Cranio-sacral research --- apples or oranges?

[Guest guest]

Alon wrote (Sat, 1 Nov 2008 13:44:06 -0700)

>>What surprised me about the study is that they looked at respiratory

(lung) activity as it relates to cranial motion. The Primary Respiratory

Mechanism is not thought to relate to lung or heart movement.

 

Magoun (citing Lassek, 1957) noted several " observed " brain rhythms: 1.

one synchronous with heart beat; 2. one associated with inhalation /

exhalation; 3. one not related to (1) or (2), but constant; and 4. " an

undulating pulsation which has not been identified " . (Magoun in general

is presenting Sutherland's work, but is citing Lassek. Did Sutherland

also note the brain motions associated with cardiac and pulmonary

rhythms ( (1) and (2) )?)

 

In the citations Brian entered here (Sunday 26 Oct) from the 2008 study

by the Chinese team, are they looking at (2) or (3)?

 

The " abstract " states: " Pressure changes in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF)

that occur with respiration rhythms have been studied …for more than 100

years. This phenomenon has been recently validated in vivo on MR images

by applying spectral analysis to signal–time curves at selected

regions of interest. "

 

In the " conclusion " : " …we validated our postulate that CSF pulsation is

passively modulated by … changes secondary to [pulmonary] respiration. "

 

The article was, at least partially, a study in radiology (journal

" Magnetic Resonance Imaging " ). (Conclusion: " This study shows that it

is feasible to conduct an in vivo evaluation of the physiological

modulation of CSF pulsation. " ) Any indication they were working at a

level of sophistication and depth of knowledge of Sutherland or Upledger?

 

That is to say, are the 2008 researchers addressing what I understand

Sutherland/Magoun to mean by " The Primary Respiratory Mechanism " , and

Upledger calls " Cranialsacral Motion " ? (My sense is Upledger (in

" Cranialsacral Therapy " , 1983) means that same as Sutherland.)

 

I find it admirable that Magoun, as well as Upledger, both assert many

things they hold with a high degree of certainty, but also respect

alternative theories, and even (especially Magoun) note things that are

still mysteries (i.e. simply unknown).

 

An interesting level of research, leisurely spanning about a Century, so

far, but not at the pace and with the pressure that we know today, in

say the research relating and derived from the genome issues. Also a

sense of lack of need to rush to conclusions (get further funding, find

pharmaceutical remedies, etc.).

 

Does the 2008 study, with its list of Chinese researchers, reflect a

deeper cultural preoccupation with respiratory issues in a broad sense

that we here know so well (i.e. qi)?

 

Also I noted, in reviewing passages in Upledger's book, how he used

terms like " homeostatic mechanism " and " homeostatic control " , which

helped me understand better the term " homeostasis " . And as relevant to

the current of thought deep in CM that health is an aspect of a universe

of natural cycles all following a guiding " way " (Dao). (Magoun used the

term also, but only, where I saw it, in the nominative form " homeostasis " .)