Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[nari]

Bob,

You said:

I don't believe you know my reality any more than I know yours

What do you see as the difference between beliefs and reality?
Beliefs can be real to a person, or vast populations can share the same belief, but beliefs cannot stand up to scrutiny of the known. So what do you mean by reality?

Nari

[bobmfrptx]

Nari,
you might want to ask bernard. I don't know what he meant when he said I had no touch with reality.
thanks
bob

[Diane]

Bob, Nari's question was given to you, not Bernard. How would you go about answering it?

[bobmfrptx]

happy holidays and merry christmas to you christians out there.

still working on my reply to belief vs reality......in the mean time all enjoy the celebrations of the seasons....
blessings to all
bob

[jtbarclay]

Osteopathy, Barnes, Stiles, Michigan State, Transegrity

I've been a practicing P.T. for about 30 years. The last few years I've been fascinated by chronic pain , and the work of Mosely and Adriaan Lowe were an introduction but didn't go far enough. I did a few Barnes courses and there is no doubt he is a masterful teacher and I suspect a powerful healer. This seems to get outside the realm of evidence based practice, but we know in chronic pain there is likely no "injury" , and that CNS windup , or hyper-sensitization of the nervous system is the problem. If Barnes methods relax the CNS , encourage para-sympathetic correction of an over stimulated system , by any means , even if there is a bit of hypnosis (placebo), why not! Patients want to get better. The best evidence is that they are better. Functionally they can do more, on an Oswestry they score better.

Even though I don't know Barne's whole story , it seems he has a lot of osteopathic training, and that he teaches a style of MFR , which has roots in Osteopathy. As many know Michigan State University teaches a series of CME courses opened to PT's and many taught by PT's. i haven't taken these courses yet but I will. Any comments appreciated.

I took a course with Ed Stiles DO in Oklahoma City. He is an amazing man. He was in the original study group with Fred Mitchell Sr. who developed muscle energy technique. At 80 years old he is involved with bio physicists at Oregon State University , proving that his style of MET, Cranial and functional technique make improvement in recordable gait analysis.

Please read "stilized osteopathy" under philosophy is a very good description of osteopathic philosophy and an excellent article on transegrity , which is similar to Barnes Myofascial concept.

Look forward to hearing from you , comments advice.

[Keith]

I've been a practicing P.T. for about 30 years. The last few years I've been fascinated by chronic pain , and the work of Mosely and Adriaan Lowe were an introduction but didn't go far enough.

Once you go as far as these men (and other researchers in the field of pain science) can take you, you have traveled as far as scientific knowledge can take you today. Anything is else is conjecture and bias at best, charlatanism at worst.

I did a few Barnes courses and there is no doubt he is a masterful teacher and I suspect a powerful healer. This seems to get outside the realm of evidence based practice, but we know in chronic pain there is likely no "injury" , and that CNS windup , or hyper-sensitization of the nervous system is the problem. If Barnes methods relax the CNS , encourage para-sympathetic correction of an over stimulated system , by any means , even if there is a bit of hypnosis (placebo), why not! Patients want to get better. The best evidence is that they are better. Functionally they can do more, on an Oswestry they score better.

Why not? Is your argument that JB's MFR is the only way to down-regulate a hyper-vigilant nervous system and reduce threat? Is your argument that JB's explanatory model is defensible and maintains the patient's locus of control? Is your argument that it is permissible for an ethically-bound therapist to provide placebo-care? If so, should this be something that the patient pays cash for, or is this something that should be covered by insurance? And where is the 'evidence' - beyond anecdote - for MFR? Long-term studies? Any trials with control groups?

I took a course with Ed Stiles DO in Oklahoma City. He is an amazing man. He was in the original study group with Fred Mitchell Sr. who developed muscle energy technique. At 80 years old he is involved with bio physicists at Oregon State University , proving that his style of MET, Cranial and functional technique make improvement in recordable gait analysis.

Please read "stilized osteopathy" under philosophy is a very good description of osteopathic philosophy and an excellent article on transegrity , which is similar to Barnes Myofascial concept.

Perhaps he is an amazing man, but the claims on the page you referred to are not referenced and are but one man's implausible narrative. I will not paste them on a public forum for people in pain to mistake as credible. I will simply say that anyone who (on one hand) acknowledges that they are working with a complex system, but (on the other hand) tells you that they can reliably identify a dysfunction that will predictably reduce "25-30% of the body's somatic dysfunctions" has not fully considered the premise of their own work.

Science does not have all the answers and (when it comes to pain) it most likely that we will not have many answers to the some of the larger questions in our lifetimes. That does not mean, however, that we should go looking outside of the sciences for solutions. It simply means that we should remain humble in the face of uncertainty.

My only advice - because you asked for it - is to keep your money in your wallet, be present with your patients and (please) only provide them with information that has been fully vetted by the sciences.

Respectfully,
Keith

[Jo Bowyer]

If a patient wishes to discuss philosophy, I am willing to do so within my own limitations. I sometimes have to remind patients that philosophy is not science.

[amacs]

remind patients that philosophy is not science

but one is necessary but not sufficent for the other ...

A.