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

  • #31
    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
    Last edited by nari; 26-01-2006, 09:56 AM.

    Comment


    • #32
      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.)
      Last edited by Diane; 26-01-2006, 09:52 AM.
      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


      • #33
        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?
        Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 26-01-2006, 02:22 PM.
        Barrett L. Dorko

        Comment


        • #34
          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

          Comment


          • #35
            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.
            Last edited by Barrett Dorko; 26-01-2006, 04:24 PM.
            Barrett L. Dorko

            Comment


            • #36
              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

              Comment


              • #37
                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.
                Barrett L. Dorko

                Comment


                • #38
                  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.

                  Average Customer Review: 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.
                  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


                  • #39
                    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.
                    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


                    • #40
                      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

                      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.
                      Last edited by Jon Newman; 26-01-2006, 08:02 PM.
                      "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        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

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          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?
                          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


                          • #43
                            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?
                            Barrett L. Dorko

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              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
                              Last edited by bernard; 27-01-2006, 07:04 AM. Reason: quote

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                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.
                                Last edited by Jon Newman; 27-01-2006, 02:08 AM.
                                "I did a small amount of web-based research, and what I found is disturbing"--Bob Morris

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X