At 03:51 PM 8/12/02 +0100, you wrote:
>If Sahrmann's theory is one of stabilisation and
>you say that it is a "rehashing of chiropractic dogma" then surely you are
>saying that Sahrmann is saying nothing new - ergo chiropractors had already
>developed a theory (and practice) of dynamic stabilisation.
I have looked carefully through this article and cannot find the words
"stability" or "instability" anywhere. Really. I find "good postural
alignment" and "alignment as a contributor to pain problems" but nothing,
nothing about working to "stabilize" anything. Sahrmann says: "Sensitive
measurement tools, capable of detecting significant variations in alignment
of a segment or two from the normal range, are going to be necessary to
assess the relationship of alignment to pain."
Apparently she doesn't think that the imaging we currently have is
sensitive enough to detect the thing she's looking for. Doesn't this sound
kind of strange to you? How is this related to the stability of anything?
It seems clearer each time I read this that Dr. Sahrmann's primary concern
in evaluation is the *position* of the system and how we might work to
discover how misalignment leads to pain. I can't see how this jives with
the dynamic stabilization concept as you suggest. As for whether the
criticism of that work has been responsibly done by responsible people, I
think I'll let Mel Siff address that charge.
I appreciate your sticking with this John. Anyone else out there?
Barrett L. Dorko, P.T.