|
In a message dated 3/7/02 4:31:51 PM
Eastern Standard Time,
ricke@netidea.com (Dr. Rick Cohen) writes:
From: BVChiro
To: Dr. Barbara XXXXXX
Sent: Thursday, March 07, 2002 1:19 PM
Subject: Re: ABC questions
--- "Dr. Barbara XXXXXX" wrote: > Hi
Rick, I have lots of questions about ABC:
Rick: I have lots of answers!
Dr. B: How long have you
been working with it?
Dr. Rick: I have been doing this for
close to 3 years now, after having been in practice for 20
years and had done and studied a variety of techniques.
Dr. B: Was it easy to learn at home?
Dr. Rick: Yes. I was doing it
before I had all of the information, but studying his notes
and videos is essential. Having the feedback of a live doctor
is helpful also, but not as important. I have never actually
met Jesse Jutkowitz. I have conversed on the phone and via
cyberspace and once I sent him a video to critique me. He is
very interested in having it done right!
Dr. Jutkowitz: Note that after the
video Rick has done so much better I doubt he needs live
coaching. The doc he trades adjustments with has done great
after the video. Anyone who gets the ABC™ At-Home seminar
gets unlimited FREE consultation time with me because I am
more interested in getting docs to get people well than just
making a buck -- I can go back into practice and make plenty
if that was my aim.
My aim is to get every chiropractor able
to correct everyone who walks in the door with a structural
problem.
Dr. B: Is it practical (time wise and
patient acceptance)?
Dr. Rick: It may take you more time with
some patients, especially when they begin... and when you
begin. There is some important information to convey and you
will want to do an excellent job. A matter which is much
easier to accomplish with ABC than with anything else I know
of.
Dr. Jutkowitz: I do not understand this
answer. Running the protocol takes no more than five minutes
if you go slow but just keep going. Many docs stop in the
middle or talk a bunch. When I get to a doc's office and
tell them to just do the entire protocol and then talk or do
whatever they get done with the protocol in less than five
minutes. The rest is not ABC™ but whatever they are willing to
talk about and do.
Dr. B: What have been your
greatest successes with it?
Dr. Rick: Two weeks ago I had a patient
come in who has had chronic pain and suffers from a brain
injury with resultant loss of depth perception and serious
balance problems. This has been going on now for 8 years. She
had some temporary relief with massage, but she is now 50%
less in pain, her depth perception is markedly improved and
her balance is better. She can get around better and can think
more clearly. She had immediate results and just gets better.
Dr. Jutkowitz: Not just tooting the ABC™
horn here but if you do not get results like this on a
consistent and predictable basis you need to call for a
consultation immediately. There is no excuse for not getting
this type of result with every patient. At
a seminar Dr. Larsen brought a patient who had repeated
surgeries at the T3-T4 (upper back) level for a spinal cord
cyst. The operations left his right leg spastic
(upper motor neuron sign) for years. I told the patient
that would be almost gone that day. He looked at me like I was
nuts. I had him squat: The left leg bent normally but
the right only bent 15 degrees (down a few inches).
Going through the protocol once exactly
as instructed in the seminar manuals and tapes and he was
moving a bit better as was obvious to everyone there -- docs
and other patients. I asked him to squat. He responded
that it felt the same and would not be different. I asked him
to squat. He did. His face was a look of astonishment as both
legs bent until he got about 2/3s 3/4ths the way down (not
just a few degrees or inches like before) and then the right
stopped bending while the left kept going even farther than it
did before.
This is typical even with MS and other
upper motor neuron problems -- if not you need to call me.
Dr. Rick's answer continues: I,
myself, am my own poster boy for ABC. Awhile back I started to
have odd neurological problems, the worst of which was an
uncoordinated gait. I was so lopsided that if I had tried to
run, I am sure that I would have fallen on my face. I was told
that I had MS. Perhaps I do/did, but I certainly did suffer
from upper motor neuron lesions and sensory lesions. Given
Jesse's claims about how good this ABC is, I got serious about
my own care and started going to Spokane (at least 3 hours
from my house) on a regular basis. I work there part time so
that I can justify the trip. By the second adjustment, 50% of
my limp seemed to be gone. Occasionally I have a slight,
almost imperceptible limp. The exhaustion I used to feel is
only a rare thing now. I consider that a real success. I
thought I was on the fast track to disability.
Dr. Jutkowitz: Check the two articles,
ELIMINATING CONFUSION IN HEALTHCARE and the article on
UNWINDING on my web site.
When the person's
body unwinds or untwists in the direction they are having
difficulty with they will have some symptoms. When their body
is going the other directions they just do not notice their
body because it works so well. If this is not explained and
pointed out when it occurs (the not noticing anything because
the body is working so well) people will not notice anything
until their body come forward and to the side of difficulty.
Then they will notice things and they will complain because
they did not notice when they were not noticing their body.
It is a communication thing. (This also addresses the question
and answer below.)
Rick himself
goes through periods where he notices nothing. Then, when his
body comes around, he notices more. This is normal. The funny
thing is that docs, no matter how many times they tell
patients, think it should be different when they get their own
body corrected. It is not and the treating docs get a bit
exasperated when the doc who is a patient complains just like
a patient even though they know what should happen is
happening.
Dr. B: What percentage of patients
respond to it?
Dr. Rick: That is a difficult kind
of question to give a really honest, non-glib, answer! The
more I do this the more I see success. The only failure's that
clearly come to mind are those that I erred, those that the
patient insisted on not following my advice and a few who had
severe complicating problems (like infection or needed
something beyond conservative care) or I failed to adequate
explain what to expect and quit though they were doing fine.
(See Jesse's unwinding information. For some people, that
process can be symptomatic at times.)
Dr. Jutkowitz: If a patient does not
respond the doc needs to call me immediately. Quite simply, in
ABC™ are the basics of how
bodies get funky (pardon the medical term there) and how to
fix them. If you do not get the results promised with someone
you need to call so we can isolate what is not being done that
should be or what is being done that shouldn't be. This is not
an arrogant or egotistical answer. It is experience.
If you do not fix someone with ABC™
there are only three possibilities:
1 The doc
is doing something wrong (missing something that should be
done or doing something that should not be done).
2 The
patient is reinjuring themselves between visits (I don't like
this one because people use it as an excuse to avoid #1 but
you can begin to think about #2 if the patient leaves the
office fine and then things develop that are just with that
patient. By just with that patient I mean that if two or more
patients start telling you they have a headache or something
the same, you can bet you are doing something to create it
because it is happening in more than one person.)
3 The 3rd
possibility is that I am wrong about what I am teaching. This
one is a bit tough at this point because so many docs do get
the exact results I promise AND, every time I have gone to a
doc's office who was having difficulty with correcting
patients I get the doc to EXACTLY follow the directions and
they suddenly are correcting all their patients. This is no
point of ego, brag or arrogance either, it is a true datum. In
the over 300 doctor's offices I have personally been to, not
one patient has not been corrected except the three who were
send by me for further testing. Two had tumors and one had an
aneurysm missed the first time they did the MRI-- it was there
but very small so they did not notice.
Dr. B: I have good success with
using microchiropractic to improve posture. Some of my
adjustments are effective because they address anteriority and
I am always looking to improve my results. Is this an
impulse-based adjustment, or is it more the analysis that
allows you to pinpoint areas of imbalance or correct in a
certain sequence? Does the analysis involve leg length or
other indirect indicators?
Dr. Rick: There are essentially 2 phases
to each visit. The first is to release the meninges. Properly
done, this is somewhat forceful. Just about everything else,
except the rib maneuver (also described at his site), is
fairly non-forceful. The need for care is based upon several
observations while the patient is upright. The main testing
procedure probably resemble an activator-type analysis, except
that it is done at the head and is completely different. You
are actually DIRECTLY monitoring their response to your
physical challenge at specific body structures. You also have
to observe their breathing. Static posture is irrelevant.
There is a push test too that is sometimes revealing....
Symptoms also cannot be ignored. If you have done the job,
their mechanics should be improved. They should be unable to
slump. They should be able to breath deeply. They should NOT
have any new or worsened symptoms. If all of these are not
accomplished, then you've missed something and you have to go
through again. Patients come to expect more from you, in my
opinion.
Dr. Jutkowitz: Two points here: There
are not two phases to each visit. There is only one thing,
finding the things out of position that the body cannot
self-correct and correcting them for the body so it can
self-correct the rest.
This may
sound like the same idea as others expound. The difference is
that others do not get or give the basic reason the body
cannot self-correct -- that there is no muscle available to
pull in the direction needed to move the displaced bone back
into place.
This is
just bit too simple for most to have as a basic reason so they
get complicated in their explanations -- and never do get to
the point they can, or will tell you that you can, correct
everyone walking in the door with a structural problem unless
it is from cancer, infection, fracture or the like.
Rick
may have it divided up into two phases because when you need
to release the meninges it take a bunch of force but once that
is done fully and correctly for the visit the rest of the
corrections go so easily most docs take a bit to realize they
have already accomplished the corrections when they do the
setups correctly and put just a tiny bit of pressure in.
Also,
there is no "Activator-type" analysis. Rick says so when he
says there is one but that it is "completely different" The
activator analysis checks a chain of events and is not
specific to a single joint (though they may tell you so)
because there are a large chain of things occurring between
the check and the legs.
The ABC™ testing is just plain pushing on the vertebra in the
direction the body cannot self-correct. If the body then stays
level or tilts in the direction of compensation you do nothing
because it is compensating. If the body remains tilted in the
direction you pushed it means the vertebra is displaced in a
direction that the body cannot self-correct and the body
cannot compensate for the push. This you need to correct so
the body can self-correct the rest.
Again, this may
sound like the same idea as others expound. The difference is
that others do not get or give the basic reason the body
cannot self-correct -- that there is no muscle available to
pull in the direction needed to move the displaced bone back
into place.
This is just bit too simple for most to have as a basic reason
so they get complicated in their explanations -- and never do
get to the point they can, or will tell you that you can,
correct everyone walking in the door with a structural problem
unless it is from cancer, infection, fracture or the like.
Dr. B: Since it is
based on a different principle, do you choose those patients
who would benefit from it based on postural findings?
Dr. Rick: Absolutely not! A
person may LOOK like they have good posture or bad posture,
but it is not all that relevant. The Harrison-CBP model is
seriously flawed in that respect. Posture may, at times look
"worse" as they unwind through some old problems, yet their
body is functioning better. Function is the key! Posture will
improve, but it can send you off the wrong track, IMO.
Dr. Jutkowitz: I don't understand this
question. You correct people's mechanics THE WAY THEY NEED
THEM CORRECTED (not the way someone's theory says they should
be pushed) and they get healthier.
The only difference in principle is that others in structural
healing try to force the body into a position THEY think is
best. This approach has failed to correct a large amount of
people and really only works well (as those theorists say it
should) occasionally. This means that the things their
theories say are are the basic principles cannot be the basics
-- otherwise they would consistently and predictably fix
people.
In
ABC™ you find what is out of place in a direction the body
cannot self-correct because there are no muscles that pull in
the direction the body needs to move the bone to correct its
position -- while leaving everything else alone -- so the body
can self-correct the rest, in the sequence it actually needs.
This, as noted above, has worked consistently and predictably
when applied exactly according to the directions without
adding things or subtracting things.
Dr. B: Do you mix with your other
techniques?
Dr. Rick: No. But I admit that I
did that on some of my patients in the past to a limited
degree.
Dr. Jutkowitz: The point here would be
to note that Rick and other docs have tried additions or
subtractions to improve things but found they had to drop them
because the additions did not do what they though and did not
consistently get the results and the things they left out
caused difficulties too.
I just got back from a doc in St. Louis who, doing the legs,
would notice that the tibia on a patient was not able to
rotate. He adjusted it so it rotated well and then continued
the ABC™ protocol. Something did not work out and he had to
redo it to get it right.
I had him do the tibia again and notice that immediately the
patient's breathing became more shallow. This means the tibia
adjustment reduced the body's ability to function -- though
the tibia itself now rotated and moved more freely. The reason
is that the tibia was in a position the body needed to
compensate for something else not yet corrected as it untwists
from its mechanical pathologies.
There is
virtually nothing in ABC™ that is the result of theory or
thought. I am not some brilliant guy who thought this up and
found it works. I just did full spine standing and sitting
films AP and lateral for years, measuring every vertebral
angle and twist and then re-x-rayed measuring every little
angle and twist. I discovered (not theorized but discovered)
what got the body to be more mechanically efficient and what
did not.
If
I tell you something will not work, it is because I have
tested it thoroughly. If I tell you I do not think it will
work, it is because I have found the basic principles of how
the body works and what you are saying does not follow the
principles. That does not mean I will not immediately go out
and test what you said. On the contrary, as I did with the doc
in St. Louis, I immediately do check things brought up, even
if they are not new and I have checked them before.
ABC™ is what works
consistently and predictably with no exceptions by actual
physical testing. The fact that you cannot test everyone is
why I will always check something when a doc brings it up even
if it has not worked in the past.
I
will say that every proposed change or "improvement" offered
and tried (even a few I thought of) have had to be removed and
changed back to what we were doing in 1989 so
ABC™ is a very stable and
known quantity.
Dr. B: Does it have
applications for spondylolithesis and structural scoliosis?
Dr. Rick: Yes!!, and cervical discs and
fibromyalgia, etc. The application is, however, just to
improve their structural function as you would with any
patient!
Dr. Jutkowitz: Again, the basic point is
that if you fix what the body cannot self-correct the body
will self-correct the rest. This is not just some theoretical
mantra. The difficulty others have had with this is that they
did not correctly identify what the body could not
self-correct because they had not correctly identified the one
reason the body did not self-correct something. (No muscles
available to pull in the direction needed to reposition the
bones out of place.) If anyone tells you there is more
than one reason, trace it down. It always comes down to no
muscle that pulls in the direction needed.
Dr. B: If I don't use X-ray
analysis do I need another way to show improvements to
patients (I use the Subluxation Station sEMG/thermography).
Dr. Rick: You can take
immediate pre/post photos, as Jesse illustrates on his site.
The patients will know though. Personally I think most of the
high tech paraphernalia is a waste of money. The patient will
learn to know when you have done the job and when you haven't.
We use x-ray to a limited extent in Spokane (2 spot views) but
I don't use x-ray here and there are plenty of others that do
not use it.
Dr. Jutkowitz: The guy demonstrating the
Subluxation Station thing told Dr. Pat Kelly that he never saw
anyone improve as much as the people they checked in his
office after them being adjusted using the
ABC™ protocol. SEMG is
usually a good way too. Also, there are several programs based
on photography like the Posture Pro that docs use.
Dr. Rick: Hope you found this
helpful. If you have any more questions, feel free to get back
with me.
Rick |
