Dear Alophysio:

The proper protocol on a thread is to use the code or user name on the thread, even if you do know the person by their given name.

My concern is that we are conditioned no matter how hard we refute the idea. It is like Lady Macbeth where it was said of her: "Me think the lady doeth protest too much." We can jump up and down and stand on our head, but peer groups condition us to accept the ideals of the peer group, so we find it hard to think "outside of the box".

On integrity, I am sure that Ptolemy was a man of integrity that believed that he was seeing the corect perspective. His theories and subtheories for the divergencies that he was seeing were very involved and seemed very correct. However, when Capernicus and later Galelio said that the very first assumption was not correct, the whole gagle of theories fell like a house made out of a deck of cards.

You appear to have read every author in the realm of physical therapy. I may not have read as many. Myk Hungerford's study that showed that there was conformity to the rules and that every tester came back with close or similar findings does not impute lack of integrity, but possible tunnel vision. If you frame a test to give certain results under certain conditions, it is like the bus load of people who all saw the reflected light off the pavement and thought it was "a layer of water" on the pavement. They all had the same findings. What would Myk Hungerford have found if they did the same test with hip ABD instead of hip flexion or trunk flexion. We do not know, because Myk Hungerford did not try that part of the comparison test!!! Why? because it was 1) unknown to her - she was ignorant of the implications of doing the comparison of hip ABD to the other way of doing the standing Wikipedia reference-linkSIJ test, because her peer group had never considered it!: 2) she thougt it irrelevant for whatever reason. We may never know.

The movement of the PSIS away from the sacrum is relevant unless you wish to dismiss it. It is movement of a supposed "stuck" joint. How???

Load transfer tests to my experience are very inconsistent and subjective and carefully framed.

Science is being accurate and open to new ways of looking at things: not recyling old ideas to make something fit. Ptolemy made that mistake.

What are the reasons for reconsidering if a new perspective is needed? Numberus sources are showing low sucess rates in trial after trial of therapy for low back pain by several disciplines - load transfer testing et al (27.5 to mid 45% rates). ( I have quoted these, but others have dismissed this. Is it an ego problem? ) That should be reason enough to contemplate a new direction on its own. Further, Andry vleeming chairs an international convention on low back pain. If the treatment of low back pain were a "sure thing", why have a conference looking for new ideas???????

I feel that there is enough evidence, and the the comparison test is just one more test to question the status quo.

Best regards,

Neuromuscular.