In this blog post, the writer, Andy Lewis, claimed the MyoVision was just another example of the "uneducated making false, unsupported claims." A distinct attempt to slander the Chiropractic profession. He goes on the write, "it would appear that the device appeals to chiropractors as it gives a scientific veneer to an invalidated diagnostic... The MyoVision device would not be the only type of questionable diagnostic procedure undertaken by chiropractors." 

Mr. Lewis' opinion on the MyoVision and Chiropractic are outdated and simply untrue. He made made several false assumptions here, but the 2 that stand out: 1. The MyoVision test has no research behind it, and 2. That the examiner he was questioning was a chiropractor. It turns out that Mr. Lewis was wrong on both counts. David Marcarian quickly responded to this blog post, providing over 70 indexed research papers to support the proper use of Static Surface EMG technology, and informed Mr. Lewis that it was in fact an osteopath who performed the test at the clinic in question, not a chiropractor. 

When you read the post, don't miss the comments at the bottom - they are more informative and entertaining than the article itself. It is in the comments where you will find Mr. Marcarian's response invalidating the whole blog post with his list of references and logical reasoning.

A friend, who is in criminology, once said that "behind a computer, everyone can feel like they have the credibility of a NY Times reporter, but the reality is, that's simply not true." Mr. Lewis proves this theory by posting a position where he has no support.

The American Chiropractic Association's position paper on Surface EMG has had a major impact on both insurance reimbursement and State Policy in regards to the adoption of Surface EMG.  In June, I received a denial letter (access all denial responses are located in the "member portal" tab of www.myovision.com - you must register and wait for approval) referencing the ACA position paper to deny payment. I took one look at their references and realized they were referencing the American Academy of Electrodiagnostic Medicine's Position Paper (written by Pullman, et. al. 2000) on Surface EMG. This position paper has been long retired by the American Academy of Electrodiagnostic Medicine due to the fact that Pullman had ignored 40+ studies in his review. So, with their main scientific reference no longer valid, I wrote the ACA informing them that their position paper was not supported by their own references, forewarning that legal action will be taken if they did not respond. Not even 10 minutes after I send this email, the ACA responded and removed their position paper from their website, stating it was "under review" where the position paper once was.  

View the ACA's webpage by clicking HERE.

It is so wonderful to see how many doctors have realized that each and every time they send a traditional ROM report vs. a DynaROM report, they are hurting their cases. The paradigm shift to DynaROM has changed the outcomes for patients throughout North America, as muscle guarding is crucial in evaluating for soft tissue injury.  Furthermore, it helps establish lack of injury was well as injury itself, and aids in determining when the patient is at MMI. Congrats to all you doctors integrating this new mindset into your practices. Not that it matters, but the fact that it pays 5 times more than ROM in about the same testing time is definitely a benefit.