If this approach is so good, why other doctors do not use it?
I do not have an exact answer to this question, but I have several guesses that can form one answer.
Perhaps, no research work has been conducted concerning reticular formation stimulation theory. Or at least I have no information about similar researchers and their results. That is the reason why I decided to share my observations. It happened in 1998 when for the first time I got a positive effect while using this approach. Severe headache lasting over a month disappeared after Papaverine injection 0,2 ml in the trapezius muscle.

This treatment approach can be considered as new only on condition, I mean that it is not currently used in the form where it works most efficiently. On the same principle acupuncture is based, when the slight, long-lasting and often repetitive pain influence to certain parts of the body achieve the effect of changes in various functions of the nervous system and body in a whole. And acupressure is also based this exact principle.

We must to use a short, but the most intensive (over the limit) pain stimulation in order to achieve the effect of reprogramming the nervous centers,. That is why the treatment approach itself can be called pharmacological hyperstimulation. The medical procedure itself seems somewhat unusual, because of a great number of intramuscular injections.

Firstly, the markup is done which is made with the help of a cotton swab dipped in alcohol solution of iodine that marks all tense and painful areas of muscles along the spine. Then intramuscular injection are given at a depth of 5-10 mm. As the experience shows, for the procedure the most convenient solution medicines are 50% analgene solution and 0.9% sodium chloride solution (the proportion 1:10), or 2.4% solution of magnesium sulfate. These medicines are convenient as they give sufficient intense and short in time (30 - 40 seconds), pain stimulation, they do not give allergic reactions and minimally traumatized muscle tissue. This procedure resembles the so-called paravertebral blockade. When the blockade is being made, a medicine in injected into muscles that prevents transmission of pain impulses from the site of injection to the brain. In this case the brain can change its activity and the pain may go away. The case of hyperstimulation is the opposite, there is no anesthesia, a short pain is applied. Even though these procedures seem the same, the meaning of these procedures is different. It should be mentioned that the effectiveness of hyperstimulation is higher than the efficiency of the blockade.

Due to the fact that there can be a few dozen of injections and they are painful, they should be given as quickly as possible. If the injection sites are thoroughly treated with iodine, then without fear of an abscess we can give of 10-15 injections with one syringe. With a little skill it is quite possible to give one injection in a second and so the whole procedure lasts for a minute, and after 3-4 minutes all the pain subsides and the first results are usually seen when pain is eliminated and movements are increased.

Safety issues are very important. This treatment approach is absolutely safe since the nerves are located on the inner side of ribs, and can not e damaged. The chance to get into the spinal cord is also completely unrealistic, but to get into the chest, you need to try really hard.

neurologist A.A.Ponomarenko

It is difficult to say what are the mechanisms of the recovery of regular nerve centers activity(at the cellular level). However, the fact is unquestionable that the effect exists and can be used successfully for treating diseases connected with high muscle tone and any other.

While thinking about the results, I had to suggest and reject lots of speculations about how this approach works. I am convinced that when we stimulate the muscle with the maximum possible pain, we send a powerful flow of impulses(hyperstimulation) decreasing the cells activity that control the tone of this muscle. The activity of those cells decreasing that are hyperactive and decreased till the regular level. Cells that have regular activity or decreased activity are almost not affected by this wave of impulses as they don't have the energy reserves which hyperstimulation "burn". That is why the use of hyperstimulation leads to positive results in a form of the disappearance of certain symptoms of the excess activity(pain, convultions). It works for epilepsy and trigeminal neuralgia(when sensitive cores are damaged)when the high activity of certain cells is noticable, for example.

Physiology stands firmly on its own two feet? Physiology became an independent discipline?
We all are materials as we were before: if something is not available or not understandable than it does not exists.

I have read next words in a "Brain magic and labyrinths of life" book written by Natalia Behterova and published in 2007: "by 1994 physiology will have been declared as an independent science not only in foreign countries, but also in Russia". That has happened. However, the question how to cure people from all diseases is still open.

When I decided to become a doctor I did understood that not all diseases are thoroughly studied, not all medicines are discovered, but I could never thought I would conduct researches by myself. When we become ill, of course we are trying to find a well-trained doctor, at least a professor who specializes in our disease. Thus we can be sure that in most cases we will get qualified help, based on latest medical achievements. However, whether these achievements are the best and whether they will help us is the moot point.

Every year thousands of medical students graduate from colleges, billions dollars are spend on researches, we learn about new discoveries and achievements. Nevertheless, when an ordinary citizen comes to an ordinary clinic, he does not get necessary and effective treatment for common illness.

A famous doctor Mysnikov once said about modern medicine:" We can treat a running nose or furuncle, the rest we can diagnose, tried to treat but never cure". I agree with him. Stereotypes formed in our heads after long-term training do not let doctors broaden horizons and look at problems from the other point of view. It concerns not only medicine, but also aviation, for example. In the early 20th century aircraft engineers claimed that the aircraft weighing more than 1,5 tons would never be able to fly. But Russian designer proved it wrong and demonstrated that it was possible even for aircraft weighing much more than 1,5 tons. The same can be said about medicine. "denial" habit does not give us an opportunity to see obvious facts - there is always another solution for the problem.

Let's have a look at surgery, for instance. Lots of breakthroughs has been made in this field, but to perform a surgery the whole organism has to be working perfectly. There are two possible ways. One is when you must find a solution by yourself and in this case you pay attention at every tiny detail. Another is when you are convinced that there is no solution, follow the path you are used to and all of a sudden find the answer. Although nothing is so simple. You must be attentive, patient and the solution will be found. Deep brain stimulation, suggested by Behterova, has many disadvantages and dangerous complications. While stimulating brain according to my suggested approach is safer and risks are low. We can influence on our brain at any level, from the cerebral subcortex to stem sells.

This method can be also called as hyperstimilation because of a pain the patient feel during the procedure. I suppose, lots of energy is released from stimulated areas. In other words, we reach the maximum level of brain reticular formation stimulation through hyperstimulation. The method prospects are in finding the connection between brain regions and certain trapezius areas. Today to have the most successful result, large area of these muscles have to be stimulated. I am sure that in future many diseases will be possible to cure using this method. Surely, all these suggestions have to be properly checked, tested in a laboratory, observed, analyzed before they put into practice. Precise efficiency results can be reached by using laboratory methods.
Negative results will also be obtained while testing a hypothesis in practice. However, negative results always lead to certain conclusions and show the right way to a desired goal.

Everything I am writing about existed before me but not used and not included in doctors educational programs. Is not yet included. I started this article quoting Behterova and want to finish it in the same way. "We can't give up on a patient only because tutorials doesn't contain everything that specialists can do now".

neurologist A.A.Ponomarenko