This month I would like to bring up the subject of unintended harm (by physicians) to their patients and how it relates to neural therapy. Iatrogenic is the term we use to describe it.
When we think of iatrogenic illness, we usually consider adverse effects of medications, complications of surgery, or other treatments that have gone awry. However with increasing dependence on technology for diagnosis, we also need to be alert to iatrogenic illness caused by diagnostic procedures.
We are all aware of allergic reactions to radio‐contrast dyes. The reactions are immediate and the connection is obvious. Less well known is reaction to the magnetic fields of MRI imaging. I have seen two cases in my practice in the last year of severe chronic illness being precipitated by an MRI scan. In one of these the reaction was clearly that of a "second blow" as described by Speransky, i.e. an irritation of the nervous system awakening a tissue memory of an older experience (of disease or dysfunction). The other was a straightforward "burn", or induction of an abnormal electrical current within the patient's body. I suspect, but cannot prove that this occurs in patients with pre‐existing interference fields. (Reports or comments on this subject from the readership would be welcomed).
I have already written on interference fields caused by injections, often vaccinations. These reactions are more subtle, as the adverse effect usually does not appear until weeks later, and the connection is rarely made by patient or physician.
Any penetration of the patient's skin can create an interference field and this holds true of diagnostic procedures as well. Even experienced neural therapists can miss these, as the procedure is often only a minor event during a period of acute illness, or in the course of a chronic one.
I have seen two cases in which a pain syndrome developed weeks after investigation of suspected coronary artery disease. In one case the patient (a 50 year old male) developed left carpal tunnel syndrome. In the other, (a 73 year old male) developed heel pain and ankle oedema. My first suspicion in both cases was that the pain arose from an interference field connected with the heart, perhaps the heart itself or even a stellate ganglion. However with autonomic response testing, nothing could be found in these areas. It was only after considering that coronary angiography had been performed that the site of insertion of the arterial catheter in the groin (in the right femoral artery) was checked. In both cases neural therapy of the catheterization site resolved the pain problems.
A recent case of bilateral facial pain turned out also to be of iatrogenic origin. A healthy 38 year old woman had a minor gynecological procedure performed under general anaesthetic. A few weeks later she developed facial pain. Her dental health was excellent and she had no history of facial sinus problems. I suspected trauma during intubation, but nothing could be found on general examination. Interference fields were searched for by autonomic response testing in the oro-pharynx and a positive response was obtained for the adenoids (weakening of an indicator muscle when the tip of the tongue was placed at the junction of the hard and soft palates in the midline). Neural therapy of the adenoids resulted in only minor improvement on follow-up three weeks later.
It was then that the palate was examined more carefully, and the right palatine bone was discovered to be slightly displaced relative to the left. Cranial manipulation using direct technique released the palatine and the patient's pain subsided significantly.
No doubt there are many other ways in which interference fields can accidentally be created during investigations. Again reports from the readership on this subject would be appreciated.
I have found this to be a rewarding project, mostly because of letters from interesting people from all parts of the world. The readership includes physicians (and others) from every continent ‐ except Antarctica. I particularly value correspondence from German and Spanish speaking neural therapists, even though they often struggle to express themselves in English. From what I understand, neural therapy is best established in the countries that speak these languages. No doubt they have much to teach their English‐speaking colleagues! Here is a recent example:
______________Dear Dr Kidd,
I am an orthopedic surgeon from Ecuador. Sorry my written English is not very good. I like neural therapy a lot. I have been working with it for 8 years. And I have written two articles: on RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy) and neural therapy, and on neck pain and neural therapy. They are written in Spanish.
I like the term "tissue memory". Everything is going to end in "information". Not everything is energy and mass; there is also information and conscience. What I see many times in my practice is how trauma awakens interference fields. That is what Speransky called the "second hit". Probably we should keep this in mind when working with pain therapies.
Thank you for your [news]letters.
Dr. Carlos Chiriboga
Robert F. Kidd, MD, CM