Triggerband Web Journal

I am determined to objectively and realistically present the scope of benefits Typaldos Manual Therapy (TMT) offers patients. These are amazing treatments, but they obviously have limitations.

TMT will not repair cataracts, reduce anxiety, ease the pain of an ingrown toenail, or finish off a lingering infection. TMT will definitely fix sprained ankles, will probably resolve chronic loss of shoulder abduction, and might help recover from stroke-induced paralysis.

From what I have observed, about half of all musculoskeletal injuries can be healed solely by correcting fascial distortions. And most of the remaining half will heal significantly, though not completely, from the application of TMT. Common non-fascial causes of acute injury include fractures, neurological damage, and inflammation.

Furthermore, about one third of chronic pain and loss of motion can be resolved with TMT. And another third can be improved with TMT, in cases such as fibromyalgia and post stroke spastic paralysis. The last third, which TMT cannot help, could be from arthritis, osteoporosis, and numerous other chronic diseases affecting the joints, muscles, or nervous system.

Keep in mind that correcting fascial distortions is the only thing Typaldos Manual Therapy does. And not all fascial distortions can be corrected using TMT. Even so, it is very fortunate that most can be treated effectively using manual therapy. Otherwise, the fascial distortion model would point out the problem without offering any solutions. What difference does it make what is causing pain if nothing can be done about it?

Our tendency, when we study a certain disease process in depth, is to believe that particular disease is more prevalent than it actually is. Likewise, when we are familiar with a certain treatment method, we begin to think it can cure or at least help almost every condition. Especially when we have economic incentives to sell a product or therapy, our supporting claims can become unrealistically broad.

Thus, patients and doctors become desensitized to outrageous claims. So when something comes along that really is great, they prudently approach it with skepticism. Even worse, some patients and doctors are willing to accept any and all claims, no matter how ridiculous. They quickly become imbalanced in their thinking and extreme in their practices.

Evidence-based medicine, supported by a body of carefully-scrutinized research, was designed to avoid warrantless claims. However, research has largely become a racket because of undue business interests and inherent bias in the researchers. Drug companies are among the few private entities that have funds to conduct double-blinded placebo-controlled studies. And federal research funds seem to be offered primarily to advance the careers of research scientists.

Good Idea, Problematic in the Real World

Most states require regular car inspections to make sure vehicles are in safe operating condition. This is a good idea, right? Nevertheless, some states have done away with car inspections. The reason is that corruption defeated the original purpose. Auto repair shops were passing cars easily without actually looking at them; or they were coercing customers into contracting unnecessary repairs.

Medical research as it now exists may be heading toward a similar demise. Doctors, pharmaceuticals, and insurance can support anything they want with “valid” research, by picking and choosing the studies they wish to present. When no favorable studies exist, they simply conduct their own. Even when their claims have so little merit that their own researchers balk, they can report that results are inconclusive. This inserts enough ambiguity into an area of prior consensus to justify deviation.

A Functional Research System

There is no substitute for the ability to think logically, rationally, and reasonably. Healthcare professionals and administrators must learn to think this way, or even a good system like evidence-based medicine will fail in practice.

Typaldos Manual Therapy diagnoses fascial distortions, treats them specifically, and produces consistent and measurable results. If that is not enough to get TMT accepted, then the healthcare system needs to change. Some promoters of TMT want to conduct a study that will prove its efficacy. I have hesitated to support a study of this nature, because it will not add to the body of knowledge. It will waste resources proving something that should be readily apparent.

So I advocate a new research system; one that is functional rather than academic. The core difference is that this research system will be subject to the requests and demands of doctors in practice. At present, researchers are the ones telling physicians how to do their job. In the new system, physicians will report to research scientists the difficulties they have in practice, and ask them to find better explanations and more effective therapies. When researchers find theories and treatment modalities that prove effective, doctors will adopt them, and researchers will then move on to the next challenge doctors have presented them with.

For this functional system to work, physicians, researchers, and administrators must be able to recognize whether treatments are effective. Otherwise, researcher scientists will get bogged down doing long and unproductive data analysis, conducting studies designed to prove claims that advance agendas, rather than discovering new, better therapies that offer patients immediate results.

How can we know whether treatments and theories work? By asking ourselves, are they logical, rational, and reasonable? And, ultimately, do the results support the claims?

Alexander Typaldos, JD