Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

Collapse
This is a sticky topic.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Walt, please don't resort to a tu quoque. It just won't work here.
    Diane
    www.dermoneuromodulation.com
    SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
    HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
    Neurotonics PT Teamblog
    Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
    Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
    @PainPhysiosCan
    WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
    @WCPTPTPN
    Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

    @dfjpt
    SomaSimple on Facebook
    @somasimple

    "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

    “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

    “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

    "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

    "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

    Comment


    • Walt, that chip on your shoulder must really get heavy sometimes. One of the biggest complaints that I see lobbed at Barrett in disgruntlement posts is that he doesn't tell people how to practice. In fact it irritates people greatly. The point that you continually miss is that the explanation of what you do is incorrect. Some of the incorrectness in the explanation may lead someone to do unnecessary and potentially harmful things with patients. That's it. Barnes gets dragged into this because he is the one who attaches his name and profits from the proliferation of misinformation without any sign of amending the explanation even in the light of there being more accurate explanations available. This adherence to dogma reflects on the profession and actually makes it more difficult to employ any technique that might look remotely like what you do in your practice.
      The way I see it is that much of the "tribe" is anti-science because you are perceived as crazy for your approach despite your observation that "it works". As such you feel the persecution is unjustified. The sad part is that your rejection of a better explanation is a self sustaining mechanism for you to hate science or any criticism of the approach. A popular choice among the "tribe" is to ignore science and be content with what you do. Yet at the same time you hope for salvation in science, hence the reliance on Oschman. Another example of this hope for a scientific explanation appears in Pia's post:
      MFR -and many other interventions that are at this point by some looked at as "alternative" WILL BE eventually, wether or not they are scientifically proven at this juncture. From my perspective I can join now - or when science catches up - and my choice is clear.
      The sad part is that a scientific explanation was either already available or is rapidly becoming available. The problem then is not enough science or not advanced enough science, it's the refusal to use it.

      So is your real hope to explain MFR with science or stick with the mythical but interesting story? If it is the latter, why not remove the "scientific rationale" from the MFR website and any science language from the brochure.
      It seems like you feel you can say anything you want as long as you preface it with "Don't believe a word of what I say." By the way, why isn't that part in the brochure? Wouldn't I want to know that I'm going to be lied to before I drop that much cash?
      Last edited by Jon Newman; 20-02-2006, 06:49 AM.
      "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

      Comment


      • Catch 22

        Jon,
        A popular choice among the "tribe" is to ignore science and be content with what you do. Yet at the same time you hope for salvation in science, hence the reliance on Oschman.
        Here is the conflict between all of us, summed up in this quote. We are not ignoring science, you just happen to disagree with the science that we employ. No explanation of the 20 questions that you seem to want will ever be accepted. Oschman, et al, do a marvelous job in explaining much of the framework from which I work, but you refuse to accept this. So what is the point of arguing?

        Barrett, I've been to many of John's seminars and have yet to hear him mention Carlos Castalanas or Shirley Maclain...are you sure they are not closet heros of yours? I think that Tim brought up a good point in his post. You stated that John wants followers, but I think that he is simply teaching a method of manual therapy. You sound like you teach in a way that does not honor the decades of experience you have as well as the influence of your teachers that you mention in your bio from your class brochure. But, every patient you touch and every motion you feel under your hands has been shaped by those years of experience you possess. Tim seems to be stating that you are denying this experience and expect all students to "get it" and leave you alone. Manual therapy is a process of experiential learning. You seem to be assuming too much. Your Simple Contact stuff is easy...to you. Have all of your students the years of experience in manual therapy that you possess? Doubtful. Give 'em a break. Tim made it clear that he wanted some experiential learning. (By the way, you may want to change the way you advertise you class, it sounds like false advertising saying it is a lab-based seminar. I wouldn't want to drop that amount of cash if I expected what was stated in the brochure). What you constantly deride John Barnes for is providing that avenue for experiential learning. A teacher teaches. Empowerment is a huge part of MFR training. Belittling and demeaning is not.

        Diane, did I miss your answer, did you take a class from John Barnes himself, or from someone else?

        Barrett, you do mean-spirited well, don't mess with funny. The cloud joke was a stretch many many posts ago. On the MFR thread, as well as a few of your "News from Free Hat Falls", you state that most of John's seminar participants are massage therapists. The tone in mentioning the MT's seems very much less that respectful (for those not familiar with this, search under the MFR thread, take note of the way it is worded). But, you market yourself to those same MT's. Are they less than worthy if taking MFR seminars, but worthy if taking yours? By the way, your statistics are off on John's seminar participant percentages.

        Walt

        Comment


        • Nari,

          Thanks for the recommended literature. I will read some of it. I used to read a lot of science books. Lewis Thomas, Stephen Jay Gould, David Bohm, etc. It appears I let things slip a bit, so now I need to catch up.

          Walt,

          Mr. Dorko, I think is not so much condescending as sarcastic: not the greatest characteristic, but it deters would-be "followers". I also happen to think he has a pretty accurate picture of Mr. Barnes. I believe the work is good. Now it is time to figure out why, so we can make it better. Do you remember me from mfr-talk Walt? I had a two week stint on there that didn't go so well. JFB MFR is as plagued by arrogance as any scientific community and less justified to be so. When I decided to start taking clients, I committed to a responsibility much greater than myself. It is incumbent on me to raise my practice to the highest possible level. At some point, Mr. Barnes slipped from great therapist to ring leader. His presentation reeks of carefully crafted salesmanship. It is a mental version of a chinese finger puzzle. I wish he would break free of this guru crap and get back to what's important. But then...what do I know?

          In Healing Touch, a pseudoscientific energy approach, it is taught that it is important to set one's intention before a session to "the highest good". Sound like new age crapola? It's not. I hope we all are directed by our version of "the highest good". Cheers.

          -Chris

          Comment


          • Hi Chris,

            I do not understand that you're seem against science but agree with the scientific rationale of J Barnes.

            Does that mean that Barnes has better science than us?
            It is just all the problem =>

            http://www.somasimple.com/forums/sho...&postcount=155

            We are still waiting for some responses?
            Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI
            We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON

            Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler.
            If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
            bernard

            Comment


            • Bernard,

              I am not against science, nor for Barnes rationale. I am for whatever makes me a better therapist. This is the part where I start repeating myself.

              -Chris

              Comment


              • Christopher S,

                You just said that we are in danger with our shrinking scientific minds. You said that our way of thinking is clearly closed.

                It is just the contrary:
                It is because we are open minds that we evolved closer to neurosciences (for now) and it is because Knowledge evolves, too, that we follow the waves...
                It is why we can't follow the scientific rationale of J Barnes. It is full of assertions without scientific references.

                It is just a little affair that would normally take 2 minutes to be ruled out but Barnesians/icles are unable to give the answers that must be already known since science has discovered them.
                Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. L VINCI
                We are to admit no more causes of natural things than such as are both true and sufficient to explain their appearances. I NEWTON

                Everything should be made as simple as possible, but not a bit simpler.
                If you can't explain it simply, you don't understand it well enough. Albert Einstein
                bernard

                Comment


                • Walt's reaction to Dr. Hall's exposure of Oschman's writing as vacuous and simply wrong is to say we "don't accept" Oschman's explanations and therefore he has nowhere to go in his effort to convince us of the scientific basis for the "energy" aspects of MFR. In this he's finally right about something. No one to my knowledge has refuted what Dr. Hall says in her review - including Oschman. Any other sources you'd like to point to?

                  Walt, again, you'd probably be better off not telling me how to behave and I certainly don't think it's a very good idea to tell me how I feel about my experience or the people who have taught me what they could. About this you know nothing.

                  As I said, many in the class practice Simple Contact for a few minutes and then sit down to discuss what they've experienced. I have to literally encourage them to practice more to fill the time set aside for that. This has now happened in 133 consecutive classes (in the last 18 months) so I would guess my conclusion that this handling is easy to do has a firm basis. I say that our patients will never be helped by our skills so much as they will be by the depth of our knowledge. I talk about how a craftsman is successful first and foremost because he understands the true qualities of the materials he seeks to change in some way. This takes study, information gathering, the careful examination of research more than the solitary application of your hands in the service of your craft and that's why I emphasize it. I think that watching another work is overrated and I'd never charge a fellow professional for such a thing because I think that's insulting. Barnes has turned the desire of desperate therapists to do this into another revenue stream.

                  I have never said a single thing denigrating about massage therapists and your implication that I have needs something to back it up. I wouldn't count on anyone else "hearing" my "tone" here as you seem to think you can. It is a fact that Barnes remains far more popular in that community than any other. Why do you suppose that is?

                  Read Castenada, read MacLain. You'll see what Barnes says about past lives and power animals in there and all of it pre-dates him. The fact that he doesn't mention their names doesn't surprise me. Then I'd like you to cite an instance where I've not given those whom I quote and have learned from their due.
                  Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 20-02-2006, 03:38 PM.
                  Barrett L. Dorko

                  Comment


                  • Short post here: I HAVE been to Barnes' course - have NOT been to Barrett's. Yet, by simple reading (much, much reading) of many books and articles and research - and by arguing fervently and with a lot of venom with Barrett in the past - I can not help but be convinced of the explanations of what is observed when patients are handled gently. The scientific material points to the patient's brain and skin as the 2 MAJOR players in the success of gentle handling. NOT the fascia - not the "advanced skills" in a particular technique. And if Diane and Barrett are "crusty" - very good! - it shows disregard for the modern habit of trying to be popular. Which by the way, seems to be a claim for success of the MFR camp.
                    I appreciate being challenged to MAKE UP MY OWN MIND with information, rather than with poorly disguised marketing of expensive gobbledegook.

                    So, publicly: thank you to Barrett, Diane, Jon, Nick and others I am forgetting here - my professionalism is saved. I owe it to my patients to get the best possible explanation for the best possible therapy. I'll never be finished with that process.
                    We don't see things as they are, we see things as WE are - Anais Nin

                    I suppose it's easier to believe something than it is to understand it.
                    Cmdr. Chris Hadfield on rise of poor / pseudo science

                    Pain is a conscious correlate of the implicit perception of threat to body tissue - Lorimer Moseley

                    We don't need a body to feel a body. Ronald Melzack

                    Comment


                    • Walt states:

                      Here is the conflict between all of us, summed up in this quote. We are not ignoring science, you just happen to disagree with the science that we employ. No explanation of the 20 questions that you seem to want will ever be accepted. Oschman, et al, do a marvelous job in explaining much of the framework from which I work, but you refuse to accept this. So what is the point of arguing?
                      If it were just I disagreeing you would certainly have a strong case. However, there are others more significantly more qualified than I that also disagree. It seems you have a similar outlook to that which Chris had in which there exists 'your science' and 'my science' and that both are of equal value. It is true that there may be competing theories but the theories that have better explanatory capability AND are consistent with other aspects of nature are ideally the theories that one should employ. You firstly choose to employ the theories that, when sufficiently tortured, explain your approach to care rather than the theories that not only explain your approach to care but are also consistent with other aspects of scientific knowledge. I'm not sure why that is.

                      Of course you are correct that there is no point in arguing since the disclaimer Barnes apparently makes, "Don't believe a word I say" essentially absolves him from accountability. I hope you're savvy enough to say the same thing when you teach this stuff.
                      "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                      Comment


                      • He states, on the very first day, "Don't believe a word of what I say. Try this for yourself. Keep what works for you and discard what does not". Maybe you missed this on the two times you took one of his seminars. By the way, did you take one from him? Or did someone else teach the class?
                        Walt, I think I mentioned this on at least two other occasions. Here it is for the third time. Let me know how many more times you will ask me to repeat this part so I can plan provisions for the long haul. OK, just kidding. Ready? Memorize this so you don't have to ask again.
                        1. 1988, Barnes himself.
                        2. 2001, somebody else, can't remember the name.

                        Got that?
                        Diane
                        www.dermoneuromodulation.com
                        SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
                        HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
                        Neurotonics PT Teamblog
                        Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
                        Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
                        @PainPhysiosCan
                        WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
                        @WCPTPTPN
                        Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

                        @dfjpt
                        SomaSimple on Facebook
                        @somasimple

                        "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

                        “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

                        “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

                        "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

                        "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

                        Comment


                        • Sebastian,

                          Thank you. I can't speak for Diane, but being called "crusty" is fine with me. It places me in the same realm as virtually every really honest therapist I've known in the field of manual care - and that includes some giants.

                          Want a cap?
                          Barrett L. Dorko

                          Comment


                          • I don't mind being thought of as crusty, not one bit.

                            If I have earned, graduated/been promoted to crusty, I'm delighted, frankly. :teeth:
                            Bas, you're quite crusty too!
                            Last edited by Diane; 20-02-2006, 05:57 PM.
                            Diane
                            www.dermoneuromodulation.com
                            SensibleSolutionsPhysiotherapy
                            HumanAntiGravitySuit blog
                            Neurotonics PT Teamblog
                            Canadian Physiotherapy Pain Science Division (Archived newsletters, paincasts)
                            Canadian Physiotherapy Association Pain Science Division Facebook page
                            @PainPhysiosCan
                            WCPT PhysiotherapyPainNetwork on Facebook
                            @WCPTPTPN
                            Neuroscience and Pain Science for Manual PTs Facebook page

                            @dfjpt
                            SomaSimple on Facebook
                            @somasimple

                            "Rene Descartes was very very smart, but as it turned out, he was wrong." ~Lorimer Moseley

                            “Comment is free, but the facts are sacred.” ~Charles Prestwich Scott, nephew of founder and editor (1872-1929) of The Guardian , in a 1921 Centenary editorial

                            “If you make people think they're thinking, they'll love you, but if you really make them think, they'll hate you." ~Don Marquis

                            "In times of change, learners inherit the earth, while the learned find themselves beautifully equipped to deal with a world that no longer exists" ~Roland Barth

                            "Doubt is not a pleasant mental state, but certainty is a ridiculous one."~Voltaire

                            Comment


                            • I posed too many comments/questions in my last reply, so just let me ask the following two. The second may sound sarcastic, but I am really trying to figure this out and am very serioius:

                              1. What are we deconstructing, as the title of the blog indicates is being attempted?

                              2. If I change what I call the light touch I have used for years in my therapy from "Myofascial release" to "Ideomotor facilitation", will the technique I use now be acceptable in the scientifically grounded community?
                              "Enlightenment is your ego's greatest disappointment."
                              Anon

                              Comment


                              • Tim,

                                1. Deconstructing the original MFR thread, although it has moved somewhat away from that.

                                2. The technique has never been the issue. It's the explanation for the mechanism behind the technique that is the issue.
                                phil

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X