Alterations in skin temperature patterns are associated with aberrations in the function of the autonomic nervous system.

The autonomic nervous system controls the organs, glands, and blood vessels. It is responsible for relating the internal environment of the patient to the dynamics of the outside world. One important function of the autonomic nervous system is temperature regulation.

When the outside environment is cool, the body will attempt to conserve heat, resulting in constriction of the arterioles in the skin. When the outside environment is warm, and the body seeks to eliminate heat, vasodilation of the arterioles in the skin will result. (1)

In a healthy patient, skin temperature patterns will be constantly changing, but symmetrical. This is because a healthy body is constantly adapting to the environment.

Vertebral subluxations result in thermal asymmetries and/or fixed patterns. The levels of thermal asymmetry are not necessarily the levels of subluxation, and may change with time. The value of the thermal scan is in determining the overall degree of autonomic abnormality, and the response of the patient to the adjustment.

Two mechanisms have been proposed which relate to altered skin temperatures, the segmental and the nonsegmental.

The segmental model

According to the segmental model, sensory irritation via the recurrent meningeal nerve may result in a sympathetic response of vasoconstriction. This will produce thermal asymmetry in the “thermatome” affected.

A thermatome is similar to a dermatome, but refers to a region of temperature change rather than sensation. When this mechanism is operative, the level of the thermal asymmetry is often the same as the level of subluxation, or is close to it.

Some clinicians report that chronic subluxations or long standing organic disease may be associated with segmental responses. Segmental facilitation of the lateral horn cells of the spinal cord may produce similar changes.

The nonsegmental model

Sensory innervation of the intervertebral discs and facet joints is not only segmental, but is also nonsegmental through the paravertebral sympathetic trunk. Therefore, a subluxation at any level of the spine may produce thermal changes throughout the entire spine. Depending up on the degree of chronicity, these changes may be fluctuating or “fixed” into a pattern.

Clinical analysis

In the analysis of thermal differentials, we are concerned with two factors, symmetry and pattern.

Symmetry refers to the difference in temperature between the left side at the right side at like points along the spine. It has been demonstrated that specific temperatures vary greatly from person to person. Actual temperatures also vary in the same person from moment to moment. However, the differences in temperature from side to side are maintained within strict limits in healthy persons.

Uematsu et al determined normative values based upon 90 asymptomatic “normal” individuals. These authors stated: “These values can be used as a standard in assessment of sympathetic nerve function, and the degree of asymmetry is a quantifiable indicator of dysfunction…Deviations from the normal values will allow suspicion of neurological pathology to be quantitated and therefore can improve assessment and lead to proper clinical management.” (2)

These values have been incorporated into the Insight 7000 software. Mild, moderate, and severe asymmetries are identified by color bars. Temperature differences between one and two standard deviations indicate a mild asymmetry; two to three standard deviations a moderate asymmetry; while three or more are indicative of a severe asymmetry.

It must be remembered that since vasomotor activity should be a dynamic process, the levels of asymmetry will change from session to session unless a chronic subluxation is present. Even though the levels change, a patient with acute or subacute subluxation will usually have approximately the same number of levels out of range, although the levels themselves may change.

The thermal sensors, when properly used, provide excellent reliability (reproducibility) of temperature measurement. However, temperature patterns on a patient change from moment to moment unless chronic subluxation is present. This may incorrectly lead the examiner to believe that the instrument or procedure is not reproducible. Reproducible readings indicate chronic subluxation. This is NOT a normal or desirable state of affairs.

Patterns

B.J. Palmer developed and used a system of skin temperature analysis called the “pattern system.”

Miller described the basic premise of pattern analysis as follows:

“Persons free of neurological interference tend to display skin temperature readings which continually change, but when the vertebral subluxation and interference to normal neurological function appear on the scene, these changing differentials become static. They no longer display normal adaptability, and at this time the patient is said to be `in pattern.’” (3)

Clinical observations from users suggest the following:

1. In normal (unsubluxated) patients, thermal patterns will be constantly changing, and will exhibit acceptable symmetry.

2. In acute and subacute subluxations, there will be levels out of range, but the pattern will vary.

3. In chronic subluxations, the pattern will be fixed, and there will be levels out of range.

4. Levels of asymmetry often do not relate to the level of primary subluxation.

5. Chronic organ dysfunction (visceroautonomic) may result in a focal segmental asymmetry.

6. Thermal patterns measure autonomic activity. Levels of thermal asymmetry may not correlate with levels of EMG asymmetry, since EMG is measuring muscle activity, not autonomic function.

These observations should be tested through formalized research. The chiropractic profession pioneered skin temperature differential analysis with the introduction of the neurocalometer over 70 years ago. Strengthened by extensive clinical experience and ongoing research, paraspinal skin temperature differential analysis is strongly established in the practice of subluxation based chiropractic. (4)

References

1. “Segmental Neuropathy.” Canadian Memorial Chiropractic College. Toronto. No date.

2. Uematsu S, Edwin DH, Jankel ER, et al: “Quantification of thermal asymmetry.” J Neurosurg 1988;69:552.

3. Miller JL: “Skin temperature differential analysis.” International Review of Chiropractic (Science) 1964;1(1):41.

4. Kent C, Gentempo P: “Instrumentation and imaging in chiropractic: a centennial retrospective.” Today’s Chiropractic 1995;24(1):32.

Get Started with INSiGHT Scanning

Take our Free Practice Strategy Assessment. A Personalized Guide and Expert Strategy Call to Help Determine How Scanning will Help you Grow
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. David Fletcher is actively involved in all aspects of innovation teaching and research connected to the INSiGHT™ scanning technologies. He is widely recognized for his ability to share his expertise in compelling and easy to understand ways.

Dr David is a renowned chiropractor who practiced for many years with his associates in a scan-centric thriving principled family-based practice in Toronto. He is a sought-after teacher mentor and keynote speaker who takes every opportunity to share the wisdom and the power of chiropractic as it is meant to be.

https://insightcla.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/david-1.png
Dr. David Fletcher
DC FRCCSS(C) – Founder & CEO CLA Inc.
LIKE THIS ARTICLE? HELP US SPREAD THE WORD

The Incredible Value of Chiropractic Screenings

This practical guide provides details on how to use screenings to maximize the opportunity to share the message of chiropractic in your community.

Read these Next…

Get Informed

Join 23,121 other Chiropractors and receive topics covering day to day challenges of running your practice.

Mahatma Gandhi stated, “Every action that is dictated by fear or by coercion of any kind ceases to be moral.” This imperative has been completely ignored by public health officials who seek to make vaccinations mandatory. Despite what is known, and more frighteningly, what is not known about the consequences of vaccine administration, vaccine proponents are not content to minister to those who come to them voluntarily. The American Academy of Pediatrics is “categorically opposed to any kind of optional immunization program,” according to G. Scott Giebink, professor of pediatrics at the University of Minnesota Medical School.

Legal decisions have been rendered both ways. Proponents of mandatory vaccination won a major victory in a 1904 Supreme Court decision upholding a 1902 Massachusetts mandatory smallpox vaccination law. The court held that it was within the police power of a state to provide for compulsory vaccination. (Jacobson vs. Massachusetts 49 L. Ed. 643). Other courts concurred. In Morris vs. Columbus (30 S.E. 850) the court held “The natural right to life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness is not an absolute right. It must yield whenever the concession is demanded by the welfare, health, or prosperity of the state.”

All states currently have “mandatory” vaccination laws. Fortunately, all have provisions for exemption as well. All states provide for “medical” exemptions, although the requirements for such exemptions vary from state to state. In some states, only physicians licensed to practice medicine and surgery may issue such exemptions. In other states, chiropractors and naturopaths may issue exemptions as well as M.D.s and D.O.s. Twenty two states provide a relatively hassle-free “conscience” exemption for persons whose personal or philosophical beliefs oppose vaccination. Generally, a notarized statement to that effect is all that is required. Although all states do not provide for exemption on the basis of personal belief, all provide “religious” exemptions.

Happily, courts have broadly interpreted these laws to include “non-institutionally” held religious beliefs. Unfortunately, such victories often follow initial denial by school authorities and costly legal battles.

It is ironic that when the media promotes the “No shots — no school” campaign each fall, provisions for exemption are rarely mentioned. Many public health authorities either do not know such exemptions are provided for in the law or choose to keep this information from parents. In many cases, the parent is unaware of the option to “just say no” officially. Parents seeking exemptions are advised to obtain a copy of the law (most public libraries have copies of state statutes) to show school authorities. A bit of effort may be required on the part of a parent who wishes to avoid having a child vaccinated. The exemption is well worth the time and energy required to obtain it.

Even proponents of vaccinations acknowledge (albeit reluctantly) that some children should not receive them. Known allergies to components of the vaccine, active illness (even a mild cold), and immunosuppression are all contraindications to vaccination. Yet, in mass immunization programs, examination for such contraindications is not performed. Have you ever seen a mass immunization program where the potential vaccine recipients received physical examinations? Or where blood tests were performed to check the immune system? Or where antibody studies were completed to see whether the patient was already immune to the disease in question? Was the dose customized to the weight of the patient? Was a physician in attendance with a “crash cart” and defibrillator in the event of an anaphylactic reaction? We haven’t. Why? “Too costly,” I was told by one school nurse. “What’s a child’s life worth?” I responded. The nurse had no comeback.

Another fact often overlooked in the decision making process is the extremely small percentage of individuals who develop a disease even when an epidemic ensues. Far less than 1% of a population generally develops a disease even in an epidemic. Yet to offer highly questionable “protection” to this tiny segment of the population, the other 99+% are forced to submit to a potentially lethal procedure without any diagnostic workup whatsoever. When I asked a public health official this question, he shrugged his shoulders and said, “Since we don’t know who the less than 1% will be who will get sick, we try to vaccinate everyone.” I expressed thanks that he wasn’t a surgeon!

Proponents of mandatory vaccination often claim that unvaccinated persons represent a threat to those who have been vaccinated. Such individuals view the unvaccinated as walking Petri dishes, poised and ready to propagate every pathogen for which a vaccine exists. In reality, if vaccinations are effective, they have absolutely nothing to fear from an unvaccinated child. In reality, it is the recipient of live virus vaccines who poses a threat to the public health.

Get Started with INSiGHT Scanning

Take our Free Practice Strategy Assessment. A Personalized Guide and Expert Strategy Call to Help Determine How Scanning will Help you Grow
ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Dr. David Fletcher is actively involved in all aspects of innovation teaching and research connected to the INSiGHT™ scanning technologies. He is widely recognized for his ability to share his expertise in compelling and easy to understand ways.

Dr David is a renowned chiropractor who practiced for many years with his associates in a scan-centric thriving principled family-based practice in Toronto. He is a sought-after teacher mentor and keynote speaker who takes every opportunity to share the wisdom and the power of chiropractic as it is meant to be.

https://insightcla.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/07/david-1.png
Dr. David Fletcher
DC FRCCSS(C) – Founder & CEO CLA Inc.
LIKE THIS ARTICLE? HELP US SPREAD THE WORD

Adaptation Guide

Use this guide to create your ideal plan and stay focused on your path ahead. Follow the 3 R’s for attracting and managing patients and realize you have the tools you need to be “the go to Chiropractor” in your community.

Read these Next…