Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[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 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, Polage DC.

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
· Review

PMID: 10083945 [PubMed - indexed for MEDLINE]

Reality monitoring in adults reporting repressed, recovered, or continuous memories of childhood sexual abuse.

McNally RJ, Clancy SA, Barrett HM, Parker HA.

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 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.