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

  • That was a good one, yes - and germane to this issue indeed.

    I am starting to really understand your last sentiment, Barrett.
    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


    • A picture might help.
      Attached Files
      "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

      Comment


      • Okay okay, no need to scream......and you do not have to answer if it increases you BP to dangerous levels.

        Diane:
        "Everything I touch is skin." - Rory Robinson, age five
        So since you all agree and insist that when you put your hands on a patient ALL YOU FEEL IS SKIN then can I safely assume that you will agree that you cannot/ do not palpate/feel other structures that are under the skin for example: bone, tendons, blood vessels, muscles etc and than you do not use palpation to assess abnormalities in all those anatomical structures under the skin??? Or that you do not palpate to find areas of tenderness in anatomical structures under the skin as you assess the patient ?

        I have thought long and hard about why you keep insisting it is only the skin you feel under your hands and I have come to the conclusion that if that is what you think no wonder you do not understand that "we" ('Barnesians' )can feel and how we can impact what lies under the skin with our hands.

        PS: Diane:
        "Everything I touch is skin." - Rory Robinson, age five
        When I was five that is what I thought too but I have learned a few other things since.....

        PPS: I would really really like a hat...hate to ask but what if I get put into the corner for a lifetime time-out (=fuchsia) before...

        Comment


        • Pia,

          Where do you come up with this stuff? Things move beneath the skin and, of course, the skin reflects that movement with various degrees of change, some palpable and valid, some less so.

          What you guys imagine beyond that is something you're supposed to demonstrate is possible. You don't even try.

          I'll send your hat right after I send Walt his.
          Barrett L. Dorko

          Comment


          • Pia

            If you work on structures under the skin and ignore the skin...how do you know that you are affecting only those invisible structures?

            As basically as I can put it: when you tickle someone, say, one of your little patients, there are enormous responses: emotional, motor, vocal and so on.

            Can you deny that?

            If not, then what has the fascia got to do with tickling for a few seconds????


            Nari

            Comment


            • From another thread:

              It is easy to identify the rationalizing client in a session: it is when the clinician begins to feel as though he or she is in a debate, or a session of "point counterpoint." Although it may feel like rebellion, the resistance of the rationalizing client lies much more in their thinking than in their emotions.
              "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

              Comment


              • Pia, of course I palpate. When things feel like banjo strings lifting up the skin I can feel them... if people can learn to read braille they can learn to read/feel different tissue tensions. One can even learn from an anatomy book what structures may live under that sensitive neural blanket called skin. One may even learn to imagine one can affect those structures somehow... but one can't "feel" anything, except through skin, and therefore the neural system of the patient you are treating will always be there right under your hands. Defending the organism against invasion. Trying to get it to run away. Altering sympathetic outflow. Creating changes. It isn't you, with your hands able to feel through to deeper lying structures, pulling on them through a slippery skin layer, making changes. It's the nervous system of your patient, trying to respond appropriately, making whatever changes it can to try to deal with this intrusion. You can even learn practice patterns and technical skills to help you get good at facilitating it. If you are a good practitioner you will understand that this is how it works, and learn to use as little invasion as necessary to assist the patient's nervous system to do changing, in the moment. That's all it boils down to. That's all it will ever boil down to.

                "Everything I touch is skin." -Rory Robinson age 5. She was completely right. Even if she touches something that has no skin, like a fork, she is still touching it through her own skin. So there is no escape from skin in this work. Skin will always remain the confounding factor that will knock over each and every manual therapy theory that doesn't think to include it as an active player.
                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


                • Hi All,
                  I found this paper which was qualified as "great" by some PTs :sad:

                  http://www.chiroweb.com/archives/20/25/08.html
                  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


                  • If it hadn't the name of Curie attached to the 'effect', maybe nobody would have taken much notice of it. We may be made of stardust (in fact we are) but...electrified???

                    Maybe that is how they explain goosebumps?

                    Nari

                    Comment


                    • I see Oschman is listed in the references.
                      You know, it's not that this pizoelectric thing can't possibly be real. It probably is.. but, it's that certain hold-outs refuse to consider that the nervous system has all this cell signalling business down much faster than the other tissue systems. The signal has to pass through only three cells to get from the big toe to the sensory cortex. Only three. One of those cells is a metre long, give or take, up to the cord. A couple more get the signal to the cortex. Meanwhile it goes sideways too, through interneurons, so the whole system knows what's going on. At every location the signal can be dampened or augmented. If we want to talk electricity, step up or step down transformers.

                      I don't get why they can't see that nervous system signalling is a just plain faster system for producing the results they so love to think they are getting locally with the other tissue systems. Cell to cell signalling takes time, and the axons are there with all their miles of collective length, to make short work of it, shave time away from the process.
                      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


                      • As I mentioned briefly in a couple other threads, about a month ago now I was a member of John Barne's group MFR Talk e-list (for about a month). To my surprise I was removed by the list moderator (with no warning or notice ,nor notice to the list, nor explanation, 'til I asked). I'd like to talk a little about that later.

                        In the meantime, I would like to know if there are any JB folks still reading here, and, if so, could you explain, for myself and others, the emphasis placed on internal pelvic work for women ? Is it common that women receive such treatments from JBMFR practitioners, either at the clinics in Paoli and Sedona, or elsewhere? Are these treatments given specifically to women with certain vaginal or pelvic abnormailities or discomfort, or are they sometimes given to women for psycho-social problems perceived by your group as related to that part of the body? I saw this practice, and suggestions of its worth, mentioned repeatedly on MFR Talk, and also in a mfr yahoo group I am a member of. The issue/question has been especially highlighted for myself and others by the online blog on a woman who spent a week in retreat at Sedona, and received several of these treatments, along with other jbmfr treatments http://mfrjourney.blogspot.com/. In reading the other thread about JBMFR I noted it was suggested by some JBMFR prcatitioners that Barrett and others were being unethical by citing her journal. I very much disagree with that, as it is a public journal, and, moreover, I believe references to it on this message board have been out of genuine concern for patients/clients. In fact, I saw it myself before I ever subscribed to (or even knew about) this message board, as a link to the journal was at the bottom of an email sent by the author to the MFR Talk e-list. I don't mean any disrespect to the author by citing it, but some of what is said there, about treatments received, including, though not limited to, internal pelvic treatments, concerns me very much.

                        Dana
                        Last edited by stregapez; 18-05-2006, 09:32 PM.

                        Comment


                        • Well, I haven't talked to you guys for many months, but it seems the more things change the more they stay the same.

                          I have to say that I didn't read word for word the entire thread, but I had to agree with some of what Chris Squires said, that the group here condemns or dismisses other approaches while being upset that other's condemn or dissmiss theirs. This is the same in most such forums. Their is also a tendency to say, "yeah, but we understand science (or alternatively we are open minded) while they don't" (or aren't). If you read John Child's Evidence in Motion Website you will see that this group is firmly placed in the "don't understand science" group, while this group places Barne's followers in that category (which I pretty much agree with).

                          The term MFR may be connected to Barnes but it is also used differently. When I first heard the complaints about MFR on the old list I didn't understand the fuss, because the MFR I was familiar with was more akin to the skin stretching that Diane and others advocate than the Barnes version.

                          My wife likes to use John Iam's PRRT, she has found it to be very effective, she also has decided to distance herself from them for the same reasons that others have decided to distance themselves from Barnes. Too much crap and greed thrown in.

                          Comment


                          • Randy,

                            I've read your post a couple of times and find I largely disagree. To say that a carefully considered opinion is a matter of "condemnation" or "dismissal" ignores the thoughful nature of this discussion. The fact that the MFR people have mislabled their work and ignored the manner in which science progresses needs to be stated clearly and publically if the abuses evident in this work are to be eliminated from my profession.

                            This has not been some minor spat driven by personality. I feel it should be seen as much more than that.
                            Barrett L. Dorko

                            Comment


                            • Randy I've considered what you said and when things get a bit heated I begin to wonder if you're correct. But when I re-read the posts I'm reminded that it is the explanation of what's going on that is the target of criticism (as well as where a mis-explanation might lead someone). Have you also read the Manipulation solution?

                              In my opinion this site is a site of inquiry as well as debunking and is uniquely set up for exactly those purposes. I see it as the "public radio" of the PT world. The lack of participation from other thoughtful but alternative viewpoints is simply unfortunate. Perhaps you'll be one.

                              I would edit your comment

                              "yeah, but we understand science (or alternatively we are open minded) while they don't"
                              to read more along the lines of "we try to understand the science and are open to changing our minds as the science leads us"

                              Have you taken the time to tune into the threads "five questions" or "autonomic state and correction"?
                              Last edited by Jon Newman; 26-05-2006, 02:27 PM.
                              "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                              Comment


                              • Welcome Randy,

                                As Barrett and Jon, I'm a bit surprised by your reply.
                                MFR by J Barnes is not scientific because they are unable to bring a single paper that explains their theory.
                                J Childs is perhaps scientific but his manipulation solution is only available for a very little subgroup of LBP patients. What about the larger group?
                                Many of us do not use manips because there is alternative scientific solutions (which may be explained by science).
                                J Iams uses a method based upon reflexes but something seems wrong in the theory.

                                If Childs estimate we aren't scientific, I think that he is perhaps yet adult to say it directly, here.

                                BTW, EIM is not so "clean" as told but I found that many evidences were only sold or brought by the same theory => $$$
                                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

                                Working...
                                X