Replies to This Discussion

community teamPermalink Reply by Kiran on January 9, 2012 at 10:44pm

Tut! Hume! How can you say that HVLA is masculine and cranial is feminine? I'm a chick and I prefer administering a bit of ground'n'pound over a bit of cranial, but that's mainly because I think cranial osteopathy can be a bit harsh...

(wink, wink, nudge, nudge)

Hume O'Rous said:

Many cranial practitioners have definite right hemisphere allegiance, and a magnet attraction to the gentle, feminine, receptive principle. They are distinctly unimpressed by HVLA techniques where the left hemisphere, masculine principle struts its stuff.

I find Leo's quote interesting, and although I feel that osteopaths are often concerned about doing things TO patients when I feel the CV4 was created to do something FOR the patient (create space, get things flowing) so their inherent mechanism can become 'unstuck' and trundle off to do what its supposed do.

(Apologies for anthropomorphising "the cranio-sacral mechanism" but mine was complaining that it felt undervalued)

So rather than a CV4 being 'hands on valium' (to quote snoopy), it should infact, indeed be used as an adjunct or facilitation for change rather than as a prescriptive treatment to achieve specific outcome. At least, that was my understanding of the BSO 'Sutherland cv4' many moons ago- I personally haven't used a CV4 for quite a while so I might have the wrong end of the stick.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by george tseng on February 17, 2012 at 4:28pm

I attended Dr James Jealous course recently and felt so Blessed. Students relates in Two Osteopathic Schools in the states, teaching staffs are very open to Biodynamic approaches. Some teachers are adament that HVT are essential. But students observe that they are actually doing Biodynamic techniques when they practice--(?integrity).

My clinic sessions are more enjoyable after taking this course.

Back and neck pain, autism, epilepsy, terminal cancers all improve rapidly. Most importantly, there were smiles all around at the end of the session, which is fast. (5-10 minutes, then I would move away, and return to reassess and another 5-10 minutes more may be). I take the end point as when I am no longer needed.

Dr Jealous and others relate that Neutral is essential before any treatment. I totally concur and BELIEF that it would be unethical to treat before a neutral state is attained. And HVT is actually a shift that can be accessed easily when the tide comes.

All clinical Instructors should take remedial courses in Biodynamics if they are not fluent in the concept of Neutral and Tide. I belief this is important to protect the interests of patients and fellow students if they are studying Osteopathy.

Any one agree?

I consider this as a matter of urgency in order to protect the good name of Osteopathy

Dr George Tseng

Paul Vaucher said:

Learning cranial osteopathy at the Swiss School of osteopathy was a chalenge! We had four teachers who taught in the cranial field in different courses. They all had different underlying concepts and strongly disagreed with one and another. All seemed to be sure their approach was optimal and that the other teachers were phonies without knowing it.

For myself, I only started understanding cranial osteopathy once I read old textbooks. "The cranial bowl" from Sutherland is more about what we ought to feel and do and is full of paraboles like feeling "the waves washing back and forward on a beach". Magoon then tried to make cranial osteopathy look like a science and therefore lost all these subjective exlanations making cranial osteopathy paradoxaly less accessible to me. I guess I am much more receptive to Sutherland's pedagogy than Magoon's. But then for many of us it could be just the opposite.

What we all agree on is that interacting with a patient and changing his own perception of his body and/or pain is an efficient way of treating patients. I think both approaches could therefore be efficient; and might only depend on patient's and practitioner's expectations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by indikate on February 17, 2012 at 5:27pm

Hi George

I also used to believe this, and feel passionately that the neutral must be honoured etc. Then I worked with the idea that the neutral is illusory and ignored it. Both seem to work so I do not feel that this is a particularly cohesive stance that all tutors should work from an understanding of the neutral. My impression having done phases 3 to 8 that this interesting work would not appeal to everyone working in the cranial field.

I have also made the remark in the past that the Neutral itself does not feel the same as it did. Impossible they say the neutral is neutral. Not to me anymore.

To say it is unethical to treat before the neutral is reached is stretching it a bit no? as it is not in everyones sensorium either yet or anymore.

george tseng said:

Back and neck pain, autism, epilepsy, terminal cancers all improve rapidly. Most importantly, there were smiles all around at the end of the session, which is fast. (5-10 minutes, then I would move away, and return to reassess and another 5-10 minutes more may be). I take the end point as when I am no longer needed.

Dr Jealous and others relate that Neutral is essential before any treatment. I totally concur and BELIEF that it would be unethical to treat before a neutral state is attained. And HVT is actually a shift that can be accessed easily when the tide comes.

All clinical Instructors should take remedial courses in Biodynamics if they are not fluent in the concept of Neutral and Tide. I belief this is important to protect the interests of patients and fellow students if they are studying Osteopathy.

Any one agree?

I consider this as a matter of urgency in order to protect the good name of Osteopathy

Dr George Tseng

Paul Vaucher said:

Learning cranial osteopathy at the Swiss School of osteopathy was a chalenge! We had four teachers who taught in the cranial field in different courses. They all had different underlying concepts and strongly disagreed with one and another. All seemed to be sure their approach was optimal and that the other teachers were phonies without knowing it.

For myself, I only started understanding cranial osteopathy once I read old textbooks. "The cranial bowl" from Sutherland is more about what we ought to feel and do and is full of paraboles like feeling "the waves washing back and forward on a beach". Magoon then tried to make cranial osteopathy look like a science and therefore lost all these subjective exlanations making cranial osteopathy paradoxaly less accessible to me. I guess I am much more receptive to Sutherland's pedagogy than Magoon's. But then for many of us it could be just the opposite.

What we all agree on is that interacting with a patient and changing his own perception of his body and/or pain is an efficient way of treating patients. I think both approaches could therefore be efficient; and might only depend on patient's and practitioner's expectations.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by george tseng on February 18, 2012 at 1:37pm

Hi Indikate,

Neutral can be described as sweetness, Yummy (vs Yucky), serenity, love, freedom of movement in 3d, or 6 directions,  or stillness.(according to different sources)

It can be taught to the patient.

In such state, students and patients should feel this sense of lightness and joy.

The “lesion” whatever it is , should float.

When the tide comes in, it may shift, if it is not hold fixed.

Neutral allows students to appreciate it is not the lesion that they are looking for, but the health.

The cracking is done by the tide in Neutral.

Compare with cracking, where attention is fixed at the lesion where a lesion may easily be created if the fixation is long or strong enough, Neutral shift attention away from the lesion. New lesions can be avoided and vicious circle prevented. Injuries and disillusionment in the Osteopathic students can be avoided.

Treatment becomes a relationship between the healer and the healee in the dance. It becomes a joy instead of a drag. 

Of course you are an expert in Biodynamics, and I agree completely with you that Biodynamics is not for everyone, because it do require years of learning and dedication, and the learning process will have setbacks. The same applies to cracking of bones which is not for everyone too. However, when students witnessed the power and efficiency of Biodynamics, I think most would marvel at what its potential are. 

I remember when I learn manipulation, it is the set up that is important, because a nice setup would brings everything to a neutral. Whether crack or not is really not so important.

George

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by indikate on February 18, 2012 at 4:22pm

Hi George

You seem to be presenting this in quite polarised terms for which you may have good reason e.g biodynamics vs "cracking" wheras in your last post the polarisation was within the cranial field i.e all tutours should refer to the Neutral as a start point for the treatment when teaching in the cranial field.

Perhaps it is also worth mentioning that the really amazing work in osteopathy is that done by the patient. So often we hear of big name personalities that can do this and that from different levels; neutral, dynamic stillness etc which is all very interesting and believable because the patient is making the changes.

So perhaps less dogma not more is required especially when it comes to the therapeutic interaction which I can tell from your writing that you hold in great respect.

My feeling is that  most of what we experience within the therapeutic interaction is beyond language to explain so the decriptive language of biodynamics can be a barrier or a target ("can you check the patient is in neutral before I treat them") which I have heard from associates keen to progress in biodynamics.

Also I have seen the advice to not go looking for " lesions " to be interpreted as dont go looking for pathology just treat the health which is clearly less than ideal in primary health care.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by snoopy on February 21, 2012 at 4:34pm

Hey Osteopathic Brothers and Sisters.....A quick reply to this ongoing discussion.  I had the pleasure of hosting another Jam in Boulder.  This time the Jam was attended by old friends, most of them Osteopaths with 30+ years of hands-on-training.  Most with the mentors we all wished we were able to access.  All of us are the best Osteopaths in the world (of course so are you).  The interesting information that we were able to attain during this jam was....that even tho' we all had different "osteopathic" up-bringing, when we Jammed and worked together it was really just a matter of terminology.  We all do the same thing.  Weather or not you are a classical CST or a Biodynamic CST or a Reike person....we all find that point (neutral, still, or whatever) and treat from there.  The Osteopaths in attendance included one of Dr. Jealous's first students (Dr. jealous was one of my first mentors as well but we did not see eye to eye)....Myself who considers Dr. Fulford my grandfather (as well as Dr. Greenman and a long list of unique Osteopaths, all with a different art).....No matter what we  call the CV4....the experience of whatever a CV4 is.....is common regardless of our training.  We began to understand that we all do the same thing but visualize it differently.  This is why graduate students and old osteopathic "Facilitators of health"...need to experience together in order to advance our common knowledge.  First experience, then define and then begin to work to a common description of the work we are doing.  Dogma is Dogma.  Dr. Jealous came up with a new explaination of Cranial therapy.  It speaks to those that can hear that description.  If you do not jive with BCST then you find you instrument elsewhere.  Besides new technique, the "magic of Osteopathy" has yet to be discovered.

just sayin

 

DrJ

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by indikate on February 21, 2012 at 5:36pm

Nice de-constuction of the dogma, thank you snoopy

snoopy said:

Hey Osteopathic Brothers and Sisters 

DrJ

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• Next ›
• Page