Data From Multiple Sclerosis Patients
Re: ABC™ Treatment (4-7-00)
I received my first treatment 3-6-00 at the North City Chiropractic Health Clinic from Dr.Cheri Markos. Since that date I have gone twice each week. I have been declining with multiple sclerosis and all the various symptoms since 1988. I have tried many treatments for relief and have been on Avonex since 1996. I have not seen any significant results or have had any real relief. Main stream doctors and naturopaths have no solutions.
My symptoms and disabilities have become more of a challenge in the past 5 years. I now know I have crossed over to secondary progressive.
After the very first treatment from Dr. Markos the results were amazing. There was no waiting period to see if there would be any results. It was immediate. Ever since that initial visit I notice more and more of my body coming back to me. My balance, strength, energy and mobility, to name just a few, have improved dramatically. I can now bend over and pick up things with bent legs without falling. I feel so much stronger and stable. I can look around without experiencing significant vertigo, a real bonus!!!!!!!
I could really go on and on. The bottom line is that the ABC™ treatment provided by Dr. Markos works. It has worked for everyone that has received the treatment. I have referred a couple of people who also have seen immediate and dramatic results. Even those patients who have a lot more disability than myself.
I would like to recommend that anyone who has MS go for treatment from Dr. Markos. The results are staggering! I wish I could go on national news and let the whole country know.
Here are the results of patients diagnosed with Multiple Sclerosis. For more data on the reason this works so well with MS and other do-called “neurological disease” cases please see the article, Neurological Diseases or Mechanical Pathology (which can be addressed and improved).
Advanced BioStructural Correction™ February 23, 2000
My name is Larry Conaway, I was DX with MS in August 1996, at the age if 50. I was DX with primary progressive, and at this time the VA put on a bunch of meds. Dr. Markos has been treating me off and on for the last two years. About six months ago I lost the ability to raise my left leg that Dr. Markos was able to keep working it for one and half years.
Dr. Markos learned the Advanced BioStructural Therapy™ (now called Advanced BioStructural Correction™) and then asked me if I wanted to try this new procedure. I am always ready to try anything new that would help people with MS. Then I started the ABC™ with DR. Markos on February 16, 20000.
Since then I have had three appointments, on the 18th, 21st, and the 24th .
The first appointment was like a miracle to me. After my very first session I could stand up straight and walk more stable, bend over from the waist and pick up objects off the floor and stand back up again, walk down stairs with less worry of my left knee giving out, and no back pain, which I have had for the last three years. I have only noticed a moderate improvement while walking up the stairs.
I noticed that when I walk, that my left leg does not hyperextend backwards. This has relieved the pain that I have been getting around my patella. The VA was about to make me a knee brace for that knee and now I don’t think that I will need it.
When I walk forward, my left leg will bend forward at the knee and it has not done that for about two years. I can swing my left leg forward and now when I walk that makes it easier to walk smoothly. I can also turn around while standing up without having to hold onto a wall or other balance object and this is at a fast rate of turning.
My left foot has been a floppy foot since I was DX with MS back in August of 1996, and now I can hold it up as I walk and that keeps me from having to drag it along, and that keeps me from tripping over it also.
I noticed that I can now stand on either leg while resting the other one. My legs do not get fatigued as fast as before the procedure. I have been able to stand on my legs for a longer time with out having to sit down.
I find that it is a lot easier to get in and out of the shower. I can spend more time in the shower without my legs getting tired. I can bend over and get the soap with out worrying about falling down.
I am finding it easier to get dressed and undressed, and putting on my shoes is a snap now.
Working in the kitchen making dinner or just getting my coffee is easier now also. I think that this is a great benefit to be able to do what I need to do in the kitchen.
I now spend less time in my wheel chair and more time on my feet.
I have noticed that before my appointment on the 24th, that my head and neck were further forward and that my body has started to slump forward. After the treatment, I noticed that I was no longer slumped forward and my shoulders were back. I did notice that my left hip seemed to be lower than it was after the first treatment. I am now back at the point of the first appointment and the above descriptions.
February 26th, 2000: I noticed that I was leaning to the left and a little slumped forward since the last adjustment and Dr. Markos adjusted it back so that I was standing up straight again. At this appointment, we started ABC™ procedure on my friend Mark Wheat. I helped DR. Markos with this by being the camera man. At first I found it hard to stand and hold the camera for a long period of time and hold it steady too. Then after do this for a few minutes I was able to settle down and even hold the camera steadier. This was hard for me while I was standing with just one eye open and the other eye in the view finder. It took a couple of minutes and then my body got trained, as far as holding the camera steady and moving with one eye shut, to filming the procedure. I could stand and move with the camera and hold it fairly steady at this point.
I also stopped taking Baclofen and now I am waiting to see if I need to keep taking it or not.
Catherine Sykes Seattle, WA
Advanced BioStructural Correction™ With Dr. Markos began March 1 5. 2000.
The following physical capabilities began to occur after treatment.
I use a walker or am assisted by someone in public because my balance is poor and my left leg is weak, when at home I use a cane or wall walk.
I am able to breathe deeply for the first time in years. My body feels less stiff arid more open. I am able to make the transition from barefoot to AFO & arch supports much easier.
I am sleeping 10 hrs at night w/ 1 hr naps.
I am able to stand straight and up right with my shoulders back, I am no longer hunched over. The left leg has an AFO but I have noticed it collapsing on me.
I can stand up straight without holding on to anything or using my arms for balance, I can flail them about w/o being thrown off balance.
My feet, calves and arches ache and I noticed I am sleeping 10 hrs w/ naps.
I feel stiff, very emotional & crying all day.
I was in my barefoot and bent down to pick up a bowl off the floor w/o planning how I was going to manage this endeavor. It just happened! I have noticed the warmth returning to my feet and hands. I can walk better w/o my AFO and support.
My walking flows and is less choppy. I am able to stand up straight with my hands clasped in front to my chest or abdomen. I do not have to hold on to anything or use my arms for balance.
My hands and feet are warm / I had a massage and feel so much better.
I can feel the arches in my feet, as though they are returning to me.
My dog(70 Ibs) began laying on my legs, I could feel exactly where he was and feel his paws as he raced over my shins and jumped off the bed. Before I would just feel a weighted mass at my legs and was unable to distinguish it, this all occurred w/o looking at what was happening to my legs.
My left leg is weaker than the right but I have noticed that I am able to bare weight equally on both legs w/o favoring to the left or having it collapse on me. I am able to take 5 steps w/o using my cane or wall walking, this all occurred in my barefoot. (I hyper extended my left leg )
My AFO and supports were bothering me so I took them out, I barely noticed they weren’t in when my left foot did turn out, I was tired and needed to rest. I tried this for only 4 hrs today.
Dr. Jesse Jutkowitz
What everyone seems to miss, because they did not post it, was my answer to Dr. Rob Ward.
What he states is based on the preliminary data in ADVERSE MECHANICAL TENSION ON THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM. Ward did not bother to get SKULL TRACTION AND CERVICAL CORD INJURY which was published 11 years later (1989) and included a further decade of research.
There, the further case studies are well documented and the further conclusions are drawn. Rob Ward’s comments were on incomplete researching of the data.
He got very quiet when I posted the exact quotes from SKULL TRACTION…
not to defend JJ, but rather to further understanding…I am glad that you posted the post you did. Perhaps it should be included under Gary’s post.
Do you really believe that the errector spinae transmit forces the way the article’s author suggests???
If so could you please provide me with EMG documentation of the same?
So it would appear that the critic uses unsubstantiated claims to slam a fellow DC.
After reading both of David Butler’s books, don’t you feel that the neural tension model is viable???
Would not a more mature statement be ” an alternative explanation to neural tension, might be the transmission of tension in the erector spinae muscles”?
Isn’t this a case of the kettle calling the pot black?
What is Soto-Hall’s maneuver?? Flexing the neck re-producing lower body pain….by what?? Dural tension! The concept has been around for years.
In our rush to be right, do we fail to consider that we may not have all the knowledge needed to understand the concept?
Neitche (sp?) said it best…there is no bird’s eye view….everything is looked at from one perspective…our own!!!
BTW1:I was particularly un-impressed by Dr. Wards lack of refs to back up his OPINIONS
BTW2: DM you have read Butler’s books…If my reading of Butler is correct it seems to contradict Ward’s assumptions of the mechanisms of dural tension….see the “slump test” Butler’s first book…It’s been a while am I incorrect???
Member Just a follow-up to Rob Ward’s opinions…
“However, the simple experiment that Dr. Jutkowitz proposes you perform will in fact demonstrate to you that due to the overlapping nature of the erector spinae, you will become aware of greater tension on the cervical musculature with head flexion in a squatting posture.
>>> It is doubtful that this phenomenon is related to spinal cord stretching, >>>> which doesn’t become apparent to most people until you flex the entire spine, flex the hip, extend the knee, and possibly add dorsiflexion of the ankle.”
Is this correct???
1: J Orthop Sports Phys Ther 1997 Dec;26(6):310-7
The slump test: the effects of head and lower extremity position on knee extension.
Johnson EK, Chiarello CM
Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation Center, Englewood, NJ, USA.
Maitland’s slump test is a widely used neural tissue tension test. During slump testing, terminal knee extension is assessed for signs of restricted range of motion (ROM), which may indicate impaired neural tissue mobility. A number of refinements that modify hip and ankle position has been added to the basic slump test procedure, but no research to date has measured the effects of ankle and hip position on knee extension ROM during testing. The purpose of this study was to examine the effect of neural tension-producing movements of the cervical spine and lower extremity on knee extension ROM during the slump test.
Thirty-four males with no significant history of low back pain were tested in the slump position with the cervical spine flexed and extended in each of three lower extremity test positions: neutral hip rotation with the ankle in a position of subject comfort (neutral), neutral hip rotation with ankle dorsiflexion (ankle dorsiflexion), and medial hip rotation with ankle dorsiflexion. >>>>>>
Results showed significant decreases in active knee extension ROM (F1,198 = 29.53, p < 0.0001) in the cervical flexion compared with the cervical extension conditions.
Subjects also exhibited significant decreases in active knee extension ROM (F2,198 = 56.76, p < 0.0001) as they were progressed from neutral to the ankle dorsiflexion to the medial hip rotation with ankle dorsiflexion positions of the lower extremity. The results of our study indicate that limitations in terminal knee extension ROM may be considered a normal response to the inclusion of cervical flexion, ankle dorsiflexion, or medial hip rotation in the slump test in young, healthy, adult males. In addition, the presence of a cumulative effect on knee extension ROM with the simultaneous application of these motions is noted. These findings may assist clinicians when assessing knee extension ROM during slump testing.
This is part of a discussion from a MD message board.
I am a 45 year old pediatrician who was given a diagnosis of multiple sclerosis due to progressive neurologic signs and symptoms. I wish to publicly thank my neurosurgical colleagues who determined that the correct diagnosis was congenital and acquired cervical spinal stenosis. Although clinically I had classic “MS”, my MRIs revealed no plaques. I underwent a laminoplasty from C3 to C7 and have now fully recovered. A bonus is that it also cured a lifelong history of severe neurocardiogenic syncope with prolonged episodes of asystole and resting bradycardia – the sympathetic tracts were also compromised. My cardiologist was amazed at my recovery! He no longer recommends a pacemaker. Perhaps there are many others with such misdiagnoses.
MS without plaques on MRI? MS should be more than simply cord problems–even transverse myelitis usually appears on MRI. Did you have eye problems or other brain problems in your “Classic MS”?
I have seen patients with both MS and cervical stenosis, but if the only symptoms are related to the neck I wouldn’t think MS.
Did the LP show Oligoclonal Banding?
: Hail fellow! You have been so fortunate in having such astute physicians investigating your problems. I assume that a complete workup including all the necessary studies to r/o MS and that other causes thus were investigated. Do not be skeptical. You have been essentially cured and have made an astonishing recovery. The proof is in the pudding. God Bless!
(Supe again)…Now, I’m no great believer in Jesse’s proprietary technique, but maybe ol’ Breig was onto something… I would say that perhaps certain pathologies that irritate or put tension on the spinal cord produce clinical presentations that are clinically indistinguishable from classic MS.
More from the original discussion:
did any of the MDs on the board jump all over this doc and talk about how it’s just an anecdotal story…and then suggest that the recovery was merely placebo???
I didn’t think so!!!
The big question is: can any manipulative procedure performed by DC’s have any effect on a stenotic canal? I say again: an atomically stenotic canal?
perhaps this should go under scanners anecdotal evidence…
Patient getting left arm numbness down into fingers, burning sensation into neck and face.
Worse at night.
Cardiologist wanted to do a catheterization. Your old boy in the burgh does some neuro-othopedic tests and can reproduce the patient symptoms…
I say MRI c spine…cardiologist says cath lab.
Before the patient could get the catheterization…she gets the MRI…DC wins cervical stenosis…patient refused cath….
long story short….chiropractic reduces cord compression enough that the patient has not had S & S in several years (I see her 2-3X per years as follow-up).
As for lumbar spinal stenosis….I’ve treated literally 100s…had 1 go onto surgery.
BTW: interesting that the surgeons (some) feel that cervical spondylitic myelopathy results more from tension in the dentate ligament on the cord than from compression from stenosis…..yikes this supports JJ (Dr. Jutkowitz’s) ideas!!!!
I’ll get the ref soon.
1: J Spinal Disord 1991 Sep;4(3):286-95
Cervical laminectomy and dentate ligament section for cervical spondylitic myelopathy.
Benzel EC, Lancon J, Kesterson L, Hadden T
Division of Neurosurgery, University of New Mexico School of Medicine, Albuquerque 87131.
Seventy-five patients who underwent surgical treatment for cervical spondylotic
myelopathy were evaluated with respect to the operative procedure performed and
their outcome. Forty patients underwent a laminectomy plus dentate ligament
section (DLS), 18 underwent laminectomy alone, and 17 underwent an anterior
cervical decompression and fusion (ACDF). The patients were evaluated
postoperatively for both stability and for neurologic outcome using a
modification of the Japanese Orthopaedic Association Assessment Scale.
Functional improvement occurred in all but one patient in the laminectomy plus
DLS group. The average improvement was 3.1 +/- 1.5 points in this group; whereas
the average improvement in the laminectomy and the ACDF groups was 2.7 +/- 2.0
and 3.0 +/- 2.0 points respectively. All of the patients who improved
substantially (greater than or equal to 6 points) in the laminectomy plus DLS
and the laminectomy alone groups had normal cervical spine contours (lordosis).
The remainder had either a normal lordosis or no curve (no kyphosis or
lordosis). All patients in the ACDF group had either a straight spine or a
cervical kyphosis. These factors implicate spine curvature, in addition to
choice of operation, as factors which are important in outcome determination. No
problems with instability occurred in either the laminectomy or the laminectomy
plus DLS group. Two patients incurred problems with stability in the ACDF group.
Both required reoperation. In addition, four patients in this group who
initially improved, subsequently deteriorated. Six patients in the laminectomy
plus DLS group had a several day febrile episode related to an aseptic
meningitis process. Laminectomy plus DLS is a safe and efficacious alternative
to laminectomy for the treatment of cervical spondylotic myelopathy. The data
presented here suggests that myelopathic patients with a cervical kyphosis are
best treated with an ACDF and that patients with a normal cervical lordosis are
best treated with a posterior approach. Although some selected patients may
benefit from DLS, no criteria are available which differentiate this small
subset of patients.
1: J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatry 1997 Apr;62(4):334-40
Pathogenesis of cervical spondylotic myelopathy.
Department of Neurology, New York University Medical Center, New York, NY 10016,
OBJECTIVE: To determine whether either of two mechanical theories predicts the
topographic pattern of neuropathology in cervical spondylitic myelopathy (CSM).
The compression theory states that the spinal cord is compressed between a
spondylitic bar anteriorly and the ligamentum flava posteriorly. The dentate
tension theory states that the spinal cord is pulled laterally by the dentate
ligaments, which are tensed by an anterior spondylitic bar. METHODS: The spinal
cord cross section, at the level of a spondylitic bar, is modeled as a circular
disc subject to forces applied at its circumference. These forces differ for the
two theories. From the pattern of forces at the circumference the distribution
of shear stresses in the interior of the disc-that is, over the transverse
section of the spinal cord-is calculated. With the assumption that highly
stressed areas are most subject to damage, the stress pattern predicted by each
theory can be compared to the topographic neuropathology of CSM. RESULTS: The
predicted stress pattern of the dentate tension theory corresponds to the
reported neuropathology, whereas the predicted stress pattern of the compression
theory does not. CONCLUSIONS: The results strongly favor the theory that CSM is
caused by tensile stresses transmitted to the spinal cord from the dura via the
dentate ligaments. A spondylotic bar can increase dentate tension by displacing
the spinal cord dorsally, while the dural attachments of the dentate, anchored
by the dural root sleeves and dural ligaments, are displaced less. The
spondylotic bar may also increase dentate tension by interfering locally with
dural stretch during neck flexion, the resultant increase in dural stress being
transmitted to the spinal cord via the dentate ligaments. Flexion of the neck
increases dural tension and should be avoided in the conservative treatment of
CSM. Both anterior and posterior extradural surgical operations can diminish
dentate tension, which may explain their usefulness in CSM. The generality of
these results must be tempered by the simplifying assumptions required for the