The Higher Education Confidence Game

More and more I am waking up to the fact that higher education is a con-game.   The colleges/universities are grifters who use the Dept of Higher Education as shills, and the students as their marks.

Here's how the con works.   The mark (students) are lured to higher education because they want the illustrious degree.  This degree is allegedly a key which will open doors for them (so they're not doomed to working minimum wage jobs for the rest of their lives).  On other words, they will get a degree which will enable them to get a well paying job.  (Allegedly - being the operative word here). 

Meanwhile in order to obtain this illustrious prize, there is a heavy price to pay.  The student must pay tuition - the cost of which can range from the very cheap (community college) to absurdly expensive (prestigious private schools). 

These schools send their lobbyists to Washington D.C. to persuade congress to raise the amount of money that students may borrow (for college).  When the U.S. Dept of Education raises the ceiling of how much may be borrowed, miraculously and if by sheer coincidence, the board of directors of the colleges and universities make the colleges raise their tuition rates (citing that they hate to do it, but if they don't they'll be forced to shut their doors - because the cost of running the place is so out of control).   And so goes the never ending upward spiral of elevated borrowing allowances and subsequent elevated tuition costs.  

The student (the mark) meanwhile has no choice by to go along with this scam - or else he/she will miss out on their ability to get the coveted prize - the degree.   So they borrow and they borrow and they borrow.  And before you know it, they are tens of thousands - to hundreds of thousands of dollars in debt.  This is debt that they MUST pay back.  They have no choice.  It cannot be discharged through bankruptcy due to financial hardship.

What compounds this scam is that while tuition costs are relatively the same for all students (plus or minus a little bit here and there), not all degrees are of the same earning potential.   A degree in liberal arts and sciences is not as valuable as a degree in petroleum engineering.   A film major will have a tougher time repaying his loans than the person who gets a degree in economics and finance. 

To even further compound this problem, there are so many people who have a bachelors degree today, it's really not that special anymore.  It doesn't stand out and give the person a competitive edge over the competition as it once did.   And it really doesn't matter where the degree comes from.   A bachelors degree from Penn State University is not more prestigious than a bachelors degree from West Virginia University, Ohio State University or the University of Pittsburgh.  

I value education and think for the most part a person is better with an education than without.  But people need to wake up and realize that there is a serious con game going on here, and they need to smarten up and do their homework.   There should be a pragmatic and justifiable reason for working toward a degree.  They should be able to come out of the program and have a considerably higher earning potential.  That means they can't be music majors, business majors or art history majors.  They need something like mechanical engineering, physics, or economics.   Additionally it's a good idea to go to a community college for the first two years and get 1/2 the credits taken care of as cheaply as possible.  Then transfer to a very inexpensive four year university and finish up there - while getting the degree with the least amount of accumulated debt load.  Another choice would be to enlist in the U.S. military and have them pay for your education while you serve your country for a few years.   Still another choice would be to have one parent work for a college - which will then allow their children to go to school there tuition free. 

The U.S. Dept of Education currently holds more than a trillion dollars in student loan debt.  That means they have enslaved a LOT of people - who are bound and chained to that debt, reducing them to endentured servants.   If you care at all about your kids, you need to do everything in your power to prevent them falling into that trap.  Allow them to get their education, but don't allow them to get buried in debt in the process.

Richie Kotzen & The Winery Dogs (Pittsburgh, PA October 21, 2013)

Last night I went to see The Winery Dogs (featuring Richie Kotzen, Billy Sheehan & Mike Portnoy).

There were two opening acts. And being the guitar gear cork sniffing lunatic that I am, I paid careful attention to what the various guitar players were using and how they sounded.

The first band's guitarist was playing a Les Paul standard with a Floyd Rose (albeit no trem arm). That was going into a H&K head and a Kustom 4x12 cab. He had gobs and gobs and gobs of gain. Total Nu-metal sound. You couldn't hear any clarity whatsoever. Just a total mushy pile of monkey feces.

The second band (Sixxis) was an interesting prog band from Atlanta (Rush-meets Sound Garden-meets Dream Theater). This band had two guitarists. The one guy was using a Fuchs OD-100 head and a Fuchs speaker cab (couldn't tell what was in it, but given the size, I'm thinking a 1x12). He then put a plexiglass baffle board in front of the speaker. He was playing a Les Paul (regular bridge), and had a Pedal Train filled with a mixture of standard & boutique pedals. His sound was pretty good...but he could've been a lot louder. Part of it was his use of a baffle board. And part of it was the mix. The second guitarist was playing a Vigier Excaliber and then going into a Fractal AxeFx2 (with the midi foot controller) - going into a PA speaker. He had a lot of really interesting textural sounds, and a really smooth lead tone - which you could hear - although I thought he too could've been mixed a bit better through the gazillion watt house PA. Plus, I personally would've bumped up the high-midrange so it cut through. Both guitarists volumes were dwarfed by the bass - which was so goddamn loud, I thought I was going to suffer a cardiac arrhythmia.

Then Kotzen and company got up. 

Guitars: Richie played his Fender signature Tele all night. (Dimarzio rails bridge pickup; flat radius fingerboard, jumbo frets; maple neck; maple capped swamp ash body). It's stock except for the addition of an N-Tuner (onboard electronic tuner which mounts underneath the volume control). He also had a drop-D thingie (which I don't think he touched at all). He also played an acoustic for one song.

Amps consisted of a Fender Bassman and a Fender Vibro-King (with a Vibro-King extension speaker cabinet).

Effects consisted of a Dunlop Wah, the Sobbat Overdrive & Tech 21 Delay. And that's it.

Richie's not using a pick anymore, btw. He's got pretty developed fingerpicking, and applied it to shreddy licks too...which was very interesting.

His tone was excellent. Very raw & in your face with a lot of punch & clarity. (As opposed to the tone of the opening acts - who's guitarists were using a ton of effects and their sound was getting all mushy and lost in the mix).

Richie CUT through the mix like a hot knife through butter. It was loud, yes, but he was also very mid-high spikey...and a very very unprocessed sound. Even with Billy Sheehan playing with him (and if you've ever seen Billy, you know what I'm talking about), you could hear every note from Richie.
 
I'm not a sound engineer. But I'm starting to believe that for live applications you need to focus on high midrange in order to cut through the mix. I'm also noting that Richie was using a lot of 10" speakers...and I wonder how much that played a part of this.

Guitar Gear: Effects & Amps (Opinions & Philosophies)

I’m a guitar player and I love guitar gear. Ever since I began playing (back in 1984), I always enjoyed checking out new gear, reading reviews and even drawing little schematics of guitar rigs. Anyone who’s been around this stuff long enough will develop some opinions and even a philosophy about gear. Here’s mine.

EFFECTS

There are a lot of different guitar effects out there. I don’t care for many of them. It’s interesting that I invested in a Fractal Axe-Fx2 which is like the ultimate source for guitar effects – given that I don’t and/or won’t use most of what’s there. I primarily bought it for the amp & speaker cab modeling…not for weirdo effects.

Here’s the one’s I don’t like: chorus, phaser, flanger, fuzz, pitch shifter / harmonizer, compressor, filter, formant, gate expander, resonator, ring modulator, vocoder, synth, tremolo.

Here’s the ones I do like: distortion, overdrive, EQ, reverb, delay, univibe and wah.

Most of the effects I want coming from the amp itself: distortion/overdrive, EQ, and spring reverb (adjusted to a subtle, light setting). I want to use a digital delay through the effects loop (mostly for my lead guitar sound). It doesn’t have to be anything elaborate. A simple Boss DD-7 will suffice. Wah is an optional effect. I don’t use it a lot, but I like it. The univibe is the only modulation effect I like. Like the wah, the univibe is run as a low-level effect (between the guitar and the input of the amplifier).

So to summarize, an ideal guitar rig for me would include the following effects: (before the amp) a wah, univibe. (Amp) à distortion/overdrive, EQ, spring reverb). (effects loop) a digital delay.

AMPS

I want a modern type amp with multiple channels, and enough flexibility to dial in three basic sounds: clean, crunch rhythm & paint peeling lead. I’ve owned single channel amps, non-master volume amps, vintage style amps, etc…, and to be honest, I have no use for that gear. The amp must be able to give me my 3 basic sounds at all volume levels. I cannot use a super-loud tube amp that must be cranked all the way up to 10, and then use an overdrive pedal to get it to scream. Perhaps that kind of thing works for players who are filling 3,000 seat halls. But for me, it is totally impractical.

For my clean sound, I want the guitar strings to sound like a piano, with lots of resonance and bloom. I don’t want a thin, spanky, funk type tone. I also want zero distortion. I want each note to ring out crystal clear. The highs should be chimey but without any harshness. (No ice-pick in your ear sounds). If I’m playing complex jazz chords, I want to be able to hear each pitch in the chord.

For my crunch rhythm tone, I want an overdriven sound that’s great for power chords, double stops and riffing. Think Led Zeppelin, AC/DC, early Van Halen, ZZ Top, Bad Company, Rolling Stones, Cream, Eagles, Joe Walsh, etc. Beyond using overdrive, I’ll use the amp’s EQ and onboard spring reverb. I don’t want any modulation effects or outboard time based effects as it interferes with the sound.

For my lead guitar tone, I want a searing, liquid, paint-peeling distortion sound that has a massive amount of gain…enough that it makes playing lead guitar lines easy, with fast response, very touch sensitive and with harmonics & notes that just explode off the fingerboard – and available at all volume levels. I want a long delay available for this sound (as it adds more depth & makes everything sound smoother). As an option I’d use a univibe and/or a wah pedal. The sound is appropriate for classic rock, blues rock & hard rock. Think Neal Schon, George Lynch, (modern) David Gilmour, Steve Lukather, Nuno Bettencourt, Frank Marino, etc…

COMBO AMPS vs. HEADS AND SPEAKER CABINETS

Combo amps are better for portability. But amp heads + separate speaker cabinets sound better. Combo amps produce a focused, narrow, smaller sound. An amp head with a 2x12 or 4x12 speaker cab yields a larger, bigger, more disperse sound (which is the ideal). I prefer closed (or semi-closed) back cabinets (for better forward sound projection). 4x12 speaker cabinets are large and heavy (and as such, they’re a pain in the ass to transport). But I think a closed back 2x12 speaker cab offers a great middle ground of big sound and ease of transport.

HOW MUCH POWER IS NECESSARY?

People have told me they’ve gigged with a 15 watt amp. I don’t understand how that’s possible. I prefer tube amps with a lot of power (50 – 100 watts). In my opinion, you need at least 40 watts to have enough clean headroom when playing with an obnoxiously loud drummer. I once owned a 22 watt amp and it was not powerful enough to give me clean headroom during loud band rehearsals. If you’ve got a PA system, that may balance everything out. But for those situations where you don’t have a PA, you need the firepower of a high power amp. A 100 watt amp isn’t that much louder than a 50 watter. But the 100 watt amp offers generally better low end response. Some amps have the option to dial in various power settings.

Next: Electric Guitars: Opinions & Philosophies

Instrument Adjusting 101

There's been a lot of discussion about instrument based adjusting as well as questions about which instrument to buy and which technique videos to get. So I thought I'd share with you all what I do with the Arthrostim.

Have you all heard of above-down, inside-out? (ADIO) It's the basis for chiropractic philosophy. That's not how the body works. It's not how the nervous system works. Impulses aren't generated in the brain. They're originated via the billions of nerve receptors that are distributed throughout the body - which sends afferent impulses to the brain. The brain then responds with efferent impulses to control & regulate the body function. So it's not above-down, inside-out. It's receptor-above-down-inside-out. You must stimulate a nerve receptor to get the process going.

First of all, you need to understand that an instrument adjustment is a NEUROLOGICAL correction. You aren't going to move a bone with an instrument - not to any appreciable degree. It's not a structural correction, it's neurological. You are going to be targeting specific nerve receptors (namely joint mechanoreceptors, muscle spindle fibers and golgi tendon organs). By stimulating these specialized nerve receptors, you can accomplish a number of clinical outcomes.

Pain (or nociception) is an afferent impulse which travels from the point of origin, through the dorsal column of the cord, synapses in the brain and is interpreted as pain in the cortex. Proprioception travels along the same pathway. By stimulating joint mechanoreceptors, you flood the "pipeline" with proprioception and by doing so competitively inhibit the nociceptive impulses. If you had 100% nociception, and then stimulated the mechanoreceptors and by doing so, you now have 50% nociception and 50% proprioception, you just cut the pain signal in half. That's pretty powerful. It's also how ALL chiropractic adjustments work. Because you are able to accomplish this neurological feat regardless of which technique you employ. Be it a traditional osseous manipulation (resulting in a cavitation), a drop or an instrument...they all function the same way. This mechanism also explains why when you smack your elbow in the doorway, and you instinctively rub the elbow, the pain goes away. Same mechanism. It's how Nimmo, ART, Graston, massage therapy, etc... ALL work to eliminate pain.

By the way, I need to address a pet peeve of mine. There is no such thing as "proprioceptors". There are joint mechanoreceptors that when stimulated produce proprioception. Not to nitpick, but given we all took and passed neurophysiology, it bothers me that so many people still refer to them as proprioceptors. Anyway...

So this brings us to a question. If you can get rid of pain by using 5 pounds of force, why use 50 pounds of force? Why crack somebody's neck if you can get them out of pain by zapping joint mechanoreceptors with an instrument - and get the same results?

When I was at Palmer, I was taught that thinks such as line of drive, line of correction, torque, roll-in, tissue pull, etc.. all were critical to get right if you wanted to correct the subluxation. However when I got into clinic and later on when I got into practice, I tried it both ways. And I found that I got the same results regardless if I was being ultra-specific or more general in my approach. I'm not advocating gross manipulation and just doing the flying 7 on everyone who walks in the door. In fact, I think less is more when it comes to adjustments. The fewer areas you adjust generally the better. By being economical with your adjustments, you can also zero in on which adjustments are effective and which ones aren't. Each patient reserves the right to have multiple problems. So when dealing with two or more issues, it also becomes important keep it simple and do the least amount possible. Not because of laziness, but due to trying to accomplish the best clinical result. I really don't think line of drive, line of correction etc.. matter. I don't really believe in the SEGMENTAL BONE OUT OF PLACE theory. I don't believe you can move one bone all by itself (not when it's connected to the one below and the one above by 9 common ligaments and 5 layers of muscle plus fascia and other connective tissues). It's like links in a chain. You can't pull on one link without pulling the whole chain along with it. Anyway...

If you remember from neurophysiology, there's a concept called facilitation. Hyperfacilitation generally means that there's less stimulation required to get the action potential to fire. In the simplest terms, the spinal segment is too "hot" and needs to be calmed down. The way to calm it down is by stimulating the neurology in that segment. When you zap the joint mechanoreceptor, it's like hitting the reset switch in the circuit breaker. It calms things down and evens the impulses out.

Not only should you adjust the fewest possible areas, you should also be mindful of how long to address each area. Most people who have an electronic adjusting instrument go overboard. You don't need to jackhammer the area for a whole minute. You only need about 2 seconds per region. That's enough to accomplish your goal - to stimulate the nerve receptor. Get in, hit it and get out. The arthrostim will continue to thrust so long as you hold down the trigger. The Impulse gun automatically shuts itself off after 2 seconds of thrusting. I spoke to Chris Colloca about this at a seminar. And he confirmed what I had been thinking about. That you don't need more than 2 seconds. His instrument has a built-in dummy switch that cuts you off. So if you have an arthrostim, just be mindful of how long you're treating.

Now hard should you adjust? An arthrostim has a floating stylus which recoils depending on how hard you press into the patient. You can set it up so they're receiving a fraction of an ounce of pressure. Or you can lean into it and drive nails. Colloca's instrument has 3 preset force settings (which are controlled via a 3-way toggle switch on the back of the instrument). You set it for how you want it, and pull the trigger. And it doesn't matter how hard you're pushing it into the patient... it's delivering the same amount of force with each thrust. Some doctors like that...others (like me) prefer to be able to dynamically control how much force you're using (based on real-time patient feedback). I think most people use too much force because they're so used to cranking on a joint and making it crack. You don't need to use very much force to stimulate a nerve receptor. Think about how little force is generated by an Activator....or even an Atlas Orthogonal machine. If you're leaning in and cranking on the patient each and every time, you need to re-think your approach. Use common sense here. For cervicals, you're going to want to use the lightest approach - for patient comfort. This is especially true for upper cervical areas. For thoracics, use a medium force. And for lumbo-sacral-pelvic areas, you can go heavier. For extremities, just think about the size of the area you're working on. For hands and feet, I'd use the same amount of force you'd use for cervicals. For elbows and knees, I'd use the same as you'd use for thoracics. And for shoulders and hips, I'd go somewhere between how much I'd use for thoracics to lumbars. Just start light and work your way up - depending on patient tolerance. Remember, when in doubt, go lighter.

There are three primary clinical outcomes I'm going for when using an instrument (in my case - I use the Arthrostim):

1. Pain relief
2. Restoration of normal, pain-free motion.
3. Posture correction

The way I address pain is to find the areas of pain by way of case history, palpation and provocative orthopedic tests. And then I zap the area of pain. It's that simple. I also am cognizant of referred pain caused by myofascial trigger points. (See Travel & Simmons and/or Nimmo Receptor Tonus Technique). I flood the brain with proprioception by zapping the joint mechanoreceptors.

The way I address range of motion is by targeting the muscle belly and/or muscle tendon while taking the patient through the range of motion. For example, if the patient cannot rotate his head to the right, I will have him rotate in both directions while using the arthrostim to stimulate the scalenes, SCM, suboccipitals, splenius, levalors, traps, etc... Typically within 1-3 sessions, I'll have 90 degrees in both directions.

How I address posture is via CBP methods. I do an analysis of their posture. And then when I see a postural problem, I put the patient in their mirror image, superstress them in that position, and zap the areas of the body which have the richest beds of joint mechanoreceptors (namely the atlas/axis area, the SI joints and the femur heads where they articulate in the acetabulum). That's pretty much how CBP works. Analyze their posture; put them in the mirror image; stimulate the nervous system.

Just like with ALL other chiropractic techniques, an instrument based adjustment is not going to fix everything. You have to get the patient stretching, exercising, eating right, sleeping right, pooping right, drinking plenty of water, paying attention to ergonomics, taking supplements, managing stress, thinking good thoughts, and all the other components of a wellness lifestyle.

Using an instrument confers many collateral benefits to you and your practice. There's zero risk of injuring a patient. There's no wear and tear on your body. There's no cracking of the neck (which does freak out a lot of people). It is congruent with chiropractic philosophy. It's good for sports injuries, MVA & WC injuries, and can be used for wellness & subluxation based care.

Does an instrument work 100% of the time? No. There will be times when it is necessary to get a little more aggressive. But doesn't it make sense to start with the instrument and work your way up - only when necessary? No adjusting technique works 100% of the time for 100% of the population. But I've found that the instrument will work with probably 90% of the patients who come in the door. Many of them actually get better results and enjoy the comfortable, low force approach.

Guthrie Govan

(Taken from the Suhr Guitars Website)

Guthrie Govan, hailing from Chelmsford, UK, is arguably the most exciting and significant new guitarist to emerge in the virtuosic rock/fusion guitar scene in many years. A brilliant virtuoso who is at home in a variety of musical genres and styles, Guthrie combines astonishing technique with vast theoretical knowledge, down-to-earth feel, sophisticated harmonic vocabulary, superb improvisation abilities with a penchant for memorable melodies, and woody organic tone. Whether it's mainstream shred rock a la G3 or fusion jazz or chicken-picking country or groove-driven funk or down-home blues or whatever other style you could think of, Guthrie does 'em all and does so extremely well.


Guthrie started playing at the age of 3 and was on national British TV for his guitar prowess by the time he was 8. The Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, and Eric Clapton were his earliest influences. Soon Yngwie hit the scene and Guthrie immersed himself in the shred mania of the 80's, taking in everyone from Satch to Vai to Racer X to Cacophony, quickly developing his technique that could easily keep up with anything from that era. Later influences include fusion legends such as Scott Henderson, Shawn Lane, and Allan Holdsworth as well as jazz players such as Pat Metheny and John Scofield.


In 1993, Guthrie won the Guitarist of the Year contest sponsored by UK's Guitarist magazine and he started teaching at UK's prestigious Academy of Contemporary Music and also doing transcribing work and writing instructional columns for the Guitar Techniques magazine.

Guthrie's talents were soon discovered by the prog rock band Asia and Guthrie started out recording on some tracks of their album, 'Aura'. Guthrie soon became Asia's full-time guitarist and went on various world tours with the legendary prog-rock band.

Guthrie's stunning versatility requires guitars that can quickly change sounds and adapt to Guthrie's all-encompassing style. Whether it's heavy fusion with a searing overdriven lead tone or a clean country tone or a warm jazz tone, Guthrie relies on his Suhr guitars to cover various styles and sounds just by changing pickups, rolling back on the guitar's volume pot, and varying the attack and touch of his hands.

Since early-2004, Guthrie has been exclusively playing his various Suhr guitars for both recording and live use - from the smoky jazz bars in his hometown to the halls and arenas around the world during tours with prog-rock legend Asia, UK techno outfit The Young Punx, and UK's top rap artist Dizzee Rascal. Guthrie released his long-awaited debut solo album titled 'Erotic Cakes' in 2006 and is currently keeping busy with product clinics, educational workshops, and local live shows while working on the follow-up album to the successful debut of his instrumental album 'Erotic Cakes.'

In January, 2009, Suhr Guitars introduced the Guthrie Govan Signature Model, which is essentially a custom version of the 24-fret Modern built to Guthrie's specs incorporating the features of his favorite Suhr instruments. Possibly the most versatile Suhr guitar ever conceived, this fabulous instrument provides everything Guthrie needs to get his distinctively cutting yet warm organic tone and cover all of his stylistic bases and sonic needs without compromise. In January, 2010, the Guthrie Govan Set-Neck Signature Model was introduced to great fanfare, combining the best features of the original Signature Model with new set-neck construction.

Chiropractic Research

Study after study confirms the success of chiropractic for numerous types of spinal related health complaints. In recent years, numerous independent researchers and various government agencies have conducted studies which focus on the efficacy, appropriateness and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic treatment. Several of these important studies are listed below.

U.S. Government Agency Report. A 1994 sturdy published by the U.S. Agency for Health Care Policy and Research (AHCPR) and the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services endorses spinal manipulation for acute low back pain in adults in its Clinical Practice Guideline #14. An independent multidisciplinary panel of private-sector clinicians and other experts convened and developed specific statements on appropriate health care of acute low back problems in adults. One statement cited, relief of discomfort (low back pain) can be accomplished most safely with spinal manipulation, and/or non-prescriptive medication.

The Manga Report. A major study to assess the most appropriate use of available health care resources was reported in 1993. This was an outcome study funded by the Ontario Ministry of Health and conducted in hopes of sharing information about ways to reduce the incidence of work-related injuries and to address cost-effective ways to rehabilitate disabled and injured workers. The study was conducted by three health economists led by University of Ottawa Professor Pran Manga, Ph.D. The report of his study is commonly called the Manga Report. The Manga Report overwhelmingly supported the efficacy, safety, scientific validity, and cost-effectiveness of chiropractic for low-back pain. Additionally, it found out that higher patient satisfaction levels were associated with chiropractic care than with medical treatment alternatives. "Evidence from Canada and other countries suggests potential savings of hundreds of millions annually," the Manga Report states. "The literature clearly and consistently shows that the major savings from chiropractic management come from fewer and lower costs of auxiliary services, fewer hospitalizations, and a highly significant reduction in chronic problems, as well as in levels and duration of disability."

RAND Study on Low-Back Pain A four-phase study conducted in the early 1990's by RAND, one of America's most prestigious centers for research in public policy, science and technology, explored many indications of low-back pain.

In the RAND studies, an expert panel of researchers, including medical doctors and doctors of chiropractic, found that:

* Chiropractors deliver a substantial amount of health care to the U.S. population.
* Spinal manipulations of benefit to some patients with acute low-back pain.

The RAND reports marked the first time that representatives of the medical community went on record stating that spinal manipulation is an appropriate treatment for certain low-back pain conditions.


The New Zealand Commission Report. A particularly significant study of chiropractic was conducted between 1978-1980 by the New Zealand Commission of Inquiry. In its 377-page report to the House of Representatives, the Commission called its study "probably the most comprehensive and detailed independent examination of chiropractic ever undertaken in any country."

The Commission entered the inquiry with "the general impression ... shared by many in the community: that chiropractic was an unscientific cult, not to be compared with orthodox medical or paramedical services."

By the end of the inquiry, the commission reported itself "irresistibly and with complete unanimity drawn to the conclusion that modern chiropractic is a soundly-based and valuable branch of health care in a specialized area..." Conclusions of the Commission's report, based on investigations in New Zealand, the U.S., Canada, the United Kingdom, and Australia, stated:

* Spinal manual therapy in the hands of a registered chiropractor is safe.

* Spinal manual therapy can be effective in relieving musculo-skeletal symptoms such as back pain, and other symptoms known to respond to such therapy, such as migraine.

* Chiropractors are the only health practitioners who are necessarily equipped by their education and training to carry out spinal manual therapy.

* In the public interest and in the interests of patients, there must be no impediment to full professional cooperation between chiropractors and medical practitioners.

Florida Workers' Compensation Study Florida Workers' Compensation Study. A 1988 study of 10,652 Florida workers' compensation cases was conducted by Steve Wolk, Ph.D., and reported by the Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research. It was concluded that "a claimant with a back-related injury, when initially treated by a chiropractor versus a medical doctor, is less likely to become temporarily disabled, or if disabled, remains disabled for a shorter period of time; and claimants treated by medical doctors were hospitalized at a much higher rate than claimants treated by chiropractors."

Washington HMO Study In 1989, a survey administered by Daniel C. Cherkin, Ph.D., concluded that patients receiving care from health maintenance organizations (HMO's) within the state of Washington were three times as likely to report satisfaction with care from chiropractors as they were with care from other physicians. The patients were also more likely to believe that their chiropractor was concerned about them.

Utah Workers' Compensation Study. A workers' compensation study conducted in Utah by Kelly B. Jarvis, D.C., Reed B. Phillips, D.C., Ph.D., and Elliot K. Morris, JD, MBA, compared the cost of chiropractic care to the costs of medical care for conditions with identical diagnostic codes. Results were reported in the August 1991 Journal of Occupational Medicine.

The study indicated that costs were significantly higher for medical claims than for chiropractic claims; in addition, the number of work days lost was nearly ten times higher for those who received medical care instead of chiropractic care.

Patient Disability Comparison. A 1992 article in the Journal of Family Practice reported a study by D.C. Cherkin, Ph.D., which compared patients of family physicians was significantly higher (mean 39.7) than for patients managed by chiropractors (mean 10.8)." A related editorial in the same issue referred to risks of complications from lumbar manipulation as being "very low."

Oregon Workers' Compensation Study. A 1991 report on a workers compensation study conducted in Oregon by Joanne Nyiendo, Ph.D., concluded that the median time loss days (per case) for comparable injuries was 9.0 for patients receiving treatment by a doctor of chiropractic and 11.5 for treatment by a medical doctor.

Stano Cost Comparison Study. A study by Miron Stano, Ph.D., reported in the June 1993 Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics involved 395,641 patients with neuromusculoskeletal conditions. Results over a two-year period showed that patients who received chiropractic care incurred significantly lower health care costs than did patients treated solely by medical or osteopathic physicians.

Saskatchewan Clinical Research. Following a 1993 study, researchers J. David Cassidy, D.C., Haymo Thiel, D.C., M.S., and W. Kirkaldy-Willis, M.D., of the Back Pain Clinic at the Royal University Hospital in Saskatchewan concluded that "the treatment of lumbar intervertebral disk herniation by side posture manipulation is both safe and effective."

Wight Study on Recurring Headaches. A 1978 study conducted by J.S. Wight, D.C., and reported in the ACA Journal of Chiropractic, indicated that 74.6% of patients with recurring headaches, including migraines, were either cured or experienced reduced headache symptomatology after receiving chiropractic manipulation.

1991 Gallup Poll. A 1991 demographic poll conducted by the Gallup Organization revealed that 90% of chiropractic patients felt their treatment was effective; more than 80% were satisfied with that treatment; and nearly 75% felt most of their expectations had been met during their chiropractic visits.

1990 British Medical Journal Report. A study conducted by T.W. Meade, a medical doctor, and reported in the June 2, 1990, British Medical Journal concluded after two years of patient monitoring, "for patients with low-back pain in whom manipulation is not contraindicated, chiropractic almost certainly confers worthwhile, long-term benefit in comparison with hospital outpatient management."

Virginia Comparative Study. A 1992 study conducted by L.G. Schifrin, Ph.D., provided an economist assessment of mandated health insurance coverage for chiropractic treatment within the Commonwealth of Virginia. As reported by the College of William and Mary, and the Medical College of Virginia, the study indicated that chiropractic provides therapeutic benefits at economical costs. The report also recommended that chiropractic be widely available form of health care.

1992 America Health Policy Report. A 1992 review of data from over 2,000,000 users of chiropractic care in the U.S., reported in the Journal of American Health Policy, stated that "chiropractic users tend to have substantially lower health care costs," and "chiropractic care reduces the use of both physician and hospital care."

1985 University of Saskatchewan Study. In 1985 the University of Saskatchewan conducted a study of 283 patients "who had not responded to previous conservative or operative treatment" and who were initially classified as totally disabled. The study revealed that "81% ... became symptom free or achieved a state of mild intermittent pain with no work restrictions" after daily spinal manipulations were administered.

RAND Corporation Study

- Chiropractic Care Appropriate for Low Back Pain. A Two- year, multi-disciplinary study still in progress has already issued reports that validate the assertion that spinal manipulation is an appropriate option for low back pain.

This Project aims to provide a comprehensive set of indications for performing spinal manipulation for persons with low back pain. The project, which will take several million dollars and years to complete, is being conducted by the RAND Corporation, a non-profit private corporation in Santa Monica, California, one of Americas most prestigious centers for research. Which conducts research and development for the US. Government and the private sector and commands international respect. The project is being directed by two medical doctors, Robert Brook, MD., and Paul Shekelle, MD., and involves two expert panels of clinicians and researchers to assess the clinical consensus on the appropriateness of spinal manipulation for more than 1,600 patients with low back pain condition. Initial results of the study are:

Acute and sub-acute mechanical back pain patients given spinal manipulation achieve better early results than patients given common medical treatments (bed rest, medication, traction, corsets).

* 50% of the patients treated by manipulation were free of pain after one week, compared to 27% treated with bed rest.

* Manipulation proved better for pain relief than the use of physiotherapy and analgesics.

* Pain was relieved by manipulation in a shorter amount of time(3.5 treatments) than by exercise (5.8 treatments).

* Patients with pain of 2 to 3 weeks duration achieved a 50% reduction in pain more rapidly with manipulation than with mobilization.

* Patients treated by manipulation improved significantly faster than those treated with medicine.

* Manipulation provides earlier relief than other treatments or no treatment.

"The appropriateness of Spinal Manipulation for Low-Back Pain, Report 1: Project Overview and Literature Review, Report 2: Indications and ratings by a Multi-disciplinary Expert Panel," Shekelle et al, RAND Reports R-4025/1 and R-4025/2, August 1991, Santa Monica Ca.

Your Spine: The Vital Connection

Your nervous system is the center of your thoughts, memory, learning, and consciousness. Nerves control muscle tension, blood vessel openings, glandular function, spatial orientation (proprioception), pain, touch, vibration, vision, hearing, taste, temperature, and other senses. Nerves connect your inner and outer worlds!

The nervous system is the "master system". It controls and regulates every other cell, tissue, organ, and system in the body. When the nervous system is functioning normally, it allows all other systems to also function normally.

The nervous system consists of the central nervous system (the brain and spinal cord), and the peripheral nervous system (cranial nerves, spinal nerves, and peripheral nerves of the trunk and extremities). During development, the first thing to develop in the fetus is the brain. The spinal cord is an extension of the brain. Extending from the spinal cord are the spinal nerves. These nerves connect with all tissues, and organs of the body. The brain develops first because it is the source of the body's developmental innate intelligence - the inner wisdom of the body which tells all other tissues how to develop.

This brain-body communication doesn't end with embryological development. Every second of your life, cells are dying and being replaced by new cells. New blood cells, bone cells, liver cells, pancreas cells, skin cells, etc. are in a constant state of replacement.

Cells make up tissues. Tissues make up organs. And organs make up systems. Thus, the health of each system of your body can literally be measured by it's ability to replace old, dying, or dysfunctional cells with new, healthy, functional ones. In order for normal, healthy cellular replication to occur, there must be 100% communication between the source of the body's innate intelligence (the brain), and the involved tissues (in the body). Nerve interference will cause the body to lose it's ability to manage this vital cellular replication.

Nerve tissue is the softest tissue in the body - and is easily injured. The brain is the only organ in the body to be completely encased in bone (the hardest tissue in the body). It is protected by the skull precisely because it is so delicate. At maturity, the bones of the skull are fused together, and cannot move. Thus, the brain is protected at all times.

The spinal cord is also composed of nerve tissue. And like the brain, it is very delicate. The spinal cord is surrounded by 24 freely movable bones called vertebrae. Small openings between the vertebrae allow the spinal nerves to branch out to other areas of the body.

When the vertebrae of the spine are in alignment, the spinal nerves are at maximum function - thus allowing 100% brain-body communication. However, when the vertebrae get misaligned, it creates mechanical pressure on the spinal nerves. This mechanical pressure hinders nervous flow, and the result is nerve interference that leads to dis-ease. Long term nerve interference can lead to symptoms, and disease.