BY ROBERT COOPERSTEIN, DC, RICKARD THOMAS, DC, AND CAROL CLAUS, DC

Full-Spine Specific (FSS), formerly known as Meric Technique, is as old as chiropractic itself. In fact, among those techniques in common use today, it more closely resembles the technique of the Palmers (prior to B. J. Palmer’s adoption of upper-cervical technique in 1930) than any other technique. FSS represents the core of the technique program at the two Cleveland Chiropractic Colleges, in Los Angeles and Kansas City, and three generations of Carl Clevelands have served as presidents of those colleges.

The recoil adjustment used in Meric Technique directly descends from the original mechanical style of the Palmers and Stephenson.  The Meric System is a related term that refers to a system worked out by B. J. Palmer and Palmer School of Chiropractic faculty member James C. Wishart around 1910. (B. J. Palmer used the term “meres” to refer to specific segmentally related areas of the body.) In that system, the doctor would first identify all the subluxations, and then decide, based on the determination of which were “hot boxes” and through “nerve tracings,” which segments were to be adjusted. The Meric System eventually took on the connotation of adjusting the segments neurologically related to a diseased viscus, whereas the Meric Technique of today has more to do with a mechanical style of adjusting segments that have been determined to be misaligned and/or fixated.
Three generations of Carl Clevelands have carried into the present this original adjusting strategy and mechanical style of the Palmers.

​

At this time, at least at the Cleveland Colleges, the term “Full-Spine Specific” is preferred for a number of reasons: (a) to underscore that it has to do with a particular mechanical adjusting style, with an emphasis on specificity; (b) to indicate that it is not identical to the Meric analytic (symptom specific); and (c) to make clear that the entire spine, not simply the upper-cervical spine, is assessed and adjusted.

The goals of care, terminology, examination procedures, adjustive procedures, and outcome measures are quite similar to those found in a typical Diversified practice setting, and the fundamental principles involved in Meric Technique are central to traditional chiropractic philosophy. Since the nervous system governs the entire body, Full-Spine Specific, however local its application, is thought to determine the health of the entire body and all of its organ systems.  It is said that the nervous system governs the health of the body, so that interference with the nervous system resulting from vertebral subluxation results in disease, owing to the inability of the organism to maintain its adaptation to environmental variables. We provide a representative statement from Dr. C. S. Cleveland, Sr.: “The purpose of an adjustment is not to depress and not to stimulate, but to remove interferences with transmission, or pressures, from the affected nerve—thus restoring normal nerve supply; then, innate intelligence, or nature, with her exact knowledge, decreases or increases activities in the various organs or parts, as she finds necessary.  With our limited conscious
knowledge, we cannot educationally substitute such limited conscious knowledge and control on the outside for innate intelligence’s unlimited knowledge and control on the inside.”
In the sense that “Meric” refers to the Meric system, the identification of a diseased viscus or organ system forms part of the diagnostic input in determining the level to be adjusted. Although Meric Technique evolved within a static listing paradigm, in which segments are identified as misaligned, contemporary practitioners are just as likely to apply these methods to the correction of vertebral fixations. The two Cleveland Colleges of today teach a full program of diagnostic procedures, proceeding from the history to the physical exam and then on to the more narrowly defined “chiropractic procedures.” Although the AP full-spine x-ray remains very important to Full-Spine Specific practitioners, at the current time, they use history and palpatory finding as their main tools, followed by x-ray to confirm the findings. The x-ray generates the specific subluxation listings that determine where and how the adjustments are to be performed, and whether to use a spinous or lamina contact (based on which is more misaligned).

The Full-Spine Specific adjustment is a High-Velocity, Low-Amplitude (HVLA) maneuver, virtually always on a prone patient. Originally, the technique was performed on patients whose abdomens were suspended across a gap in the table, a precursor to today’s Hi-Lo tables with breakaway chest and/or abdominal pieces.

​

The suspension of the abdomen across a breakaway section of the table permits an “open wedge” at the anterior margin of the disc space, a setup that is thought to reduce the resistance to a P-A thrust. The thrust itself is applied perpendicular to the spine. The segmental contact point is either the spinous process or lamina, using the nail point one and nail point two doctor contacts. The patient’s face is turned toward the side of laterality of the subluxation, if there is a lateral component to the listing, or to the side of restriction, if that is the listing; and is kept neutral if there is not.

Among the various research projects conducted by Cleveland College investigators, two stand out for both their originality and vision, both having been carried out at times when such studies simply were not done in chiropractic. Dr. C. S. Cleveland, Jr. conducted a series of innovative pilot animal studies that were described in a 1965 publication. Splints were devised that could subluxate the middle vertebra among three in a domestic rabbit, while the physiological and structural consequences were monitored over a period of time. In his report, Dr. Cleveland reported that after several weeks of having T12 iatrogenically subluxated, each of the two rabbits developed kidney disease, albeit different diseases.

The other study was an interesting blinded, randomized clinical trial conducted by Luttges and Cleveland, apparently within the Cleveland Chiropractic College system, and thus almost certainly emphasizing, if not exclusively using, Meric technique methods. In this study, experimental subjects showed improved two-point discrimination and more accurate force estimation ability following adjustments, and to a lesser extent followed coarser manipulations, than a non-treated control group.
The National Board of Chiropractic Examiners reported in 2000 that 19.9 percent of chiropractors used “Meric” and that 6.5 percent of their patients received “Meric” care. Now, maybe that is accurate as stated, but it is not obvious what survey respondents understood by the term Meric: the Meric System of B. J. Palmer, the Meric Technique, or even Mears Upper Cervical Technique. How many of these respondents use Meric adjustive methods in a mechanical sense, how many depend on Meric spinal level/visceral problem relationships in their clinical thinking, or both?  In any case, its distinctive mechanical style and staunch emphasis on somatovisceral phenomena continue to define the Full-Spine Specific approach to traditional chiropractic technique. At the same time, the commitment of four generations of Clevelands to chiropractic education continues to impress all those who make themselves aware of this proud history. ▼

References 1. Thomas R. Full-Spine Specific (Meric) Technic. In: Transactions of the Consortium for Chiropractic Research; 1991; Monterey, CA: Consortium for Chiropractic Research; 1991. p. 295-302. 2. Claus C. Technique assessment outline: Meric Technique. In: Report to the Panel of Advisors to the ACA Council on Technique; 1995. p. 7. 3. Dye AA. The Evolution of Chiropractic—Its Discovery and Development. Reprint of 1969, Richmond Hall, Inc., Richmond Hill, NY ed. PA: Dye; 1939. 4. Leach RA. The chiropractic theories. 2nd. ed. Baltimore, MD: Williams & Wilkins; 1986. 5. Cleveland CSI. The High-Velocity Thrust Adjustment. In: Haldeman S, editor. Principles and Practice of Chiropractic. 1st ed. Norwalk, CT: Appleton & Lange; 1992. p. 459-482. 6. Cleveland CS, Sr. Chiropractic Practice and Principles—Outline. Kansas City, MO: C.S. Cleveland, Sr.; 1951. 7. Cleveland CS, Jr. Researching the subluxation on the domestic rabbit. Science Review of Chiropractic 1965;1(4):5-28. 8. Cleveland III C. Spinal correction effects on motor and sensory functions. In: Mazzarelli JP, editor. Chiropractic Interprofessional Research. Milano, Italy: OFFSET OLONA; 1982. p. 21-31. 9. Christensen MG. Job Analysis of Chiropractic. A Project Report, Survey Analysis and Summary of the Practice of Chiropractic within the United States. Greeley, CO: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners; 2000.