Additional question/email by Dr. B

In a message dated 7/14/03 1:06:53 AM Eastern Daylight Time, *********@cogeco.ca writes:

Dr. B >>>>  Perhaps I should have more correctly stated that to my knowledge it has never been demonstrated that subluxation or postural alterations could result in a measurable pathological tension on the meninges. 

Dr. J>>> This is also specifically discussed in Breig's research and in his book. He does not call them subluxations but does note the mechanical pathologies that are subluxations and specifically discusses postural alterations causing pathological tension on the meninges (but more importantly -- the pons-cord tract -- see below).

Dr. B >>>  In my mind, throwing meningeal tension out there is not much different than citing "dysafferentation" or altered csf flow.

Dr. J>>>  Keeping in mind I am a not BS guy and do not take this in any negative way: That is because you are ignorant of what it is, what its effects and affects are and how it happens. -- Worse, you are correct when people use it to explain things that do not fit as they do with  "dysafferentation" or altered csf flow. I do not.  And, worse than that is those people miss the fact that  "dysafferentation" or altered csf flow like meningeal tension and tension on the pons-cord tract are all secondary to mechanical misalignment of some sort and so are effects and not causes. Why bother with them?
 

Dr. B >>>>This doesn't mean however that I can comfortably say to Mrs Jones "You've got adverse meningeal tension". I don't know that for a fact and I have no way to measure it pre and post treatment. I too am a "no nonsense type of guy".

Dr. J>> Again, this is not true. If you bother to learn the exact mechanics and effects you can test for it before and after. On the other hand, you can reduce tension on the pons-cord tract in one area by making the mechanics worse in other areas. Therefore, the thing to look at is the mechanics and not the symptoms that occur (or effects) because the mechanics are tensioning the pons-cord tract. That is what Advanced BioStructural Correction™ does.

So again, you are correct when considering the way people use it but not the way I do things in Advanced BioStructural Correction™.

The basic thing is you are lumping ABC™ in with the BS and hype. Not knowing ABC™ or me I can understand this, but if the rest of what I said made sense and is strictly practical you might find I do not use the BS and hype and stick strictly to the data and its MEASURED effects.

>>>>I try to remain objective and intellectually honest and not just see what I want to see. If your technique works as well as you say it does, then it should be easy enough to measure the changes on x-ray or digitized photographs. If the patients get well and we can demonstrate the spinal changes that's all we need. Any more raised eyebrows we can do without.

Dr. J>>> I don't know what "intellectually honest" is. Honest is honest, lying or making things up without knowing is just making untruths and worse, misunderstanding and taking that as truth (because you are lying and don't know it) is also there and even worse because people then think they know but don't.

The changes can be measured and evaluated. That is the key is how you can sort the liars and those who just plain misunderstand from those who have it right. An example is below:


Dr. B>>>> It (meningeal tension) is often cited in Chiropractic circles ( esp CBP &Pettibon) as a rationale for restoring cervical lordosis.

Dr. J>>>  This previous conversation should cover that:

From:  "Jesse Jutkowitz" <jjutkowitz@aol.com>
Date:  Wed Jul 9, 2003  11:37 am
Subject:  many have these questions

Dr Jesse,
Thanks for coming down to Australia. My name is Angus, I was one of the many who was there for the weekend. Have implemented many things
with great results. I had a couple of quick questions. I was impressed with your understanding of Breig's work. I was of the opinion that Breig really stressed the importance of a cervical lordosis - when I asked you about this I was of the opinion that this was not your understanding of what he was saying. I am coming from a CBP background and still have a lot of internal dialogue going on in my mind. Am I also right in believing that you think that traction is not a good thing? Can you please give me a little explanation of why you think this is so? Is it not doing what we
think that it is doing? Once again, I sincerely appreciate all the time you  have taken so far, thanks in advance.
 

Dr. Angus,

Dr. A>>>>>> "I was of the opinion that Breig really stressed the importance of a cervical lordosis - when I asked you about this I was of the
opinion that this was not your understanding of what he was saying."

Dr. J>>> Breig did not say that a cervical lordosis was important. This is what I went over in the live seminar.

Dr. J>>>What Breig said and physically demonstrated with physical experiments on fresh cadavers, live people and animals, is that axial
tension in the pons-cord tract is bad and the cause of almost all "neurological diseases" – MS, ALS and the whole host of others.
(Axial tension is tension on the axis of the spinal cord, that is, from head to tail in direction. And, there is no division between the brain and spinal cord but anatomists have created artificial ones.
The pons is the portion of the brainstem that becomes the spinal cord. The "pons-cord tract" is the phrase coined to note the brain-
spinal cord as a single thing.)

Breig's tests and experiments showed that flexion and extension of the neck had the greatest effect on the length of the cord and brainstem – thus also the greatest effect on the amount of tension on pons-cord tract. It is very important to note here that they do not have the ONLY effect but the greatest effect – as I showed when I showed the experiments he did when extending and flexing the thoracic and lumbar spinal regions. This becomes important when you consider the mechanics, as I will point out below.

Remember, all the things I am saying here I showed you when we went
over Breig's book ADVERSE MECHANICAL TENSION IN THE CENTRAL NERVOUS
SYSTEM.

Note that Breig PHYSICALLY DEMONSTRATED the truth of these findings
(the findings that the so-called "neurologic diseases" were solely a
result of mechanical tension on the pons-cord tract and that the
cervical spine has the larges – not only but largest – effect on pons-
cord tract tension). They are not theory or someone's supposition.
They are physical facts that have been confirmed on further
experimentation by quite a few docs. I showed you the article from
the August 2000 JOURNAL OF SPINAL DISORDERS, ADULT TETHERED CORD
SYNDROME which confirmed everything Breig said.

Breig demonstrated these finding true by holding the cervical spine
in slight extension using a plastic ribbon screwed to the occiput
(back of the head), threaded down the spine under the skin and tied
off in the thoracic spine with many people. Consistently and as
predicted the effects of MS, ALS and the other neurological diseases
and things such as tumors of the Central Nervous System and disc
problems disappeared. The extensive finding and case reports on these
cases are mostly in the 1989 book by Breig, SKULL TRACTION AND
CERVICAL CORD INJURY.
From that Harrison has made the mistake of saying that the cervical
curve being in a lordosis was important. This was and is a large
misunderstanding and leads one to question if the entire work by
Breig was studied.

As a physicist and engineer Harrison should know that there is a
great difference between pulling the head back with a ribbon (outside
support) and forcing the head and neck into extension which will
cause the body to compensate by putting something else in flexion.

This was the misunderstanding docs had at the seminar about what
really happens when someone extends their back. If you extend your
back you must flex something else to compensate or you will fall
over. Thus the effects of extension without an outside support are
nullified.

You can test this by standing with your body face, belly and toes
against a wall. Then extend your back. As you get to a certain point,
you will fall backwards because you cannot push anything forward
(into flexion) to compensate. How far you can go will depend on how
long your feet are which lets you lean toward the wall. To eliminate
that factor use a door frame, spread the legs and put the thighs and
belly against the door frame and extend. You will fall over with less
extension. Don't just believe me here. Try it! Without physical
testing you have to believe someone and you and the professions of
healing have already gotten into an ineffective state by believing
what people thought rather than testing to find out if what they were
saying was true.

Have a cervical spine in lordosis (extension type curve that
is "normal") is not the important thing. Having a body configuration
that keeps the pons-cord tract slightly loose is the important thing.
That may actually require the reversal of the normal spinal curve at
any point.


On the traction issue:
>>> Am I also right in believing that you think that traction is not
a good thing? Can you please give me a little explanation of why you
think this is so? Is it not doing what we think that it is doing?

It is not what I think or what anyone else thinks. It is what happens
on physical experimentation. Traction increases tension on the pons-
cord tract and makes things worse on a neurological basis if not on a
structural basis.

You know how people with spinal cord injuries get to the hospital and
they say, "He got here just in time because right after getting here
he went into neurological crisis." Well of course they forget to
mention that he was stable in the ambulance on the way to the
hospital and that they must have done something (traction) to put
them into neurological crisis.

I discussed this with the findings and pictures from Breig's book on
spinal cord injuries and the effects of traction causing axial
tension on the pons-cord tract and pulling the ends of the cord tears
apart worsening the situation.

The entire title of Breig's 1989 book is SKULL TRACTION AND SPINAL
CORD INJURY A FAILED EXPERIMENT. The book basically says, why are you
still doing skull traction in cases of spinal cord injury. I already
put out the research that this is killing people.

Breig did not "think" traction was bad. He proved it!



Jesse.
Thanks for the follow up. I am doing loads of reading at the moment
and will have many questions soon. I sincerely appreciate your help
and opinion.

Speak soon,

Angus


Good. Make sure you look up any words you have a question about the
meaning of. I usually find that docs who do not, end up with
misunderstandings (even if it is other people's work). And, make sure
you look at everything that is said, like in Harrison's article where
he notes the "ideal cervical curve". He talks about a random sample
but neglects to note that it is:

A. a random sample of patients (thus not random at all because, by
definition, all those people had spinal problems).

B. in TWO places in the article he notes he eliminates some
candidates (1. if they have any sort of kyphosis in the cervical
curve, and 2. if they have any vertebra that is in flexion compared
to another).

B has to do with assuming the shape of the cervical curve to begin
with -- questionable but understandable. HOWEVER, because it is not
a true random sample of people, but a sample of patients, you must
assume there are as many at the high end of the curve (see bell
shaped curves and statistics) as there are at the low end. If you cut
off the low end you will certainly end up with a number too high.

There are quite a few things like that throughout the literature he
publishes.

My favorite was the critique he wrote of my letter critiquing him.
He gave 50 or so references to what he said. The problem was that I
actually made sure I read those references. NONE OF THEM -- not a
one, supported his positions and 32 of them directly supported what I
said.

when I wrote back to JMPT a simple letter that stated that if one
bothered to read all those references they would note that 32
supported my position and none supported the suppositions of Dr.
Harrison, they did not print it.

Make sure you read the actual articles and see where the holes are.

Jesse



Jesse,
I know exactly where you are coming from. My quest really is to find
out what an ideal spine is - what does the literature support. I too
have the same concerns with Harrison's work. But foremost my issues
come with the allopathic approach Harrison tends to take - it really
ignores any innate healing in the body and forces the body into a
position as apposed to letting the wisdom of the body determine what
it right. What attracted me to the work that you do is that it
really still allows the body to do the healing. I am not so sure
what an "ideal spine" means - is it a mechanical definition or should
it be a neurological definition - how do we know if someone has an
ideal spine.

-----------------

Re: "My quest really is to find out what an ideal spine is - what
does the literature support."

Take a look. The notion of an "ideal spine" is allopathic in nature.
The "ideal spine" will vary its configuration depending upon the
mechanical stress of the moment.

That is not to say their is not an ideal neutral standing
configuration; but again, it is for the entire spinal column not a
given region -- though each region will have its portion of that
ideal.

The thing you will find after doing much research is that the "ideal
spine" is part of an "ideal body". An "ideal body", you will find,
is one that has no bones out of place in a direction the body cannot
self-correct because their are no muscles pulling in the direction
needed to reposition it.

Therefore, you need not worry about the shape of the body when
handling it in a clinical setting -- what everyone is talking about
in an "ideal spine" is its shape because they have what you call
the "allopathic view" of forcing it into shape.

Since you are not going to force it into shape but rather correct the
things out of place it cannot self-correct because it has no muscles
pulling in the direction(s) needed which will let the body self-
correct the rest, a quest for an ideal shape doesn't really fit.

You will stop treating the body quite a while before it reaches
that "ideal shape" because it will still have a bit or quite a bit of
unwinding to do before it gets there -- even after all things it can
self-correct are corrected.

Jesse

------------------------


Jesse,
Now you are getting into the "meat of things" - what do you consider
a position in which the body cannot self correct from, how do we know
that the body has reached its limits. Am I right in understanding
that if I am to take a lateral cervical spine and see there that
there is a decrease in lordosis that the decrease may be a function
of what is going on in another part of the spine and is therefore a
constructive adaptation and removing it may not be the best for long
term survival of that person - eg the decrease is protecting for a
lumber scoliosis. I have been having the same thoughts for many years
now but how do I assess what the major or primary is. Ultimately it
would be great to find out what is positive adaptative change and was
is destructive change.

What are your thoughts on Harrison's work that suggests that
rheological remodeling takes months to years and requires large
stresses - i.e. to get ligamentous deformation.

Hope you are OK with me bouncing these things back and forward - I
certainly appreciate your input.



>>Now you are getting into the "meat of things" - what do you
consider a position in which the body cannot self correct from,

As stated: the body is in a position it "cannot self-correct from"
when a bone has gone out of place in a direction that the body has no
muscles pulling in the direction needed to reposition that bone
(known as a PBP = primary biomechanical pathology). The reason it is
a position "the body" cannot self-correct, is that it is the PBP is
compensated for with many little twists and turns all over the body
putting it in a "position".

>>how do we know that the body has reached its limits.

Assuming you mean a positive limit, as in we are done treating, it is
when you push and the head stays level all the way through the checks.

>>Am I right in understanding that if I am to take a lateral cervical
spine and see there that there is a decrease in lordosis that the
decrease may be a function of what is going on in another part of the
spine and is therefore a constructive adaptation and removing it may
not be the best for long term survival of that person


EXACTLY!!! This would/could be true of a hyperlordosis or a
scoliosis of any sort in any part of the spine too.


>>>>I have been having the same thoughts for many years now but how
do I assess what the major or primary is.

That is answered in doing the protocol. The sit test is the side
generally, and the synchronous testing (push and then check head
level) is the specific site.

>>>> Ultimately it would be great to find out what is positive
adaptative change and was is destructive change.

Not really. This is a common mistake. People think that if they know
it will solve everything. On a physical universe level it is just not
true. Because you already know it!

Any bone out of place that the body cannot self-correct is a PBP. Any
other bone out of place is either a compensation or just something
pushed out of place by the forces of the PBP and its compensations.

any adaptative change that does not kill the body -- which is what
would happen if the PBP went uncompensated -- can be said to be
positive, even if it causes other damage.

On the other hand, knowing that does not help. What does help is
knowing the most basic thing: Any bone out of place in a direction
that the body has no muscles pulling in the direction needed to
reposition that bone must be corrected by someone else and everything
else in the body should be left to unwind on its own.

You might find your quest has been angst ridden because you were
looking for a datum that did not lead anywhere.

Rather than help the body better adapt, what you need to do is
correct the things it cannot self-correct so it does not need to
adapt!


>>>What are your thoughts on Harrison's work that suggests that
rheological remodeling takes months to years and requires large
stresses - i.e. to get ligamentous deformation?

This is obviously not true or the changes you see daily after one
visit, the ones on my web site and in thousands of docs offices,
would not be possible.

Also, at the seminar you saw the changes in that older doc, Bernie.
None of that would have been possible if Harrison was even close to
correct.

Dr. Jutkowitz





Dr. Jesse Jutkowitz
WWW.ADVBIOSTRUCTURALCORR.COM
618 Stratfield Rd., Fairfield, CT 06825
203 366-2746

Diabetes and other degenerative illnesses can now consistently and predictably be cured,
Yes, I said cured. It is not ABC™ but dietary/nutritional.
WWW.INNERLIGHTINC.COM/DRJESSEJ

Comments?
Questions?
Want more info?

Fill out this form