Dear Urigeller, I find a common feature of the students who pass through my rooms and go on to professional life , that such a lot of time has been spent in the acquisition of complex theorems , rationales and techniques, that there is a tendency to think in the complex way it appears is necessary. Often however , this kind of problem solving approach fails to acknowledge what is obvious and simple. As
Occam"s "razor" suggests, the simplest answer is usually the best. What I have set out to do by offering a theorem which seeks to answer the seemingly complex . Is to reduce , as far as is possible , the details concerning each cascade and physiological connection to an understandable relationship. I have used the term " protective response" as the best way I could think of to alert the reader to my proposition . This is , that spinal pain and the attendant referred events, which we seek to treat, have a context that can be understood as"normal". When considered from an evolutionary perspective, those hunters and gatherers that succumbed to a loss of mobility at the effect of spasm and muscular tension leading to pain, were able to successfully reproduce. Those without a means to have potentially catastrophic loss of muscle power and sensation averted , were not successfull.
Like it or not Uri, this model has withstood the attempts by many , including the casual "nay" sayers like yourself , to be sytematically undone. Try some more spoon bending, or have a better go at the theorem from a cool headed perspective, either way , we all win by the debate.
Cheers and good luck with the spoons.