Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[Diane]

I want to submit this little excerpt from Richard Dawkin's book, The Devil's Chaplain, from Chapter #.2, "Viruses of the Mind."
From p. 137:
Like computer viruses, successful mind viruses will tend to be hard for their victims to detect. If you are a victim of one, the chances are that you won't know it, and may even vigorously deny it. Accepting that a virus might be difficult to detect in your own mind, what tell-tale signs might you look out for? I shall answer by imaginig how a medical textbook might describe the typical symptoms of a sufferer (arbitrarily assumed to be male).
1. The patient typically finds himself impelled by some deep, inner conviction that something is true, or right, or virtuous: a conviction that doesn't seem to owe anything to evidence or reason, but which, nevertheless, he feels as totally compelling and convincing. We doctors refer to such a belief as 'faith'.
2. Patients typically make a positive virtue of faith's being strong and unshakeable, in spite of not being based on evidence. Indeed, they may feel that the less evidence there is, the more virtuous the belief (see below). This paradoxical idea that lack of evidence is a positive virtue where faith is concerned has something of the quality of a program that is self-sustaining, becase it is self-referential. Once the program is believed, it automatically undermines opposition to itself. The 'lack of evidence is a virtue' idea would be an admirable sidekick, ganging up with faith itself in a clique of mutually supportive viral programs.
3. A related symptom, which a faith-sufferer may also present, is the conviction that 'mystery' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility.

Any impulse to solve mysteries could be seriously inimical to the spread of a mind virus. It would not, therefore, be surprising if the idea that 'mysteries are better not solved' was a favored member of a mutually supporting gang of viruses. (...).. the very mysteriousness of the belief moves the believer to perpetuate the mystery.... Or, at least, set up an explanation without any solid foundation beneath it, all the better to float around in the clouds with.

I look back over that thread and feel that it was successful in at least exposing the underbelly of the sea monster of belief and quackish thinking that permeates quite a lot of what lots of people think they are doing when they do soft tissue work. Truly, it was a surprise to me that Oschman's ideas were so integrated into Barnes' model. That was/is scary. For anyone who wants a better foundation for their clinical endeavors, please consider reading outside your field. Only by learning to think for yourself will you "weaken the team" of memeplex/thought virus contagion out there. Butler is a great anti-viral, Barrett too, Shacklock, these writers are specifically PT antivirals. You do have to self-adminster though. Any of the plethora of brain researchers, Ramachandran, Dennett, Damasio etc are good overall immune boosters. Dawkins himself has provided/can provide a frame around the whole concept of thought contagion and how to protect/prevent/treat a whole profession that is succumbing or has already in large part succumbed. I move we keep PT secular and science-congruent. Any seconders? All in favor? Any dissenters?

[nari]

I might add to the list of symptoms that Dawkins provides:

4. The sufferer may find himself behaving intolerantly towards vectors of rival faiths, in extreme cases even killing them or advocating their deaths. he may be similarly violent in his disposition towards apostates(people who have held the faith but renounced it); or towards heretics (people who espouse a different-often, perhaps significantly, only very slightly different-version of the faith). He may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which could function rather like a piece of antiviral software. (my emphasis)

Dawkins is referring in particular to religion, but this is relevant to the notion of memes and viruses infecting all manner of thought with possible dire consequences.

Diane, are you finding his book quite useful and relevant to the topic at hand and other issues facing physiotherapy?

I agree that physiotherapy should be secular and science congruent, but as the EBM debate shows, it is still possible to fall into the whirlpool on the basis of rigidity of thought. We have to be careful and check that the anitviral software installed in our minds isn't effective to the point that we consider nothing else.

Nari

[phil]

I move we keep PT secular and science-congruent. Any seconders? All in favor? Any dissenters?

yes, I second the motion. It drives me crazy when I talk with my coworkers and when I question their explanations I hear "well, there's a lot we don't understand, science doesn't explain everything."

Well, of course not but before you can talk about the gaps in the scientific knowledge base you have to have some familiarity with that knowledge base. Diane gives some great places to start.

[Diane]

Thanks Phil for seconding the motion.
All in favor?
I recommend a reading of the new article Bernard posted called "'Fathers' and 'Sons' of Theories in Cell Physiology: The Membrane Theory." (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1956) It discusses how science and the perception thereof can distort when not attended.

[Barrett Dorko]

I put a heading on the front page of my site yesterday titled "The Deconstruction of Myofascial Release" and linked it to Soma Simple. With between 13 and 14 thousand hits per month, my site should become another broad avenue toward that conversation.

I'm wondering how anxious Walt, Dave, Scott and Pia might be to have a lot of people look at what went on there, to say nothing of Barnes himself. If they truly feel that they made their case and effectively refuted our objections they'll say so and invite others with some enthusiasm. I'd like to see that.

For my part, I remain very pleased with everything said, and, ironically enough, especially the posts by those named above. After all, I would never have thought of "hiding behind science" on my own. As I say to my classes (briefly, I promise), "I couldn't make this stuff up."

I agree that memes are the thing, and that only by understanding the power and use of memetics can we possibly see how we are driven in so many ways. When I Googled the word meme in 2003 for that wonderful thread (archived in The Bullypit) I got 1,810,000 hits. Today you'll get 68,100,000 hits. Still, I rarely meet anyone who's heard of this word.

What do you suppose that means?

[nari]

Meme fever hasn't caught on with the general population, and maybe PTs don't read books by Gould, Dennett, Dawkins and Blackmore....and Rama.
...or maybe memetics doesn't feature strongly in EBM.....


Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Nari,

You might be right, but I think fear has more to do with this ignorance of something as large, well-studied and important as memetics. In my experience, most people are literally frightened by the very notion that they aren't in charge of what they think and believe to be true. They'd rather wander along, oblivious to all of this, trying to live a life approved of by all who surround them. As Thomas Moore says, "The need to be normal is the predominant anxiety disorder in modern life." I would add, "Even if willful ignorance of things important to your clinical life is part of that normalcy."

You can't study or even understand memetics without considering how you might be trapped within a meme that might not be true. Sensing this on a certain level, most people avoid the term and its study as best they can.

I know this sounds rather cynical, but I get around. During the past month I've introduced Soma Simple to over 200 therapists. They sat before me and expressed a distinct interest in what they might find here, they asked me for references that I said I'd be glad to fax them if they emailed me the #, they proclaimed that they were "amazed" at the changes evident in the people upon whom they employed Simple Contact and in themselves when they moved ideomotorically. "I can think of ten patients I want to try this on tomorrow," they say and shake my hand vigorously before they leave.

So far, I've gotten exactly one request for a fax and Eddy is the only student who has contribited anything to this discussion. (Eddy, you're a rare bird.) Over 4000 students the past couple of years and, now that I think about it, this is a larger result than usual. I say they forget all I've shown them as soon as their car door swings shut, and I think I'm right. For some, I know my workshop is a nightmare they'd rather forget. (See "The Matrix and Me" on my site)

Is this situation a result of fear, ignorance, cowardice, indifference or my mistaken notion of what professional discourse could be? All of the above?

Does a fear of memetics explain this? Would consideration of what is said here be too threatening to the memes in the heads of therapists?

[Bas]

I agree that memes are important here. I am afraid that reading about memes (which many will have done - see the number of "hits" on google - indicator of "hot subject") does not equate internalising the concept. Rational awareness and acceptance is by no means a motivation for change. For some, taking ANY course, even SC, must be like going to a good motivational speech - lights a fire, but when the usual psychosocialeconomicalphysical environment gets put on like a coat, the fresh and new and exciting info slides off like rain.... It really takes much more for many people (and I was one) than just info - it takes a effort of will to make a step away from the familiar frame and explore beyond.

Barrett, I think indifference is the main one - then fear of the "unknown' or "unfamiliar". And of course, your notion of professional discourse is entirely to blame :-)

I really don't think enough therapists really CARE about this - which is a very sad statement. I much rather have violent discourse (verbally) with some than the quiet indifference of many. Most ideal is professional discourse of course....

[Diane]

I think the problem is a combination of Dawkins' points 3., the conviction that 'mystery' per se, is a good thing. It is not a virtue to solve mysteries. Rather we should enjoy them, even revel in their insolubility. ... and the one Nari supplied, 4, may also feel hostile towards other modes of thought that are potentially inimical to his faith, such as the method of scientific reason which could function rather like a piece of antiviral software and what Barrett quoted from Thomas Moore, The need to be normal is the predominant anxiety disorder in modern life.

I would like to add that there are developmental issues here that are being overlooked. I'll use myself as a (not very good) example. Physiotherapy isn't comprised of a homogenous group of beings have been produced and turned out fully cooked. Everyone is at all different ages and stages.

Lots of the people you teach, Barrett, are young. One cannot possibily learn everything there is to know in PT school, which is why they come to hear you. The best that can be done is graduate a group of young people each year who know some stuff, are bright and can learn more, and are more less safe to turn loose on the world as representatives of the profession. From the individual's perspective, PT certification is a security blanket that one possesses, eventually processes, extracts the essence from (hopefully the values, ethics etc.) and then can see in perspective as newer more relevant forms of care make their way into one's mind. (I shudder to think how "fundamentalist" I was in my twenties.)

Life itself intrudes for a couple decades too, people distracted by mating/ childrearing/ growing the basic social unit known as the family.. Even though I never did any of that my brain was certainly engaged in fighting the memes of it all, so it was still a distraction from "real" thinking.

What I'm saying is, I think that it's a bit unrealistic to expect young(er) people to immediately fall all over themselves adapting their minds to this new meme that seems so different, when so much else that seems so overwhelming is happening simultaneously from all inputs in life. What I'm saying is, that you don't give people anything cozy to cling to Barrett, the way Barnes does (see Dawkins point 3 above), you give them bare facts (see Dawkins point 4). Meanwhile they are coping with how they compare to what they think might be "normal" while perhaps quietly or unconsciously not liking "normal" or else working hard to enact "normal" (the Thomas Moore quote.)

I will say this however, Barrett; people grow up, and exposure to your bare facts will have already been put in place. They might not remember the precise facts but they will remember that the facts made sense at the time, and you were insistant that they learn to think about facts. You're like the Johnny Appleseed character. You may not see the crops grow to your satisfaction in your lifetime, but the fact you are so busy out there planting and writing and engaging is, well, what more can you do? You expose young(er) minds to your memes and they will either be taken up or they'll be outcompeted, eclipsed, lay dormant perhaps, but they won't be discarded by those minds, not when the memes actually make sense, not when the memes are not just memes but are anti-viral memes.

Sooner or later when the minds into which they've been absorbed mature to the point where they can handle and process the information and recognize the value and the other stuff (like comforting belief systems) has become less important (like after the age of forty perhaps), then perhaps we can expect to see a growth curve in PT mentation that matches your output efforts now. You've already done most of the heavy mental lifting and discarding by getting rid of all your own memes that didn't make any sense to you, and laid a trail through the mental underbrush. Others will be able to find it and wear it down some more. I think there's lots of room for hope.

[christophb]

Lots of the people you teach, Barrett, are young

Speaking on behalf of the young-uns... Coming out of a simple contact course, you have to be willing to let things go, but not first before examining why you should let them go. I think this is what Barrett does best, challenges you to examine.

I wouldn't say that I forgot what he showed the minute my car door shut, but the return to clinic life was a challenge (probably more accurate to say I forget as soon as the clinic door is opened). All I can say is that I felt this subtle resistance to the changes I made in my practice. This was at times directly experienced by the disapproving looks of fellow PT's, the questioning looks of patients, but mostly by the own voices in my head (I assume this is how memes operate, "The Meme Machine" is on my Amazon wish list but not yet purchased). For the first 3 months it felt like I was swimming upstream. I think the one thing that made the transition easier was to finally meet therapists in Naniamo whose writings I admired (Diane, Nari, Jon, Luke, and Barrett), and interact with them online til my comfort level became sufficient to propel me (yeah, youse guys were just training wheels).

I suspect as the community of PT's who are interested in questioning the current therapy memes increases, there will be a little less resistance and more carry over. Learning simple contact is easy, brining it into the clinic is significantly more challenging IMO.

Chris

[Diane]

What a head start you have Chris! (I certainly am pleased to have been able to provide you with conribution toward your 'training wheels' if that's all that was required. :))

[Barrett Dorko]

Remember back on Rehab Edge when they used to call me "Barrett The Great Destroyer"? Well, okay, nobody ever really called me that but I kept trying to get this going.

Surely you're not suggesting that I'm now to be referred to as "The Johnny Appleseed of Physical Therapy," are you? Despite the lovely sentiment, it seems somehow to be a demotion. Guess I'll just have to deal.

If I can remember, I'll do a little survey of my classes on the west coast next week and see what the average age is. I've got some large crowds so this might mean something. Maybe someone can remind me. I'm in Eugene Oregon next Wednesday.

I can't help but think of a PT in the front row of my course in Grand Rapids this past week. My age (perhaps a little older), clearly a responsible professional if one can judge by her manner and dress and the quality of her speech. She listened carfully and actually answered a few questions though she also made it clear my tone wasn't to her liking. She told me she didn't know anything about Internet discussions because "our computer broke down two years ago." This is a direct quote.

She was especially interested in a quote I read from a web site referenced here recently and asked me where she could find it. I said she could send me her fax# and I'd send the whole article. She nodded emphatically but I've heard nothing. Turns out she had widespread pain for many years and she volunteered to be treated at the end of the day. Distinct improvement followed, especially in her painless cervical ROM.

I don't anticipate hearing from her despite the fact that I have something she wants (the article) and her own function was dramatically changed for the better. I'm truly disinterested in being thanked for anything, I just wonder what happened to her obvious interest.

I agree with you Diane, but this woman didn't fit into any of the categories you mention.

[Barrett Dorko]

Appropriated from elsewhere on the web. The political reference can be ignored. Isn't this what memetics has been saying since '76?

"In what may be bad news for the reality-based community, new research from the world of neuroscience suggests that both Democrats and Republicans rely on emotion rather than reason when confronted with facts that should disrupt their political preferences.

As part of a study that will be presented at this weekend's conference of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, researchers put Democrats and Republicans in an MRI machine and asked them to confront what seemed to be flip-flops by John Kerry and George W. Bush. Brain scans showed that the study participants weren't exactly struggling through the contradictions of their own candidate. "We did not see any increased activation of the parts of the brain normally engaged during reasoning," Emory University psychologist Drew Westen tells UPI. "What we saw instead was a network of emotion circuits lighting up."

The study's findings may provide an explanation -- but little comfort -- to Democrats like Kerry, who find themselves mystified when sober, fact-based arguments about national security or Iraq don't sway voters who believe in some generalized way that the Republicans are better at keeping America safe. How can you get through to such people? You can't, it seems, unless those who are listening to the message make a conscious effort to hear it. For an individual to override his own biases, Westen tells the New York Times, he has to "engage in ruthless self reflection, to say, 'All right, I know what I want to believe, but I have to be honest.'"

[Eddy Maillot]

Barrett,

I agree that memes are the thing, and that only by understanding the power and use of memetics can we possibly see how we are driven in so many ways. When I Googled the word meme in 2003 for that wonderful thread (archived in The Bullypit) I got 1,810,000 hits. Today you'll get 68,100,000 hits. Still, I rarely meet anyone who's heard of this word.


Being a daily reader of Merriam-Webster dictionary,(Yes I actually read the dictionary every day and look up words all the time) I have encoutered the word meme. However, I have not used it more than 2 or 3 times since my meeting with it about 3 years ago.

Diane started this thread with the viral concept and I have to agree with her when she equates viral infection in some way with memes.

Being a French native, I can readily discuss the word meme that literally means: same, even. Perhaps it has the same etymology as in French and hints at a speck of mimicking but not actually being the real thing. Who really knows.

Eddy

[Barrett Dorko]

Eddy,

Virus of the Mind by Brodie was one of the first and most influential of the books on memes. As far as I know, Dawkins simply made up this word and you won't find its origin in a language somewhere else. It is unrelated to "same" or "even."

[Eddy Maillot]

Being British himself and if he made up the word meme perhaps he perpetuated the everlasting tension between the two neighboring countries by alterating the meme into his own definition. Am I reaching way too deep? possible.

Eddy

[Diane]

Haha! Eddy, I see where you are coming from..:D
I think however that Dawkins wasn't toying with the French language, he just wanted a word that rhymed with "gene".... :rolleyes:

[Luke Rickards]

I think that it's a bit unrealistic to expect young(er) people to immediately fall all over themselves adapting their minds to this new meme that seems so different

I don't know what can be realistically expected, but it is certainly quite possible for a young one to "immediately fall all over themselves adapting their minds to this new meme". Both Chris and I can attest to that. I even managed it while still at school.

Chris, we've shared the same training wheels. I'm going to keep them on for I while yet though.

Luke

[Barrett Dorko]

Ultimately, the goal should be to get rid of the traditional memes that have held us back for so long. They simply should not be taught. When will they disappear? The answer might lie in something Ian sent me a long time ago:

Planck's Dictum

Major advances in science occur not because the proponents of the established view are forced by the weight of evidence to change their minds, but because they retire and eventually die!

No, I don't know where he got this, but I really like it.

[Jon Newman]

Chris, did you ever get the feeling that when discussing the why of things that perhaps you were speaking with Lily Tomlin's Ernestine on the other end? Snort, snort.

[Diane]

Barrett, I agree with you Diane, but this woman didn't fit into any of the categories you mention ... She might be a late bloomer.

Luke, Chris, you guys might be unusually bright/quick studies for young-uns, or unusually curious, or unusually immune to bad memes/belief systems, or unusually relaxed/laissez-faire/undistracted about your developmental stages/responsibilities.

Barrett, the goal should be to get rid of the traditional memes that have held us back for so long I agree... but how do we stop the replication of useless memes when they are like lubricant that helps keep currency floating around? Love Planck's Dictum.

[christophb]

Jon,

I actually know who you're talking about:)

Yeah Luke, I think I think I'm still a long ways away from them being riding partners... good to keep the wheels on for a while.

Diane, I think I am naturally curious and a bit of a trouble maker, I don't readily conform (Although I do feel guilty about not conforming :D )

I have a funny/not so funny story, it's more disappointing for our profession.

I was having a conversation with my co-worker/former manager as to why my schedule was so light (other than the obvious reasons that I get better results and D/C sooner;) ). And she said that because I do things so differently I wasn't meeting the expectations that people have about PT. Because of this she didn't feel comfortable putting people on my schedule when I wouldn't meet the expectations that had been established in the clinic. I have talked to this PT til I was blue in the face about why I do what I do, and was able to show it worked and pull out tons of information stating why it makes sense to do it that way... and still, just gotta meet expectations. As I practice explaining and educating patients I find they are quite receptive to the "new ways" (much more than PT's it seems, although some of my colleagues are coming around, I can be a persistent little bugger)

That's probably the kind of barriers that people meet when trying to put these ideas into practice coming back from a SC course.

Chris

[Walt Fritz]

Ah, Barrett, I'm glad I still am remembered by you. And, I'm glad that you have returned to your old self-deprecating self. I, too, cannot figure out why those 4000 students have not warmed to you. On a serious note, you asked I'm wondering how anxious Walt, Dave, Scott and Pia might be to have a lot of people look at what went on there, to say nothing of Barnes himself. If they truly feel that they made their case and effectively refuted our objections they'll say so and invite others with some enthusiasm. I'd like to see that.
I have no fears about others viewing the information presented over the past month. There will always be a faction in therapy that "sides" with either you, or me. I doubt if believers on either side would be swayed way from their comfort zone. I think many, like myself, were turned on to much of the information presented here. All of you have wonderful minds and the enjoyment of both your work as well as the information that you share with each other is evident. An open mind is quite marvelous.

Newcomers to this site, possibly the folks from your classes that you sent to this site, or those wanting to learn more about which "side" (MFR or the NeuroNuts), has more credibility, will decide for themselves. They will see that we lack the "credibility", as you define it, but have tremendous successes. They will see that you have the backing of a tremendous amount of research, but will they accept your research as total and valid? An aside here, I must admit, that the amount of citations and books recommended for us MFR'ers to "see the light" was overwhelming. Having read many of the links, I skated to Amazon for a look at a few of the books that were suggested. I was amused to read some reviews of "The Feeling of What Happens: Body and Emotion in the Making of Consciousness", by Antonio Damasio. The third review had the title: " Almost Entirely Speculation of the Worst Kind". this sort of reminds me of what Diane said of James Oscman's work. I do not know whether the Amazon reviewer is right or wrong, and I suspect that there is enough disagreement in science to allow for both of their opinions to be correct. I know, Diane, you posted someone's review of Oschman's work that corraborated your views. But, they are just your views. There is a wide space of views in the therapy world. If we followed only one, those of the APTA, neither Barrett's or John Barnes' classes would be allowed in our world. I, for one, do not wish to live in that world. I think there is a place for those who follow a strict orthopedic line, a researched neurological line, an eclectic MFR (and related) line, and, god forbid, an hot pack/ultrasound/10 reps of an exercise line.

A line in another thread on this site struck me as characteristc of the tone in which MFR and it's founder/followers has been treated on this site. On the "Diagnosis" thread, Nari was commenting on Mike's question as to whether posture has anything to do with pain.
I don't take any notice of posture..it is not related to pain
This statement embodies the dismissive nature that any opinion outside of the opinion evident on SomaSimple is invalid. The postural attitude that a patient presents gives us so much information about the nature of a person's dysfunction, as well as their pain. While somewhat ignorant of the principles of neural tension, surely posture plays a part in your evaluative methods? Can a person, with wildly asymmetrical posture, represent a balanced individual from a neuro perspective? Quite possibly this is a crucial break point between MFR and neuro approaches. Quite possibly, this is what newcomers to this site will see. Dismissing another's views, whether due to credibility issues from the viewer, or from believing a deceptive reporter's opinion on the illegality of a work, I beleive is wrong.

Barrett, there is a certain irony in the fact that you quoted Planck
Major advances in science occur not because the proponents of the established view are forced by the weight of evidence to change their minds, but because they retire and eventually die!
John recites this quote in nearly every introductory seminar. Science changes slowly.

So, no, I am not anxious that others will read the MFR thread. Some will be repelled from the work, others will be drawn to it. Still others will not see the controversy. This apathy of the final group, I believe, is what you, Barrett, were talking about when you commented on how few of your students students show up here. There are many therapists who are not passionate about what they do. We, I believe, are passionate. Differences aside, we are passionate. Maybe that is what Simple Contact needs. Your self-deprecation might be a detriment to your teaching. Enthusiasts want a positive image to follow, not like a cult, but to see a positive outcome. As you know, I've not taken one of your seminars, but is this what you are teaching? Most of us operate well within our comfort zones, seldom moving off to the edges (dare I say the word...into chaos?). This thread, as many others of yours in the past, dwell on how others seem to pay you no mind, and you are comfortable with this. Despite all that has been said, I truly think that your work has merit. Treat it as such...though I still think you could stand a good unwinding.

Walt

[EricM]

I hope I can add myself to the list of the unusually curious/immune younguns. I was always conscious of there being a 'hole in therapy' but was unable to define it until reading Barrett's and others writings. Perhaps I was standing on the edge of the hole not yet ready to jump in, whereas many others do so without checking to see how deep it is. I can imagine that once in the hole looking up at the sky, its impossible to see anything beyond its edges.

Eric

[Walt Fritz]

Eric,
Welcome to the wide space of views.
Walt

[Jon Newman]

You unlock this door with the key of imagination. Beyond it is another dimension: a dimension of sound, a dimension of sight, a dimension of mind. You're moving into a land of both shadow and substance, of things and ideas. You've just crossed over into... the Liminal Zone.

[Walt Fritz]

I can't quite get the cadence down that Rod Serling had!
Walt

[EricM]

In case I wasn't clear, I still prefer to look at the scenery around me than stare up into the sun. That's a sure way to premature blindness.

eric

[Luke Rickards]

Chris, that must be incredibly frustrating! Thankfully, I don't have those constraints and am free to work however I choose.

Keep on truckin',
Luke

[JaneS]

I agree that physiotherapy should be secular and science congruent, but as the EBM debate shows, it is still possible to fall into the whirlpool on the basis of rigidity of thought. We have to be careful and check that the anitviral software installed in our minds isn't effective to the point that we consider nothing else.

Nari

I quite agree with you here. I sometimes feel that EBM can also be a 'faith' . By this I mean I hear people saying 'According to EBM or According to scientific evidence ......'
The question to ask is 'How much do you know about how the evidence was gathered and interpreted?' This is not to decry EBM - or say it is useless. However, I have often noticed in studies in pain research a number of exclusions which are clearly to reduce counfounding factors. However, it can also cut the number of potential patients to whom the study is relevant. Known psychiatric illness is one I most often see listed as an exclusion.

The other concern relates to the statistical interpretation. Numbers needed to treat (NNT) and loss of subjects in follow-up are 2 possible grey areas. Sometimes they are correctly dealt with - and sometimes not.

When it comes to accepting anything based on scientific research - or rejecting ideas for which there doesn't seem to be strong enough evidence - it puts us gravely in the 'faith' category. For all those clinicians who spend a lot of time reading and updating their knowledge, there are a lot who say ' I can't find the time to read more than the abstracts'

Conclusion; Moderation in all things!

Jane

[nari]

Luke,

So have I. The land of physiotherapy Oz-style does have some virtues going for it. Freedom to choose what is best and in keeping with logic and common- sense deductions without losing track of reality.

Eric,

The trouble with being in a hole is just that - inability to see what is actually going on in the world; and digging deeper does not improve matters at all.

Walt
Have a look at pain neurophysiology. It's not possible to comment on your criticisms until you do that. It is a waste of time.

Jane,
A good post. The exclusion of important variables can render the study impractical for inclusion into practice.

Nari

[Diane]

Jane, here's one of my favorite paragraphs from the Seamonster/Whirlpool essay by Willis. It seems to fit with what your post above says, and Nari's thoughts:

Principally, I am dismayed by the extent to which, in the new management culture which has been imposed on British medicine, the people who now control medicine have seized-on the deeply mistaken notion that scientific evidence delivers certainty. And instead of using such evidence to inform independent professional judgement, its correct and hugely-important role, they have taken the idea (in my view also a mistaken idea) that clinical freedom is dead, and used ‘evidence’ to ‘govern’ clinical behaviour at the individual level. They have even adopted the word ‘governance’ for one of the many new mechanisms with which they intend to achieve this end. What is more, such is the certainty that this radical innovation in medical practice is progress, and such is the confidence that it is free of unexpected and unwanted effects, that, in a supreme paradox, it has itself never be the subject of scientific evaluation. The application of evidence based medicine is not itself evidence based. (Emphasis mine.)

[Barrett Dorko]

Walt,

I can't see how anybody reading the thread would conclude that you get "tremendous successes." Because you say so?

You say there are "believers" on either side of this issue and I reject that. Your side certainly has believers. It has to because evidence for your theory is absent. Our side isn't asked to believe anything but only to read, consider and understand what neuroscience has taught us. Of course what we know changes because all knowledge in science is provisional. This is a basic principle of science often ignored by those who operate on the level of faith alone. Sound like anyone you know?

Assuming that you've read as much as you claim, I find it interesting that you cite the title of one review of one book. Did you read the book or just the one review? Oschman's book was taken apart by one of the most highly regarded people in the skeptical scientific community. Perhaps you didn't know that skepticism isn't a position taken but a process used to ferret out what makes sense and what doesn't. A skeptic's mind is always open to other explanations until this process is complete. When Nari says posture isn't relevant to pain she's not "dismissive." She's statling what is known-not describing what we think or hope is true.

We're working on an explanation for the absence of the 4000 from our debate. Have you an explanation for the absence of the 50,000 believers on your side? Have you invited the people from the MFR chat? Ever read "The Memory Wars"? Ever ask Barnes about that cloud thing?

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
If you would, give me the link to Memory Wars. The choice to cite "one title to one review" of a book on Amazon was not intended to show that all you believe is wrong. And, IO think I made it clear that I did not read the mentioned book. It was intended to show that differences in opinion exist even at the research base of understanding. There are no absolutes, even in science. I would beg to differ on the concept that skepticism is not a position. No one reported, whether a writer for a news agency or a skeptic's blog, is immune from reporting from their base of beliefs. You, me, and the rest on this site are all operating from our views, opinions, and biases, and we view all we read and see through our filters. We may say that we empirically employ only proven methods, but our choice of what to read, believe, and act upon are based on our intentions and beliefs. The latest data reporting the percent of the population who've drifted from traditional medicine into "alternative" treatment seems to show that peolpe are not happy with traditional appraoches. Do alternative sources truly offer a better outcome? For some, no, for others, yes. Perception of the outcome, whether placebo based or not, is a valid measure of the success that consumers search for. You and I are dealing with these consumers. I am not dealing with faith alone. The results that I achieve are a measure of my outcome.

I can't see how anybody reading the thread would conclude that you get "tremendous successes." Because you say so? No, I truly believe that the amount of energy that you've spent over a career, bashing a successful individual and his work, may be enough to send therapists to our seminars, wanting to see what success is all about. No, I've never invited the chat line members here. I thought it might be more effective to see just how well followed you are. You've often mused that there must be many of us lurking on your sites, fearful of engaging you in debate. I think the silence is telling. As for your 4000? That silence is even more revealing.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

Of course there are no absolutes in science. Do you think you're telling us something we don't already know? Isn't it obvious that science is about refining further and further the sensible nature of its explanations? As George Eliot says in his novel Middlemarch: "...the very eye of research (is to) provisionally frame its object and correct it to more and more its exactness of relation." (a mild paraphrase here-thanks to The Sea Monster and the Whirlpool link).

You guys don't seem interested in correcting your original view no matter how much the research points you elsewhere. I am defining skepticism as the skeptics themselves define it. I assume they are aware of what they are doing-your opinion of their "biases and filters" notwithstanding.

The silence of my 4000 is disturbing as I've said, but at least they've been made aware of this thread and can make their own decisions about contributing. You seem to be choosing to keep your potential supporters in the dark. Why would you do that?

Of course the public isn't happy with the traditional approaches for pain our profession offers. This has been my point for many years. What I contend is that we can use science to move from tradition. You should try that yourself.

"The Memory Wars" is in the latest issue of The Skeptical Inquirer. On your news stands now-not online.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,

Of course there are no absolutes in science. Do you think you're telling us something we don't already know? No, I'm sure you are aware of this, but I feel you are selective in its application.

The silence of my 4000 is disturbing as I've said, but at least they've been made aware of this thread and can make their own decisions about contributing. You seem to be choosing to keep your potential supporters in the dark. Why would you do that?Barrett, as long as you spend time bringing others down, even if for the few prescious seconds you state that you spend during a class, you may never see any of those 4000 here. There is nothing negative in scratching deep for meaning. I have learned a great deal here. Judging by your thread on Empathy, I seem to feel that you may have learned a bit about yourself as well. Do you send people to the MFR chat line to see what is being said? There has to be a bit of fear, a double edged sword? They might see the lack of science, but they also may see the enthusiasm of patients and clinicians alike. Some may side with the negative of your lecture, the bashing of others. Some may want to drift into something more positive...just one skeptic's opinion.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

Okay, that thing you said about being "selective in application" makes no sense. Again.

I don't bash others-I disagree with their ideas. How am I supposed to do that without expressing that I think that they are wrong? Is this what you call negative? Is everything said by anybody whom you deem has their heart in the right place perfectly fine? If you disagree at all isn't that what you call negative?

I tell people to go to the MFR Chat all the time. I'm doing so right now. There they will find what it is I'm so "negative" about.

[bernard]

Walt,
I do not understand why you cited only the bad comment about the Damasio's Book.
The average on amazon is 3.5/5, not really bad. And many neurologists said it was very good. But you said that neurology and neurosciences were unimportant matters. :sad:

Average Customer Review: http://g-images.amazon.com/images/G/01/x-locale/common/customer-reviews/stars-3-5.gif based on 42 reviews.

About Barrett followers =>
Since he joined SomaSimple, the daily audience was simply doubled. Do you really think that these 250 daily lurkers came from nowhere.

[Bas]

Walt, simply - disagreement with the science and claims made by MFR/Barnes. I am NOT a SC course participant (yet!) - but HAVE taken MFR courses in late 80's. I am absolutely convinced by the material presented over the years by Barrett, Diane, Jon, and many others, that the theoretical underpinning of MFR does NOT fit the scientific evidence as we know it today. The EFFECTS of gentle handling of a person's skin and soft tissues has very GOOD scientific support as being effective - due to neurophysiological and psychological implications. Effectiveness is NOT at stake here - either in SC or MFR.

and please - BE selective in your application of the available science - not all is of equal quality.....as has been demonstrated in the poor selection in the MFR lit.

[Jon Newman]

Walt,

Being a skeptic, as you surprisingly claim to be, you may enjoy this article.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733249 (http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m2843/is_4_27/ai_104733249)

There were some reproduction typos but it doesn't detract from the substance of the article.

One thing I've learned is that if you live too far away from natural laws you are bound to suffer eventually. If this is true, and it seems likely that it is, MFR is likely to contribute to suffering at some point.

[nari]

Walt

If you are a skeptic, as you imply, your example of Damasio and the negative review of his text demonstrates how selectively skeptical you are. Choosing only material which fits and supports your own point of view, and ignoring all else, isn't just staying in your comfort zone... it's hiding from what the rest of the world is about. This is relevant to what jon's link has to say about the butterfly..people search for something that goes 'ping' with their memes; some find it, some never do. You may have found the thing that suits your belief system; but that is no better or worse than the searchers who still hunt for the thing that goes 'ping'...they are still in the same boat. The boat is large, but ephemeral, it tends to develop leaks; the timber keel is prone to toredos....and is totally dependent on which way the wind blows..


Nari

[Diane]

Walt, I must have missed something. Which of Damasio's books do you dislike?
Another thing, why are you still batting for your boss? Can't he hold a bat himself?

[Barrett Dorko]

Great link Jon.

Tonight I look forward to seeing The Office on NBC. In order to appreciate this show you have to be able to at least tolerate what they call “cringe humor.” This is the sort of comedy that evokes in the audience a combination of discomfort and delight at the revealing of another’s foibles; those ways of being that are individualized and often irritating yet irresistibly expressed. On The Office the boss, Michael, regularly calls staff meetings in an effort to make a point about his brilliance and insight. Without exception these meetings reveal precisely the opposite. No one on the staff is fooled with the exception of Dwight, Michael’s lackey and an even more self-deluded character.

Do you see where I’m going with this?

Walt, you’ve scored many points on this board. Unfortunately for you they’ve all been for the other team.

Can you bring someone in off the bench? Someone with a fresh arm, fresh legs or, at the very least, a new argument? One that isn’t knocked out of the park so easily? (Blame Diane for the tortured attempt at a sports analogy)

Hello? Where amongst the 50,000 are you?

[Walt Fritz]

So, Barrett, I'm assuming you see yourself in the character of Micheal in The Office?

I find it amazing how such educated folks read so selectively for the content they think they see. nari, as to selective skeptivity, if you re-read post #23 and 34, you will see that I am not saying that you or Damasio are wrong. I am saying that polar opposite opinions exist even from within the "educated" community. This book was selected to show nothing except this point. All of Damasio's book reviews on amazon are mostly positive, I do not doubt that his works are well researched and written. Bernard, here is acknowledgement of the 3.5/5.0. No dispute. But, where and when did I say: But you said that neurology and neurosciences were unimportant matters.If you search through Damasio's reviews, every book has at least one person who voices an educated difference in views. I'm not making a negative statement toward damasio. Just to make you aware that differences exist. As the bunch of you slap hands over your brilliance, know that differing opinions exist even within the world in which you state is fact.

Barrett, Thanks for the point tally. I see the scoring differently. What the trickle of readers from your classes will see, in addition to our lack of research, is your attempt to directly link us to charges of bringing about false memories that simply is false and unprofessional on your part. You know that you have no ground to stand on regarding these claims, but you continue to perpetuate these falsehoods. Seems like you softened your tone a bit, since we brought forward statements you've made. I don't bash others-I disagree with their ideas...need I re-quote you calling John barnes the Jerry Springer of physical therapy? Or how one of your students affirming that you called MFR practitioners "criminals"? Or how you state that "the psychological harm inflicted upon patients in their (MFR practitioners) care can be enormous"? Please, welcome your students, let them see who sent them here.

Yes, they will see this as well. If your personality allows others to see how low you will stoop just to denegrate another therapist, I invite you to continue to spread the word. I'm sure your still lurking on the MFR chatline. Too much fodder for your essays in there to ignore it. Try being yourself on that line, sign a post with your name. You seem to have plenty of time on your hands, stir things up over there.

As for the scoreboard? Score that a whitewash! But you, Barrett, have said that you don't care about what people or your students think of you. I really don't think you need to spend too much time researching why none of your new students show up here, I think you already have your answer.

Walt

[Jon Newman]

Walt, what's wrong with Jerry Springer?

From a student's perspective I remember Barrett saying "It's criminal" during one of his classes, not "they're criminal". I believe it was in reference to the teaching of the practice of freeing memories stored in fascia. Wouldn't such a thing be criminal in nature if it were being taught as actually true and not just hyperbole? Not to mention that he could have been using it in the informal sense.

Regarding Damasio: I'm hopeful that dissent remains commonplace in the scientific community unless it comes to someone not adhering to things like the laws of thermodynamics or other such natural laws or with known physiology. In fact, this is one of the issues of the reviewer you highlighted; that Damasio didn't take into account known physiology to a sufficient degree. Are there any dissenters among the MFR crowd that actually disagree with the idea that memories are stored in the fascia? Please let yourself be known. How about that disease thing? At least Walt agrees that there really are some diseases.

[Diane]

Will someone please tell me which of Damasio's books is under discussion?

[Barrett Dorko]

Pretty weak Walt.

Jon's got it right. Encouraging "memories" from patients is criminal and that was determined repeatedly in the 90s. Not by me, by the courts. If you don't think this causes harm to families I don't know what planet you're living on.

Claiming you don't do this isn't the best idea you've ever had considering the record generated on the chat line to say nothing of Dottie's blog. Are we supposed to forget that exists? Are we supposed to ignore your continued assertions that the fascia holds memories that must be "released"? How do you expect to hold on to your core theory of dysfunction while simutaneously denying that you do anything about it? The ground beneath me is quite firm. I suspect you know this.

I read Barnes' book and listen to his students and then I watch Jerry Springer. Somehow I see a continium, so shoot me. Maybe I should say Oprah Winfrey...Nah, just doesn't work.

The last paragraph of your post sets a new standard of some sort-and I don't mean clarity.

[nari]

It's a bit hard to work out, but I note that Walt made a reference to Damasio's The Feeling of what Happens and the sole review to show that he (Damasio) did not know what he was talking about. There may have been other reviews that disagreed, that is what science is about, but Walt mentioned only one review.

Funny thing about your posts, Walt. I have to read them a number of times to try and work out what you are really saying; I must be uneducated after all.


Nari

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
If the Memory Wars article you are refferring to is the one by E. Loftus

http://www.science-spirit.org/printerfriendly.php?article_id=403

you've gone even farther off base than I originally thought. If not the correct article, let me know. I'll comment once I'm sure this is the one you have kept sending me to.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

It's not the same one though Loftus' conclusions about the nature of memory and the danger of trusting it appear in both.

I don't think arguing with Dr. Loftus on this subject is a good idea, but that's just me.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
Thanks for the warning, but I'm not arguing with Dr. Loftus, I'm arguing with you. Her article is about false memories or beliefs being planted (her words) in the mind. No arguing with this. Reading through her article, I see reference after reference of psychotherapists "planting" information to achieve an outcome. Manipulating a patient into believing something that did not occur is what she is talking about. See also :http://faculty.washington.edu/eloftus/Articles/2003Nature.pdf

If this information is what you have based years of criticism of MFR and John Barnes, you should be ashamed of yourself. Please, by all means, invite your students here. Have them read these articles. Try to connect what Dr. Loftus is saying about false memories to how we "plant" memories in unsuspecting patients. Let them read the chat line posts that you've saved for just this purpose. Whatever it is, whether bitterness, jealosy, or simple anger over not being heard, if you believe that Loftus' writing links MFR to the planting of false memories, you have wasted a huge chunk of your life.

Pretty weak, Barrett.

Walt

[Walt Fritz]

Or, more precisely, your reading of Loftus' work and finding MFR in there, is the perfect example of viewing life through one's filters.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

Now you're characterizing my life as wasted and telling me I should be ashamed of myself. You're speculation regarding my supposed bitterness and jealousy is simply insulting. No doubt I'm angry and rightfully so. I've never denied that.

Actually reading the whole of Loftus' work makes it clear that therapists don't just "plant" memories for reasons of their own, they commonly "encourage" memory, often subtly and to great effect without any clear understanding of how dangerous this practice is. How on earth would this sort of thing be avoided as an MFR therapist explains the "memory in the fascia" bit? Do you keep this thinking a secret from the patient?

The list of unanswered questions grows ever longer.

[Walt Fritz]

So, lets speak completely hypothetically for a bit. Are you saying that any and every memory of a previously unremembered injury or trauma that is voiced by a patient is an automatic indication of criminal intent/action on the part of the therapist?

Walt

[Jon Newman]

Hi Walt,

I don't see that indicated anywhere. I'd say no.

Now my turn to ask a question (or throw it on the "unanswered" list). Is it a basic tenet of MFR that memories stored in the fascia must be released in order to restore proper function?

[Barrett Dorko]

"Recovered" memory is the issue here and always has been. Dottie's blog is a wonderful example of that. You can avoid mentioning it all you want-it remains perfectly relevant here.

I assume since you never before read anything about this and you have taught 50 courses with Barnes that your ignorance of this issue is common among his students as well. Perhaps Barnes himself knows nothing of this. Considering the mountain of writing surrounding the issue, now present for over a decade, I find this inexcusable.

Therapists needn't "intend" to act criminally in order to do great harm. Their intent probably doesn't make any difference to the family or the judge after the fact either. All that is needed is ignorance and there seems to plenty of that here.

[Jon Newman]

Wait music while Walt gets a consensus answer to my question. (http://favewavs.com/wavs/tv/jeopardy.wav)

[Walt Fritz]

Funny, Jon,

Difference in opinion between Jon and barrett, OK.

Barrett, you are quite vague in your answer. So, as the person who has covered this topic of vital concern for the past few decades, please specifically quote something that directly connects a memory coming up in a session to being a criminal act. Vaguely citing Loftus' writings as "proof" is weak. Of course, I'm sure you are more well read than me. Your condescension is dripping again, Barrett.

Walt

[Jon Newman]

Thanks Walt, but it's not as funny (weird, not ha ha) as you avoiding the question (again) as if you're admitting something you don't want to and then turning around and teaching it the next gig you have.

[bernard]

Walt,

That's true you didn't said it clearly.
http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showpost.php?p=10540&postcount=46

I just tried to search on PubMed

"memory fascia" => 31 results.
"memory brain" => 31,979 results.

How is it possible that these researchers are so wrong? :confused:

and on google
"memory fascia" => 528,000
"memory brain" => 30,900,000

Brain wins.

[nari]

Walt, if you do not answer jon's questions, and any of the others that have been posted by other PTs - we can only assume:

That you are unable to answer because you do not know;
or
You do not want to incriminate yourself
or

?????

Nari

[Diane]

...or... you are hiding behind pseudoscience?

[ian s]

http://www.dalailama.com/page.8.htm

It seems the Dali Lama is a good example of a scientist ? His ancient scriptures may be proven wrong but he smiles in any case !
What intrigues me is that 'reality' may be an illusion .Meditation and altered thinking may be a way of brain transformation which is a way of enlightenement in buddhist thought?
What I admire his is his ability to change given new information.
ian

[Barrett Dorko]

Walt,

You could start with a careful reading of http://skepdic.com/repress.html and then look at the several books cited along wih numerous scholarly references. Many contain details of court cases that should make any therapist encouraging their patients to recover the memory of a trauma think twice about that. Of course, they'd have to think once before they got to twice. Perhaps this is where the problem lies with some of your colleagues.

In the original thread on this topic Scott (an MFR champion) explicitly stated that what he thought I was "hiding" (behind science) was "...your sufferring (sic), one's emotional pain, one's memory of trauma's (sic) in the past, one's buried memory of these traumas, .......... I am trying not to be too personal here......" (sick) Post #316 (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showpost.php?p=11208&postcount=316) for those keeping track.

Tell me, does this sound like something he'd like to explore further during a session of MFR with me? How do you suppose he might broach the subject of the origins of my difficulty? Say what you will about Scott, he's none too subtle. By the way, I'd like an answer to these questions. Without it I might waste even more of my life as a bitter, shameful and jealous man, according to you. Not that you've stooped to name-calling and personal disparagement or anything.

Thanks at least for not referring to me as "creepy." That would just be too much.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
So as not to commit the superficial glossing over of information that you have often accused me of, I'm going to spend some time with the link you sent me, and the related links on that site...so I can speak from a deeper understanding. I'm sure you'll be waiting patiently. Not sure if Scott is still here. But I think you have his e-mail address, why don't you ask him personally to respond. As for the personal disparagement, stooping to the level of another is seldom appropriate, but the "criminal" remark still sticks with me. Sorry if I offended you. You are right, creepy would be going to far. Have a good weekend.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

I have never called another person a criminal. This woman on another site clearly did not remember what it was I said. I say that encouraging another to "recover" a memory of abuse has been shown to lead to criminal charges many times. This is a fact and I make no apologies for saying it. I will say it again when asked about these things.

Am I to assume that you are now asking Scott to deal with the memory thing? You can't answer this question yourself? You haven't had the same teacher? You don't practice similarly? Would you rather we drop this part of the conversation? I'm pretty sure Scott shows up as reading this. Bernard, am I right?

While you're reading consider this: It is an irrefutable fact that several national psychological associations very carefully warn their highly trained members to consider the dire consequences of "repressed memory" therapy. This you'll find in the reading. Barnes' students, massage therapists for the most part these days, hardly qualify as highly trained in any form of counseling. Why aren't they also being warned? Please don't go the "tremendous successes" route in your answer (assuming one is forthcoming), we already know all about that.

[bernard]

I'm pretty sure Scott shows up as reading this. Bernard, am I right?

Yes Barrett, it is possible to "track" an user and thus know if he is lurking.

[Jon Newman]

Since Walt is withholding his answer let's make a reasonable assumption based on what has been stated so far by Walt, Dave, Scott, Pia (in the MFR thread) that releasing memories from the fascia is a goal and a required step in recovering normal tissue function. It is what the release is about, if I recall. The following abstracts give me pause as to the appropriateness of this therapeutic approach. It just seems to me that encouraging the expression of these stuck emotions by putting people in the position of re-experiencing their trauma in order to release and subsequently remember these events is extremely problematic and outside the scope of physical therapy practice. It certainly adds an element of liability I'm uninterested in acquiring. But I suppose if one can get by the incredulous claims being made in the first place they can also dismiss the added liability of putting those beliefs to practice.


Repressed memories. When are they real? How are they false?

Loftus EF (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Loftus+EF%22%5BAuthor%5D), Polage DC (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Polage+DC%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Department of Psychology, University of Washington, Seattle, USA.

The precise mechanisms by which such false memories are constructed awaits further research. Much is left to learn about the degree of confidence and the characteristics of false memories created in these ways. We have more to learn about the types of individuals who are particularly susceptible to these forms of suggestion, and conversely, who is resistant. As we are learning more, it is probably important to heed the cautionary tale in the data already obtained; mental health professionals, interviewers, and others need to know how much they can potentially influence participants in research, clinical, and forensic contexts and take care to avoid that influence when it might be harmful. Periodic re-reading of Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream, with a small substitution (change "poet" to "therapist" or to "biased interviewer"), might help keep these important ideas in mind, reminding us how hard it can sometimes be to distinguish a bush from an imagined bear: The poet's eye, in fine fanciful rolling, Doth glance from heaven to earth, from earth to heaven; And as imagination bodies forth The forms of things unknown, the poet's pen Turns them to shapes and gives to airy nothing A local habitation and a name. Such tricks hath strong imagination, that if it would but apprehend some joy, it comprehends some bringer of that joy; Or in the night, imagining some fear, How easy is a bush supposed a bear!

Publication Types:
· Case Reports (javascript:AL_get(this,%20'ptyp',%20'Case%20Reports');)
· Review (javascript:AL_get(this,%20'ptyp',%20'Review');)

PMID: 10083945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]
(http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/utils/lofref.fcgi?PrId=4664&uid=15709821&db=pubmed&url=http://content.apa.org/journals/abn/114/1/147)
Reality monitoring in adults reporting repressed, recovered, or continuous memories of childhood sexual abuse.

McNally RJ (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22McNally+RJ%22%5BAuthor%5D), Clancy SA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Clancy+SA%22%5BAuthor%5D), Barrett HM (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Barrett+HM%22%5BAuthor%5D), Parker HA (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=pubmed&cmd=Search&itool=pubmed_Abstract&term=%22Parker+HA%22%5BAuthor%5D).

Department of Psychology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA. rjm@wjh.harvard.edu

People who report either repressed or recovered memories of childhood sexual abuse (CSA) may have deficits in reality monitoring--the process whereby one discriminates memories of percepts from memories of images. Using signal detection methods, the authors found that adults reporting either repressed or recovered memories of CSA were less able to discriminate between words they had seen from words they had imagined seeing than were adults reporting either never having forgotten their CSA or adults reporting no history of CSA. Relative deficits in the ability to discriminate percepts from images (i.e., low d') were apparent on only some tests. The groups did not differ in their criterion--response bias--for affirming having seen versus imagined stimuli. Copyright (c) 2005 APA, all rights reserved.

PMID: 15709821 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

[Diane]

(Hi.. I'm here just to announce that I've moved posts pertaining to Schleip's artcles re: innervation of fascia to the MFR Great Conversation thread. It is a closed thread now, but here is the link (http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1841&page=10) for those who would like to read the articles/commentary.)

PS: Ian, love the Dalai Lama article.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,

I'm so glad that you are now able to track the lurkers on this site, with the help of Bernard...now that IS CREEPY. As for you denying calling MFR practitioners criminal, I suppose you student got it wrong when she said:
Quote:
Barrett,
After reading that blog, I now understand why you called them "criminals" in your class.

http://www.somasimple.com/forums/showthread.php?t=1810 I wasn't there, but she was. maybe some of your other attendees can chime in on this. Does Barrett call us criminals? I'll await the response of the 4000.

After reading through Loftus's work and pondering your assertions, it is apparent to me that no matter what I say, your eloquent responses will always be right. It seems foolish time spent trying to convince someone who has already made up his mind on an issue. Maybe we are alike in this. You may call it avoidance of the issue if you wish, but you have no capacity to accept another's view in this matter. You continue to speak without experience and continue to say that we are guilty of stimulating false memories, correlating your "proof" with a work you know nothing about. Until you have the experience of MFR training, please stop speaking from a place of ignorance. I'm waiting for the day, after the hords you've sent here read through all of this, for one of your seminar participants to ask you why you have not had the courage to attend one of John Barnes' seminars. Of course, it does not sound like you let them get too far into their questions before you explode of them, so they may never get the chance.

Jon,
It is not necessary to have emotions released for MFR to be successful. many, many patients go through the process without ever encountering emotions. When they come up, the patient deals with it. We are taught never to lead or guide. Much like the sound of Simple Contact, we simply place light pressure into the body and allow the results to occur. This may not be the answer you were hoping for, but this is how treatment progresses.

As I said previously, this discussion has gotten tiring. My only purpose on this site was to try to get Barrett to stop the unethical, unprofessional, and possibly illegal bashing that he has done for years. We have differences that will never be bridged. When Barrett reaches a level of success that John Barnes has, he may no longer see the need to continue along this path. Barrett, I wish you well. I've admired the brilliance in the minds and writings of all of the rest of you.

Farewell,
Walt

p.s. I may lurk a bit, so don't talk about me!

[Jon Newman]

Hi Walt,

I've never had to get up the courage to attend a CEU course but I suspect anyone would need it if they were to attend a JFB course based on how those who instruct the course imagine the body works.

In the MFR thread you stated this:

Jon:
When someone's emotions are released, is this essentially a memory that the person had forgotten and now that it is free the person can fully experience it and subsequently their muscular tension changes because of it?

Memories may have been forgotten, which is in my experience seldom the case, or just events of an earlier time, which have walled themselves off in a specific area of the body. (my interpretations inserted here)...take an example of a woman who was molested as a child. The pelvis holds the physical hurt/scars etc of this event. Also held here is the emotional pain of the rape. It is so common for a person like this to walk into the clinic, stating that they've been through years of therapy, but it was not until someone touched the pelvis in a gentle, therapuetic way, that they were able to release the last part of their pain. It is our contention that much of an event is held within the tissues that were effected by the trauma. The brain may store the memory at a cognitive level, but the tissues hold it at a physical level. There are no conditions of emoting set by us. If sound or emotion comes up it is spontaneous and from their own free will. We are taught NEVER to encourage anyone to express emotion, sound, or to move. But it happens frequently. We are taught gentle non-judgement. They will not express anything unless they feel safe. It never injures and produces safe, cost efficient results. I must question others, who claim never to have seen a patient emote on the treatment table

Me again:

I think my issue with MFR (besides the anti-science stance) is the idea that people need to be placed in a position to re-experience potential trauma. Really? Besides John Barnes, who advocates this?

Based on the articles I posted, you and your patient have a poor chance of knowing whether the memories and (potential) emotions that emerge are veridical or not, especially if they were only just realized with the "release". I think your contention that you don't lead (not personally you but perhaps those trained in MFR) is not supported by Dottie's blog. There are examples of leading in that blog (in my opinion), not to mention techniques that we (Dottie and I) interpret differently than you as it pertains to the word gentle.

Thanks for noting I'm always right. I'm getting over the need to have that be the case but it's still nice to know that it's true.

(oh. Never mind that "need to be right thing". You were addressing Barrett, not me. Good thing I'm getting over that need. One would expect that I should be quite comfortable with it already with as much practice as I get.)

[Diane]

By all means, Walt, lurk away. We might wave to you once in awhile, if that's ok.. :)

[Barrett Dorko]

Assuming that not attending a Barnes course is somehow an act of cowardice is both absurd and, again, insulting.

As I said, that woman misquoted me. I have clearly stated what it is I say and I will say it again. To remain quiet about what Barnes' is obviously teaching is clearly unethical. I suspect you can see this after your reading of the material suggested.

The fact that you have now significantly modified your description of what typically occurs during a treatment session - and is at odds with what Barnes himself describes repeatedly in his own book - is significant in this regard, and your refusal to answer numerous questions cannot be characterized as a simple difference of opinion. Saying I'm not open to changing my mind isn't going to work no matter how many times you repeat it.

What you hoped to accomplish here didn't exactly work out, did it? Waiting for me to shut up may take a while given how much more you've taught so many about Barnes' teaching and practice. Implying that I'm seeking the "success" you feel Barnes has achieved, and that its achievement will finally silence me is, I assume, the last senseless thing you will post here.

[nari]

Walt,

As Barrett has stated, you have changed your mind considerably on how you say you treat since this thread started. Hope it continues that way, if that is true.

Obviously, attending a course on MFR would let us know for ourselves exactly what happens...but I can't see the point of attending a course which is based on unacceptable premises; ie, a nonscientific basis.

Lurk away; hope it will continue to prove useful to you.

Nari

[Barrett Dorko]

Just thought I'd point out that in the past week there have been 300 additional "views" of the original thread - and this several days after it was closed. Clearly people remain very interested in the topic though it seems they are hesitant to say anything publicly about what they might have concluded.

In any case, I hope that for a while still it remains so easy to find on Soma Simple. I will be pointing 120 therapists on the west coast to it in the next few days as I travel.

[Pia]

Back again after a travel "sabbatical" to see that all is "as usual" on this forum! No, I am not at all anxious that others will read the MFR thread as Barrett is hoping. I do not think that MFR practitioners are hiding behind anything and from a patients perspective I certainly do not think they should hide - on the contrary - spread the word of how effective this treatment is. I know that you folks hate to hear this but for the patient it is still the end result of treatment that matters and there seems to be agreement that the approach is successful. Time will deapen our understanding of MFR and all the other treatment methods we use in therapy.
And, just to correct one misunderstanding: MFR is NOT done with the purpose of releasing emotion - it just sometimes happens just as it happens with other hands-on treatment methods. I hope that therapist who work with human beings understand that emotion, be it laughter or tears or anger, is part of who we all are and that when someone - a therapist - shows his/her patient empathy and is allowing the patients to express what they feel it will further augment the healing of the body which is hopefully the end-result we all want for ourselves as patients or for our patients as therapist.
John Barnes does NOT teach his students that emotional releasing is the purpose of the treatment; he teaches his students to treat the fascial restrictions and he teaches that emotional releases CAN occur and that if it occurs to let the patient alone come to conclusions of what happened. Is it not amazing to think that so many people in our culture still feel that a human being can be devided into a physical body and an emotional body and that those two sides have nothing to do with each other - just like the right and left side of the brain was viewed in the early days of science.....

[nari]

Pia

Just a question; who are these people you refer to who believe the physical body and the brain (read: pain, emotion, thought...etc) are separate? I don't know of anyone on this board who has expressed that opinion.

Just curious about your perception...

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Time will deapen our understanding of MFR and all the other treatment methods we use in therapy.

I would suggest that this is only true if during that time one reflects thoughtfully upon what it is they are doing and why.

John Barnes does NOT teach his students that emotional releasing is the purpose of the treatment; he teaches his students to treat the fascial restrictions

I always presumed the purpose of the treatment was to reduce pain. The way to that end is where much of our discussion has taken place. My understanding of what is causing the fascial restriction, per Barnes' literature and suggested reading is 'stuck emotions'. So while the purpose of treatment is pain relief, there are many who may consciously or unconsciously intend to elicit emotions if they are under the impression that releasing an emotion is what will achieve their ends. Why else place patients in positions of yet to be remembered trauma?

[Barrett Dorko]

At its root, Barnes’ theory is this: Fascial restrictions cause pain – fascial restrictions result from trauma – trauma includes an emotive response – fascia “traps,” contains and holds within it the memory of that emotion along with the memory of the trauma itself. In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.”

I realize of course that this particular aspect of Barnes’ teaching is something his students here would rather not discuss given that every aspect of it has been called seriously into question on both a scientific and ethical basis. However, it remains entrenched in his writing and in his courses. They can deny that all they want. It isn’t necessary to sit at Barnes’ feet at a course to know this any more than it is necessary to sit next to any philosopher to know what they are thinking if they’ve written it out and sold it to you. Attending a course doesn’t magically make things clear and acceptable. Ask any number of my own students and you’ll find this is true.

In response, as Pia has once again done here, those who disagree with this theory are characterized as people with no sense of the connection between what the brain does and makes us think and feel and the action of the body in response. Nothing could be further than from the truth.

Barnes’ theory is a tautology. From dictionary.com: Tautology - An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false.

It is also a powerful meme. The primary meme is "fascia is a magical substance." Many therapists find comfort in this thought and thus it endures. Of course, all kinds of untrue and harmful thinking has endured for centuries - thus the power of memetics.

One day more and more therapists will recognize this, but only if the rest of us keep plugging away and, as always, “hiding behind science.”

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
Just thought I'd point out that in the past week there have been 300 additional "views" of the original thread - and this several days after it was closed. Clearly people remain very interested in the topic though it seems they are hesitant to say anything publicly about what they might have concluded.

In any case, I hope that for a while still it remains so easy to find on Soma Simple. I will be pointing 120 therapists on the west coast to it in the next few days as I travel. Your second sentence shoule be deconstructed for validity. In case you've not noted already, the "ticker" counts every hit that anyone makes, even if it is one of us referring back to the MFR thread for a link or a laugh. (I just added 3 hits to your "proof" count, Barrett.) I wonder if Bernard can tease out that data. But, maybe you will find that spark that thus far has been lacking in inspiring your students. Maybe the mention of Myofascial Release WILL get them to follow you and your PowerPoint link to this thread. If they start to listen now, after so many years of wondering why no one responds to you online, one must wonder as to the motivation.

At its root, Barnes’ theory is this: Fascial restrictions cause pain – fascial restrictions result from trauma – trauma includes an emotive response – fascia “traps,” contains and holds within it the memory of that emotion along with the memory of the trauma itself. In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.”Is this Barrett's interpretation or a quote? I've never heard, nor do I think that I've read, that John claims that 'In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.” ' Have you...oh, no, of course I know you never heard him say this, I almost forgot. Many patients seem to need to release at this deeper level, but many, many do not, and resolve at a structural level. I'm sure that you've been working on your concise synopsis of MFR for many years, but it needs some work.

You seem to enjoy hearing yourself speak and reading the deep words that you write. I've read many of your pieces where you bemoan the fact that your students are so ill-informed and ill-read. Keep checking that dictionary for more words to describe us. Pull in themes, and memes, to belittle us. Your fan club will give you another high-five. For the time being, I'll just wait for your throngs of students to comment.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

"Deep words"? What is that supposed to mean?

[Barrett Dorko]

Guess I wasn't done and since I "enjoy hearing myself speak" so much, I think I'll add this.

I suppose I should thank Walt for confirming the definition of a "release" for "many" of Barnes' (and his) patients, including its tautological and irrational basis in theory. I was pretty sure I had it right since I've read it and heard it for twenty years. You weren't at the IFOMT meeting in '92 were you Walt?

No need to try and alienate my students, I can manage that quite well myself.

[Jon Newman]

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

Apathy is common in many professions and Barrett's pointing out that it exists in ours (at a suboptimal level) is neither belittling or unique. I see this problem being announced on many discussion forums. In fact Barnes does it himself when he states that traditional therapy is "antiquated", "obsolete" and "inadequate". What's up with that? Attempting to reprimand Barrett for this is not only hypocritical, it is like scolding the boy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Walt, your "no its not" defense in response to Barrett is lacking in any clarification of how that synopsis is wrong. It seemed consistent with our our discussion (in the MFR thread) of what a release is. Where did you learn that? Were you wrong? Tell me more about the following:
Many patients seem to need to release at this deeper level, but many, many do not, and resolve at a structural level.

It sounds like some mind-body split you're creating and you're throwing this word "release" around like we all get it. If we've misunderstood your words to describe "release", explain to us how we are misunderstanding the term.

[Tim]

I've read through the thread tonight, and I guess I'm one of the newcomers being requested to come on this blog. I went to Barrett's seminar 8 days ago and found it to be most refreshing. I was pleased with the well-researched evidence based information supplied. Having a heavy background in myofascial release and craniosacral therapy, I was ready for the teacher to arrive; and I am grateful it was Barrett.

I was ecstatic at what I learned and the skills I developed at my first seminar with John Barnes in 1986, and I began seeing progress with my patients the week after the seminar that I had never seen before. Some of my case histories are recorded in John's first book on MFR (in the chapter on case histories). I have seen wonderful improvements in my patients through the use of craniosacral therapy and somatoemotional release, as well.

After leaving Barrett's seminar and beginning the next day to use the knowledge I found there, I can say that I have had another "quantum leap" in my manual skills and ability to influence change in patients in which I felt I had previously reached roadblock. I look forward to continuing to hone these new-found skills.

I am grateful for what I have learned from a number of "mentors" through the years. I learned a lot from John, and I find that I have rejected much of his teaching as well. I shall now see how much of Barrett's thinking I will assimilate. One thing for sure, Barrett is much more scientifically founded, and that is appealing to me. I agree with the direction the APTA is taking us in evidence based research. My hat goes off to the great late Jules Rothstein, one of our profession's great scientific thinkers. At this point in my early acquaintance with Barrett Dorko, my hat goes off to you too. Thanks!
:thumbs_up :angel:
I'll try to get back on here once in a while. Tim

[EricM]

Welcome Tim,
I'm concerned about this sentence, "I shall now see how much of Barrett's thinking I will assimilate." Please remember that it is not nearly so much Barrett's thinking that is important here, rather it is the science that is worth thinking about. Barrett, with all due respect to his ability to think, has just made that science accessible.
Hope to hear more from you.

Eric

[Barrett Dorko]

Tim,

Eric's right. It isn't my thinking, such as it is, that is the issue here. It's physical law, biologic plausibility and the constraints of physical therapy practice that need to be examined when comparing my work to Barnes'.

It's been a couple of days since Walt was asked exactly how I was wrong in my description of Barnes' theory and (again) he's said nothing. When he does say something it would be nice if it were actually a response to the question but maybe I should stop waiting for that. I'm not getting any younger.

Tim, you have a unique opportunity here to set us straight. No one else reading this has ever been as tightly bound to Barnes' work (attendance to MFR III, photo required) and at the same time been so recently cognizant of the manner in which I teach and what I say. I remember you well and was impressed with your willingness to ask and answer questions. As I mentioned in the latest edition of "The News from Cuyahoga Falls," we seem to be genetically inclined to both hide and deflect attention. Most of us anyway. I think there's too much of that in therapy, and you might have noticed that you are the only Eugene attendee that's posted a thing. According to Walt this is somehow my fault. Any thoughts on that?

But our profession has never advanced without those willing to speak, right or wrong. This conversation isn't over. Perhaps it never will be as long as those who have seen what Barnes' MFR is personally, moved from it and moved on aren't willing to offer their perspective. In Walt, Dave, Scott and Pia we have true believers only. We need more if we are to fulfill the scientific vision physical therapy was created to provide.

We need you.

[Christopher Squires]

Hello everyone. I have been catching up on this, as you say, runaway thread. It has been illuminating to say the least. It is a tale of human nature. On the one side, the illogical, right-brained, esoteric belief system...and on the other, the proof-seeking, left-brained hard science. It sounds like the practical applications are similar, but they sit atop different thought structures and that makes quite a difference. How intriguing! By the way, I am a simple LCMT, and sit squarely in the middle of this issue.

For the scientists, one has to wonder what makes all human activity tick if not belief system. Beliefs guide us, bind us to each other, and drive our decisions in life. Chinese medicine is based upon "pseudoscience", 4000 years old, based on nothing but trial and error, and it works. The belief system of TCM is integral to its application. Of course science wants to dice it up with an intellectual scalpel and take the parts it thinks works. But until science steps into the shoes of the TCM doc, it will never truly understand. I think there are some md's that have, in fact, done just this, and I would venture a guess that they adhere to science with a bit less "white knuckles" afterward. Science itself is, in fact, a belief system. It is my experience that conventional science changes it's mind constantly about what is fact and what is not. But a scientist is what you are and that makes you you. I'm glad for scientists, because I think it does further human understanding and new options.

For the Barnes MFR'ers...what would be so wrong with considering what these people are saying? I am glad they have opened up a whole dialogue about the science of tissue plasticity. Wow! What great and useful information. It has many implications. If you cannot provide scientific citations and answers to their many questions, why not just say so. This conversation would have ended a while ago and you'd have had a lot less stress in your life. Just admit that you're not a scientist and be okay with it. I do. You guys used to be scientists, but not any more, and that's okay. It's what makes you you. My not being super-scientific doesn't negate my part in the world nor the work that I do. It just means I have a different flavor to my purpose. But I think it's imperative to keep up on new scientific thinking pertaining to my area of study. Not only because it allows me to dialogue with others, but also because it deepens my understanding.

But in reality, the disparate concepts of scientist vs pseudoscientist are just more belief system and exist only in the minds of humans. It is unavoidable. As the Zen masters say, open your mouth and you are already wrong. Springtime comes and the grass grows all by itself, no scientific undertanding necessary.

When I was a child, I used to wonder why they didn't gather up all the smart people in one room from all the countries of the world, and hammer out some solutions and new projects. Why doesn't someone set up a free clinic for a week or two, put together some mainstream PT's and some Barnes PT's and work together for the sake of mutual understanding? I know that wouldn't resolve your ideological issues, but it would allow some experiential understanding. Cheers.
-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Chris,

Welcome to the board. I disagree with about 90% of what you've just said. This is just a conservative estimate.

Traditional Chinese Medicine doesn't "work" and has been abandoned every time an effective scientifically tested and sensible option has become available. Would you like a whole bunch of references on that?

I presume I am one of those " proof-seeking, left-brained hard science" people to which you prefer and I must reject this characterization. I seek sense, not proof, and modern neuroscience long ago recognized that this "left brain-right brain" manner of understanding and expertise has no basis in reality. It's become a stereotype (never a good idea) and, ultimately, a pejorative term. Calling all massage therapists "right brained" would be similar. It is equally inaccurate and unfair.

My favorite part of your post is this: "Science itself is, in fact, a belief system. It is my experience that conventional science changes it's mind constantly about what is fact and what is not. But a scientist is what you are and that makes you you. I'm glad for scientists, because I think it does further human understanding and new options."

Such a statement certainly confirms your claim not to be a scientist because it redefines the very nature of The Enlightenment, something not uncommon in the "alternative" community. There's just too much here to address (once again) but let me say that I for one am grateful that you are "glad" for me.

Again, welcome.

[Christopher Squires]

Mr. Dorko,
Thank you for your welcome. I have appreciated everyone's posts on this thread.

While I appreciate the offer, I do not require scientific citations that demonstrate that TCM works sometimes. Can you say that mainstream medicine works all the time? I presume you do not need references to illustrate the fact that it does not.

The point I was trying to make is that any healing modality is directly dependent upon it's belief system. If you disagree with this statement, then there's not much point in continuing.

Your presumption that I am referring to you in particular being, well...anything, is your presumption. Generalization is often necessary for discussion. The only thing I can assume about you is that you are highly intellectual, educated, and blunt. All fine qualities. Would you disagree that "scientists" base their beliefs on research data? Clearly, no one is right-brained or left-brained. Otherwise they couldn't function. Yin and yang, indivisible balancing components. I believe that the scientific community has a tendency to be myopic, quickly discarding the forest in favor of the trees. This may be an effect of specialization due to the astronomical amount of knowledge involved. It would also appear that alternative modalities are quick to disregard the discoveries of science. I don't have empirical data to support this feeling, it is based on my own experience, something I will always hold higher than knowledge.

I'm not a historian, so I cannot comment on what is or is not the nature of "The Enlightenment."

You say you want 'sense', not proof. Would you please define "sense" for us please? Because I'm sure the mfr'ers believe their approach makes sense to them. It seems you want proof to base your sense on. Is this incorrect? Even if it is, there is no fault in that. Everyone does this. Obviously, it is easier to achieve one's goals if there is some sense of predictability to things. But, why would you want everyone to see things the way you see them? Can you imagine how stifling and boring that would be? We'd all have nothing to do but sit around and agree with each other. How fun?!

What about love? What about God? What about infinity? Are you able to make sense of the reality these words point to? These are rhetorical questions, and I know I'm going off-topic, so I digress. Cheers.
-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Chris, You say: "The point I was trying to make is that any healing modality is directly dependent upon it's [sic] belief system. If you disagree with this statement, then there's not much point in continuing."

Of course I disagree, but thanks; this is going to save me a lot of time.

[Christopher Squires]

lol. Excellent! I feel the same way. Best wishes.
-Chris

[Diane]

Chris Squires, welcome, quick question if I may: What is a LCMT?
:),

[Christopher Squires]

Thanks Diane. I have admired your intelligent posts on the mfr thread. LCMT is a massage therapist with credentials. Licensed (local) Certified (national).
-Chris

[nari]

Hello Chris and welcome...

Even though it looks like we are not in agreement, it doesn't mean that there can be no useful discussion.
In every scientist I suspect there are bits of philosophy strewn amongst the data. Many admit to this; Ramachandran for one, Daniel Dennett and others. It is what makes us human.

The way I look at it is this: many centuries ago there was no science; only belief systems. Curiosity and a desire to explain things resulted in gradual discoveries in what makes things 'tick'. If it weren't for this curiosity, we would still be hunter-gatherers. I feel sure you would not like that prospect...

The exploration of science doesn't have to destroy beliefs, and there is plenty of evidence that beliefs are alive and well. As long as the two stay separate so there is no confusion about what is real (as well as we can define reality; the philosphers are still arguing about that one) and what is belief - is there a problem?

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Chris,

Does someone have to believe that penicillin works in order for it to kill bacteria?

I think beliefs are important. Julian Baggini and Peter S. Fosl state in their book The philosopher's toolkit: A compendium of philosophical concepts and methods, "...knowledge comprises a belief that is both justified and true."

Ideally, one should give up (or amend) their belief when it can be shown that it is either not justified or not true. MFR suffers from both.

[Christopher Squires]

Penicillin is a drug, not a healing modality, and as such, is a bit less involved in terms of the subjective/objective interactions clearly present in manual therapy (or shamanism for that matter) between therapist and client. But I would like to depart from philosophy, because on this ground, it appears we cannot meet.

My viewpoint is this: I have chosen to try and find a career helping people find relief from chronic pain conditions. Honestly, I only care about the underpinnings insofar as they make me a better therapist (careful now, if you tell me the underpinnings are important, you would have to admit my statement about belief systems being integral). I really don't care who is egotistical, rude, cultish, or who makes more money. I want to do what works! When I was exposed to jfb mfr, it awakened me to an approach that seized my attention. I had already found some success, on my own, using sustained pressure techniques. But for me, the "unwinding" aspect was new. I see now from all the comments on ideomotor movement, that while new to me, therapists having been checking it out for quite a while. I am intrigued by Mr. Dorko's work as well, since it clearly has some similarities. Exactly how jfb mfr and SC are similar or different in terms of application, I still haven't been able to discern from all this discussion. Someone...anyone...?

Is there a body of reference from which I can learn more about "areas of neural density", Butler's 'Sensitive Nervous System' perhaps?

Are people of my profession welcome at SC seminars, or is it limited to PT's?

Once again, thanks for the engaging discussion.
-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Cross Country Education opens my workshops to massage therapists.

There's nothing in my course description or objectives about the issues of "God" or "love" or "infinity" that you had questioned earlier and I reserve the right to not answer such questions during class time, or outside of class for that matter, - so you might find the material rather superficial.

[Christopher Squires]

As I said, those were rhetorical questions, meaning they don't require answers, so don't worry sir. I would only find it superficial if it is. Judging by your peers on this forum that respect your work, I'm guessing it is not. Thanks Mr. Dorko.
-Chris

[Jon Newman]

Chris,

What is a "healing modality"?

[Barrett Dorko]

While Chris is mulling that one over - is there anybody out there who can think of a really good reason for someone not to attend my course? It doesn't necessarily have to be true. Something along the lines of Frank Costanda's Festivus celebration on Seinfeld - you know; feats of strength, a greased pole, the airing of grievances - something like that.

You may email me privately.

[christophb]

Memory amd immagination. I don't know if this had been posted before, but I stumbled upon it

http://www.livescience.com/humanbiology/041101_False_memory.html

I'll bet the brain stores false memories and the fascia true memories.

Chris

[nari]

Chris

You asked about the difference between mfr and SC. I would direct you to the long thread on MFR (recently closed) to read what MFR practitioners 'do' to patients, and Barrett's writings. I know, it is a heck of a lot of reading, but very useful if you have a spare hour or so...

To put it as simply as possible:

MFR seems to depend on tissue manipulation, superficial and deep, while the patient does nothing actively, except react or respond to the pressures applied.

SC does not depend on winding down or up or manipulation of tissue; the patient does it all, involuntarily, as a composite movement; the therapist does nothing except give permission for the patient's brain to correct the dysfunction problem. The patient can then "learn" to elicit the corrective movement themselves.

I'd also like to ask: if penicillin doesn't heal...what does it do?

Nari

[Christopher Squires]

Hi Jon. Sorry about the confusing terminology. By healing modality, I just mean any systematic approach to healthcare, whether specific or general.

Hi Nari. I have read a good bit of the closed mfr thread, and I can assure you it takes a lot longer than an hour to read all of it. The thread does a poor job of revealing either approach. Your description of SC sounds a whole lot like mfr's 'unwinding'. Has no-one here taken a Barnes seminar? No fault, I'm just asking. Thanks.
-Chris

[nari]

Chris,

The real issue between the MFRers and non-MFRers is the basic premise; the explanation behind the 'unwinding' / release /fascial memory phenomenon is based on pseudoscience.
Most of us don't accept that premise. I'm not saying it doesn't work; the neurophysiological reasoning behind MFR is unsound.

Nari

[Christopher Squires]

Nari,
That much definitely was clearly conveyed by the mfr thread. ;-)
My curiosity is that perhaps the jfb mfr belief system (pseudoscience though it may be), provides a working thought structure that is a key component of mfr's workability. I don't know this for certain. I just believe it to be a possibility. It has already been pointed out that this is unscientific thinking. Not a problem for me. As I said, I am seeeking useful application.
-Chris

[nari]

Chris

That's fine; I know where you are coming from.
Probably the next best thing is to attend one of Barrett's classes, if you are looking for effective and useful application. Like anything else, it is not something easily determined from just reading; rather like reading all about a country rather than going there to see.

Nari

[Christopher Squires]

Thanks Nari. I am certainly considering it.

I am hoping my previous question can be answered:
>>>Is there a body of reference from which I can learn more about "areas of neural density", Butler's 'Sensitive Nervous System' perhaps?<<<

From the neuroscience perspective, is this the seminal text for manual therapists, or one of them? Thanks.
-Chris

[Jon Newman]

Suppose a 1 month old baby had an unfortunate experience of breaking a leg. Would the baby have to believe in whatever happened next in order for the bones to heal? How about a mouse? Does the mouse have to believe in veterinary medicine in order to heal from some problem it has?

Your leaning toward pragmatism has its merits but also some significant limits. Lets say I believed the earth to be flat and appears as represented on this map (http://www.ncedc.org/anss/maps/template/world_1.gif). If I want to fly to England, or more preferably Scotland, and I believed the map to be the way the earth is, I might have to fly westwardly from my home. Of course I'd get there eventually but I'd never be able to have stop over in Iceland which would be very unfortunate as I enjoy woolen products, Bjork and Brennivin (ok, I'm kidding about the Brennivin). The problem with starting at the end of the story and working backwards is that good reasoning is required along the way and important things may be missed or unimportant things emphasized. MFR suffers from this as you've noted.

I think there are many good books that offer something.

[Barrett Dorko]

Gee, thanks Nari. You should have warned Chris about the feats of strength at the course and the airing of grievances that arise unexpectedly.

I should probably also mention that I know what rhetorical questions are and realize that answering them isn't necessary. My concern is with them being asked a whole lot while trying to get on with practical matters.

[Christopher Squires]

Hi Jon,
All of your hypotheticals do not include intervention. Clearly, the innate healing mechanisms will be engaged and the organism will do its best to restore homeostasis.

It seems the position of the therapist is to provide facilitation for a more efficient, more complete and ideal recovery. I never said that basic natural cause and effect do not operate in the absence of beliefs. The point is that the therapist brings many factors into the equation, not least of which is their belief system. It seems contradictory to me that some of you argue that it is somehow unfair to the client/patient to present "pseudoscience" as a basis for a therapist's treatment (meaning you think it is a factor), yet you want to refute that the therapist's belief system is a determining factor of the outcome. The very thing that you are criticising mfr for, you turn around and negate as a factor. So which is it?

I don't lean toward pragmatism on a conceptual basis. I simply observe what works and stay with that. At the same time, I am completely open to new ideas, scientific or otherwise. This grants me a latitude of consideration that would not be possible if I subscribed to a particular model of thought.

While you most likely completely disregard intention-based "energy" therapies, if it granted you even a .1 percent increase in effectiveness...would you consider it then? But wait...let's say that practicing an intention based technique brought you into an alpha state, allowing you to be more sensitive to subtleties during session that you may miss if you're intellectualizing about the treatment instead. It is the difference between saying to someone, "Go into an alpha state." Of course, it would be meaningless and they couldn't do it. But if they had "energy awareness" as part of their systematic approach, it would happen automatically. This is what I mean by belief system being integral. It changes things. It doesn't have to meet scientific criteria to work.

I never said mfr suffers from an improper mental positioning. What I said was that they should learn to be comfortable standing outside the framework of science. I also suggested that staying abreast of current research seemed like a good idea. Cheers.
-Chris