Not that this response will sink in any more than any other has, nor do I expect any further response from lawboy on it since he runs to hide any time I actually address what he wants answered, but her you go:hey NUUCA- help us out here? Go to the web page above, click on the upper cervical menu selection:
It seems to tell me that there IS NO scientific basis for your NUCCA technique . thanks to tommyboy for getting me unto this thread........
Problem #1: Lawman gets all his information from blatantly anti-chiropractic sites (chirobase, chirotalk, etc), or (as pointed out here) from medical insurance sites. Before I even address what is posted on that site, let's put their motivations in perspective ... ANY insurance company is purely interested in keeping the cash they get from you at all cost ... that is their entire reason for being.
So, we have 3 reasons quoted as to why upper cervical techniques are "considered unacceptable":
[quote]1. The clinical benefits of using x-rays to identify subluxation or determine line of
adjustment do not outweigh the known health risks of ionizing radiation and is,
They are far out of date on their information regarding the impact of x-ray. For one, the typical x-ray series in our office including pre- and post- films amounts to a total exposure of .44 mSv of radiation (6 films taken - standard 3-film series =.22mSv). To put that in perspective, the "upper limit of low-level radiation (that used in medical/dental/other uses)per year is 100 mSv which causes .004 long term mutations per cell"
(Cohen, B. AJRoentgenology 2002; 27:49-55)
Let's also take into account the fact that the "natural" rate of long term mutations per cell is 1 per cell per day ... knowing those two things, it's not hard to see why “Below 10 Rad (10 Rad = 100mSv)…risks of health effects are either too small to be observed or are non existent”(Position statement of the Health Physics Society 1998-99)
Even if you don't like that, then you should know that the current information supports the hormesis model regarding the impact of ionizing radiation on humans as opposed to the old linear model (based off of studying Hiroshima survivors). In the hormesis model, they predict (supported by research) that low levels of ionizing radiation is actually beneficial and helps to prevent the occurance of cancer ... the "Zero Equivalence point" where ionizing radiation is projected to be more harmful than beneficial is at or slightly above the 100mSv upper limit (we would have to shoot more than 200 sets of films on a single person in 1 year to come anywhere close to that level).
So essentially, the "known health risks" they tout are either entirely out of date, or are fabricated.