Other Methods of Manipulation and Inconsistencies

I do not generally think of putting out negatives to boost what I am proposing or delivering so I will note some inconsistencies and things for you to observe about other methods so you can think for yourself.

I note the data on other methods so you can evaluate for them yourself as well as listening/reading my evaluations. 

Contrary to teachers or developers of methods who tell you not to think but just take what they say for granted, I insist you observe for yourself and come to your own conclusions. 

You should not be saying, Dr. Jutkowitz says...   You should be saying, I tested this in my office and the results were consistently what Dr. Jutkowitz promised.

The difference between a good CLINICAL  datum and a good RESEARCH data are important.

     Regarding CLINICAL data:  If something works on 30, 40 or 50% of the people on which it is used it might be a good CLINICAL datum because you can try it and if it does not work as you want, you can do something else. In the clinic even something that works on 5% of people can be valuable if your patient is one of those 5%. However, RESEARCH data is different.

To understand why RESEARCH data is different you must understand what is being researched.  

      ​​​​​In any discipline basic research is to determine how something works. From that one develops practical applications in the world. To determine that one isolates factors and determines what they do.  This is basic research methodology.

      In healthcare, structural research is oriented to the exact basic reason body structures become deranged or misaligned. Failures in research have led to many theories about nerves, muscles and ligaments but these are all explanations to account for failures in researching/finding the basic reason body structures become mechanically deranged rather than researched as causative factors.

      In other words, rather than just stating, Oops, our idea of why this occurs is wrong, practitioners come up with explanations.

      Let me remind you that anything fully understood is very simple. When people start getting into long explanations to account for exceptions to what they are giving as a theory, you can be assured that what they are saying does not work consistently as a theory and is therefore not the basic theory they are claiming it is.

In healthcare examples of that are when a theory predicts a certain result and then it does not occur. Rather than just say, that must not be the basic reason for...  whatever they are claiming.  They start with explanations.

The method doctors ask about most in comparison to ABC™ is
Chiropractic BioPhysics™ so I will cover that one first.

      The basis of CBP™ is that as Dr. Breig wrote and did experiments to physically demonstrate, when the spinal column is flexed it leads to stretching of the spinal cord and brainstem. The stretching causes the ill effects on the nervous system that is discussed in chiropractic, osteopathy and other structural healthcare methods.  Dr. Breig was the first to note it was STRETCHING of the nerves and not "pinching" of the nerves that causes a problem. This has been confirmed by Yamada and others doing dual laser spectrophotometry on live human subjects as well as animal subjects.

      Dr. Breig showed the extension of the neck was the most effective way to lessen axial tension on the cord and brain stem and brain and used external supports to accomplish that yielding the results he predicted - relieving the effects of many neurological conditions.

      Breig accomplished that by surgery external to the spine. With the patient prone (face down) and with the head and neck in extension, Breig inserted a stiff plastic ribbon under the skin attaching it to the back of the head and lower down the spine in the thoracic area.

      There are a few things to note about this in relation to Chiropractic BioPhysics™.

      What was missed by CBP™ creator Harrison, is the mechanical nature of the EXTERNAL support provided by the ribbon AND the fact that Breig showed in numerous experiments that ANY PART OF THE SPINE put into FLEXION CAUSES axial stretch on the cord and brainstem EVERYWHERE from head to tail.

      There is a very large mechanical difference between the external support provided by by the ribbon and trying to force the cervical spine into extension using traction on the head and P-to-A adjusting on the upper thoracic spine (which forces flexion there).

      Further, for all his talk of "global" changes, Harrison has really only focused on one area. The premise is incorrect. I noted this for him in 1995 along with the mathematics for him to discover the ABC™ principles on his own. I still have his return letter telling me I misused the principles of calculus.

However, Harrison began doing research measuring full spine in multiple positions charting
moments of inertia of the vertebrae. He died before noting any conclusions.
However, the only reason he was researching that was that he recognized
the failure of CBP™ to accomplish what was claiming.

      Breig specifically notes why you do not do hyperextension on the head and neck and on page 231 of Adverse Mechanical Tension in the CNS notes the damage that can be caused by it, or hyperextension in a dental chair, is the same as a hyperextension injury of a car accident only differing in rate of onset of damage/symptoms.  This is why so many docs tell me about greater neurological symptoms after CBP™ in quite a few cases. The reason it does not happen more often is that, unlike dentists, those using hyperextension traction are not knocking people out so patients who get dizziness, pain or numbness (absolute signs of brain stem compression and possible neurologic damage) refuse to do the traction.

      The missed observation of the mechanical nature of the external support is a biggie. However, not taking into account the effects of the adjusting toward the anterior on other parts of the spinal column which creates greater overall flexion is more important than the effects on the cervical spine. (This missed observation is the reason CBP™ practitioners will often have an "improved" cervical curve but increased neurologic symptoms in certain types of patients. The basic premise of CBP™ could not be true if this combination of improved cervical curve and worse neuologics occurs even once.)

       Breig himself makes this very clear in his work, noting that the entire spine works as a single unit, specifically stating that looking at one section will only get you in trouble. 

Occasionally what CBP™ says to do will work -- which is one of the biggest problems -- since it works sometimes but not always, one makes the mistake of thinking the basic premise is valid though there is actually some other factor at work apparently unknown to those using and promoting CBP™.

Pettibon 

    In 1996 Dr. Pettibon wrote of ligaments stretched out of place by plastic deformation allowing bones to move out of place. I believe this theory actually started with the CBP™ people. However, Pettibon wrote about the bone being moved back into place and staying there as though the ligaments were suddenly no longer stretched.

      I sent him a letter asking about it and several other things. In 1997 he had totally reworked his technique and had a bunch of equipment for you to buy. Some of these things always have equipment for you to buy....

     In August 2000, at the behest of Doctors Pete Higartner, Matt Erickson and a few others, I called Dr. Pettibon because Pettibon had told them if something better came along he would promote it.

      In the phone conversation Pettibon stated that he did not really care as all the technique guys stole from each other as Harrison had from him. He asked me to send him the ABC™ stuff so he could incorporate it into Pettibon. This outlook shocked me and I ended the conversation.

     Since that time Pettibon has moved more and more toward what ABC™teaches but without the results being consistent and predictable.

     Even Dr. Dennis Woggin stopped doing it after attending and ABC™ seminar and seeing the changes in minutes that Pettibon could only occasionally get in months.

In 2004 I received this from one of the former Pettibon docs:

     Check out this piece of equipment that Dr. Pettibon created.  It never existed when I used Pettibon.  Now he purports to correct the upper dorsal spine with an A-P drop adjusting apparatus. -- It does not but that is another point.

     I am confident he stole your idea and now he is teaching it and making money from it.  I am telling you he never ever discussed adjusting the upper dorsals A-to-P before that.  He used an adjusting instrument and adjusted the cervical and upper dorsals P-to-A.  Also, he adjusted the upper dorsal P-to-A with a palm move (basically a diversified P-A release on the rib heads).  The only thing close to adjusting A-P was that he used the -Z apparatus to adjust A-P in the cervical spine (not the thoracic). 

     Also, I talked to Mark Gentile yesterday, he told me that Burl is now using a Crane Condyle type lift to release the meninges (I have not yet confirmed this).  What is really funny is that almost 6 years ago I was sitting next to Burl at lunch after a seminar in Atlanta GA.  It was on a Sunday to be specific.  I point blank asked him about the Crane Condyle lifts (and I was sitting right next to him when I asked) vs. his Y axis adjustments.  He said something to the effect that they hurt people and now he is using them, seems he is a liar.

More with specifics but omitted here. Then:

     All that being said, I have to laugh.  Burl in a letter (I forwarded to you in the past), claimed that ABC™ was inferior to what you are doing and now he is taking your research and stealing it and integrating it into his work and calling it Pettibon.

  My only comment is, why get data second-hand? Get the At-Home ABC™ seminar,Learn Advanced BioStructural Correction™, use it and find out for yourself.