral myo-physiology consisting of DISTINCTION between spastic muscles, flaccid muscles, tense muscles and working muscles. Students study the physiology involving that DISTINCTION. In other words, if the muscles involved are working muscles, used by innate intelligence to produce a vertebral adjustment, it signifies the presence of VS at that specific vertemere. Therefore chiropractors, Who choose to practice AMP, locate VS through the observation of the implicated working muscles, used by innate intelligence which is ALREADY attempting to produce a vertebral adjustment, to the best of their educated abilities. WHEN, and ONLY WHEN, this is ascertained by the chiropractor, is the of performing of he adjustic thrust taking place. The adjustic thrust introduces an educated universal force, that will join the ALREADY existing universal forces, available to innate intelligence, with the HOPE that innate intelligence will produce the vertebral adjustment for the correction of VS. The rest is up to the innate intelligence of the body… in other words, it is time to get out of the car and move on. –

      – It must be noted that oftentimes that innate intelligence may produce the adjustment immediately or later on. On the NEXT visit, chiropractors WHO choose to use AMP will LACVS with the SAME INTENT as the last visit… and this relationship between practice member and chiropractor will hopefully last for their lifetime. –

      – It is my hope that this clarifies your inquiry Don. 😉

      • David Suskin 12/26/2014, 8:31 pm:

        Claude,
        Would you describe, pragmatically
        1. Working muscle
        2. Spastic muscle
        3. Flaccid muscle
        4. Tense muscle
        as it pertains to their distinction within the practice of palpation and
        observation?

        • Claude Lessard 12/26/2014, 11:15 pm:

          David,

          No. I will not. 😉

          • Claude Lessard 12/26/2014, 11:21 pm:

            … here’s where you can find the answers to your questions:

            Download AMP Manual (2.3MB in Zip format) 🙂

          • David Suskin 12/26/2014, 11:45 pm:

            Claude,
            Mums the word, aye?
            Thanks for the link (reference) to the source. 😉

  10. Don 12/27/2014, 2:41 pm:

    Dr. Lessard,

    I have read the manual and would rather prefer we not make this about AMP and instead focus on OSC indicators.

    If it is the case where an OSC chooses to use the AMP technique I feel the manual clearly states that physiological function is what is being used to determine the vs.

    Here is the clearest excerpt that demonstrates this point (emphasis added) there are others. I won’t post those now:

    “A region of muscles could be affected or a relay of muscle bands; but the independent action of one muscle band upon the individual process of a vertebra is a phenomenon which is CLEARLY PHYSIOLOGIC in nature and should be interpreted by the Chiropractor as a healthy or positive action or defense mechanism (at least).”

    Are you saying these in AMP and other muscle palpation indicators not physiological functions?

    Is it safe to say that a person practicing in the manner described above is not using physiological functional indicators to determine a vs before providing the next action?

    • Claude 12/27/2014, 3:27 pm:

      Don,

      What do you think is the meaning of “getting out of the car”. 😉

  11. Don 12/28/2014, 1:02 am:

    Dr. Lessard,
    Maybe we can get Joe to help us.
    He may need to look back at the thread to follow the logic though.

    I would like to explore the connections of this thread to a previous post so we have some closure on the subject.
    Can you tell I don’t like unanswered questions? 🙂

    Here is the post titled q and a #52

    If we measure a physiological function in a person who is also found to be subluxated and we adjust the vertebral subluxation and the physiological function changes, does that mean we have corrected the vertebral subluxation and the body is now functioning closer to normal?

    I know you have information I don’t? Hope you don’t mind sharing your new thoughts.
    Thank you Joe and Dr. Lessard.

    • Claude Lessard 12/28/2014, 1:58 am:

      Don,

      This thread is doing its work rather well. The 33 principles of chiropractic’s basic science are the necessary components of WHAT it is that will point you toward your destination and WHY.. WHAT is your destination of chiropractic? The destination of chiropractic is its objective! Therefore, WHEN you, as a chiropractor, have arrived at the presence of VS, it is time for you to LET GO of the pointers and move on to the ART of chiropractic which is subjective and not objective. HOW you choose to practice the chiropractic objective is up to you. WHICH technique you will choose to LACVS is up to you. Many different indicators for many different techniques. For example, 😉 many canvases, brushes, color schemes for a painting… many chords, notes, arrangements, scores, instruments for a symphony… many words, syntax, sentence constructions, languages for a novel… In other words, ART is subjective and ALWAYS will be. Do WHAT is yours to do and the rest will follow. –

      – The pont is that, the chiropractors WHO chose to practice the chiropractic objective know that they don’t know (for sure) if the practice member leaves the office with or without VS. How could they? They ONLY introduced an EDUCATED universal force in the form of an adjustic thrust to the best of their abilities. After the post check, they are still humbled by the little contribution they have made, regardless of the post check. They refuse to limit the ability of innate intelligence to produce a vertebral adjustment, by adapting at any time, whatever available universal forces, educated or not. It is the same with the benefits of being free of VS. ALL we can say, is that we have addressed VS and the rest is up to innate intelligence which is ALWAYS normal and its function which is ALWAYS normal (pri27). As Joseph posted above, “OCtors refuse to limit, or theorize the length, breadth, or depth of those benefits. Broad scope chiropractors tend to limit those benefits and TCtors tend to theorize them. or theorize the length, breadth, or depth of those benefits”. Get the BIG idea, the rest will follow. 😉

  12. David Suskin 12/28/2014, 2:31 am:

    Claude,
    Let go of the pointers? Interesting use of Free Will. Interesting WHO.
    Philosophy p1 to p31, then I’d presume the application of the science, then let go of the pointers, Leading to the Art, the adjustment.
    Or the science and the art are both involved in the adjustment, pre check, adjustive thrust, post check. When complete, let go of the pointer(s), put the Period in and get out of the car.
    Sounds right.
    Interesting dance.

  13. Don 12/28/2014, 9:16 pm:

    Thank you.
    This is hard for me to understand and I really want to hear what everyone has to.
    Could we perhaps start with a definitive yes or no to the questions above?
    Unless of course that the questions cannot be answered as they are.
    I’m opening to adapting the question as long as it addresses my concern.
    To state it differently, my concern is that many methods of vs detection (possibly all…however Steve helped me understand not all…thanks Steve) are physiological functions being observed.
    I assume OCors who use muscle palpation (or any technique other than auras) maintain that what they are use are not physiological functional indicators.
    Moreover, if a post check is used the post check is not an observation of a physiological functional indicator.

    So, three question numbered so it is easy to reference.
    1. If we measure a physiological function in a person who is also found to be subluxated and we adjust the vertebral subluxation and the physiological function changes, does that mean we have corrected the vertebral subluxation and the body is now functioning closer to normal?

    2. Are the indicators used in the muscle palpation not physiological functions?

    3. Is it safe to say that the person practicing as described above is not using physiological functional indicators before providing the next action?

    Thank you again.

    Signed,

    Relentless pursuer of knowledge…or stubborn old goat depends who you ask. 😉

    • Joe Strauss 12/30/2014, 4:27 pm:

      Don(RPK/SOG, first, see my response to Claude. In my opinion all that we can possibly observe is a physiological function providing the practice member is alive. The chiropractor using muscle palpation is observing a physiological function. The question is whether that physiological function is a response or a reaction. The person using muscle palpation is hopefully, eliciting a response of the innate intelligence of the body to the vertebral subluxation. He is attempting to determine the physiological functional indicator of the body’s attempt to correct the vertebral subluxation rather than the normal/abnormal physiological response/reaction to the vertebral subluxation. To answer your questions:
      1. All we can conclude is that physiological function has changed. In muscle palpation, we conclude that the innate intelligence of the body is no longer attempting to correct a vertebral subluxation. But, since we do not know what normal is for the body we cannot really conclude that “the body is now functioning closer to normal”, except by deducing that a body without subluxation is functioning closer to normal.
      2. They are (in theory) indicators of the innate intelligence of the bodies physiological function in order to correct vertebral subluxation. Providing the theory is correct and the analysis is correct.
      3. A “working muscle” is a physiological functional indicator of the body’s attempt to correct a vertebral subluxation. A “*SPASTIC muscle” is either a innate response in order to stabilize the spine and prevent further interference or a reaction due to limitations of matter. To determine which is outside the realm of objective chiropractic, or the knowledge of anyone else in my opinion.

      • Don 12/30/2014, 10:33 pm:

        Joe,
        Thank you.
        I cannot see the response to Claude’s post from you in this thread. Perhaps I am looking in the wrong thread.

        It would seem that you agree that muscle palpation is a physiological function that a chiropractor observes and that the only conclusion that can be made from that observation is that it has either changed or not.

        It has been stated that we cannot conclude if the body is now functioning closer to normal because its physiology has changed. Only that a vs has been corrected based on the observations and that because the vs is corrected, the body is better off than before. I interpret that to mean that I have introduced an force into the body after determining that the muscle physiology is not as it should be. After the introduction of force now there is a change and change is what it should be. I understand there is alot more to it than that but if it is being maintained that physiology is not being used, attempt to look at it from a non-chiropractic viewpoint for a moment.

        I know there are several people reading this right now that have years of experience so with your help I’d really like to break this down for a person who may not have a chiropractic OC viewpoint and sees only the physiology at play.

        So theory aside for a moment, what can can we safely conclude about the correlation between muscle physiology change and vs correction?
        Thank you.

        • Joe Strauss 12/30/2014, 11:48 pm:

          Don my response to Claude is in the 33 principles thread.
          It’s not that the “muscle physiology is not as it should be”. On the contrary, the muscle physiology is as it should be in an effort to correct the vertebral subluxation. If and when a correction has been made, the muscle physiology will indicate that the innate intelligence the body is not attempting to bring about a change. In other words, the muscle physiology will indicate that the innate intelligence of the body is no longer trying to bring about a change, exactly what you would expect to find if there was no longer a vertebral subluxation present or there was none to start with.

          • Don 01/03/2015, 6:44 pm:

            Joe,
            You are saying three things, if I understand you correctly. (If not, please set me straight.) (1) That muscle physiology is as it should be to correct the vertebral subluxation, and (2) That if the vertebral subluxation is corrected, the muscle physiology will demonstrate a change from what it was to indicate that the vertebral subluxation has been corrected, and (3) that the muscle physiology after correction is exactly what you expect to find when there is no vertebral subluxation present.

            OK. The correlation I see above is clearer for me now.

            The three statements above seem really important so please feel free to elaborate.

          • Joe Strauss 01/03/2015, 11:21 pm:

            Don, 3 for 3, great!!! The only thing that I would add is that for the physiology to change, Prin.# 6 is an issue. An immediate post check may be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology and it is easy to mistake a spastic or normally dissimilar muscle ( a person who works out unilaterally). That’s why you are feeling for small individual muscles rather than large broad muscles or muscle groups.

          • Don 01/03/2015, 11:38 pm:

            Thank you Joe.
            What do you propose to address this issue of a post check?

          • Don 01/07/2015, 9:56 pm:

            Reporting the question since it may have been missed.

            What do we propose to address the post check/p.6 issue?

          • Don 01/15/2015, 2:18 am:

            Joe,
            I’m back. Sorry for the delay.
            You wrote, “Don, 3 for 3, great!!! The only thing that I would add is that for the physiology to change, Prin.# 6 is an issue. An immediate post check may be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology and it is easy to mistake a spastic or normally dissimilar muscle ( a person who works out unilaterally). That’s why you are feeling for small individual muscles rather than large broad muscles or muscle groups.”

            I can see you appreciate Princ. 6 being an issue insofar as a post check done too early is not the best action after introducing a force into the body {I assume expecting a change may be presumptuous and may reveal the same working muscles if done too early} (brackets my assumptions)

            You also wrote it is easy to mistaken a spastic or normally dissimilar muscle for a working muscle. This seems to me to be another issue from the Principle 6. I could be wrong.

            Could you explain if I am correct and share with me your insight into what you suggest chiropractors should do to address these issues, primarily the post check and principle 6 issues?
            Thanks!

          • Joe Strauss 01/18/2015, 12:38 am:

            Don, since we are dealing with the metaphysical analysis and interference to innate forces we would have to use a metaphysical phenomena which would preclude any empirical post check. The only metaphysical/physical form of analysis I know of is muscle palpation, analyzing the innate intelligence of the body is with the paravertebral muscles. Since we do not have a corroborative form of analysis, we are forced to use our original analysis. In practice I would bring the practice member back the next day post check and an adjustment if necessary. The rationale was that the rest of their day’s activities and a nights sleep in which the innate intelligence told her body to take the force introduced and correct the subluxation, if the external invasive force was sufficient. If force was sufficient during that 24 hour period or if the practice member was adjusted and then subluxated again, in either case, they would need to be adjusted again. Bottom line is in that particular point in time, the needed to be adjusted.

          • Don 01/18/2015, 4:39 am:

            Hmm…Joe you said Princ. 6 is an issue and that an immediate post check (I assume within 24 hours) would be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology. How did you come to the conclusion about the post check and the 24 hour guide? I assume years of experience. 🙂

            Lastly, I would like to submit that if we are using the muscle palpation as the physical bridge to the metaphysical form of analysis, is there a method to make the detection of the working muscle operational. IOWs, let us assume, theoretically, that the method of detection of a working muscle could be replicated by two OCors on the same person. OC#1 finds a working muscle at the 5th dorsal and OC#2 immediately after #1 is done the analysis detects the same working muscle at the 5th dorsal.
            Is this a common phenomenon?
            If OC#1 applied a force to that 5th dorsal segment and OC#2 detects the working muscle at the 5th dorsal immediately after, is it safe to conclude there is a subluxation in that particular point of time that needs to be adjusted or that the post check was too soon.
            This seems to take some prognosticating skills that I thought I was leaving to the innate intelligence of the body but I think it is inescapable since at some point we must make a judgment. Let me know your thoughts Joe. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks.

          • Don 01/18/2015, 4:53 am:

            Okay. On a lighter note:
            I heard (I think it was Reggie Gold) explaining how a stethoscope and a sphygmomanometer was used to take blood pressure. He then asked, “Hey! how do you knock 10 points off your blood pressure?” Go to the physician who is hard of hearing, that’s how!”

            There was certainly room for human error there and arguably one of the reasons many offices now use digital automated versions without the stethoscope.

            Suppose we find the same thing for the working muscle detection?
            Hmm…now there is a OC research topic I could sink my teeth into!! 🙂

            OC research topic..is that a contradiction in terms?

  14. Don 12/29/2014, 1:34 am:

    This is embarrassing. Did anyone see a post from me earlier today with 3 numbered questions.

    I’m pretty sure I posted a response to Dr. Lessard (I only know because it was rather lengthy after I found some time to put my thoughts together) but I can’t see it now.

    I hope it’s in the pipeline somewhere because I’m doubting if I can produce that quality of response again…:)
    Cheers!
    From the stubborn old goat! 🙂

    • Claude Lessard 12/29/2014, 11:37 am:

      Don,

      Here it is! 🙂 –

      Don 12/28/2014, 9:16 pm:
      Thank you.
      This is hard for me to understand and I really want to hear what everyone has to.
      Could we perhaps start with a definitive yes or no to the questions above?
      Unless of course that the questions cannot be answered as they are.
      I’m opening to adapting the question as long as it addresses my concern.
      To state it differently, my concern is that many methods of vs detection (possibly all…however Steve helped me understand not all…thanks Steve) are physiological functions being observed.
      I assume OCors who use muscle palpation (or any technique other than auras) maintain that what they are use are not physiological functional indicators.
      Moreover, if a post check is used the post check is not an observation of a physiological functional indicator.
      So, three question numbered so it is easy to reference.
      1. If we measure a physiological function in a person who is also found to be subluxated and we adjust the vertebral subluxation and the physiological function changes, does that mean we have corrected the vertebral subluxation and the body is now functioning closer to normal?
      2. Are the indicators used in the muscle palpation not physiological functions?
      3. Is it safe to say that the person practicing as described above is not using physiological functional indicators before providing the next action?
      Thank you again.
      Signed,
      Relentless pursuer of knowledge…or stubborn old goat depends who you ask. 😉

      • Don 12/30/2014, 12:39 am:

        Thank you Dr. Lessard. That was the one!

        I`ll await the responses and check back in a while.
        Thanks again!

  15. Claude Lessard 01/18/2015, 2:03 pm:

    Don,

    Did we not conclude in past posts that VS was in flux due to cellular replacement at the rate of 500,000,000,000 cells per day? If so then, what is the foundation of your theoretical assumption when you posted, “that the method of detection of a working muscle could be replicated by two OCors on the same person”? 😉 –

    – Also, at the BJ Palmer sanitarium, Dr. Sherman use to recount anecdotes regarding the NCGH “pattern work” post-checks. Here is an instrument that measures muscles at “work” by detecting minute “heat” changes through thermocouples (when muscles work out they give off heat). The idea is that when there is NO pattern, there is NO need to adjust. At this clinic, they use to have people rest on a special “cot” as much as an hour after the adjustment before the post check. They called that place of rest, the “resting area”. Sometimes, people travelled across the country to go to that clinic. At times, there were more than one post check. Some people were post-checked one hour after the adjustment in the morning, were NOT adjusted, then were told to come back in later in the afternoon to be re-post checked again. –

    – So you see, BJ was really attempting to analyze HOW the innate intelligence of the body was correcting VS… as objectively as he could. BJ’s work is the foundation of the WHEN and WHEN NOT to introduce an adjustic thrust. According to Dr. Sherman, BJ’s motto was: “WHEN IN DOUBT… DON’T!!!

    • Don 01/18/2015, 8:23 pm:

      Dr. Lessard,
      I believe that the reason I am asking the question is two fold: 1. Because arguably it is a question “outside the box” 😉 and 2. I am wondering if we set experience aside for a moment, how much variability is there between OCors results in analysis. How reproducible are the results?
      In other fancier statistical terms (probably the only two I can recall from those stats days) how sensitive and specific is the test for working muscles?
      Please read that in terms of false and true positives and negatives. Some may interpret my question to mean how good they are at their application.
      Lastly, there is the question of when analysis is done, what is the optimal time.
      Scenario #1: OCor checks, working muscle found at 5th dorsal. Forces introduced.
      Post check done immediately after by same OCor. No working muscle found any longer.
      Conclusion to scenario #1: Vs was present and has been corrected. There was no issue of principle 6 at post check.

      Scenario #2: OCor checks, working muscle found at 5th dorsal. Forces introduced.
      Post check done immediately after by same OCor. Same working muscles found.
      Conclusion to scenario #2: the post check was done too soon. Send home to experience 24 hours of daily routines. Then post check again.
      Alternative conclusion to scenario #2: at this point in time the working muscle is still present and forces re still required.

      Scenario #3 (the doozie tht boggles my mind 🙂
      OCor checks, working muscle found at 5th dorsal. Forces introduced.
      Post check immediately done. Working muscle found.

      Other OCor (ocor#2) also table side immediately check. Same analysis, Same principle 6 and physiology at work. Would they conclude 5th dorsal is a working muscle? Additionally, would they conclude no additional forces required by innate intelligence?

      Congratulations if you have red up to this point. That was REPETATIVE :).
      Now please do us a favor and post your thoughts. 😉
      Take care all!

      • Don 01/18/2015, 8:26 pm:

        Sorry, should have addressed that to Dr. Lessard and Joe (since they got me thinking) AND the rest if the COTB readership.
        🙂

  16. Tom 01/19/2015, 3:42 am:

    Don, when I was at Penn Straight I had already been a spinologist for many years and offered the technique teacher (who is now president of a chiropractic college) my help in teaching full spine technique and more importantly, vertebraille/muscle palpation analysis. Years ago I was having a conversation with someone when a similar question as you’ve asked came up. I remember we had a high inter/intra examiner reliability in class but wasn’t sure just how high. I spoke to the teacher and he very vividly recalled that we were over 90% in inter AND intra examiner reliability. Anthony Tremain who runs NeuroSpinology (formerly spinology) says his students have virtually 100% inter and intra examiner reliablity. Very few are formally trained in this art, picking up the basics at a weekend seminer here and there. Heck, in spinology it took Reggie months to get our fingertips sensitive enough to actually feel the working muscles and make a distinction between working, flaccid and spastic muscles. Like any art, it takes time and practice (with feedback) to get it down.

    • Don 01/19/2015, 11:35 pm:

      Tom,
      Thank you for the post.
      Is there any chance that you know anyone who submitted those results to a journal at any time?
      I know alot of people that ask this question often and they often suggest that verifying these claims of reliability is what is lacking.

      With 100% accuracy, I would imagine all OCors would find the same working muscles all the time?
      Many on here have been in multiple DC offices, is this true?

  17. Tom 01/20/2015, 6:02 pm:

    No Don, not that I am aware of. I’m not sure that using inductive “proof” to prove a deductively arrived at method of analysis would persuade someone to this methodology. One still has to put in the work on their own, unless one goes to Sherman (I think they still teach it there) to become proficient at it.
    ———-
    The 100% statement was made by Anthony Tremain regarding his students in NeuroSpinology. When one has only one method of analysis that they are allowed to use they tend to get pretty good at it. While we were in Penn Straight, yes, we were taught vert/musc palp, but the curriculum also taught us many other methods of analysis like every other school.
    ———–
    Of all the people from my class at Penn Straight, there is only one other that I know of who is practicing OSC. Everyone else has gone off into different directions incorporating many things into practice, including other methods of analysis.
    ———–
    One does vertebraille/mus palp/amp because it makes sense. It is derived at based upon the deductive heritage we have received through our chiropractic philosophy. I remember back on Joe’s FACE messageboard many years ago this topic of proof came up. Nick Spano, was in on the conversation and said, I’ve been doing and teaching AMP for over 25 years now. There is no way I could fool myself for this long if it wasn’t valid. For those who require “proof” I say let them go and find it or do it themselves. For those who have been doing it many, many years, consistently and successfully, no proof is necessary to know that what they are doing is right.

  18. Don 01/20/2015, 10:09 pm:

    Tom,
    I remember listening to an audio recording of Reggie mentioning something about how it is good practice to use inductive reasoning to “cross check” the deductive reasoning. “Cross check” is my recollection of the word he used.
    I tend to agree with Reggie’s thinking in that, if the deductive reasoning correct or true then it should stand the test of inductive scrutiny.

    I see the potential here in that if there was indeed 100% agreement between people applying the analysis, (corrected for experience) that would make ALOT of people stand up and pay attention especially if the applying the analysis were blinded to the results of what the others had found.

    I understand there is always something to be gained and something to be lost in pursuits of knoweldge. Is there a chance the results will be 100%? Yes. Can it not be 100%? Yes. Is there a reason to not explore that? I don’t know the answer to that question.

    • Claude 01/21/2015, 5:06 pm:

      Don,

      Do you remember the context in which Reggie said: “it is good practice to use inductive reasoning to “cross check” the deductive reasoning”?

      • Don 01/22/2015, 2:46 am:

        Dr. Lessard,
        From what I can recall, it took place during a talk/lecture on the topic of deductive and inductive reasoning with a focus on identifying the differences, similarities between the two and their application in nontherapeutic approaches to care.

        • Claude Lessard 01/22/2015, 12:41 pm:

          Don,

          Thank you.

          An objective chiropractor is a chiropractor WHO chooses to practice the chiropractic objective which is to: LACVS for a full expression of the innate FORCES of the innate intelligence of the body. PERIOD! –

          – The technique used to LACVS does NOT define an objective chiropractor. This is a trap that many fall into and it moves away from the center of the forest. In other words, methods of analysis and introducing educated universal forces (adjustic thrusts), are inconsequential to LACVS… pretty much the same as Michelangelo versus Da Vinci. HIO vs Grostic vs Gonstead vs Palmer vs Blair… etc… You get the point? –

          – It is the OBJECTIVE of the chiropractor that defines, whether or not, the practice of that particular chiropractor is consistent with practicing the chiropractic objective. If that chiropractor uses AMP (also called the ADIO ANALYSIS), to get sick people well, or treat symptoms, that chiropractor is NOT practicing the chiropractic objective. Do you get that? –

          – With regards to exploring what Anthony Tremain affirms, there is no reason not to believe what he says. Tom’s answer is rather clear: “For those who require “proof” I say let them go and find it or do it themselves” If you NEED to prove it to yourself, I encourage you to continue in your quest for proof of consistency and I guaranty you that what Spano said is true: “I’ve been doing and teaching AMP for over 25 years now. There is no way I could fool myself for this long if it wasn’t valid.” 😉

  19. Don 01/22/2015, 9:27 pm:

    Dr. Lessard,
    I don’t have a position here other than that I am coming at this from the standpoint that scientific research CAN be used in an OSC office. I don’t dispute any of the claims made above. My goal, with all your help is to explore HOW this can be achieved.
    Let us set aside the perception of “need” for research at the moment. I understand many find that a hot topic. Let us look at the how.
    Investigating the muscle palpation agreement between people using it seems to me to be the most fruitful and congruent method of accomplishing this. This would not be looking at symptomatology per se but the presence or absence of the working muscle and the agreement between people applying the analysis. I am open to other suggestions. Is there a better way?
    Thanks.

  20. don 01/22/2015, 11:28 pm:

    Someone very smart once wrote 😉
    “respectful discussion is urged so that objective straight chiropractors may find the most effective technique(s) for accomplishing their unique objective.”
    I wouldn’t disagree with that. 🙂

  21. Tom 01/23/2015, 2:34 am:

    Don, I had a feeling where he made that comment and was right. He said that back in 1987. Interestingly enough, 13 years later at a Triune seminar in Greenville, SC I had a conversation with him asking him the very question you asked here, was there any way to show inductively the validity of vertebraille/mus pap? His answer to me at that time was exactly what I wrote above. I guess that was why I had a hard time placing where/when he made the initial comment. Whether or not he changed his stance of the original statement, one can only speculate. He did say many years after those original recordings that there were a few changes needed. I have no further comments/suggestions other than get your hands on a good number of people per day (50, 75, 100..) paying particular attention to the different feels of muscle (pre and post) and you will soon experience what those who have been using this analysis have been experiencing. Consistency and reliability.

  22. Tom 01/23/2015, 2:41 am:

    Oops, another comment, lol. Contact Anthony Tremain. There are things about his refinement of the analysis that I am not at liberty to speak about as they are his intellectual property that does belong to him and NeuroSpinology. You can contact him at at@neurospinology.com

    • Don 02/03/2015, 9:43 pm:

      Tom,
      Yes. That was my question also. Is there a way to show inductively the validity of muscle palpation.

      I did what you suggested and sought more information and it helped tremendously.
      Thanks for replying to the post.
      All the best!
      Don

  23. Don 02/03/2015, 9:54 pm:

    Just bumping this post to see if I could follow up on some unanswered questions. I often also find it hard to keep track of the discussion.
    Hopefully, this post will help.

    Here are the questions I cut and pasted. Thanks:

    Don 01/18/2015, 4:39 am:

    Hmm…Joe you said Princ. 6 is an issue and that an immediate post check (I assume within 24 hours) would be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology. How did you come to the conclusion about the post check and the 24 hour guide? I assume years of experience. 🙂

    Lastly, I would like to submit that if we are using the muscle palpation as the physical bridge to the metaphysical form of analysis, is there a method to make the detection of the working muscle operational. IOWs, let us assume, theoretically, that the method of detection of a working muscle could be replicated by two OCors on the same person. OC#1 finds a working muscle at the 5th dorsal and OC#2 immediately after #1 is done the analysis detects the same working muscle at the 5th dorsal.
    Is this a common phenomenon?
    If OC#1 applied a force to that 5th dorsal segment and OC#2 detects the working muscle at the 5th dorsal immediately after, is it safe to conclude there is a subluxation in that particular point of time that needs to be adjusted or that the post check was too soon.
    This seems to take some prognosticating skills that I thought I was leaving to the innate intelligence of the body but I think it is inescapable since at some point we must make a judgment. Let me know your thoughts Joe. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks.
    Don 01/18/2015, 4:53 am:

    Okay. On a lighter note:
    I heard (I think it was Reggie Gold) explaining how a stethoscope and a sphygmomanometer was used to take blood pressure. He then asked, “Hey! how do you knock 10 points off your blood pressure?” Go to the physician who is hard of hearing, that’s how!”

    There was certainly room for human error there and arguably one of the reasons many offices now use digital automated versions without the stethoscope.

    Suppose we find the same thing for the working muscle detection?
    Hmm…now there is a OC research topic I could sink my teeth into!! 🙂

    OC research topic..is that a contradiction in terms?

    • Joe Strauss 02/05/2015, 4:19 pm:

      Don, you wrote “Hmm…Joe you said Princ. 6 is an issue and that an immediate post check (I assume within 24 hours) would be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology. How did you come to the conclusion about the post check and the 24 hour guide? I assume years of experience.”

      Good Question Don . I think I came to that conclusion through logic and experience. If there is no indication that a muscle is “working”, five seconds, five minutes, or five hours after an adjusted thrust has been introduced, we can conclude that the innate intelligence the body is no longer attempting to move that bone and is “satisfied” where it is. If the muscle is still working, it means that either the analysis was wrong, insufficient educated external invasive force was introduced, or that the innate intelligence of the practice members body has yet to use that force to correct the vertebral subluxation. Logic tells me that individual events during the day including exercise activities, rest and work will give their body the opportunity to make the adjustment. Also my office was open every week day so they could easily come in the next day and have their spine rechecked to see if it still needed an adjustment.

      “Lastly, I would like to submit that if we are using the muscle palpation as the physical bridge to the metaphysical form of analysis, is there a method to make the detection of the working muscle operational. IOWs, let us assume, theoretically, that the method of detection of a working muscle could be replicated by two OCors on the same person. OC#1 finds a working muscle at the 5th dorsal and OC#2 immediately after #1 is done the analysis detects the same working muscle at the 5th dorsal.
      Is this a common phenomenon?
      If OC#1 applied a force to that 5th dorsal segment and OC#2 detects the working muscle at the 5th dorsal immediately after, is it safe to conclude there is a subluxation in that particular point of time that needs to be adjusted or that the post check was too soon.”
      Answer: the only thing we can conclude from the above scenario is that innate intelligence of the practice member’s body is still trying to move that bone from one position to another and does not appeared to have sufficient innate forces to accomplish that task.
      “This seems to take some prognosticating skills that I thought I was leaving to the innate intelligence of the body but I think it is inescapable since at some point we must make a judgment. Let me know your thoughts Joe. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks.”

      Answer: that’s why they call it an art. Granted, it’s not easy but I have found it is less challenging than hitting a baseball.

      • Don 02/08/2015, 2:30 am:

        Joe,
        Thank you for taking the time to reply.

        I believe I have a better grasp on your thinking here.
        To paraphrase, after an adjustic thrust has been introduced, if the muscle is still working there are three possible scenarios:
        1. it could mean the analysis was wrong
        2. insufficient educated external invasive force was introduced
        3. that the innate intelligence of the practice members body has yet to use that force to correct the vertebral subluxation.

        I find #3 and #2 slightly confusing. I believe forces are not stored. Is #3 really #2?
        If not, what is your opinion of introducing another thrust in a situation #3 as described above?

        Also, I am wondering if you had a chance to come up with a term you prefer for the situation where forces delivered are insufficient (#2 in your example)?
        Thanks again.

        • Joe Strauss 02/08/2015, 7:42 pm:

          Don, I think some of your confusion might lie with how we are defining force, as the second aspect of the triune. I would suggest that force as BJ and RW describe it has two components. One, the information/force component which is metaphysical and two, the energy/force component which is physical. BJ attempted to measure the first with the ‘timpograph. He was apparently unsuccessful and eventually gave up because all he was able to measure was the second. The first, the metaphysical is not stored (if it is, we have no way of measuring it anymore than we can measure the Gettysburg Address which I once stored in my educated brain. The second, energy/force can be stored as potential energy.
          I have come up with a term to describe “where forces delivered are insufficient”. But that term has four letters, is always said to myself and never used by me in public. If I had to come up with a term for our lexicon I would call it a force that is insufficiently educatedly directed or an IED!

          • don 02/10/2015, 4:37 am:

            Joe, Thank you again for your response….and the chuckle from your internal dialogue post IED force.

            I understand there are two components to force as you described (a physical and informational). Perhaps this question may have a two part answer then. Please let me know.

            What is your opinion of introducing another thrust in a situation #3 as described above, where the analysis was correct, adjustic thrust was delivered yet the innate intelligence of the practice members body has yet to use that force to correct the vertebral subluxation?

            Thank you for the IEDF (insufficiently educatedly directed force). I will have to use that term to explain my thinking and questions in another thread when I get an opportunity.

  24. Don 02/03/2015, 9:55 pm:

    Repost:

    Don 01/18/2015, 4:39 am:

    Hmm…Joe you said Princ. 6 is an issue and that an immediate post check (I assume within 24 hours) would be too soon to notice a change in muscle physiology. How did you come to the conclusion about the post check and the 24 hour guide? I assume years of experience. 🙂

    Lastly, I would like to submit that if we are using the muscle palpation as the physical bridge to the metaphysical form of analysis, is there a method to make the detection of the working muscle operational. IOWs, let us assume, theoretically, that the method of detection of a working muscle could be replicated by two OCors on the same person. OC#1 finds a working muscle at the 5th dorsal and OC#2 immediately after #1 is done the analysis detects the same working muscle at the 5th dorsal.
    Is this a common phenomenon?
    If OC#1 applied a force to that 5th dorsal segment and OC#2 detects the working muscle at the 5th dorsal immediately after, is it safe to conclude there is a subluxation in that particular point of time that needs to be adjusted or that the post check was too soon.
    This seems to take some prognosticating skills that I thought I was leaving to the innate intelligence of the body but I think it is inescapable since at some point we must make a judgment. Let me know your thoughts Joe. Feel free to elaborate. Thanks.
    Don 01/18/2015, 4:53 am:

    Okay. On a lighter note:
    I heard (I think it was Reggie Gold) explaining how a stethoscope and a sphygmomanometer was used to take blood pressure. He then asked, “Hey! how do you knock 10 points off your blood pressure?” Go to the physician who is hard of hearing, that’s how!”

    There was certainly room for human error there and arguably one of the reasons many offices now use digital automated versions without the stethoscope.

    Suppose we find the same thing for the working muscle detection?
    Hmm…now there is a OC research topic I could sink my teeth into!! 🙂

    OC research topic..is that a contradiction in terms?

  25. Don 02/03/2015, 9:56 pm:

    Sorry if that posted twice.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *