A
Tonal Chiropractic Manifesto
The Driving
Force of Function:
For years chiropractors
have stated collectively that structure equals function. The structure
of the spinal column gives the chiropractor a standard into which to
establish clinical guidelines for therapy. This presumes that there is a
structural component to the spine that is perfectly adapted for the
individual organism’s immediate and long term needs that can be imposed
by outside standards. Current chiropractic theories state that small
asymmetries are pathological, ineffective, cause disease, decrease
normal physiology of the human. These negative traits of small rotary
asymmetries in the vertebra (the classical chiropractic subluxation)
would naturally decrease evolutionary fitness. But to state this is
also to affirm that those small rotary asymmetries at the local level in
the spine were not adapted for and selected against. These comments
presuppose that the spine (after 400 million years of development)
has not selected for species fitness and success as a
biological line. How could these small asymmetries exist for 400 million
years if they did not increase fitness?
Basic evolutionary
fitness is the
probability
that the
line
of
descent
from an
individual
with a
specific
trait
will not eventually
die
out. Perhaps those small rotations may be small adaptations to the many
degrees of freedom (cultivated over 300,000 generations of vertebrate
existence) allowed by the hominid spine. These small asymmetries may be
pathological in the short term or long term or these small asymmetries
may be the best physiological adaptation for the individual to preserve
resources in the short or long term. Perhaps these asymmetries may
contain both traits?
An understanding of
proper function and the analysis those patients with small rotary
asymmetries in the spine reveal that many of these patients have lived
to ripe old ages and reproduced effectively. If this is documented fact
this leads one to deduce that these asymmetries are at least not fatal
to those individuals. To state that small asymmetries are always
pathological would deny the fitness of 6.2 million years of human
natural selection and generational adaptation. If these slight
rotations were always a source of inefficiencies and decreased
evolutionary fitness these rotations would have been de-selected for and
they would not have survived to the present.
The original
chiropractic theory of vertebral subluxation (functional anomalies) -the
exertion of pressure on a spinal nerve which by interfering with the
planned expression of Innate Intelligence produces pathology-is an
incomplete statement. This is an incomplete when we recognize the
vertebral column has been evolving for over 400 million years of
vertebrate evolution to support the body and protect the central nervous
system in many millions of vertebrate species.
Traditional chiropractic (segmental and postural technique
classifications) evaluates abnormal function as a result of labeled
abnormal structures. These labels are self-developed and described in
isolation in the chiropractor’s practice or technique. Tonal
Chiropractic, a subset of chiropractic technique and theory, has
attempted to answer these inconsistencies by looking at the input side
of structure. That abnormal structure can lead to abnormal function that
continuously feeds the CNS with aberrant input. Or that aberrant
structure is the individual’s best attempt to adapt and save resources
given the current immediate demands of the internal and external
environment. Tonal chiropractic techniques explain that symptoms that we
see in our clinics are a result of neuron-physiological partitioning.
Since the CNS controls and regulates all physiological process of the
human body, these optimizations must occur at the microscopic cellular
level in the nervous system first. All these changes can be explained by
considering the process of energy efficiency of neural communication and
neural processing. Energy (available ATP) is finite. It is reasonable
to assume that the limiting factor for this energy resource/metabolic)
efficiency optimization process is the use of available ATP. Thus, to
optimize neurological programs, the CNS will shunt and mobilize ATP to
the areas of greatest physiological need in the CNS. Tonal chiropractic
relies on observable biological standards.
History has proven,
especially recently, that our science’s understanding of certain human
physiology traits is not only incomplete but can be plain wrong. The
recent revolutions in the areas of CNS neuroplasticity, the existence of
widespread adult CNS stem cells, the ‘discovery’ of the bidirectional
communication of the CNS and the immune system; these are areas of
science that have changed 180 degrees from their original dogmas. This
limitation of human understanding proves our generation’s descriptive
limitation and the evaluation of normative function. But physiological
proper function must be historical if human existence is a product of
400 million years of vertebrate adaptation and positive modifications. .
Ruth Garrett Millikan
(born
1933)
is a well-known
American
philosopher
of
biology,
psychology,
and
language
described the term “proper function” in the late 1980’s. Proper
functions are the sorts of functions that biologists assign to the
organs of animals and the sorts of function that human artifacts have.
The notion in the context of the philosophy of biology is introduced
that proper functions are what things are for
whilst other functions of the design are not. It is possible to
distinguish having the function X from merely functioning as X. Both
these linguistic distinctions can be used to mark a rough boundary for
the class proper functions.
Function is any
activity that can be produced by a structural entity. Proper functions
differ from other functions in that they can be cited to explain the
reason for the structures existence. The presence of the heart can be
partially explained by its capacity to circulate blood and move oxygen
into tissues. These functions enter into an evolutionary and natural
selection explanation of the presence of the heart. But the presence
of the heart cannot be explained by its ability to cause severe pain
during a myocardial infarction event. The ability to cause pain is a
function of the heart (pathological abet a function) but not its proper
function that leads to greater evolutionary fitness. The normative
(fitness) function could be said to be its proper function. But it would
not be evaluative because of course normative definitions change with
better understanding of biological functions. By definition proper
function is defined historically over evolution. For example, science
used to understand that CNS glia cells were simple supportive
structures, we now know that glia cells are the most important cells in
the CNS for intercellular communication and neuroplasticity. Some glia
cells are not supportive at all, but are in fact adult stem cells. The
proper functions of a trait are those affect of a trait which ancestral
evolutionary fitness components. These functions of a trait are
advantageous and are those selected over time. The effects is a positive
adaptation. To explain a trait by alluring to its proper function is to
explain it as the result of natural selection, in the way with which we
are all familiar.
When addressing the
functions of the spine one must specifically separate and define the
proper functions and foundational functions. Proper spinal
functions are functions that can best fit its place in the evolutionary
fitness picture. The foundation functions of the spine must first fit
in the overriding natural selection process. Function X or Y as
described as a spinal function must first agree with evolutionary
biology.
If spinal function X or
Y, although describable, deny the natural selection process and
evolutionary biology for all vertebrates, then the description of the
observation must be incomplete.
The incomplete
description of spinal function X or Y can not be a proper function. If
the function of the spine is to maintain perfect alignment with complete
axial symmetry but this “model spine” can not be found in living or
deceased humans (or any vertebrates for that matter) and more over that
perfect symmetry may not have evolutionary value, then perfect axial
symmetry may not be a normative function, or be the foundational
function function. There can be no statistical outliers to foundational
function. If a few specimens with small rotary asymmetries are
observable examples of maximum human performance and presumed
evolutionary fitness (biological and athletic rock stars) then the
principle of traditional chiropractic that small asymmetries led to
depressed function is visibly incomplete. Although ‘perfect axial
‘symmetry may exist theoretically as a spinal function, it does not
supersede evolutionary drive and proper foundational function. The
described proper structure of the spine (as described by traditional
chiropractic paradigms and colleges) can not override examples of super
normative function and faultless evolutionary fitness. How can an
individual have perfect adaptation traits and outstanding biological
function and have small rotary asymmetries if these small rotary
vertebral asymmetries have a deleterious effect on individual function
and fitness? For example, how can we have patients that are athletics
superstars, have a large socially stable families and
have small rotary asymmetries if these asymmetries are always
deleterious?
So what is the proper
function of the spinal column. Perhaps protection of the CNS and spinal
cord, Intersegmental flexibility that allows for great range of movement
and mobility. Greater mobility adds to species fitness (evolutionary
survival ability). But again there must be an underlying principle that
is true in every case when applied to all spinal functions. These
functions of the spine are not the foundation function, which ids of
course, evolutionary fitness. The first and primary proper function of
any biological structure is energy efficiency. The proper functions
must first and foremost satisfy the evolutionary fitness requirement
before another function can be assessed. Does your chiropractic
technique evaluate (in real time) the patient’s proper physiological
function that would increase evolutionary drive? High priority
physiological functions like breathing and circulation should be
evaluated pre and post chiropractic interventions. Can a chiropractic
or allopathic intervention be positive for the individual if it does
not increase real physiological function despite its nociceptive
effect?
Increasing the body’s
main physiological traits (e.g. breathing, circulation, and heat
regulation) should be our prime motivation for intervention. The body
after 6.2 million years will shift resources to maintaining basic
abilities. If we assist the body in prime physiological functions, the
body’s innate ability developed over 400 million years
will utilize the freed up resources to improve fitness and heal local
injuries/disease.
This brief article was
designed to begin conversations within the chiropractic community as to
what is the best physiological function to analyze that guides our
adjusting techniques. Is it okay to have a chiropractic intervention
(or an allopathic one for sake of conversation) that may decrease pain
but maintains or assists in degraded physiological function? Do we
assess global physiological functions biology and science have always
proven effect every cell(breathing, circulation) or do we assess
physiological functions on a small local level (segmental biomechanical
function, muscle spasms and swelling) and presume they have global
effects? The patient’s leg length may be even but does that correspond
to an immediate positive change in prime physiological functions like
breathing, circulation, heat regulation, nutrient absorption, CNS
informational processing energy efficiency, or overall health? Is L5
right rotated a pathological structural malposition or is it the best
adaptation 400 million years of winning can produce to maintain
efficiency and drive towards fuller expansion of our human potential? Do
we evaluate physiological and pathological asymmetries? ? Is it always
best to adjust that swollen, painful high spot or is their a bigger game
we should consider? Do we really trust that after 400 million years the
human body knows how to adapt efficiently in the short term? Or for
those of other religious flavors do we think we are divine junk
Very Selective References:
Andre Ariew (Editor) (2002). Functions: New Essays in the Philosophy of
Psychology and Biology
Bowler, Peter J. (2003). Evolution:The History of an Idea. University of
California Press. ISBN 0-52023693-9.
Clary, Frederick. (2006). Functional Analysis Seminar Manual
Futuyma, Douglas J. (2005). Evolution. Sunderland, Massachusetts:
Sinauer Associates, Inc. ISBN 0-87893-187-2.
David H. Peterson (Author), Thomas F. Bergmann (Author) (2002).
Chiropractic Technique
Dr. Clary has been practicing in Minnesota since 1992. His practice
focuses on neurologically challenged patients and neurological
conditions like cerebral palsy, Dystonia, Parkinson’s, head trauma,
mental health conditions. He is the originator of Functional Analysis
Chiropractic Technique. His book can be obtained at
http://www.drfredclarydc.com/index.html
|