The Gateway to 10,000 Illnesses
Bio Craniopathy and a Trailblazing Discovery Revealed
by
Robert Boyd, D.O.
ISBN 978-1-937520-34-2
Published by First Edition Design eBook Publishing
November 2011
www.firsteditiondesignpublishing.com
Smashwords Edition
Copyright © Bio Cranial Institute International, 2011
The moral right of Robert Boyd to be identified as the author of this book has been asserted.
ALL RIGHTS RESERVED. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted in any form or by any means, electronic, mechanical, photocopying, recording or otherwise, without the prior permission of the copyright owner.
Dedication
To all those nameless souls who have dared to challenge.
Acknowledgements
In compiling this book I am deeply indebted to all those practitioners who have long since seen “the cause behind the cause” and who have selflessly and enthusiastically continued to support me in my endeavours, often in challenging circumstances. To “The Team” especially go my boundless appreciation for being there for me and helping make it all worthwhile – Dr Norm Price, Dr James Augustine, Dr Carl Blomencamp, Dr Cruse C Howe (and his late father, Dr Cruse J Howe), Armando Jarrin, CBC, Dr Judy Peterman and, not least, the late Dr David Driscoll. And many others.
I would specially like to thank Tom Tessereau, CBC, for his unstinting contributions of time, energy and resources to help in establishing the Bio Craniopathic mission and laying the foundation of the new discipline of Bio Craniopathy. My thanks also go to his staff, without whose time and support none of it would have been possible.
Finally on the scene to help me refine ideas came Kieran Burke, CBC, who has been a most wonderful support in more ways than one.
To Linda Montgomery again go my thanks for her superb artistic work in helping me explain some of the principles involved. Any confusion remaining can be entirely laid at my door.
Disclaimer
This book has been published to provide the physician, and the reader, with additional information with which to make informed judgments about health protocols which may be of benefit to themselves or others.
The understandings and experiences described are not intended to replace any advice from one’s chosen doctor, and are not being suggested as specific medical treatments. At all times it is recommended that the reader seek appropriate medical advice for any medical condition, be it for oneself or any loved one.
Foreword
Greetings and welcome to the world of Bio Craniopathy. This book will redefine everything you currently know about healthcare and how the human body functions. This is one of those rare finds that will change your life because the principles within are indeed ground breaking and paradigm shifting.
As you read this book, I wonder if you will notice that you are in the presence of greatness. What will you see, what will you need to hear, what will you need to feel within yourself to help you to understand that you are witnessing, within this book, medical history in the making?
I would like to share with you what I will call the story of two Michaels. Of course, North American readers will know that Michael Jordan is considered by many to be the greatest basketball player in the history of the game, even by some to be the greatest player of any sport. And yet his high school coach in tenth grade cut him from the team, because the coach did not have the ability to do what I am inviting you to do, which is to read between the lines, hear between the notes, and get a sense of something that is subtle and not so obvious, which in this case was that the coach had before him one of the greatest athletes of all time and he didn't even notice.
The second Michael is, ... perhaps you heard about this in the news in 2010. A middle class family living in Buffalo, New York had a painting hanging in their home for generations. And in 1972 one of the kids hit it with a tennis ball and it fell behind the couch and it stayed there until recently when it was discovered that it was actually a very rare painting by Michelangelo, estimated at approximately 300 million dollars in value.
Isn't it interesting they didn't know they were in the presence of a masterpiece… of something great? Perhaps it is about timing, so maybe it is too early for some to know, and to experience, to feel, to hear, to see and appreciate the masterpiece that the author, Robert Boyd, has created. Many will realize this treatise marks the beginning of a new era in medicine because it reveals the art, the science, and the philosophy, behind Bio Craniopathy, a new discipline, a new understanding, a new day in healthcare.
These writings are the culmination of the unique research carried out by the author, a United Kingdom based Osteopathic physician, regarded worldwide as a pre-eminent researcher and lecturer. I admit that I didn't understand initially what people were saying about Robert being another Einstein, or Da Vinci. I must say that I didn't at first notice that I was in the presence of greatness, but have come to know him as not only a brilliant mind, a seeker, a kind and gentle man, he also possesses an unsurpassed humility.
My name is Tom Tessereau, Certified Bio Craniopath and Executive Director of the Bio Cranial Institute International. I have been studying Complementary and Alternative Medicine for more than 35 years and have been a full time practitioner and teacher for more than 20. And yet, perhaps like you, until I met the author of this book, I was still looking for the key that unlocks the hidden power of the body to heal itself.
It gives me a great deal of satisfaction and honor to present to you the following findings of my mentor and friend, and in the end, a great help to each and every one of us, Robert Boyd, D.O. and The Gateway to 10,000 Illnesses - Bio Craniopathy and a Trailblazing Discovery Revealed.
Preamble
There are now a number of cranial groups arising from the premise that there is movement of, and between, the bones of the head. The content of this book is intended to give the reader an overview of the understandings of one of these. They are at the core of a new school and profession called Bio Craniopathy.
Bio Craniopathy began its journey as far back as the late 1970’s and early 1980’s and was the result of my research into the potential health benefits of the little understood involuntary movement of cranial, and other, structures.
These findings and conclusions were first described and announced to the professional community in my first book, An Introduction to Bio Cranial Therapy, published in 1988. The understandings later became known as the Bio Cranial System (BCS). Further additions to these principles and their practical application have now resulted in the establishment of Bio Craniopathy as a discipline in its own right.
Bio Craniopathy differs from all other cranial groups in a number of important ways, particularly in the analysis of the significance of the moving mechanism in relation to most illnesses and disorders, irrespective of their nature and how and where the symptoms appear in the body.
It also suggests a new status required for the disposition of the cranial bones, in total, if there is to be full functioning of the body’s physiological systems. This is a completely new concept which I believe all of us must aim for and requires a defined skill to facilitate the cranial bones to assume that very specific status one with the other.
Contrary to many cranial understandings, Bio Craniopathy predicates that the philosophy underpinning it is not merely an aside, relevant only to a limited number of disorders, but is relevant to almost all.
Robert Boyd, DO (UK)
Preface
Healing, particularly in the Western world, has been highjacked.
There is a tsunami of exhortations telling us that, for our health’s sake, we must ensure that we take this or that medication if we suffer from, or want to avoid suffering from, this or that disease. The marketing gurus have fine tuned their techniques and, not least, have cleverly exploited the fear scenario. “If you don’t continue to take your medication, your cholesterol will go sky high and you will risk having a stroke….” Or some such thing and one of many examples I have seen over the years.
One of the effects of this kind of marketing has been the creation of a physiological dependency on the chemical trade as a necessary requisite to their wellbeing. It has been highly successful for the promoters and it has equally been disempowering for a great number of people.
Perhaps even worse has been the creation of a widespread dependency, not only on the chemicals themselves, but of a parallel intellectual dependency in many cases, based on fear, and on a belief that the normal mechanisms of the body are no longer alone capable of sustaining the life processes. These subliminal messages become entrenched in the subconscious, and so, mission accomplished.
The Orwellian idea of control is established to the point of unquestioning acceptance by many of us, in the absence of any obvious alternative, that our destiny in the all important area of personal health is dependent for its delivery on a range of external sources, not all of which have altruistic motivation. Or results. An empire of providers has evolved to service that dependency.
This is not to insist that there are not circumstances when medication, for example, is necessary, even vital. Nor is it to deny that surgery has its place in health provision, although even then at a much reduced level from current practice. The vast majority of disorders, however, including injuries, ought to be amenable to conservative approaches for resolution with little, or no, input other than from those forces already contained within the organism.
The answer to control and dependency must surely be freedom and knowledge. This book attempts to provide a new understanding, which is itself a step on the road to that objective. But it is also about a mechanism, almost unknown in the world of healthcare, and the freedom or otherwise for that mechanism to operate, and which, when compromised, will provide the main basis for health breakdown on every level. It follows that, if the very existence of that mechanism is known, its role understood and its failures addressed, then many things previously thought not possible, become possible.
And we almost all are compromised from birth. Herein may you find answers you are looking for.
Robert Boyd, DO (UK)
Introduction
Faith is taking the first step even when you don't see the whole staircase.
Martin Luther King, Jnr
The proposition that the head – the cranium – has something to do with health and healing is not new.
The proposition, however, that the cranial mechanism is the primary source of most dysfunction probably is new and is the subject of this book.
Cranial mechanism? Yes, exactly that. In these pages we will be considering a living, moving and vibrant phenomenon in which motion of the bones of the head is central to practically every area of our health, and its opposite – disorder. The mechanism I refer to is entirely absent from mainstream medical knowledge or, indeed, interest. It follows, therefore, that any suggestion of such a heresy will risk attracting derision and ridicule from the keepers of the entrenched schools of thought.
But then that’s the history of medicine.
What follows, however, is an attempt to explain why this missing Big Player is so important and what the mechanisms involved are. And do. Not least, in what areas of illness and disorder the cranial dimension is relevant. Never fear, the descriptions are not dressed up in the language of gobbledegook medicine and are intended to be readily understood. Indeed, these words are particularly directed to the butchers, bakers and candlestick makers of this world to help their understanding and make informed choices about their health and that of their loved ones.
But it is also directed to the health professionals in a wide number of fields, including conventional medicine and dentistry, and including those in such areas as osteopathy, chiropractic, acupuncture, natural medicine, naturopathy and so on, in the hope that the message will perhaps give cause for reflection.
It may come as a surprise to some that the idea of the head - the skull - having something to do with health goes back a long way. For example, there is extensive evidence of the widespread practice known as trepanation having been carried out by early civilisations in many areas of the world from as early as Neolithic times (circa. 4000 – 2000 BC) in France. It appeared in many civilisations over the years in the Americas, Europe and Asia. The practice involved the boring of holes in the skull of living beings and is believed by present day scholars to have been part of early primitive medical procedures, as well as religious ones such as the releasing of evil spirits.
Medicine certainly was primitive in ancient times but, one assumes, and crude as it was, there must have been some perceived “benefit” for the patient, even if we can only guess at what the survival rate might have been.
The practice of applying manipulative techniques to the bones of the head is a much more recent addition to the sum of knowledge and a number of schools have evolved during the past 80 years or so. Cranial manipulation, too, has had a controversial passage within the professions concerned and continues to this day. My own introduction to cranial work came about by way of the osteopathic school – known as Cranial Osteopathy - and this insight was sufficient to convince me that the cranial dimension had not yet been fully explored and that it held the key to untold potential in the healing arts. The problem, as I saw it, was that nowhere could I find the answers I was looking for.
The simple reason was that they didn’t exist.
The understandings arising from my own research in the 1970’s and 80’s resulted in an entirely new appreciation of the role of the cranium. As you may imagine, these conclusions, by implication, were challenging to a number of prevailing views, including those already in the cranial field.
They also suggested that our knowledge of the role of structures such as the spine was incomplete.
From all of this was born a new approach to which I gave the name, Bio Cranial Therapy (BCT), and which later became known as the Bio Cranial System (BCS). This, in turn, has now become Bio Craniopathy which has, as its core basis, a philosophical understanding based on the existence of a moving mechanism first suggested by the American Osteopath, Dr. William Garner Sutherland. There is nothing new about that, insofar as much existing cranial work is based on Sutherland’s original discovery.
What is new, however, is that the ideas underpinning Bio Craniopathy predicate a specific objective, anatomically and physiologically, which must be achieved for all of us. That objective is completely new and original in the field of cranial work, and while it is not intended to immerse the reader in the technicalities of that objective, the understandings in what follows will provide a clear overview both of the significance and potential of the cranial mechanism.
Both the theory and practical work embodied in Bio Craniopathy are unique and far removed from previous cranial practices. Within these pages are contained a broad panorama of some new ideas.
Part 1
Function
Creating a new theory is not like destroying an old barn and erecting a skyscraper in its place. It is rather like climbing a mountain, gaining new and wider views, discovering unexpected connections between our starting points and its rich environment.
But the point from which we started out still exists and can be seen, although it appears smaller and forms a tiny part of our broad view gained by the mastery of the obstacles on our adventurous way up.
Albert Einstein
Chapter 1. Dys-Function
Wealth is the product of man's capacity to think. Ayn Rand
Is your heart ticking over? Well, it has to be, of course, otherwise you wouldn’t be reading this. But, how well is it ticking over? And that’s another question. What I mean is, on the Richter scale of how well you are functioning (1-10), is it ticking over at, say, 4.2 of what it should be (10.0), or could be? Or maybe 6.8? Or even 9.2? Now, that would be something.
But you don’t know, do you?
What am I talking about here? The answer is simply function. How well are your bits and pieces functioning? How well is your liver functioning? Your kidneys? Your thyroid? Your pancreas? Your right knee? Your left eye? And so on. Nowhere in the field of medicine does anyone know the answers to these questions, even though a plethora of tests are made to check areas such as levels of this, that and the other. But none of these will give an overall assessment of the total extent to which a system, or organ, is functioning.
In fact, few people even know that these are the questions.
Most believe that, having gone through a series of often very sophisticated medical checks and tests, they are determining how well they are functioning. And they will obviously be getting some information, perhaps about the blood Ph level, about thyroid function, about cholesterol level, about cardiac performance and so on. But, are they receiving any information about their total functioning state?
Everything is connected. Everything is inter-dependent and nowhere is there a means of checking the totality of that “connectiveness”. Which is function. The approach that we have settled for is a fragmented one in which our focus is directed to the parts – the kidney, the knee, the lung, the sciatica, etc – rather than the whole. Not surprising, when our cultural approach to healthcare is based largely on the philosophy of chasing the symptoms.
Yet, these are questions at the most basic level of our existence. At what is effectively the crudest level of measurement, we largely, though not exclusively, resort to measurement by symptoms. We mostly only think we are ill, or dysfunctioning, when we have symptoms. We then only act when symptoms arise and, even then, sometimes with reluctance.
We almost all accept that this is a normal and rational approach to measuring, if that’s the right word, our health and/or fitness status. If a knee goes pop on the football field then there are symptoms and we know that the knee (and associated structures) has to be investigated and addressed accordingly. Note, I said the knee. Not the pancreas; not the elbow; not the duodenum. We react to the symptoms – the knee.
If you are an athlete your thoughts might turn to your particular sport. You do all the right things. You train hard. You follow the right nutritional rules. But, if only you could get rid of that nagging, and recurring, ankle problem you know you could get that extra lift, that bit more pace, you know would make all the difference.
Or, if you could conquer that nasty shoulder problem, your serve would be immensely improved. In fact, in no time you would be ready for one of the tennis Grand Slams? What do I hear? Oh, so the shoulder injury occurred five years ago, that time you helped move the sofa into the other room? And it’s an injury you have to live with, you’ve been told by the best? Well, you know what? The best, like all of us, only know what they know. Which means they don’t know what they don’t know.
Let’s define the word “function”. On the face of it we tend to think of the word as relating to voluntary activity; that is, how well and efficiently we go about doing ordinary, everyday things. But if we have an injury, say a fracture, then we are not moving too well. We are dys-functioning.
Even if we have vague aches and pains, we know we are not functioning at the best level. Nor, if we happen to be a migraine sufferer, are our concentration and decision-making processes at the top of their game. We are not functioning very well for the duration of the migraines. But, so what, we’ll be back to full throttle tomorrow when it’s all gone. Or, will we? Why do the migraines keep coming back?
Then there are those other areas that we don’t think of so much as belonging to the category of function. It could have been a lifelong problem but it has necessitated a constant reliance on Cascara sagrada, or some such laxative medicine, for the constipation you remember going back to childhood. Or, it might have been the all-too-often need to resort to medication for that pesky recurring heart flutter that seems to arise for no apparent reason. These are areas that we don’t think of too much as belonging to function. They are activities that we do not consciously think of as having to be done by us.
They are part of our involuntary function.
So is what our liver does (or does not do), without our being aware of it. And our kidneys. And even down to those billions of little cells, beavering away, striving their mightiest to do all those myriad things they were designed to do. And we don’t know a fraction of what those are. We are humbled.
But help is at hand, at least to a degree. When we become knowingly dysfunctional, which is to say usually when we become aware of symptoms, we find that in many cases the body has the ability to heal itself. And by heal, I mean ameliorate or clear the symptoms, for - and this is important - most of us assume that, in the absence of identifiable symptoms, all is well. However, we will come to that one later.
Admittedly, we all want rid of the symptoms super fast and will turn to various remedies, sometimes any remedies, to obtain relief. But all the while the final resolution process will involve the body’s innate healing processes, with or without outside intervention.
The surgical procedures will still finally draw on the gift we are all endowed with, that of harnessing the healing mechanisms within, just as those same mechanisms will heal a cut finger. In our minds, increasingly targeted by the vested interests, media and others and their PR machines, we have largely lost sight of, and even confidence in, the simple message expressed in the concept of:
Vis medicatrix naturae - the healing power of nature.
We too often lose sight of that simple proposition and attribute the healing processes entirely to external elements. Some typical comments from patients might be as follows:
Sarah: “It was the cider vinegar that cured my arthritis”.
Me: (Shhh, to myself): “No doubt it helped, but it would have been useless without the healing power from within”.
John: “I tried everything and it was the Yoga that finally cured my hamstring problem”.
Me: (to myself again. I’m no fool. I know when to shut up): “Sure it helped to open up to the healing flow from within. It facilitated the release of the healing power from within”.
You see, the body does not want to be dysfunctional.
The body was not designed to be dysfunctional.
Even more so, the body is forever striving for equilibrium. It never stops, even in the presence of the most profound disorder or dysfunction. Now isn’t that something? Even when someone is really, really ill, or dysfunctional, that healing stream, that inner intelligence, is striving with might and mane to bring about organization. Which is health.
There are some basic principles, basic truths, that we seem to be increasingly losing sight of and we need to revisit these, almost elementary, concepts in the quest for rational answers.
The guiding principle most of us use to determine how well, or otherwise, we are doing is to acknowledge whether or not there are symptoms present. It’s a pretty simplistic formula we use, such as:
“Do I have a pain?”
“Is that a lump I see developing there?”
“What’s that blotch on my skin?”
“Why do I keep falling over?”
By implication and, let’s face it, an inner hope and persuasion, sometimes driven by fear, we believe all is well, unless there are very definitive symptoms such as those listed above. All of which is very natural and understandable. We want to believe all is well and what other yardstick is there to point to the contrary except, perhaps, some of the tests on offer which are routine practice.
By symptoms, the general belief is that there is some very definitive departure from what we would regard as normal, something that should either resolve by itself or, something for which professional help needs to be sought. The red flag is up. But, the reality is that
none of us knows what “normal” is.
None of us knows what 10.0 on the Richter scale is. You see, none of us has ever been there. From birth. All we know is what is normal for each of us.
And that can be, functionally speaking, a long way away from the potential we are capable of.
Let me ask a few questions. Would any of these apply to you, or those within your family or circle:
The impatient ones? Maybe even to the point of having a short fuse?
The shy ones? Maybe blushed easily as a child?
The ones who run out of steam easily, mentally and/or physically?
The regular hay fever sufferers every Spring?
Those who can’t stand loud noises?
Perhaps they (or you) prefer putting the weight more on one leg than the other when standing?
Those who screw up the mouth to one side more than the other when talking or laughing?
In fact, have you ever noticed some of the non-laughs of some of the high profile personalities on your screens? The forced attempt but not quite making it?
But then you wouldn’t consider these real symptoms, would you? They are not like a pain in your tummy, are they? And yet, I’m sure you would agree they are, what shall we say - abnormalities? Certainly they are not disabling abnormalities. Some of them are almost subliminal in our consciousness; perhaps little more than nuisance value.
Yet they are evidences of departure from what we think of as normal, or balance, and as such, are indicators of a departure from normal function. Which brings to mind the truth of the old maxim that I learned as a young man:
“The absence of symptoms is no indication of the presence of health”
When I first heard that one I had no more than a hazy idea of its significance. Healthcare, in the western world at least, is mostly symptom driven, in spite of the marginal, peripheral and sometimes questionable, tests increasingly being introduced. There is little, or no, evidence of any understanding of the mechanisms behind our functionality which has to be at the very core of so much of Mankind’s dys-functionality – illness, disorders, injury.
Functionality is at the very core of the commentaries in this book. It is relevant to what we do and, to a significant extent, who we are. It is the level at which we perform in the turbulent seas of life, about the level at which we exist. It is the measure of our efficiency in our daily tasks. It is about the intrinsic measure of our ability to reduce, or avoid, our exposure to illness, trauma and other assaults on our equilibrium.
It is the central theme of the Bio Craniopathy.
Chapter 2. The Life Force and Movement
If I have seen further it is by standing on ye shoulders of Giants.
Sir Isaac Newton
In the previous chapter I made reference to the word function, and its derivatives, a word which is nothing more than a sensible word for physiology.
Physiology itself is, of course, the one half of the Castor and Pollux of medicine - anatomy and physiology. Anatomy is the framework we are provided with and is specifically designed to facilitate all of the physiological processes. Which are? Well, just about everything.
As I twiddle my thumbs, that’s function. As my skin sheds its dead matter, that’s function. As my fingers write these words, that’s function. And as the thought processes which tell my fingers intelligently (most of the time) which keys on my computer to press, well that’s function too. There’s much co-ordination in all this. And, there’s a lot of “intelligence” in all of it too.
The notion of an intelligence, a self-regulating, self-healing mechanism, which is the inheritance of us all, required, if possible, that some attempt be made to put it on a scientific footing. One of the early entrants into this area was Walter B. Cannon, M.D., Sc.D., Professor Emeritus of Physiology at Harvard Medical School, who showed, for example, how the body maintains a relatively constant state of salt and water content, of sugar, of acid-alkaline balance, and how it maintains a relatively constant temperature.
Cannon coined the word:
HOMEOSTASIS
to describe the self-regulating ability to adjust the body’s level of function according to its needs. This confirmed, on a scientific level, what we observe subconsciously on a daily basis, namely, that the principle of homeostasis carries with it the concept that the organism not only requires certain parameters within which to function, but also has the ability to adjust within, according to its needs. Cannon’s own definition was:
Homeostasis: A homeostatic system is an open system that maintains its structure and functions by means of a multiplicity of dynamic equilibriums rigorously controlled by interdependent regulatory mechanisms. (1933).
By extension, it then begs the question: how does it do it? The body knows what it needs to do to function - and to survive! We take it for granted. As sentient beings we don’t consciously need to think about it, or try to control it. Let’s, for a moment, take a philosophical stroll down the lane of some of the ideas which have relevance to this discussion.
As a boy I recall developing an interest in two closely linked ideas. One was referred to as the Life Force and the other as the Vitalistic principle, or Vitalism. Incidentally, these concepts apply to all organic matter – the animal and vegetable kingdoms. But let’s not get too complicated and let’s just consider these in the context of our species, Homo Sapiens. Incidentally, how did our species ever manage to acquire that name – sapiens (wise)?
The two concepts were closely linked, of course. After all, putting it in a negative context, how could there not be a Vitalistic outcome from a Life Force presence within each and every one of us? If we go back a bit, however, the definition of Vitalism, even the very existence of the concept, has exercised the minds of philosophers, biologists, physiologists and others for centuries. And from this, there came to be probably two major opposing camps in the discussion.
In the red corner were the mechanistic biologists, and in the blue corner the advocates of the Vitalistic school. At this time, the Vitalistic school has been on the defensive for some considerable time. There is an obvious difficulty in “proving” the basic principles which underpin the concepts surrounding Vitalism. We can’t measure it – at least not yet. As against that, others argue, “Why should we have to prove what is the blindingly obvious?”
My initial exposure to the concepts embracing Vitalism came early in my professional career. Let me quote you from one of my first lesson materials:
All systems of natural healing……., are founded essentially upon one basic principle: that the human organism possesses an inherent urge to protect, regulate, adjust and heal itself. This phenomenon has been observed from the earliest times, and to explain it, many learned men have advanced the theory that a vital force (‘vital’: concerned with organic life, and ‘force’: strength or intense effort), permeating the whole organism, was responsible. This vital force has been variously named – ‘Life Force’, by the French physiologist, Claude Bernard, the ‘Dynamis’ by the founder of the homoeopathic school, Dr Samuel Hahnemann and the ‘Elan Vital’ by the French philosopher, Henri Bergson. Bergsonian thinking is often referred to as Vitalism.
I want you to note particularly two definitions:
Firstly, that of vital: - defined as “concerned with organic life”, and then the word: force: - defined as “strength” or “intense effort”.
I’ll return to these definitions presently.
It was Aristotle who posited the idea that the primary distinction between mechanism and vitalism may be in terms of vitalism’s self-organization. When we contemplate in our own species, the beginnings of life for each of us from the moment of conception, the fertilized cell, that first cell dividing into two; it in turn dividing into four and so on, until a small ball of cells, the mulberry, is formed. Then these begin their journey of differentiation.
Which brings us to ask ourselves the question: what is the motivating power, the guiding force, the co-ordinating factor, the organizing “brain” that enables this little miracle to take place? How is it possible to dispute the presence within the living organism of a Vital Force, a purposeful, self-regulating force governing, modifying and utilizing the purely chemical forces of the inorganic world?
I’ve used some, what I believe to be, key words here; words which are suggestive of an “intelligence”. Words which have a profound resonance at the deepest level of my being: words which imply an organizing principle. Words which beg the next question: from whence, and from what, does this mystery stem?
Many of you will no doubt have your own ideas and your own interpretations of them. For my part I am content to accept that Vitalism is. Period. That it is in our midst undeniably: that it is a presence; that without its existence or presence there would be chaos as though a bunch of foreign materials had been flung together haphazardly; this is the antithesis of organization. And does not the word organization suggest intelligence?
Whereas isn’t it glaringly obvious that the life processes within that microcosm that is each of us, are not, and cannot be disorganized?
For a more penetrating insight into a logical extension of these principles – and their application - into our everyday life, we might well refer to some of the teachings to which I was exposed in my very early study days. This was part of the (North American, I may say) Physio-Medical school which comprised entirely of medical doctors and had its zenith in the late 19th and early 20th century.
Among their great advocates was one, J.M. Thurston, MD, who was Professor of Nervous Diseases at the Physio-Medical College, Indiana. In his book, The Philosophy of Physio-Medicalism, (1900), he set out what he called his Theorem and Principia, and I want to quote just one extract from this. It reads :
Vital force, through living matter, is always resistive, and reconstructive, in intent and purpose, when the Vital domain is invaded by inimical substances, forces or influences.
What a powerful statement that was - and is. And such beautiful language. Here was Thurston, a towering intellect, saying in effect, that, even in the presence of the most serious illness, the body’s self correcting and self regulating mechanisms were still trying to assert their reconstructive capabilities.
Now isn’t that something? No ifs. No buts. In other words, even if all seemed lost, there continues to be a positive force trying with all its strength to re-assert normality. We are day and daily assailed by the negatives. “The next Asian ‘flu is on the way…..”. “The prognosis is not encouraging…..” “He will have to retire from the game with that recurring injury….”
Might it not be just possible that, if the body’s healing flow – previously locked up – were to be released, the problem may just be resolved?
From within outwards.
There is little evidence in the world of medicine of any awareness that the healing thrust of the forces within the body’s own system is positive. That these forces are always towards protection of the system. They are never towards disorder.
So that, if disorder appears on the horizon, we are being warned that those protective mechanisms are compromised in some way and to varying degrees. Disorganization has reared its ugly head and the body’s own inherent re-organization forces are needed.
Let’s call in the cavalry.
It’s called movement.
If we are prepared to look a little deeper into that mysterious world of physiology it becomes clear that life in the organic world – including our own species – had one phenomenon in common.
That commonality is movement and not only movement in the voluntary sense of the word, but movement at the involuntary level. Physiology implies movement – respiration, cardiac function, blood flow, cerebrospinal fluid fluctuation, fluids crossing the membranous walls of cells are all aspects of movement.
Nothing living in nature is static.
Life processes demand movement.
The most significant characteristic of living processes is movement.
Movement is a primary, even primal, component of the life-providing principles of both the animal and vegetable kingdoms.
But we must remember that it is movement which finally allows the organism to reach its maximum level of function. If we add to this the concept of the Vital or Life Force, where the word force is defined as, strength or intense effort, we can begin to see a formulation emerging.
It is the ability, or otherwise, of the organism to produce the intense effort, from within, which will, in turn, determine how well we are functioning. The requirement is to free the organism’s ability to raise its function to its maximum potential. As we shall see, movement becomes the key factor in determining the level at which we are ticking over.
We must also remind ourselves that all true healing is centrifugal. And while there are occasions when it is necessary for health issues to be addressed centripetally – emergency surgery, for example – in the main, it is from inside outwards that the healing flow will take place and it is that flow that the true healer must facilitate,
Movement, then, becomes a major facilitator of organization, and organization itself is a distinctive characteristic of the vitalistic principle.
There cannot be a vitalistic expression without organization.
It was this increasing realisation of the significance of movement in conjunction with the Vitalistic principle, that spurred me to further exploration. If movement was a factor in the health delivery process, the next question seemed to be: how much movement? It seemed logical that the quantity of movement would play a part. There had to be an optimum level of movement for full function. Anything less is strictly dys-function, even if there are no recognisable, or apparently obvious, signs of dysfunction - symptoms.
For example, if the full quantity of blood flowing to a particular area should be potentially, say level 10 on the scale of functionality, then by simple conclusion, if it is less than that, it is abnormal. If the blood supply to your liver is less than level 10, then the actual tissue substance of that organ will be deprived of blood and, therefore, nutrition. It will follow then that the ability of the organ to fulfil its mission will be compromised.
It’s not exactly rocket science, is it?
These same principles apply throughout the body. And let us not forget that all these myriad functions being carried out every second of the day over our lifetimes are not self-contained within that tissue, or organ, or that system. They are not labouring away in their own little corners to the exclusion of everything else going on in the other corners. Everything is inter-connected. Everything is inter-dependent.
Everything is organized.
But nothing stays still in that continuing process of organization.
We are most decidedly, therefore, a collection of parts, perhaps vaguely connected in some way – a kidney, a shoulder, a toe, an eye, a lung and so on. We are the most incredible composite of organized, integrated functionality and every player in this microcosm which constitutes each of us cannot play alone.
The violin alone cannot produce Beethoven’s Fifth. Nor can the flautist. Nor can the French Horn. It has to be a symphony of all of the components. And even that would be chaos without the Conductor.
Who, or what, then, is the Conductor in this little miracle of the life
Chapter 3. The Involuntary Mechanism
We have what we seek. It is there all the time, and if we give
it time it will make itself known to us.
Thomas Merton
Over the years, medicine has become more and more fragmented. Some would say diversified. Some would say specialised. And who would argue that there have not been benefits to us all from these processes? Unfortunately, one result is that we have begun increasingly to look for answers to the mainstream of health problems myopically.
We are looking at what are believed to be the sub microscopic irregularities, or effects, of disorders in the increasing expectation that all will be revealed and explained. The secrets behind a wide range of disorders are being portrayed as having their origins in layers of our make up far removed not only from our vision but even more so, from beyond our comprehension.
We are daily assailed with the latest new “exciting”, “promising” or “potentially significant” research for a wide range of illnesses and disorders. The public relations machine can be very persuasive. Each illness or disease – I’ll call them all disorders to simplify things – is regarded as a little self contained “compartment” to which we give a name. The totality of the patient has been relegated in favour of the parts.
Thus we have our psoriasis patients; then there might be our gall bladder ones; then there are our duodenal ulcer ones; then our sciatica ones. And so on. The list of possibilities is virtually endless.
Those names of disorders and illnesses are descriptions, and classifications, of symptoms and symptom patterns. They may refer to a location in the body, such as the knee, the finger, the chest. Or, they may refer to something more generalised, as in “these swellings on my fingers and stiffness in my neck”. Or, maybe just something functional as in, “my back aches and I can hardly move”.
For the most part, these symptom patterns are regarded as disorders in themselves and largely divorced from any other part of the body. They are perceived, and thought of, as the target, effectively a self contained compartment and largely divorced from all the other compartments. They are ring fenced.
Why? Because, can’t you see, that’s what the patient is complaining about? Ergo, that’s what we treat, that thing there!
In this scenario the belief is that disorder A (having been identified with a name) = procedure A, be it drugs, surgery, chemo or whatever else. It is the area where symptoms have arisen. The symptoms have to be addressed, not the patient.
There is an urgent need to move away from symptomatic treatment - the practice both of waiting for symptoms to arise and, when they do, of addressing them as if they were the disorder. This has led us up the blind alley of believing that there is, and will continue to be, a never ending stream of improved approaches for the ever expanding names of disorders. Having said that, I am happy to acknowledge that there have been considerable improvements in such areas as surgery, much of it technologically driven.
But I’m here referring to that generality of disorders which ought to be amenable to conservative treatment. Alas, I see not the slightest sign that this will happen and for a number of reasons. One of them is the corruptive influence of money. But the other, and probably most important of all, is that there is little likelihood of medicine re-visiting its philosophical roots and going back to the drawing board.
It’s as if, somewhere back near the beginning, medicine came to the Y-fork, took the chemical road and, as the years have elapsed since, finds itself diverging further and further away from the most wonderful self regulating chemical laboratory of all – the human body. From this there developed the apparently spectacular chemical manipulation of that wonderful laboratory. It proceeds apace to this day and masquerades under the name of “healthcare”.
So where did the other fork in the road go? Much of it went in varying degrees along the vitalistic road, to which I’ve already referred. Some of it has been invaluable, some not. But I invite you to join me on a journey of both exploration and logic which, I believe, has already transformed healthcare delivery substantially. Let’s see what we can see when we stand back and look at the Big Picture.
* * * *
The history of medicine is full of landmarks ranked as milestones in the pursuit of further knowledge in the field. Some names such as Pasteur, the plagiarist of Bechamp, would rank zero with me but, among those whose names would be acknowledged, for example, is that of Andreas Vesalius, the Belgian anatomist. Surprisingly, no one knew much about anatomy until 1543 when Vesalius wrote De Humani Corporis Fabrica, Libri Septem (On the Structure of the Human Body, in Seven Books).
Also ranking high in the pecking order would be the English physician William Harvey's discovery in 1628 of what the heart does and how the blood circulates. Nowhere, however, that I am aware of, is the name William Garner Sutherland to be found among the Greats, and I predict that his name will eventually be listed as one of the greatest.
William Garner Sutherland, DO, (1873-1954), is credited as being the originator of osteopathy in the cranial field, commonly known as Cranial Osteopathy. He became a student of Dr Andrew Taylor Still, the founder of Osteopathy. Sutherland was intrigued with the concepts of structure and function and one day, the story goes, he looked at the bones of a skull (there are 22 of these in all) lying on Still’s desk. He pondered the make up of these, particularly where they are joined one to the other (called sutures), and noticed that these, in order to articulate one with the other, appeared “like gills of a fish”.
He finally concluded that these sutures – like hinges, or seams - were designed for motion. We are reminded that, in all anatomical books, these sutures in adulthood are described as “fused”. No movement. That remains the consensus to this day, including, I may say, within the mainstream of the Osteopathic community and beyond.
When Sutherland put his thoughts of the potential for motion to his teacher, Still replied, "It has to, to be able to accommodate for movement."
Sutherland was positing to himself the theory that if the bones of the skull were designed for motion, then restrictions to motion would inhibit health. For a number of years he worked quietly exploring and developing his theories and by 1946, Sutherland’s work had attracted a considerable interest and following.
Cranial motion can be defined as a rhythmic motion in which all 22 bones of the head move cyclically between two poles and during which fluid pressure increases and decreases alternately within one cycle. The brain, blood vessels and cerebrospinal fluid take part in these pressure changes.
By any standards Sutherland’s assertion was extraordinary. It was also courageous and challenging, as the received wisdom of the day and which remains the standard teaching to this day is – no movement. In the cadaver, the cranial bones are fused.
Nevertheless, his work was taken up by others, such as Harold I. Magoun, Sr., DO, (1898-1981), who was one of Sutherland's early students and author of Osteopathy in the Cranial Field. Others included such names as Robert Fulford, DO, author of Touch of Life and Philosopher, Physician, Beryl E. Arbuckle, DO, whose Selected Writings bring into sharp focus the impact of the birthing processes on the infant and, not least, Denis Brookes, DO, PhD, author of Lectures in Cranial Osteopathy, and who was my own teacher.
There were many others, all contributing to the knowledge base that was developing, about the role of the cranial dimension in the health and disease processes. The techniques associated with cranial osteopathy, and its derivatives, also evolved in a similar fashion to that from which it spawned – Osteopathy. The early adherents and researchers in this new field were highly motivated and many of them saw this new player on the stage as promising major strides in the health delivery processes. However, while reports of results began to mount, they were largely modest and, to an extent, anecdotal over a period of (currently) some 60 years.
There was also what some considered to be another problem. If there was movement – motion – of the cranial bones, how can this be demonstrated? Where is the research? Where is the proof? At this time, I am aware of research which claims to “prove” there is cranial motion, and research which claims the opposite. Perhaps one of the most interesting commentaries comes in an article published courtesy of NASA's Space Operations Mission Directorate in 2004:
NASA has developed a type of ultrasound method to monitor intracranial pressure by measuring the subtle movements of the skull. Most people think the skull is a rigid container that doesn’t change in size or volume. It’s been shown, however, that the skull moves with changes in Intra Cranial Pressure (pressure within the head). The movement is so small that it is not even detectable to the human eye. The movement is only a few micrometers—and it takes 1,000 micrometers to make 1 millimetre.
The call for proof of an involuntary movement is, I believe, now redundant. The question really needs to be something like this:
How is it possible for there to be life processes in the absence of an involuntary moving mechanism?
Medicine, conventional or otherwise, has evolved over centuries in the absence of any awareness both of the existence, and even more importantly, of the significance of an involuntary controlling mechanism. The implication is that we are essentially static organisms which nevertheless manifest movement or moving phenomena from a fixed baseline.