Blog Image

Network Spinal Analysis (NSA)

Netwrok Spinal Analysis (NSA)

Discover what NSA can do for you.
The shape, position, tension and tone of your spine is in relation to the shape, position tension and tone of your life.

Chiropractic is more than just pain relief.

Uncategorised Posted on Thu, July 09, 2020 14:36:57


More Research

Uncategorised Posted on Sat, March 21, 2020 11:05:49


Research showing the various benefits of Chiropractic Care

Uncategorised Posted on Wed, March 18, 2020 17:18:59


REARCH – Chiropractic and the Immune System

Uncategorised Posted on Wed, March 18, 2020 17:10:00

Chiropractic Care is NOT a treatment for the Coronavirus pandemic. Chiropractic is a HEALTH Care System and chiropractic care has a positive benefit on the immune system and much more. To stay healthy it is important to make healthy lifestyle choices and to keep your immune system working well so that one is more resistant to infection and that one recovers more efficiently if infected. Please note that chiropractic care does not treat any disease but enhances general health and imroves the functioning of the body just like healthy lifestyle choices do (eg exercise, good diet, adequate sleep, relaxation, meditation, being in nature,healthy relationships, meaningful work,being in love and having a peaceful mind).

Does chiropractic strengthen immunity?

Below is a partial list of over 110 relevant citations showing how adjustments have a positive influence on the immune system. It’s our immune system that fights infection, sickness, and disease. Today researchers know there is a critical link between the nervous system and the immune system.

One of the most important studies showing the positive effect chiropractic care can have on the immune system and general health was performed by Ronald Pero, Ph.D., chief of cancer prevention research at New York’s Preventive Medicine Institute and professor of medicine at New York University. Dr. Pero measured the immune systems of people under chiropractic care as compared to those in the general population and those with cancer and other serious diseases. In his initial three-year study of 107 individuals who had been under chiropractic care for five years or more, the chiropractic patients were found to have a 200% greater immune competence than people who had not received chiropractic care, and 400% greater immune competence than people with cancer and other serious diseases. The immune system superiority of those under chiropractic care did not diminish with age. Dr. Pero stated:

“When applied in a clinical framework, I have never seen a group other than this chiropractic group to experience a 200% increase over the normal patients. This is why it is so dramatically important. We have never seen such a positive improvement in a group…”

Pero R. “Medical Researcher Excited By CBSRF Project Results.” The Chiropractic Journal, August 1989; 32.

In 1974, physiologist Dr. Korr proposed that “spinal lesions” (similar to the vertebral subluxation complex) are associated with exaggerated sympathetic (a division of the nerve system) activity.

The chiropractic immunology connection was strengthened in 1991 when Patricia Brennan, Ph.D., and other researchers conducted a study that found improved immune response following chiropractic treatment. Specifically, the study demonstrated the “phagocytic respiratory burst of polymorphonuclear neutrophils (PMN) and monocytes were enhanced in adults that had been adjusted by chiropractors.” In other words, the cells that act like “Pac-Man” eating and destroying bad cells are enhanced through chiropractic care.

Brennan P, Graham M, Triano J, Hondras M. “Enhanced phagocytic cell respiratory bursts induced by spinal manipulation: Potential Role of Substance P.” J Manip Physiolog Ther 1991; (14)7:399-400.

A paper published in 1987 found a connection between the nervous system and the immune system through endocrine channels. Dr. Felton and his team of researchers reported that “the neurotransmitter norepinephrine is present in sympathetic nerve fibers that innervate lymphoid organs and act on the spleen.” The authors proposed that norepinephrine in lymphoid organs plays a significant role in the regulation of the immune system. They stated:

“Stressful conditions lead to altered measures of immune function, and altered susceptibility to a variety of diseases. Many stimuli, which primarily act on the central nervous system, can profoundly alter immune responses. The two routes available to the central nervous system are neuroendocrine channels and autonomic nerve channels.”

Thus the immune system can be affected by the nerve system through the connections with the endocrine and the autonomic nervous system.

Felton DL, Felton SY, Belonged DL, et al. “Noradrenergic sympathetic neural interactions with the immune system: structure and function.” Immunol Rev. 1987 Dec;100:225-60.

Another important study was performed at the Sid E. Williams Research Center of Life Chiropractic University. The researchers took a group of HIV positive patients and adjusted them over a six-month period. What they found was that the “patients that were adjusted had an increase of forty-eight percent (48%) in the CD4 cells (an important immune system component).” These measurements were taken at the patients’ independent medical center, where they were under medical supervision for the condition. The control group (the patients that were not adjusted) did not demonstrate this dramatic increase in immune function, but actually experienced a 7.96% decrease in CD4 cell counts over the same period.

When we read the results of that study we were shocked that we hadn’t heard about it earlier, that it didn’t make the headline news or was on the front page of every newspaper. Those are very impressive results with important implications!

Selano JL, Hightower BC, Pfleger B, Feeley-Collins K, Grostic JD. “The Effects of Specific Upper Cervical Adjustments on the CD4 Counts of HIV Positive Patients.” The Chiro Research Journal; 3(1); 1994.

Sympathetic activity has been shown to release immune regulatory cells into the blood circulation, which alters immune function. This was reported by Drs. Murray, Irwin, and Reardon The authors stated:

“Growing evidence suggests that immune function is regulated in part by the sympathetic nervous system. Sympathetic nerve endings densely innervate lymphoid tissue such as the spleen, lymph nodes, and the thymus, and lymphoid cells have beta 2 adrenergic receptors.”

Basically what they were saying is that the nervous system has a direct effect on the immune system due to the nerve supply to the important immune system organs.

Murray DR, Irwin M, Reardon CA, et al. “Sympathetic and immune interactions during dynamic exercise. Mediation via a beta 2 – adrenergic-dependent mechanism.” Circulation 1992 86(1): 203

1. Riley, G.W. Osteopathic Success in the Treatment of Influenza and Pneumonia. American Osteopathic Association – Chicago Session. July 1919. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, August 1919.

2. Riley, G.W. Osteopathic Success in the Treatment of Influenza and Pneumonia. American Osteopathic Association – Chicago Session. July 1919. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, August 1919. Special Reprint Journal of the American Osteopathic Association, Vol. 100. No. 5, May 2000.

3. Noll, DR., Shores, JH., Gamber, RG. Benefits of Osteopathic Manipulative Treatment for Hospitalized Elderly Patients with Pneumonia. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Vol. 100. No. 12. December 2000.

4. Breithaupt, T., Harris, K., Ellis, J. Thoracic lymphatic pumping and the efficacy of influenza vaccination in healthy young and elderly populations. Journal of the American Osteopathic Association. Vol. 101. No. 1. January 2001.

5. Noll DR, Degenhardt BF, Stuart MK, Werden S, McGovern RJ, Johnson JC. The effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on immune response to the influenza vaccine in nursing homes residents: a pilot study. Altern. Ther. Health Med. 2004 Jul-Aug;10(4):74-6.

6. Degenhardt BF, Kuchera ML. Update on osteopathic medical concepts and the lymphatic system. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1996 Feb;96(2):97-100.

7. Allen TW. Coming full circle: osteopathic manipulative treatment and immunity. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1998 Apr;98(4):204.

8. Schmidt IC. Osteopathic manipulative therapy as a primary factor in the management of upper, middle, and para respiratory infections. J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1982 Feb;81(6):382-8.

9. Ward, EA. Influenza and Its Osteopathic Management. Eastern Osteopathic Association’s Seventeenth Annual Convention. New York, April 3, 1937. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. Sept. 1937.

10. Ward, EA. Influenza and Its Osteopathic Management. Eastern Osteopathic Association’s Seventeenth Annual Convention. New York, April 3, 1937. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. Sept. 1937. Special Reprint. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. Vol. 100. No. 5. May 2000.

11. Smith, KR. One hundred thousand cases of influenza with a death rate of one-fortieth of that officially reported under conventional medical treatment. Annual Convention of the American Association for Clinical Research, New York. Oct. 18, 1919. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. January, 1920.

12. Smith, KR. One hundred thousand cases of influenza with a death rate of one-fortieth of that officially reported under conventional medical treatment. Annual Convention of the American Association for Clinical Research, New York. Oct. 18, 1919. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. January, 1920. Special Reprints. J. Am Osteopath Assoc. Vol. 100. No. 5. May 2000.

13. Patterson, M. Osteopathic methods and the great flu pandemic of 1917-1918. JAOA (The Journal of the American Osteopathic Association) May 2000; 100(5):309-10

14. Masarsky, C. 1918. Dynamic Chiropractic. November 17, 2003, Volume 21, Issue 24 http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/21/24/01.html

15. Kent, C. Chiropractic and infectious disease — an historical perspective. The Chiropractic Journal April 2003. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/…/…/apr2003kent.htm

16. Harte, D. Alternative to the sting of a failed flu vaccine. The Chiropractic Journal. March 2004. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/…/20…/mar/harte.htm

17. Kent, C. Neuroimmunology and chiropractic. The Chiropractic Journal. October 1995. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/…/…/oct1995kent.htm

18. Lerche Davis, J. Flu Shot Scare Fuels Scams. WebMD 11/2/2004 http://dailynews.att.net/cgi-bin/health…#

19. Lawrence, S. How to Dodge the Flu Without a Shot. Even without a flu shot, you can still do something to protect yourself. WebMD. October 22, 2004. http://my.webmd.com/content/article/95/103481.htm

20. Whelan et al: The effects of chiropractic manipulation on salivary cortisol levels. JMPT. 2002 (25)3

21. Takeda et al:

22. Long-term remission and alleviation of symptoms in allergy and Crohn’s disease patients following spinal adjustment for reduction of vertebral subluxations. JVSR Vol. 4. # 4. 2002

23. Selano, Grostic et al: The effects of specific upper cervical adjustments on the CD4 counts of HIV positive patients. CRJ. Vol. 3. # 1. 1994.

24. Brennan et al: Enhanced neutrophil respiratory burst as a biological marker for manipulation forces.

25. JMPT Vol. 15 # 2 Feb. 1992.

26. Brennan PC, Kokjohn K, Kaltinger CJ, Lohr GE, Glendening C, Hondras MA, McGregor M, Triano JJ “Enhanced Phagocytic Cell Respiratory Burst Induced by Spinal Manipulation: Potential Role of Substance P” J Manipulative Physiol Ther. 1991; 14(7): 399-407.

27. Tuchin PJ “The Effect of Chiropractic Spinal Manipulative Therapy on Salivary Cortisol Levels.” Australian Journal of Chiropractic and Osteopathy 2: 1998; pp. 86-92.

28. Vora GS, Bates HA “The Effects of Spinal Manipulation on the Immune System (A Preliminary Report)” The ACA Journal of Chiropractic 1980; 14: S103-105.

29. Masarsky CS, Weber M “Chiropractic and Lung Volumes – A Retrospective Study” ACA Journal of Chiropractic 1986; 20(9): 65-67.

30. Kessinger R “Changes in Pulmonary Function Associated with Upper Cervical Specific Chiropractic Care” J Vertebral Subluxation Res. 1997;1(3): 43-49.

31. Menon M, Plaugher G, Jansen R, Dhami MSI, Sutowski J “Effect of Thoracic Spinal Adjustment on Peripheral Airway Function in Normal Subjects – A Pilot Study” Conference Proceedings of the Chiropractic Centennial Foundation 1995; July 6-8: 244-245.

32. Masarsky CS, Weber M “Chiropractic and Lung Volumes – A Retrospective Study” ACA Journal of Chiropractic 1986; 20(9): 65-67.

33. Allen JM “The Effects of Chiropractic on the Immune System: A Review of Literature” Chiropractic Journal of Australia 1993; 23: 132-135.

34. Rhodes WR: “The Official History of Chiropractic in Texas.” Texas Chiropractic Association. Austin, TX. 1978.

35. “Chiropractic Statistics.” The Chiropractic Research and Review Service. Burton Shields Press. Indianapolis, IN. 1925.

36. Wells BF, Janse J: “Chiropractic Practice. Volume 1. Infectious Diseases.” National College of Chiropractic. Chicago, IL. 1942.

37. Kent C: “Neuroimmunology — an update.” The Chiropractic Journal. August, 2001. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/…/…/aug2001kent.htm

38. Kent C: “The mental impulse-biochemical and immunologic aspects.” The Chiropractic Journal. February, 1999. http://www.worldchiropracticalliance.org/…/…/feb1999kent.htm

39. Elenkov IJ, Wilder RL, Chrousos GP, Vizi ES: “The sympathetic nerve-an integrative interface between the two supersystems: the brain and the immune system.” Pharmacol Rev 2000;52:295-638. http://pharmrev.aspetjournals.org/cgi/reprint/52/4/595.pdf

40. Brennan PC, et al. Immunologic correlates of reduced spinal mobility. Proceedings of the 1991 International Conference on Spinal Manipulation (FCER):118.

41. Todres-Masarsky M, Masarsky CS. The Somatovisceral Interface: Further Evidence. In Masarsky CS, Todres-Masarsky M (editors). Somatovisceral Aspects of Chiropractic: An Evidence-Based Approach, 2001, Churchill Livingstone, New York.

42. Korr IM: “Andrew Taylor Still memorial lecture: research and practice — a century later.” J Am Osteopath Assoc. 1974 73:362.Murray DR, Irwin M, Reardon CA, et al: “Sympathetic and immune interactions during dynamic exercise. Mediation via a beta 2 – adrenergic-dependent mechanism.” Circulation 1992 86(1):203.

43. Felten DL, Felten SY, Bellinger DL, et al: “Noradrenergic sympathetic neural interactions with the immune system: structure and function.” Immunol Rev. 1987 100:225.

44. Felten DL, Felten SY, Bellinger DL, Madden KS: “Fundamental aspects of neural-immune signaling.” Psychother. Psychosom. 1993 60(1):46.

45. Kolata G: “Nerve cells tied to immune system.” The New York Times May 13, 1993.

46. Hosoi J, Murphy GF, Egan CL et al: “Regulation of Langerhans cell function by nerves containing calcination gene-related peptide.” Nature 1993 363(6425):159.

47. Undem BJ: “Neural-immunologic interactions in asthma.” Hosp. Pract. (Off Ed) 1994 29(2):59.

48. Sternberg EM, Chrousos GP, Wilder RL, Gold PW: “The stress response and the regulation of inflammatory disease.” Ann Intern Med 1992 117(10):854.

49. Fricchoine GL, Stefano GB: “The stress response and auto immunoregulation.” Adv. Neuroimmunol. 1994 4(1):13.

50. Ottaway CA, Husband AJ: “Central nervous system influences on lymphocyte migration.” Brain Behav Immun. 1992 6(2):97.

51. Weihe E, Krekel J: “The neuroimmune connection in human tonsils.” Brain Behav. Immun. 1991 5(1):41.

52. Grossman Z, Heberman RB, Livnat S: “Neural modulation of immunity: conditioning phenomena and the adaptability of lymphoid cells.” Int. J Neurosci. 1992 64(1-4):275.

53. Fidelibus, J.; An overview of neuroimmunomodulation and a possible correlation with musculoskeletal system function JOURNAL OF MANIPULATIVE AND PHYSIOLOGICAL THERAPEUTICS. 1989 Vol. 12 Pgs. 289-292

54. Davison, S.; Parkin-Smith, G.F.; The possible effect of cervical chiropractic manipulation on short-term lymphocytic response – a pilot study WFC’S 7TH BIENNIAL CONGRESS CONFERENCE PROCEEDINGS, MAY 1-3, 2003. 2003 Vol. 7th Edt. Pgs. 278-80

55. Ali, S.; Hayek, R.; Holland, R.; Mckelvey, S.E.; Boyce, K.; EFFECT OF CHIROPRACTIC TREATMENT ON THE ENDOCRINE AND IMMUNE SYSTEM IN ASTHMATIC PATIENTS. PROCEEDINGS OF THE 2002 INTERNATIONAL CONFERENCE ON SPINAL MANIPULATION. 2002 OCT Vol. Pgs.

56. Pickar, J.G.; Kang, Y-M.; Kenney, M.J.; Inflammation of Lumbar Multifidus Muscle Reflexively Increases Sympathetic Nerve Activity to Spleen and Kidney THE JOURNAL OF CHIROPRACTIC EDUCATION. 2002 SPR Vol. 16(1) Pgs. 44-5

57. Davison, S.M.; Parkin-Smith, G.F.; Immunological profiles in asymptomatic subjects after chiropractic cervical spine manipulation PROCEEDINGS OF THE WORLD FEDERATION OF CHIROPRACTIC CONGRESS. 2001 MAY Vol. 6 Pgs. 264-5

58. Hoiriis, K.T.; Edenfield, D.; Chiropractic and The Immune Response: A Literature Review JOURNAL OF VERTEBRAL SUBLUXATION RESEARCH. 2000 OCT Vol. 4(1) Pgs.

59. Martin, C.; Chiropractic and HIV Infection JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN CHIROPRACTIC ASSOCIATION. 1995 DEC Vol. 32(12) Pgs. 41-4

60. Spector NH. Anatomic and Physiologic connections between the central nervous system and the immune systems. Reprinted. In: Research Forum 1987;103-17.

61. Besedovsky HO, Del Rey A. Physiological Implications of the Immune-Neuro-endocrine Network. Psychoneuroimmunology, Academic Press, Inc. Second Edition. 1991;589-603.

62. van Breda WM, van Breda JM. A comparative study of the health status of children raised under the health care models of chiropractic and allopathic medicine. J Chirop. Res. 1989;5(4):101-103.

63. Rose-Aymon S, Aymon M, Prochaska-Moss G, Moss R, Rebne R, Nielsen K. The relationship between intensity of chiropractic care and the incidence of childhood diseases. J Chirop. Res 1989;5(3):70-7.

64. Reubi JC, Horisberger U, Kappeler A, Laissue JA. Localization of Receptors for Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide, Somatostatin, and Substance P in distinct compartments of human lymphoid organs. Blood 1998;92(1):191-197.

65. Giron LT, Crutcher KA, Davis JN. Lymph nodes-A possible site for sympathetic neuronal regulation of immune response. Annals of Neurology 1980;8(5):520-525.

66. Murray DR., Irwin M, Rearden CA, Ziegler M, Motulsky H, Maisel AS. Sympathetic and Immune Interactions During Dynamic Exercise Mediation Via a Beta2-Adrenergic-Dependent Mechanism. Circulation 1992; 86:203-213.

67. Brennan PC, Graham MA, Triano JJ, Hondras MA, Anderson RJ,. Lymphocyte profiles in patients with chronic low back pain enrolled in a clinical trial. J Manip Physiol Ther. 1994 17(4): 219-227.

68. Lohr GE, O’Brien JC, Nodine DL, Brennan PC. Natural killer cells as an outcome of chiropractic treatment efficacy. In: Proceedings of the Internationa1 Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Arlington, Virginia: Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research 1990:109-12.

69. Injeyan, S. Studies on the effects of spinal manipulation on the immune response. Internet WWW 1999; http//www.c3r.org/research/injeyan-R/injeyan-r.html

70. Ottaway CA, Husband AJ. Central nervous system influences on Lymphocyte Migration. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1992;6(2):97-116.

71. Neveu PJ, Le Moal M. Physiological basis for neuroimmunomodulation. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 1990;4:281-305.

72. Giron LT, Crutcher KA, Davis JN. Lymph nodes-A possible site for sympathetic neuronal regulation of immune response. Annals of Neurology 1980;8(5):520-525.

73. McCain HW, Lamster IB, Bozzone JM, Gribic JT. Beta-Endorphin modulates human immune activity via no opiate receptor mechanisms. Life Science 1982;31:1619-24.

74. Payan DG, Brewster DR., Goetzl EJ. Specific Stimulation of Human Lymphocytes by Substance P. J. Immunol. 1983;131(4):1613-15.

75. Payan DG, Brewster DR, Missirian-Bastia A,Goetzl EJ. Substance P Recognition by a Subset of Human T Lymphocytes. J Clin Invest. 1984;74:1532-39.

76. Mertelsman R,Welte K. Human Interleukin 2: molecular biology, physiology and clinical possibilities. Immunobiol.1986;172:400-19.

77. Badalamente MA, Dee R, Ghillani R, Chien P, Daniels K. Mechanical Stimulation of Dorsal Root Ganglia Induces Increased Production of Substance P:A Mechanism for Pain Following Nerve Root Compromise. Spine. 1987;12(6):552-5.

78. Lindholm D, Neumann R, Meyer M, Thoenen H. Interleukin-1 regulates synthesis of nerve growth factor in non-neuronal cells of rat sciatic nerve. Nature 1987;330:658-659.

79. Lindholm D, Neumann R, Hengerer B, Thoenen H. Interleukin-1 increases stability and transcription of mRNA encoding nerve growth factor in cultured rat fibroblasts. J. Biol. Chem. 1988;263:16348-16351.

80. Neveu PJ, Le Moal M. Physiological basis for neuroimmunomodulation. Fundam. Clin. Pharmacol. 1990;4:281-305.

81. Besedovsky HO, Del Rey A. Physiological Implications of the Immune-Neuro-endocrine Network. Psychoneuroimmunology, Academic Press, Inc. Second Edition. 1991;589-603.

82. Brennan PC, Kokjohn K, Triano JJ, Fritz TE, Wardip CL, Hondras MA. Immunologic correlates of reduced spinal mobility: preliminary observations in a dog model. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Arlington, Virginia. Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research. 1991:118-21.

83. Roszman TL, Carlson SL. Neurotransmitters and Molecular signaling in the Immune Response. Psychoneuroimmunology, Second Edition. Academic Press, Inc. 1991:311-33.

84. Murray DR., Irwin M, Rearden CA, Ziegler M, Motulsky H, Maisel AS. Sympathetic and Immune Interactions During Dynamic Exercise Mediation Via a Beta2-Adrenergic-Dependent Mechanism. Circulation 1992; 86:203-213.

85. Ottaway CA, Husband AJ. Central nervous system influences on Lymphocyte Migration. Brain, Behavior, and Immunity. 1992;6(2):97-116.

86. Wells MR, Racis SP, Vaidya U. Changes in Plasma Cytokines Associated with Peripheral Nerve Injury. J Neuroimmunol. 1992;39:261-8.

87. Felten DL, Felten SY, Bellinger DL, Madden KS. Fundamental Aspects of Neural-Immune Signaling. Psychother. Psychosom. 1993;60:46-56.

88. Bellinger DL, Lorton D, Brouxhon S, Felten S, Felten DL. The significance of vasoactive intestinal polypeptide (VIP) in immunomodulation. Adv. Neuroimmunol. 1996;6(1):5-27.

89. Herzberg U, Murtaugh MP, Carroll D, Beitz AJ. Spinal Cord NMDA Receptors Modulate Peripheral Immune Responses and Spinal Cord c-fos Expression after Immune Challenge in Rats Subjected to Unilateral Mononeuropathy. J Neurosci. 1996;16(2):730-43.

90. Reubi JC, Horisberger U, Kappeler A, Laissue JA. Localization of Receptors for Vasoactive Intestinal Peptide, Somatostatin, and Substance P in distinct compartments of human lymphoid organs. Blood 1998;92(1):191-197.

91. Alcorn SM. Chiropractic treatment and antibody levels. J Aust. Chiropractors Assoc. 1977. 11(3):18-37.

92. Vora G, Bates H. The effects of spinal manipulation on the immune system. Am Chiropr. Assoc. J Chiropr. 1980; 4:S103-5

93. Luisetto G, Spano D, Steiner W. et al. Immunoreactive ACTH, beta-endorphin and calcitonin before and after manipulative treatment of patients with cervical arthrosis and Barre’s syndrome. In: Napolitano E., editor. Research in chiropractic: Proceedings of ICA International Congress. Washington, DC: International Chiropractor’s Association. 1983;47-52.

94. Richardson DL, Kappler R, Klatz R. et al. The effect of osteopathic manipulative treatment on endogenous opiate concentration (abstract) J AM Osteopath Assoc. 1984;84:127.

95. Vernon HT, Dhami MSI, Howley TP, Annett R, Spinal Manipulation and Beta-Endorphin: A Controlled Study of the Effect of a Spinal Manipulation on Plasma Beta-Endorphin Levels in Normal Males. J Manip. Physiol. Ther. 1986;9(2):115-23

96. Christian GF, Stanton GJ, Sissons D, How HY, Jamison J, Alder B, Fullerton M, Funder JW. Immunoreactive ACTH, Beta-endorphin and cortisol levels in plasma following spinal manipulative therapy. Spine 1988;13(12):1411-1417.

97. van Breda WM, van Breda JM. A comparative study of the health status of children raised under the health care models of chiropractic and allopathic medicine. J Chirop. Res. 1989;5(4):101-103.

98. Rose-Aymon S, Aymon M, Prochaska-Moss G, Moss R, Rebne R, Nielsen K. The relationship between intensity of chiropractic care and the incidence of childhood diseases. J Chirop. Res 1989;5(3):70-7 .

99. Kokjohn K, Kaltinger C, Lohr GE, et al. Plasma substance P following spinal manipulation. . In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Arlington, Virginia: Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research. 1990:105-8.

100. Lohr GE, O’Brien JC, Nodine DL, Brennan PC. Natural killer cells as an outcome of chiropractic treatment efficacy. In: Proceedings of the Internationa1 Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Arlington, Virginia: Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research 1990:109-12.

101. Brennan PC, Kokjohn K, Kaltinger CJ, Lohr GE, Glendening C, Hondras MA, McGregor M, Triano JJ. Enhanced phagocytic cell respiratory burst induced by spinal manipulation: Potential role of substance P. J Manip. Physio. Ther.1991;14(7):399-408.

102. McGregor M, Brennan P, Triano JJ. Immunologic response to manipulation of the lumbar spine. In: Proceedings of the International Conference on Spinal Manipulation. Arlington, Virginia: Foundation for Chiropractic Education and Research 1991:153-5.

103. Brennan PC, Triano JJ, McGregor M, Kokjohn K, Hondras MA, Brennan PC. Enhanced neutrophil respiratory burst as a biological marker for manipulation forces: Duration of the effect and association with substance P and Tumor Necrosis Factor. J Manip. Physiol. Ther. 1992;15(2):83-9.

104. Brennan PC, Graham MA, Triano JJ, Hondras MA, Anderson RJ,. Lymphocyte profiles in patients with chronic low back pain enrolled in a clinical trial. J Manip. Physiol. Ther. 1994 17(4): 219-227.

105. Injeyan, S. Studies on the effects of spinal manipulation on the immune response. Internet WWW 1999; http//c3r.org/research/injeyan-R/injeyan-r.html

106. Spector NH. Anatomic and Physiologic connections between the central nervous system and the immune systems. Reprinted in: Research Forum 1987;103-17.

107. Fidelibus JC.An overview of neuroimmunomodulation and a possible correlation with musculoskeletal system function. J Manip. Physiol. Ther. 1989;12(4):289-292.

108. Allen, JM. The effects of chiropractic on the immune system: A review of the literature. Chiropractic Journal Aust. 1993;23:132-5.

109. Kent, C. Neuroimmunology. International Chiropractic Pediatric Association. 1996. Internet.



Research

Uncategorised Posted on Mon, November 25, 2019 19:43:12
chiro-neuro Neurology Research
New Research Shows How Chiropractic Care Can Stimulate The Brain And Have Positive Effects All Over The Body
By Mark Studin DC, William J. Owens DC access_time 05/07/2019 pageview3425 Views chat_bubble_outlineLeave a comment

Were D.D. and B.J. Palmer right with their bone on nerve theory? According to Charles A. Lantz, DC. PhD. Director of Research, Life Chiropractic College West (2015), Montgomery and Nelson cited the context within which medical authors in the mid- to late 19th century referred to subluxation, one that was similar to how D.D. Palmer later would:


A vertebra is said to be displaced or luxated when the joint surfaces are entirely separated. Sub-luxation is a partial or incomplete separation: one in which the articulating surfaces remain in partial contact. This latter condition is so often referred to and known by chiropractors as sub-luxation. The relationship existing between bones and nerves are so nicely adjusted that anyone of the 200 bones, more especially those of the vertebral column, cannot be displaced ever so little without impinging upon adjacent nerves. Pressure on nerves excites, agitates, creates an excess of molecular vibration, whose effects, when local, are known as inflammation, when general, as fever. A subluxation does not restrain or liberate vital energy. Vital energy is expressed in functional activity. A subluxation may impinge against nerves, the transmitting channel may increase or decrease the momentum of impulses, not energy.



Lance (2015) also reported, “According to BJ Palmer, a subluxation represented a displaced bone that impinged on a nerve, thus interfering with the transmission of vital nerve energy (or, more specifically, the transmission of ‘mental impulses.’)” 


For over a century, doctors of chiropractic have been explaining chiropractic by teaching patients and the medical community that there are bones compressing/irritating spinal nerves. The ensuing nervous system dysfunctions have negative effects on the function of peripheral nervous systems, central nervous systems and patients’ overall ability to maintain homeostasis. Essentially, they go into states of dis-ease.  These discussions were in large part due to the teachings of D.D. Palmer and B.J. Palmer as previously cited. Based on the results rendered in chiropractic offices across the country and in a patient-driven model of success, the general consensus in both private practice and chiropractic academia had been to maintain status quo and simply teach what has worked in the absence of conclusive evidence, particularly in light of a lack of serious governmental funding and support for chiropractic research.  In addition, dogma has also created blinders for many, as evidence evolves to further chiropractic and its understanding, application and expansion.

“The areas of the brain affected by chiropractic adjustments effect the following functions: emotions, learning, motivation, memory, consciousness, homeostasis, perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive function, voluntary movements, decision making, touch, temperature, pain of the skin- epithelial tissue-skeletal muscles-bones-internal organs and cardiovascular system.”

Over the last 10-15 years, research has been published by the scientific community that has begun to verify that D.D. and B.J. Palmer’s hypotheses were fundamentally correct, while clarifying the specific physiological mechanisms related to chiropractic’s ability to alleviate pain.  As a result of initially studying pain mechanisms, contemporary research has also begun to set the foundation for understanding why chiropractic works with systemic and autonomic dysfunction and potential disease treatment through the adjustment – central nervous system connection. It is the understanding of that connection with pain that is helping people to begin to understand the full impact of the chiropractic spinal adjustment and render the evidence to help more get well.


CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM PROCESSING OF PAIN REDUCTION
Coronado et al. (2012) reported that, “Reductions in pain sensitivity, or hypoalgesia, following SMT [spinal manipulative therapy or the chiropractic adjustment] may be indicative of a mechanism related to the modulation of afferent input or central nervous system processing of pain” (p. 752). “The authors theorized the observed effect related to modulation of pain primarily at the level of the spinal cord since (1) these changes were seen within lumbar innervated areas and not cervical innervated areas and (2) the findings were specific to a measure of pain sensitivity (temporal summation of pain), and not other measures of pain sensitivity, suggesting an effect related to attenuation of dorsal horn excitability and not a generalized change in pain sensitivity” (Coronado et al., 2012, p. 752). These findings indicate that a chiropractic spinal adjustment affects the dorsal horns at the root levels which are located in the central nervous system.  This is the beginning of the “big picture” since once we identify the mechanism by which we can positively influence the central nervous system, we can then study that process and its effects in much more depth.



One of the main questions asked by Corando et al. (2012) “…was whether SMT (chiropractic adjustments) elicits a general response on pain sensitivity or whether the response is specific to the area where SMT is applied. For example, changes in pain sensitivity over the cervical facets following a cervical spine SMT would indicate a local and specific effect while changes in pain sensitivity in the lumbar facets following a cervical spine SMT would suggest a general effect. We observed a favorable change for increased PPT [pressure pain threshold] when measured at remote anatomical sites and a similar, but non-significant change at local anatomical sites. These findings lend support to a possible general effect of SMT beyond the effect expected at the local region of SMT application (p. 762).


The mechanisms of SMT are theorized to result from both spinal cord mediated mechanisms and supraspinal mediated mechanisms [brain]. A recent model of the mechanisms of manual therapy suggests changes in pain related to SMT result from an interaction of neurophysiological responses related to the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system at the spinal and supraspinal level” (Coronado et al., 2012, p. 762).  This demonstrates that the chiropractic adjustment influences the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system.  “Collectively, these studies provide evidence that SMT has an immediate effect on reducing pain sensitivity, most notably at the remote region of stimulus assessment with similar results in clinical and healthy populations” (Coronado et al., 2012, p. 763).


Reed, Pickar, Sozio, and Long (2014) reported:
…forms of manual therapy have been clinically shown to increase mechanical pressure pain thresholds (i.e., decrease sensitivity) in both symptomatic and asymptomatic subjects.Cervical spinal manipulation has been shown to result in unilateral as well as bilateral mechanical hypoalgesia. Compared with no manual therapy, oscillatory spinal manual therapy at T12 and L4 produced significantly higher paraspinal pain thresholds at T6, L1, and L3 in individuals with rheumatoid arthritis. The immediate and widespread hypoalgesia associated with manual therapy treatments has been attributed to alterations in peripheral and/or central pain processing including activation of descending pain inhibitory systems.


Increasing evidence from animal models suggests that manual therapy activates the central nervous system and, in so doing, affects areas well beyond those being treated. (p. 277)


Reed et al. (2014) also reported:
The finding that only the higher intensity manipulative stimulus (ie, 85% BW [body weight] vs 55% BW or control) decreased the mechanical sensitivity of lateral thalamic neurons to mechanical trunk stimulation coincides with other reports relating graded mechanical or electrical stimulus intensity to the magnitude of central inhibition…


Several clinical studies indicate that spinal manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustment] alters central processing of mechanical stimuli evidenced by increased pressure pain thresholds and decreased pain sensitivity in asymptomatic and symptomatic subjects following manipulation. (p. 282)



 The thalamus also plays an important role in regulating states ofsleep and wakefulness.Thalamic nuclei have strong reciprocal connections with the cerebral cortex, formingthalamo-cortico-thalamic circuitsthat are believed to be involved withconsciousness. The thalamus plays a major role in regulating arousal, the level of awareness, and activity (“Thalamus,” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus).


This indicates that the chiropractic spinal adjustment reduces pain by effecting the thalamus and descending central pain pathways, while mobilization does not show evidence of having the same effect.  In addition, with our current knowledge of the chiropractic adjustment effecting the thalamus, we can begin to offer an explanation of how the first historically reported chiropractic adjustment by D.D. Palmer helped Harvey Lilard regain his hearing.


CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS REDUCES PAIN IN MULTIPLE REGIONS DUE TO LOCAL AND CNS STIMULATION
Mohammadian, Gonsalves, Tsai, Hummel, and Carpenter (2004) investigated “the hypoalgesic effects of a single SMT on acute inflammatory reactions and pain induced by capsaicin [hot pepper extract]. These effects were assessed by measuring both sensory (allodynia [central nervous system pain], hyperalgesia, spontaneous pain intensity) and local vascular parameters (blood flow)” (p. 382). They reported “As expected, topical capsaicin induced primary hyperalgesia in the application area and secondary hyperalgesia outside that area. While the local vascular parameter blood flow was not affected by a single SMT [spinal manual therapy], the results indicated that sensory parameters (spontaneous pain perception and areas of both secondary hyperalgesia and allodynia) were significantly altered after spinal manipulation compared with N-SMT [non-spinal manipulative therapy]. These results clearly demonstrated that in contrast to the N-SMT condition, a single spinal manipulation triggered hypoalgesic effects” (Mohammadian et al., 2004, p. 385).


“In the present study, local blood flow was not affected by a single SMT. However, significant changes were observed on sensory parameters, supporting the hypothesis of centrally mediated effects of a single SMT. It is well known that secondary hyperalgesia appears to be due to central sensitization of the spinal dorsal horn neurons,while primary hyperalgesia is caused by nociceptor sensitization. It has also been discussed that mechanisms underlying allodynia are centrally mediated.Our findings also confirm the view that the hypoalgesic effects of a single SMT might be due to central modulation. These effects could also be explained as a result of a stress reaction caused by spinal manipulation treatment…Other studies discussed thatspinal manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustments] stimulates mechanoreceptors of the spinal joints, resulting in afferent discharges and subsequently causing inhibitory reactions on the dorsal horn neurons.Vicenzino et al. demonstrated also a strong correlation between hypoalgesic and sympathoexcitatory effects, suggesting that a central control mechanism might be activated by manipulative therapy… previous studies as well as the present investigation…indicate that hypoalgesic effects of spinal manipulation are more likely mediated through central modulation” (Mohammadian et al., 2004, p. 386).  This study suggests that the chiropractic spinal adjustment affects the nociceptors and the mechanoreceptors at the joint level causing central modulation of an effect at the cord and/or brain level(s) and pain reductions in multiple areas as a result.



CHIROPRACTIC ADJUSTMENTS CREATE HIGHER FUNCTION IN CORTICAL REGIONS
Gay, Robinson, George, Perlstein, and Bishop (2014) reported, “With the evidence supporting efficacy of MT [manual therapy or chiropractic spinal adjustments] to reduce pain intensity and pain sensitivity, it is reasonable to assume that the underlying therapeutic effect of MT is likely to include a higher cortical component” (p. 615).   It is in this place in particular that chiropractic must lead in both clinical application and academic processes such as formal continuing education lectures and research.


In the study conducted by Gay et al. (2014), “…pain-free volunteers processed thermal stimuli applied to the hand before and after thoracic spinal manipulation (a form of MT).  What they found was that after thoracic manipulation, several brain regions demonstrated a reduction in peak BOLD [blood-oxygen-level–dependent] activity. Those regions included the cingulate, insular, motor, amygdala and somatosensory cortices, and the PAG [periaqueductal gray regions]” (p. 615). In other words, thoracic adjustments produced direct and measureable effects on the central nervous system across multiple regions, which in the case of the responsible for the processing of emotion (cingulate cortex, aka limbic cortex) are regarding the insular cortex which also responsible for regulating emotion as well has homeostasis. The motor cortex is involved in the planning and execution of voluntary movements, the amygdala’s primary function is memory and decision making (also part of the limbic system), the somatosensory cortex is involved in processing the sense of touch (remember the homunculus) and, finally, the periaqueductal gray is responsible for descending pain modulation (the brain regulating the processing of painful stimuli).


Brain Region
Function
Cingulate Cortex
Emotions, learning, motivation, memory
Insular Cortex
Consciousness, homeostasis, perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive function
Motor Cortex
Voluntary movements
Amygdala Cortex
Memory, decision making, emotional reactions
Somatosensory Cortex
Proprio and mechano-reception, touch, temperature, pain of the skin, epithelial, skeletal muscle, bones, joints, internal organs and cardiovascular systems
Periaqueductal Gray
Ascending and descending spinothalamtic tracts carrying pain and temperature fibers





























This is a major step in showing the global effects of the chiropractic adjustment, particularly those that have been observed clinically, but not reproduced in large studies.  “The purpose of this study was to investigate the changes in FC [functional changes] between brain regions that process and modulate the pain experience after MT [manual therapy]. The primary outcome was to measure the immediate change in FC  across brain regions involved in processing and modulating the pain experience and identify if there were reductions in experimentally induced myalgia and changes in local and remote pressure pain sensitivity” (Gay et al., 2014, p. 615).  Simply put, can the processing of pain be modulated or regulated from an external force without the use of pharmacy or surgery?


“Within the brain, the pain experience is subserved by an extended network of brain regions including the thalamus (THA), primary and secondary somatosensory, cingulate, and insular cortices.Collectively, these regions are referred to as the pain processing network (PPN) and encode the sensory discriminate and cognitive and emotional components of the pain experience.Perception of pain is dependent not merely on the neural activity within the PPN [pain processing network] but also on the flexible interactions of this network with other functional systems, including the descending pain modulatory system” (Gay et al., 2014, p. 617).  This is part of the reason why some patients experience pain differently than others.  Some have anxiety, depression and are at a loss to function while others can “ignore” the pain and maintain an adequate functional level as a productive member of society.  Pain is deeply tied to the most primitive regions of the central nervous system and it appears (as chiropractors have observed clinically for 116 years) that therapeutically speaking, we can have an influence on these higher centers with little or no side-effects.


Gay et al. (2014) went on to report, “This study assessed the relationship of brain activity between regions of the PPN [pain processing network] before and after MT [manual therapy or chiropractic spinal adjustments]. Using this approach, we found common and treatment-dependent changes in FC [functional changes]…Our study is unique in our neurophysiologic measure because we used resting-state fMRI [functional MRI] in conjunction with FC [functional change] analyses. Our results are in agreement with studies that have found immediate changes using other neurophysiologic outcomes, such as Hoffman-reflex and motor-neuron excitability, electroencephalography with somatosensory-evoked potentials, transcranial magnetic stimulation with motor evoked potentials, and task-based fMRI with peak BOLD response” (p. 619 and 624).  This study concludes that chiropractic spinal adjustments create functional changes in multiple regions of the brain based upon multiple outcome measures.   In the study by Gay et al. 2014), this was measureable and reproducible. In addition, this has far reaching effects in setting the foundation for understanding how the adjustment works in systemic and possibly autonomic changes by being able to measure and reproduce functional changes within the brain as direct sequellae.


Daligadu, Haavik, Yielder, Baarbe, and Murphy (2013) also reported that “Numerous studies indicate that significant cortical plastic changes are present in various musculoskeletal pain syndromes.In particular, altered feed-forward postural adjustments have been demonstrated in a variety of musculoskeletal conditions including anterior knee pain, low back pain,and idiopathic neck pain.Furthermore, alterations in trunk muscle recruitment patterns have been observed in patients with mechanical low back pain” (p. 527). What this means is that there are observable changes in the function of the central nervous system seen in patients with musculoskeletal conditions.  That is something that chiropractors have observed clinically and shows the medical necessity for chiropractic care for both short and long term management as well as in the prevention of pain syndromes.


Daligadu et al. (2013) stated the following:
There is also evidence in the literature to suggest that muscle impairment occurs early in the history of onset of spinal complaints,and that such muscle impairment does not automatically resolve even when pain symptoms improve. This has led some authors to suggest that the deficits in proprioception and motor control, rather than the pain itself, may be the main factors defining the clinical picture and chronicity of various chronic pain conditions.


Furthermore, recent evidence has demonstrated that spinal manipulation can alter neuromuscular and proprioceptive function in patients with neck and back pain as well as in asymptomatic participants. For instance, cervical spine manipulation has been shown to produce greater changes in pressure pain threshold in lateral epicondylalgia than thoracic manipulation; and in asymptomatic patients, lumbar spine manipulation was found to significantly influence corticospinal and spinal reflex excitability. “Interestingly, Soon et al did not find neurophysiological changes following mobilization on motor function and pressure pain threshold in asymptomatic individuals, perhaps suggesting that manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustments], as distinct from mobilization, induces unique physiological changes. There is also accumulating evidence to suggest that chiropractic manipulation can result in changes to central nervous system function including reflex excitability, cognitive processing, sensory processing, and motor output.There is also evidence in SCNP [sub-clinical neck pain] individuals that chiropractic manipulation alters cortical somatosensory processingand elbow joint position sense.This evidence suggests that chiropractic manipulation may have a positive neuromodulatory effect on the central nervous system, and this may play a role in the effect it has in the treatment of neck pain. It is hoped improving our understanding of the neurophysiological mechanisms that may precede the development of chronic neck pain in individuals with SCNP will help provide a neurophysiological marker of altered sensory processing that could help determine if an individual is showing evidence of disordered sensorimotor integration and thus might benefit from early intervention to prevent the progression of SCNP into more long-term pain states.  (p. 528)


The authors went on to state, “Previous work using paired-pulse transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the motor cortex has indicated that cervical spine manipulation can alter sensorimotor integration of the upper limb by decreasing the amount of short-interval intracortical inhibition (SICI).A recent somatosensory evoked potential (SEP) study involving dual SEPs from the median and ulnar nerves demonstrated that cervical manipulation of dysfunctional areas in patients with a history of reoccurring neck pain or stiffness was able to affect sensorimotor integration…spinal manipulation altered the way the central nervous system responded to the motor training task” (Daligadu et al., 2013, p. 528).


Furthermore, the authors added, “…altered afferent input from the neck due to joint dysfunction leads to disordered sensorimotor integration within the cerebellum and a subsequent derangement in motor commands to the upper limb. The cerebellum plays a fundamental role in detecting the encoded afferent signal and relaying this information as part of the body schema. When the input signal is no longer encoded as a result of joint dysfunction and altered afferent input, the cerebellum must adjust to new encodings that dictate the body schema and affect proper execution of the motor task” (p. 529).


“Motor sequence learning tasks have been previously shown to induce plasticity within the circuitry of both the motor cortexand the cerebellum…Neck manipulation [chiropractic spinal adjustments] has also been shown to provide a modulatory effect on the motor cortex by reducing the amount of intracortical inhibition.” (Daligadu et al., 2013, p. 533).


“This study further adds to the literature by demonstrating an alteration in cerebellar modulation of motor output in SCNP [sub-clinical neck pain] patients when they received a manipulation-based chiropractic treatment before performing motor sequence learning.In the healthy control group, there was no change in CBI seen following motor sequence learning alone” (Daligadu et al., 2013, p. 534).


“If the motor sequence learning task had a significant effect on the cerebellum in this group of participants due to their neck pain and altered sensorimotor integration, then it is possible that a decreased level of CBI [cerebellar inhibition] output to the motor cortex would result in an increase in SICI [short-intracortical inhibition]” (Daligadu et al., 2013, p. 534). The significance of this study is that it suggests that the chiropractic spinal adjustment improves not just neck dysfunction, but through plasty changes in the cerebellum, there is resultant motor learning and increased function. 


How Does a Chiropractic Adjustment Work? Here is the CONCLUSION


Based upon the scientific evidence, chiropractic spinal adjustments stimulate mechanoreceptors and nociceptors of the spinal joints resulting in afferent discharges and subsequently causing central modulation with an effect at the cord and brain levels. This causes pain reductions and secondary hyperalgesia (pain reduction in remote regions) which appears to be due to central sensitization of the spinal dorsal horn neurons,while primary hyperalgesia is caused by nociceptor sensitization.


This verifies that chiropractic adjustments influence the peripheral nervous system and the central nervous system. In the central nervous system, chiropractic spinal adjustments reduce pain by effecting the thalamus and descending central pain pathways.


Chiropractic spinal adjustments also create functional changes in multiple regions of the brain based upon multiple outcome measures that are measureable and reproducible. The areas of the brain affected by chiropractic adjustments effect the following functions: emotions, learning, motivation, memory, consciousness, homeostasis, perception, motor control, self-awareness, cognitive function, voluntary movements, decision making, touch, temperature, pain of the skin- epithelial tissue-skeletal muscles-bones-internal organs and cardiovascular system. This has far reaching effects in setting the foundation for understanding how the adjustment works in systemic and autonomic changes by being able to measure and reproduce functional changes within the brain as direct sequellae.


The evidence also reveals that only chiropractic adjustments (high velocity-low amplitude) render these findings and mobilization of joints conclusively do not. In addition, muscle impairment does not automatically improve with symptoms abating creating the necessity for both short and long-term care. This indicates that the deficits in proprioception and motor control, rather than the pain itself, may be the main factors defining the clinical picture and chronicity of various chronic pain conditions.


 
References:
1. Lantz, C. A. (1995). A review of the evolution of chiropractic concepts of subluxation. Topics in Clinical Chiropractic, 2(2). Retrieved from http://www.chiro.org/LINKS/FULL/A_Review_of_the_Evolution.shtml


2. Coronado, R. A., Gay, C. W., Bialosky, J. E., Carnaby, G. D., Bishop, M. D., & George, S. Z. (2012). Changes in pain sensitivity following spinal manipulation: A systematic review and meta-analysis. Journal of Electromyography Kinesiology, 22(5), 752-767.


3. Reed, W. R., Pickar, J. G., Sozio, R. S., & Long, C. R. (2014). Effect of spinal manipulation thrust magnitude on trunk mechanical activation thresholds of lateral thalamic neurons. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 37(5), 277-286.


4. Thalamus. (2015). Wikipedia. Retrieved from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thalamus


5. Mohammadian, P., Gonsalves, A., Tsai, C., Hummel, T., & Carpenter, T. (2004). Areas of capsaicin-induced secondary hyperalgesia and allodynia are reduced by a single chiropractic adjustment: A preliminary study. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutic, 27(6), 381-387.


6. Gay, C. W., Robinson, M. E., George, S. Z., Perlstein, W. M., & Bishop, M. D. (2014). Immediate changes after manual therapy in resting-state functional connectivity as measured by functional magnetic resonance imaging in participants with induced low back pain. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 37(9), 614-627.


7. Daligadu, J., Haavik, H., Yielder, P. C., Baarbe, J., & Murphy, B. (2013). Alterations in coritcal and cerebellar motor processing in subclinical neck pain patients following spinal manipulation. Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics, 36(8), 527-537.


Dr. Mark Studin is an Adjunct Associate Professor of Chiropractic at the University Of Bridgeport College Of Chiropractic, an Adjunct Assistant Professor of Clinical Sceinces at Texas Chiropractic College and a clinical presenter for the State of New York at Buffalo, School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences for post-doctoral education, teaching MRI spine interpretation and triaging trauma cases. He is also the president of the Academy of Chiropractic teaching doctors of chiropractic how to interface with the legal community (www.DoctorsPIProgram.com), teaches MRI interpretation and triaging trauma cases to doctors of all disciplines nationally and studies trends in healthcare on a national scale (www.TeachDoctors.com). He can be reached at 631-786-4253.
 
Dr. Bill Owens is presently in private practice in Buffalo and Rochester NY and has created chiropractic as the primary spine care referral for the primary care medical community and emergency rooms in both regions.  He is an Associate Adjunct Professor at the State University of New York at Buffalo School of Medicine and Biomedical Sciences and is an Adjunt Assistant Professor of Clinical Sceinces at the University of Bridgeport, College of Chiropractic and Texas Chiropractic College.  He also works directly with doctors of chiropractic to help them build relationships with medical providers in their community. He can be reached at www.mdreferralprogram.com or 716-228-3847  




NSA Research

Wellness Posted on Tue, February 12, 2019 14:33:06

https://www.epienergetics.org/research-resources/



Activator research

Wellness Posted on Mon, February 11, 2019 20:01:29

Clinical Trials

https://www.activator.com/research/



Evidencia Cientifica

Wellness Posted on Fri, January 04, 2019 19:32:39

https://quiropractica-aeq.com/pdf/Dossier-Noviembre-2019.pdf



Next »