My how time flies...

It has been over a month since I last blogged. Time to catch up briefly.

I never did read von Bertalanffy's book. Instead I read and analyzed a bunch of California and Ohio supreme court rulings about duty to warn. For my term paper I chose a California ruling dubbed the Tarasoff rule. This rule holds a mental health professional liable in a situation where a patient confides his intention to harm a third party (that is legal speak for someone with whom the professional has no relationship). The professional is liable only if: 1) the patient ends up harming the third party and; 2) the professional did not warn the third party. I supplemented my case law (case law is court established law) analysis with some statutory law (statutory law is legislatively established law) analysis. I then made some applications for physical therapists. I hope to publish the paper.

I'm curious what my vast readership thinks. Consider a scenario where Bob Jones is being treated by Jack Handy (psychologist) for depression after a rough break-up with his girlfriend. What is the psychologist's duty when Bob makes specific claims that he is "going to bring a knife over to her house and end it all?" According to traditional Anglo-American common law there is no duty to protect between strangers. However, the California Supreme Court made an exception to the common law, stating that when a psychologist enters into a relationship with a patient he then has a duty to protect the public from the patient.

What do you think?

Read, read, read.

Next month's course is on ethics. Yipee!! My professors are both therapists and lawyers. One of them has authored a short book which I am reading on ethical issues in the health care realm. Within the book he made reference to a philosopher that I found enticing--Von Bertalanffy. He was a biologist who developed thought regarding general systems. His writing pertains mostly to the human sciences (e.g. medicine, sociology, psychology, etc). Just to be an overachiever I ordered Von Bertalanffy's book on General System Theory and am going to read it for my class. I hope to quickly take in his thought and analyze it enough to use it in my papers. Here's to the teacher's pet!

Where are my glasses?

I admit that I author a very boring blog. In an attempt to possible hook one or two readers into my blog I have adopted the strategy of using very simple questions as titles (hence, "Where are my glasses?"). Readers beware: my blogs are just as boring as ever. Hopefully my trick will get a few readers to read through at least the first paragraph of my post.

Continuing with my thoughts on epistemology (the philosophy of knowledge) my mind has been lingering on the question of how knowledge is discovered. Particularly I am asking myself about the limits of research to provide useful (or beneficial) information. For any one research study to properly scrutinize the veracity of a principle it must be extremely near-sighted (to use an ophthamolgical metaphor). An exceedingly small part of existence is chosen for study (i.e. patients with acute neck pain referred below the elbow, or adsorption of a particular gas on a solid surface, etc). Years of thorough examination and testing will provide excellent description about the nature of this exceedingly small area replete with evidence for 'behavior' or 'interactions' of variables within the defined scope of study.

However, clinicians and engineers are charged with the task of working within a relatively enormous swath of reality (i.e. restoring functional wholeness to a person after an accident, or designing a subliming animal repellent, etc.). At times the myopic nature of research will prohibit the clinician from generalizing conclusions from research to the treatment of his patient. Perhaps the research literature has not yet broadly examined the problem at hand or perhaps the research has been primarily laboratory oriented without the intrusion of variables which are present in the clinic. Times like this require the clinician to step beyond the research and either rely on a mentor's imparted knowledge or to intuit a new method for treatment. Does this mean that the clinician (or engineer) is definitely making an error? Absolutely not. The clinician is relying on a different skill set to arrive at knowledge.

Whether or not the clinician arrives at erroneous knowledge does not depend on the research, rather the veracity of the clinicians knowledge depends on nothing more than its veracity. Can it get any simpler than that? Intuition leads the clinician down a path that is either mistaken or correct. Absence of research does not determine the falseness of a principle (and often times the presence of research which apparently counters a principle does not definitively determine the falseness of a principle--this is the case when myopic research is over generalized). Rather it is the lack of parallel between principle and reality that determines a principle’s falseness...empiricism teaches us that much.

Considering the research discussed in my last post it is apparent that the authors have gathered treatment methods from various respected schools of thought within the physical therapy community. These schools of thought originated when an individual therapist experienced an epiphany. For example, a veteran therapist experienced an epiphany of understanding, applied principles from the epiphany in the clinic, empirically observed positive outcomes, and began teaching other therapists what she had discovered. As research developed regarding the therapist's principles the task began of verifying what the therapist already knew to be true. Once again, the research does not determine the veracity of a principle...the veracity (or lack thereof) is predetermined by the principle’s parallel to reality. Instead, the research serves to inform the community of the principle's veracity (or lack thereof). Research is merely a matter of opening up the mind to a pre-existing reality of veracity (or lack thereof).

How can I help you?

People who experience neck pain are not always easy to help. As a younger clinician I have found myself frustrated in my attempts to figure out how to help patients with neck pain. Recently I read a research article which helped me immensely with treating the neck. The article offers a treatment-based classification system for patients with neck pain (Fritz JM, Brennan GP. Preliminary examination of a proposed treatment-based classification system for patients receiving physical therapy interventions for neck pain. Physical Therapy. 2007;87:513-524).

Underlying the authors' reasoning is the premise that patients with neck pain should not all be treated the same. Rather, these patients should be grouped into categories based on diagnostic testing and patient history. A good deal of discerning symptom trends and discriminatory placement is involved. Once a patient has been 'placed' in the correct group they can be helped with group-matched treatment. Here are definitions of each category as well as matched treatments (taken from the article verbatim):

1) MOBILITY: younger patients with more acute symptoms and without signs of nerve root compression (e.g. pain down into the arm). These patients benefit from upper thoracic spinal mobilization/manipulation and deep neck flexor exercise.

2) CENTRALIZATION: patients with distal symptoms and signs of nerve root compression (e.g. pain down into the arm). Neck retraction (chin tucking) exercises and traction are used.

3) EXERCISE AND CONDITIONING: patients who have chronic neck pain, but who do not have signs and symptoms of nerve root compression. Strengthening of deep neck flexors and the upper quarter (arm and neck muscles) is recommended.

4) PAIN CONTROL: patients with acute, traumatic onset of neck pain with a whiplash mechanism and with very high levels of pain and disability. Evidence for patients fitting this subgroup recommends mobilization, neck active range-of-motion exercises, and avoidance of immobilization.

5) HEADACHE: patients with a chief complain of headache presumed to originate from structures in the cervical spine. Evidence supports strengthening of the deep neck flexors and upper quarter muscles along with mobilization or manipulation of the cervical spine.

My most recent instructor added the following category:

6) NEURAL TENSIONING: patient with thoracic outlet like symptoms (e.g. numbness and tingling into the arm and potentially compromised arm circulation) as well as patients exhibiting positive neural tension tests. According to my instructor these patients benefit from neural tensioning or sliding, positional training, and spinal mobilization.


Ambiguity has been the number one source of frustration for me as I learn how to help people. And so this classification system has been terrific in providing concrete guidance on how to direct the best treatment to various patients with neck pain. Far from being written in stone as the absolute rule of how to treat the neck, this classification system is however a good beginning at definitively expressing how to treat the neck.

Knowing: Critical and Uncritical

In my last post I discussed what I have learned about the mechanics of cervical motion. The information I learned I gained from my text book entitled Management of Common Musculoskeletal Disorders which was edited by Hertling and Kessler. Interestingly, the section from which I took my information has no reference to scientific research. One statement was made that certain cervical mechanics are obvious to observation on dynamic roentgenograms (x-rays). Another reference was made to a text written in the 1970's. Whether the information in this reference was based on research or not is unknown to me.

It appears that I have managed to gain a great deal of knowledge about the mechanical function of the human cervical spine while circumventing modern day scientific practices. How did I do that? I did it in the way that most pupils gain their knowledge--through an uncritical process of information assimilation. I, the learner, uncritically except from my teacher (the text) "factual" information about the spine. The verifiability of this knowledge is not of immediate concern to the novice pupil whose is merely attempting to gain mastery of the teacher's principals. Primary concerns for the pupil pertain to intaking information, assimilating information, learning the teachers story and recreating the teachers story in his words. Doing this process assists the pupil with creating a working theoretical model for interacting with a physical reality. Once this theoretical model is mastered by the student he can interact with the physical reality in various experiments to test the veracity and productivity of the theory.

The philosopher Michael Polanyi compared this uncritical process of learning to a microbiologist who studies the amoeba through a microscope. The microbiologist uncritically looks beyond the lens to critically evaluate the amoeba. His assumption is that the lens has been polished well and the curvature of the lens has been correctly shaped to reflect the image in a non-distorting way. During his crituque of the amoeba it is impossible for him to be critical of the lens. Here the lens is functioning as an extension of his own eye.

And so this is one arguement for personal knowledge in the modern world. I wonder how much knowledge is accumulated in the professional world in this manner?

Description of Neck Motion

One joy particular to the study of human motion is that of characterizing motion in specific human joints. Today's task for me has been developing an internal schema (a sort of mental map) for the motion relations between the base of the skull (occiput) and the first two neck bones--C1 and C2 which are respectively referred to as the atlas (for it's rotational role) and axis (for its phallic process). Below is a diagram of the occiput, atlas, and axis. This diagram depicts from top to bottom: the occiput of the skull (with the back of the skull sawed off), the atlas (with the back side of the atals' ring sawed off), and the axis (with the back side or spine of the axis sawed off). Notice that the dens is hidden by a dense connection of ligaments and proceeds upward from the back side of the axis. The ligaments most relevant to motion are: the alar, the apical, and the cruciform ligaments. Joint surfaces that exist between spinal bones are termed facets. These facet surfaces are planar in topography and glide upon one another to allow neck motion. Each neck bone contains two upper facets and two lower facets. The upper facets of C3-C7 are oriented upward (toward the skull), inward (toward midline) and backward (toward the back of the neck) at roughly 45-degrees from horizontal. The lower facets of C3-C7 are oriented downward (toward the feet), outward (toward the outer neck), and forward (toward the throat) at the same 45-degree angle. Consequently, when considering the component facets motions which make up forward bending of the neck, their motion are described as upward and forward. Likewise, during backward bending of the neck their motions are described as downward and backward. The depiction below is helpful for visualizing these mechanics.Furthermore, rotation of the neck to the left can be characterized as downward glide of the left facet and upward glide of the right fact. Interestingly, side-bending of the neck to the left is characterized by the identical facet motions (left downward glide and right upward glide). As such it is clear that when the neck is bent sideways to the left, rotation to the left occurs (this is termed ipsilateral rotation).

These mechanics do not hold true for the upper cervical spine (occiput, atlas, and axis). During left side bending of the skull on the atlas (C1), the atlas rotates to the opposite (right) side. This occurs to allow room for joint congruency between the concave facet of the right atlas as it travels up the convex surface of the right occiput (Hertling and Kessler 2006: page 714). Side-bending of the occiput is checked by the alar ligament. While viewing the alar ligament in the first diagram presented this checking mechanism can be conceptualized. Additionally, the axis (C2) is rotated to the left during left side bending of the occiput (this also can be visualized from the diagram).

The take home messages go somewhat like this:

C3-C7:

1) Forward bending of the C3-C7 can be diminished by restricted upward gliding at the facet joints.

2) Left side bending of C3-C7 can be diminished by restricted left downward gliding or right upward gliding at the facet joints.

3) Left rotation of C3-C7 can be diminished by restricted left downward gliding or right upward gliding at the facet joints.


Occiput-C2:

1) Forward bending at the occipitoatlanto joint can be diminished by restricted backward glide of the occiput on C1.

2) Backward bending at the occipitoatlanto joint can be diminished by restricted forward glide of the occiput on C1.

3) Left side bending of the occipitoatlanto joint can be diminished by restricted left backward glide or right forward glide of the occiput on C1. It can also be diminished by restricted left rotation of C2 (i.e. restricted inferior glide of left C1 facet on C2 and/or superior glide of superior glide of right C1 facet on C2).

4) Left rotation of atlas (C1) on axis (C2) can be diminished by restricted inferior glide of left facet joints or superior glide of right fact joints.

Neck Pain.

Last weekend I finished a paper on neck pain. I spent over 40 hours reading research and formulating my own analysis. The funny thing about spending all that time on research is that my clinical applications were so succinct. They boiled down to this:

Lots of research has been conducted to show that exercise is helpful in reducing neck pain. Research shows that spinal mobilization increases the pain reducing benefit of exercise. For patients who do not tolerate exercise well, simple chin tucking exercises while lying down are recommended. All exercise routines should be performed over at least a three month period to promote muscle growth. This 3-month training period will promote reduction of neck pain into the long-term.

And that is what 40 hours of research will get you. I have to say that I enjoyed the process of discovery and learning. Especially I enjoyed reflecting on the process of arriving at knowledge.

Pain and its illusory etiology.

Low back pain's etiology (cause) is one great example of the seeming impenetrable nature of reality. Is back pain caused by mechanical failure of discs and boney joints? Or is it caused by hypersensitivity in spinal nerves due to chemicals present with inflammation? Or is low back pain caused remotely by the body's executive center--the brain? Undoubtedly all these tissues and organs take some role in all back pain. But to definitively identify the one tissue or one organ which is principally responsible for back pain in a particular patient is unreasonable.

For example, I recently treated a woman who was diagnosed with a right groin strain. She has a history most significant for leukemia and treatment by radiation and stem cell transplant. Upon evaluation I noted that she was tender to touch over her pubic bones, her groin muscles and her outer hip muscles. Additionally when I had her lie on her back and applied a posterior (backward) shear stress through her right hip joint she complained of increased groin pain. I was immediately concerned about three things:

1) Possible stress fracture in her right hip which would occur due to post-menopausal osteoporosis;
2) Possible cancer metastasis to her pelvic girdle;
3) Possible low back pain referred to the right groin.

Her doctor ordered an MRI of her hips which revealed mild arthritic changes in both hips. Previous MRI of the lumbar spine had revealed mild spondylolisthesis (miniature spine fractures with no to minimal spinal bone displacement) at L4-5 and L5-S1. This data discourages the view that hip fracture is the cause (although MRI's can miss stress fractures) and ruled out a bone tumor. Possible causes of her hip pain would then be:

1) Mild hip arthritis;
2) Referred low back pain;
3) Muscle weakness and imbalance.

The doctor injected her outer hip area with carbocaine (a medicine in the lidocaine family) which immediately relieved that pain. The doctor ruled out low back pain at that point, stating that if it were low back pain the carbocaine would not have helped. Reflecting back on this just now I would beg to differ with his conclusion. Low back dysfunction causes hypersensitivity in sensory nerves distal to the low back. If her tender outer hip is caused by hypersensitive sensory nerves (versus a traditional bursitis or tendonitis) then carbocaine would have the affect of "numbing" these hypersensitive sensory nerves and render them inactive thus blocking the patients outer hip tenderness. In which case her hip pain would be from her back and not from her weak hip.

Medical professionals could spend a lifetime studying this patient and patients like her and may still be unable to determine which tissues or organs are responsible for her pain. Regardless of if we could identify whether it was the patient's back or hip or muscles which are causing her pain the causal question remains unsatisfactorily answered. For instance, if we determine it is muscle weakness on the right side causing her pain we do not definitively know what caused her right hip weakness. Why are both hips not weak? Why does a very active person who regularly exercises have this mysterious unilateral weakness? If we determine that it is her back causing the pain we do not definitively know what it is that causes her back pain. Is it her facet joints? Is it her disc? Is it her spinal nerves? Or, to beat all, is it because she has had this mysterious chronic weakness in the right hip?

And so it goes for the man asking the 'why' and 'how' questions. Just when he thinks he has gained some understanding he realizes that he has merely unearthed ten more questions about the nature of reality.

Back pain and metaphor.

Last February I completed a class on the lumbar spine. One exciting epiphany for me was the thought that pain relief obtained through spinal manipulations are mediated not through mechanical "release" of joints, but rather through neurophysiological inhibition of pain neurons. Chiropractors and therapists in the past explained the efficacy of manipulations referring to poor spinal alignment due to capsular restrictions in the small spinal joints. Manipulations were purported to "adjust" the spine by "freeing" certain capsular restrictions. The idea of manipulations freeing restricted capsules has become decreasingly popular (although I would say at this time not decreasingly tenable) with a paradigm shift toward neurophysiologically decreased spinal pain via manipulations.

In particular two research studies with which I became familiar advanced my own understanding of spinal pain. One study was performed by chiropractors on cats. These cats had force transmitters surgically attached to their 6th lumbar spines. Additionally electrophysiologic readings were obtained from afferent mechanoreceptors (aka: nerves that sense muscle length) of spinal muscles. Oscillations were transmitted to the 6th lumbar spine and as the force on the lumbar bone approached that of a spinal manipulation an abrupt increase was sensed in electrical activity in the afferent mechanoreceptors. Doubtless this increased sensory input to the spianl cord has an effect on regulating the back. I would propose that stimulation of mechanoreceptors could be an initial step of a pathway of spinal reflexes to neurologically block the conduction of local pain sensations. In short, the vibrations from manipulations stimulate sensory nerves in spinal muscles which could in turn block pain conduction and recalibrate muscle resting tone. This theory (commonly referred to as the "gait theory" of pain inhibition) has been well developed in the medical field and there exist substantial scientific data which can be used to validate it.

A second study looked at the use of lumbar spinal manipulations for patients who satisfied a clinical prediction rule. This rule was developed to help clinicians predict which patients would benefit from manipulations. One interesting side note in this study was that each patient was manipulated at the same spinal level regardless of the location of "reduced capsular tightness". The location of the manipulation was not the determining factor in the success of the manipulation. One could conclude that it doesn't mater at which lumbar joint the manipulation was performed. This does not bode well for the older idea of "freeing" capsular restrictions at specific joints to relive pain. It does, however, fit well with the idea of neurophysiological reductions in pain sensation via a mechanically stimulated reduction of resting muscle tone and a lowering of resting membrane potentials in pain neurons.

My parting thoughts relates to truth and metaphor. As mentioned above, chiropractors and therapists used the idea of "freeing" capsular restrictions when performing manipulations. This is a prime example of the use of metaphor to convey powerful meaning to a patient about returning to health. The patient feels that something is "stuck" in her back and the therapist says he is "freeing" that which is "stuck." Regardless of whether or not this metaphor has been a true description of the biomechanical and neurophysiological reality or not, it has been helpful in conveying a sense of efficacy. During my career as a therapist I regularly am asked for explanations about function of the human body. "Why does my leg hurt when I walk?" "Why is my arm muscle weak some days but not others?" The questions are always personal and always difficult to answer in a meaningful and helpful way. Often times I employ metaphor for the purposes of encouraging the patient's understand of procedures and increase motivation towards compliance in therapy. The ethical qualm for me has become, how do I speak in metaphor while honestly tipping my hat to the ambiguity present in human understanding. Currently I am beginning to steer away from answers to 'how' questions and focusing on 'what' questions. I'll give anecdotes of what others have done to successfully overcome spinal pain and just skip over the how altogether. Intellectually these are dull answers but they are more true than any metaphor I can dream up to describe the latest theory. I do not deem the linguistic tool of metaphor to be intrinsically misguiding; rather I deem metaphor that construes fiction as fact to be false in the worst way--deception.

Advocacy: Blood, Sweat and Tears.

Eight months now I have been treating a worker injured on the job. Currently she is at risk of losing workers compensation benefits related to her recent cognitive decline. Losing the benefits would be a devastating blow to this mother of four*. Her husband is unable to work full time due to caring for their six children and now his wife.

She suffered her injuries when a large stack of wooden pallets fell on her causing immediate neck and arm pain. She was admitted to the hospital and discharged shortly thereafter. Subsequently her symptoms became worse, she was re-hospitalized and fell into a coma for several days. Unfortunately diagnostic work-up focused mostly on her neck and shoulder and neglected her brain. She was discharged from the hospital after awaking from her coma. She was able to live at home with her husband and family, but unable to work due to pain.

Approximately four months after her injury the patient's husband noticed a rapid change in her behavior: drowsiness, paranoia, memory loss, inappropriate speech. A neurologist was consulted and he recommended physical and occupational therapy. My evaluation revealed marked deficits in the patient's neck and shoulder function and acute onset of vertigo with neck motion. Interestingly I found the patient's cognitive deficits to be more profound than her orthopaedic deficits. Those deficits matched those of a brain injured patient: poor attention span, short-term memory loss, decreased executive function. Apparently no MRI was performed on her brain and so I was unable to understand what was the underlying cause for this patient's decline.

She has made excellent progress with her shoulder and neck function. Sadly, though, her cognitive status prevents her from being safe when unattended and will possibly prevent her from ever being able to work again. Workers compensation is looking to deny any coverage for cognitive related disabilities claiming that her cognitive decline is not associated with the accident, but is rather a combination of the patient's diabetes and her poor diet since the injury. Neuropsychiatric evaluation revealed that the patient does have profound cognitive deficits in the realms of attention span, short term memory, safety judgement. In their conclusion, the psychiatrists stopped short of directly implicating her work injury for this patient's cognitive decline. I plan on advocating for workers compensation coverage for this patient. Below is the beginning of my line of argument.

Rational for explaining my patient's cognitive decline boil down to two: 1) traumatic brain injury with chronic cognitive sequela; 2) diet induced diabetic encephalopathy. I will develop the former rational as workers compensation is developing the later.

Traumatic brain injury typically results in an immediate and significant cognitive loss followed by a steady but small cognitive decline over the life of the patient. Given that my patient experienced a coma after her injury she likely suffered at least mild brain injury if not moderate or severe. Unfortunately no MRI is available from that time period and no MRI has been performed since. Consequently brain damage cannot be assessed. The lack of an MRI is very surprising in a case such as this one. A brain MRI has not been performed either due to medical mismanagement or due to the patient's haste to exit the hospital (she has expressed a strong phobia of dying in the hospital due to past family experience). Because no MRI is available certain brain injury diagnoses can not be ruled out and therefore should be considered as possible causes.

My patient experienced significantly increased appetite after her work injury. Increased appettite is associated with injury to the ventro-medial aspect of the hypothalamus. In such a case the patient's increased appetite (and subsequent diabetic encephalopathy) would then be a direct result from the work related injury. Magnetic resonance imaging of the brain would reveal the status of my patients hypothalamus. Damage in the hypothalamus means that the patient's increased appetite is a symptom as well as a cause. Increased food consumption would lead to diabetic encephalopathy. This entire process would then be a work related injury. Workers compensation would then be warranted for her cognitive issues.

Should the MRI demonstrate no damage to the hypothalamus I would argue that the patient's appetite changes are at the least an indirect symptom of depression related to her injury. Depression, unless treated, leads to increased appetite and hence the diabetic encephalopathy. Additionally, brain damage from the accident would predispose the patient toward onset of encephalopathy due to uncontrolled glucose levels. In other words, had she not had a brain injury, diabetic encephalopathy would be no where near as pronounced as it is now.


*I have changed various non-medical details about this patient to ensure privacy.

How will it all come out...

So I've thought a little bit tonight as I walked downtown. I was wondering about my adolescent experience during a summer spent in the inner city with children doing puppet shows, games and Bible lessons. Kids I encountered had names like Squeaky and MJ (short for Michael Jordan) and James (there was a family of at least 4 boys named James). They were different from me in so many ways. They were all black. Few of them had involved fathers. They rarely showered. Each child possessed a key to his or her house because Mom wouldn't come home until after dark. But, they were not all that different. Lanky and pubescent as I was, they would climb all over my body like I was an animated jungle gym. Eye to eye, we would have conversations as they climbed. "My favorite food is..." "I love to run fast..." "On hot days I like to drink..."

I cherish those memories of time spent with innocent children from such a sad space of Cincinnati inner-city. Tonight those memories were so strong as I walked down alley-ways alone. I was thinking about how since those days I have not made contact with those children or children like them. So an episode of nostalgia like none other is hitting me tonight, replete with its feelings of "those grand old days" and "it will never be the same."

And I have this horrible thought. What if I spend my whole life consumed with getting the last little detail of my house fixed. What if when I'm old I will have only a life of academic achievements to reflect on. What if I die without having poor black children feel like my little brothers or sisters. I can so clearly see myself letting my ambitions and my possessions lead me down that path swiftly. Life devoid of many rich charities in the blink of an eye.

Like I said, I have a serious case of nostalgia tonight. Probably it is skewing my thoughts just a little. But I can think of at least one small way that I'd like to choose a different path for myself. I'd like to give more of my time. Ridiculous amounts of time that I devout to my house could be shared on others around me who could benefit from my youth, companionship, skills and resources. God, grant me grace to live well.

A Fresh Start.

One years worth of blogging is now under my belt. My friends and I started out on an intellectual challenge to write something and get it published within the next 7 years. And so I began writing on the topic of pacifism; I persisted on that topic for exactly one year. Really, I lasted longer than I thought I would. Writing for a year on one topic is impressive for me. I suppose it is a tribute to the level of my interest in the topic. Unfortunately I am unable to finish my thoughts on the topic largely due to beginning graduate school for an altogether unrelated field--physical therapy.

Now I begin again on this new topic. My overall topical focus will be on treating pain in and from the spine. Additionally, though, my writing will include topics that range beyond the boundary of the spine. I will pursue answers to questions like these:

-How does the mind influence spinal pain?
-How is pain generate from the spinal structures?
-Why does back pain persist?
-What function do various muscles play in supporting the spine?
-What are the neurophysiological benefits of touch, joint manipulation and exercise?
-What are the mechanical benefits of touch, joint manipulation and exercise?

I hope to learn some very specific data about spinal pain and effective treatment options. But more than this I hope to build a foundation from which I can launch some ever more exciting questions such as:

-What is pain?
-What is perception?
-Is a basic level of consciousness prerequisite to perception?
-How is the body controlled by the mind?

If I can spend the next 20 years asking these questions I would be happy. In fact after that I would not be content to stop. After 20 years of asking scientific questions I would love to then draw on my experience to begin asking philosophical questions:

-How is human knowledge produced in the scientific community?
-What are the limits and constraints on human knowledge?
-Does theory ever perfectly match reality and if so how would we know?
-To what extent is correct knowledge a prerequisite for helpful application?
-To what degree can incorrect knowledge lead to beneficial treatment?