Deconstruction of the Runaway "MFR" Thread

[Pia]

Back again after a travel "sabbatical" to see that all is "as usual" on this forum! No, I am not at all anxious that others will read the MFR thread as Barrett is hoping. I do not think that MFR practitioners are hiding behind anything and from a patients perspective I certainly do not think they should hide - on the contrary - spread the word of how effective this treatment is. I know that you folks hate to hear this but for the patient it is still the end result of treatment that matters and there seems to be agreement that the approach is successful. Time will deapen our understanding of MFR and all the other treatment methods we use in therapy.
And, just to correct one misunderstanding: MFR is NOT done with the purpose of releasing emotion - it just sometimes happens just as it happens with other hands-on treatment methods. I hope that therapist who work with human beings understand that emotion, be it laughter or tears or anger, is part of who we all are and that when someone - a therapist - shows his/her patient empathy and is allowing the patients to express what they feel it will further augment the healing of the body which is hopefully the end-result we all want for ourselves as patients or for our patients as therapist.
John Barnes does NOT teach his students that emotional releasing is the purpose of the treatment; he teaches his students to treat the fascial restrictions and he teaches that emotional releases CAN occur and that if it occurs to let the patient alone come to conclusions of what happened. Is it not amazing to think that so many people in our culture still feel that a human being can be devided into a physical body and an emotional body and that those two sides have nothing to do with each other - just like the right and left side of the brain was viewed in the early days of science.....

[nari]

Pia

Just a question; who are these people you refer to who believe the physical body and the brain (read: pain, emotion, thought...etc) are separate? I don't know of anyone on this board who has expressed that opinion.

Just curious about your perception...

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Time will deapen our understanding of MFR and all the other treatment methods we use in therapy.

I would suggest that this is only true if during that time one reflects thoughtfully upon what it is they are doing and why.

John Barnes does NOT teach his students that emotional releasing is the purpose of the treatment; he teaches his students to treat the fascial restrictions

I always presumed the purpose of the treatment was to reduce pain. The way to that end is where much of our discussion has taken place. My understanding of what is causing the fascial restriction, per Barnes' literature and suggested reading is 'stuck emotions'. So while the purpose of treatment is pain relief, there are many who may consciously or unconsciously intend to elicit emotions if they are under the impression that releasing an emotion is what will achieve their ends. Why else place patients in positions of yet to be remembered trauma?

[Barrett Dorko]

At its root, Barnes’ theory is this: Fascial restrictions cause pain – fascial restrictions result from trauma – trauma includes an emotive response – fascia “traps,” contains and holds within it the memory of that emotion along with the memory of the trauma itself. In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.”

I realize of course that this particular aspect of Barnes’ teaching is something his students here would rather not discuss given that every aspect of it has been called seriously into question on both a scientific and ethical basis. However, it remains entrenched in his writing and in his courses. They can deny that all they want. It isn’t necessary to sit at Barnes’ feet at a course to know this any more than it is necessary to sit next to any philosopher to know what they are thinking if they’ve written it out and sold it to you. Attending a course doesn’t magically make things clear and acceptable. Ask any number of my own students and you’ll find this is true.

In response, as Pia has once again done here, those who disagree with this theory are characterized as people with no sense of the connection between what the brain does and makes us think and feel and the action of the body in response. Nothing could be further than from the truth.

Barnes’ theory is a tautology. From dictionary.com: Tautology - An empty or vacuous statement composed of simpler statements in a fashion that makes it logically true whether the simpler statements are factually true or false.

It is also a powerful meme. The primary meme is "fascia is a magical substance." Many therapists find comfort in this thought and thus it endures. Of course, all kinds of untrue and harmful thinking has endured for centuries - thus the power of memetics.

One day more and more therapists will recognize this, but only if the rest of us keep plugging away and, as always, “hiding behind science.”

[Walt Fritz]

You haven't used the word "Criminal" in a while! Or maybe you were misquoted.

Barrett,

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.

Your second sentence shoule be deconstructed for validity. In case you've not noted already, the "ticker" counts every hit that anyone makes, even if it is one of us referring back to the MFR thread for a link or a laugh. (I just added 3 hits to your "proof" count, Barrett.) I wonder if Bernard can tease out that data. But, maybe you will find that spark that thus far has been lacking in inspiring your students. Maybe the mention of Myofascial Release WILL get them to follow you and your PowerPoint link to this thread. If they start to listen now, after so many years of wondering why no one responds to you online, one must wonder as to the motivation.

At its root, Barnes’ theory is this: Fascial restrictions cause pain – fascial restrictions result from trauma – trauma includes an emotive response – fascia “traps,” contains and holds within it the memory of that emotion along with the memory of the trauma itself. In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.”

Is this Barrett's interpretation or a quote? I've never heard, nor do I think that I've read, that John claims that 'In order to completely resolve the fascial restriction responsible for the pain the memory of the trauma and the expression of the emotion related to it must be expressed by the patient, felt fully and, often, repeatedly. This is called a “release.” ' Have you...oh, no, of course I know you never heard him say this, I almost forgot. Many patients seem to need to release at this deeper level, but many, many do not, and resolve at a structural level. I'm sure that you've been working on your concise synopsis of MFR for many years, but it needs some work.

You seem to enjoy hearing yourself speak and reading the deep words that you write. I've read many of your pieces where you bemoan the fact that your students are so ill-informed and ill-read. Keep checking that dictionary for more words to describe us. Pull in themes, and memes, to belittle us. Your fan club will give you another high-five. For the time being, I'll just wait for your throngs of students to comment.

Walt

[Barrett Dorko]

"Deep words"? What is that supposed to mean?

[Barrett Dorko]

Guess I wasn't done and since I "enjoy hearing myself speak" so much, I think I'll add this.

I suppose I should thank Walt for confirming the definition of a "release" for "many" of Barnes' (and his) patients, including its tautological and irrational basis in theory. I was pretty sure I had it right since I've read it and heard it for twenty years. You weren't at the IFOMT meeting in '92 were you Walt?

No need to try and alienate my students, I can manage that quite well myself.

[Jon Newman]

I'd like to add a couple of thoughts.

Apathy is common in many professions and Barrett's pointing out that it exists in ours (at a suboptimal level) is neither belittling or unique. I see this problem being announced on many discussion forums. In fact Barnes does it himself when he states that traditional therapy is "antiquated", "obsolete" and "inadequate". What's up with that? Attempting to reprimand Barrett for this is not only hypocritical, it is like scolding the boy pointing out that the emperor has no clothes.

Walt, your "no its not" defense in response to Barrett is lacking in any clarification of how that synopsis is wrong. It seemed consistent with our our discussion (in the MFR thread) of what a release is. Where did you learn that? Were you wrong? Tell me more about the following:

Many patients seem to need to release at this deeper level, but many, many do not, and resolve at a structural level.

It sounds like some mind-body split you're creating and you're throwing this word "release" around like we all get it. If we've misunderstood your words to describe "release", explain to us how we are misunderstanding the term.

[Tim]

Newcomer

I've read through the thread tonight, and I guess I'm one of the newcomers being requested to come on this blog. I went to Barrett's seminar 8 days ago and found it to be most refreshing. I was pleased with the well-researched evidence based information supplied. Having a heavy background in myofascial release and craniosacral therapy, I was ready for the teacher to arrive; and I am grateful it was Barrett.

I was ecstatic at what I learned and the skills I developed at my first seminar with John Barnes in 1986, and I began seeing progress with my patients the week after the seminar that I had never seen before. Some of my case histories are recorded in John's first book on MFR (in the chapter on case histories). I have seen wonderful improvements in my patients through the use of craniosacral therapy and somatoemotional release, as well.

After leaving Barrett's seminar and beginning the next day to use the knowledge I found there, I can say that I have had another "quantum leap" in my manual skills and ability to influence change in patients in which I felt I had previously reached roadblock. I look forward to continuing to hone these new-found skills.

I am grateful for what I have learned from a number of "mentors" through the years. I learned a lot from John, and I find that I have rejected much of his teaching as well. I shall now see how much of Barrett's thinking I will assimilate. One thing for sure, Barrett is much more scientifically founded, and that is appealing to me. I agree with the direction the APTA is taking us in evidence based research. My hat goes off to the great late Jules Rothstein, one of our profession's great scientific thinkers. At this point in my early acquaintance with Barrett Dorko, my hat goes off to you too. Thanks!
:thumbs_up :angel:
I'll try to get back on here once in a while. Tim

[EricM]

Welcome Tim,
I'm concerned about this sentence, "I shall now see how much of Barrett's thinking I will assimilate." Please remember that it is not nearly so much Barrett's thinking that is important here, rather it is the science that is worth thinking about. Barrett, with all due respect to his ability to think, has just made that science accessible.
Hope to hear more from you.

Eric

[Barrett Dorko]

Tim,

Eric's right. It isn't my thinking, such as it is, that is the issue here. It's physical law, biologic plausibility and the constraints of physical therapy practice that need to be examined when comparing my work to Barnes'.

It's been a couple of days since Walt was asked exactly how I was wrong in my description of Barnes' theory and (again) he's said nothing. When he does say something it would be nice if it were actually a response to the question but maybe I should stop waiting for that. I'm not getting any younger.

Tim, you have a unique opportunity here to set us straight. No one else reading this has ever been as tightly bound to Barnes' work (attendance to MFR III, photo required) and at the same time been so recently cognizant of the manner in which I teach and what I say. I remember you well and was impressed with your willingness to ask and answer questions. As I mentioned in the latest edition of "The News from Cuyahoga Falls," we seem to be genetically inclined to both hide and deflect attention. Most of us anyway. I think there's too much of that in therapy, and you might have noticed that you are the only Eugene attendee that's posted a thing. According to Walt this is somehow my fault. Any thoughts on that?

But our profession has never advanced without those willing to speak, right or wrong. This conversation isn't over. Perhaps it never will be as long as those who have seen what Barnes' MFR is personally, moved from it and moved on aren't willing to offer their perspective. In Walt, Dave, Scott and Pia we have true believers only. We need more if we are to fulfill the scientific vision physical therapy was created to provide.

We need you.

[Christopher Squires]

Hello everyone. I have been catching up on this, as you say, runaway thread. It has been illuminating to say the least. It is a tale of human nature. On the one side, the illogical, right-brained, esoteric belief system...and on the other, the proof-seeking, left-brained hard science. It sounds like the practical applications are similar, but they sit atop different thought structures and that makes quite a difference. How intriguing! By the way, I am a simple LCMT, and sit squarely in the middle of this issue.

For the scientists, one has to wonder what makes all human activity tick if not belief system. Beliefs guide us, bind us to each other, and drive our decisions in life. Chinese medicine is based upon "pseudoscience", 4000 years old, based on nothing but trial and error, and it works. The belief system of TCM is integral to its application. Of course science wants to dice it up with an intellectual scalpel and take the parts it thinks works. But until science steps into the shoes of the TCM doc, it will never truly understand. I think there are some md's that have, in fact, done just this, and I would venture a guess that they adhere to science with a bit less "white knuckles" afterward. Science itself is, in fact, a belief system. It is my experience that conventional science changes it's mind constantly about what is fact and what is not. But a scientist is what you are and that makes you you. I'm glad for scientists, because I think it does further human understanding and new options.

For the Barnes MFR'ers...what would be so wrong with considering what these people are saying? I am glad they have opened up a whole dialogue about the science of tissue plasticity. Wow! What great and useful information. It has many implications. If you cannot provide scientific citations and answers to their many questions, why not just say so. This conversation would have ended a while ago and you'd have had a lot less stress in your life. Just admit that you're not a scientist and be okay with it. I do. You guys used to be scientists, but not any more, and that's okay. It's what makes you you. My not being super-scientific doesn't negate my part in the world nor the work that I do. It just means I have a different flavor to my purpose. But I think it's imperative to keep up on new scientific thinking pertaining to my area of study. Not only because it allows me to dialogue with others, but also because it deepens my understanding.

But in reality, the disparate concepts of scientist vs pseudoscientist are just more belief system and exist only in the minds of humans. It is unavoidable. As the Zen masters say, open your mouth and you are already wrong. Springtime comes and the grass grows all by itself, no scientific undertanding necessary.

When I was a child, I used to wonder why they didn't gather up all the smart people in one room from all the countries of the world, and hammer out some solutions and new projects. Why doesn't someone set up a free clinic for a week or two, put together some mainstream PT's and some Barnes PT's and work together for the sake of mutual understanding? I know that wouldn't resolve your ideological issues, but it would allow some experiential understanding. Cheers.
-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Chris,

Welcome to the board. I disagree with about 90% of what you've just said. This is just a conservative estimate.

Traditional Chinese Medicine doesn't "work" and has been abandoned every time an effective scientifically tested and sensible option has become available. Would you like a whole bunch of references on that?

I presume I am one of those " proof-seeking, left-brained hard science" people to which you prefer and I must reject this characterization. I seek sense, not proof, and modern neuroscience long ago recognized that this "left brain-right brain" manner of understanding and expertise has no basis in reality. It's become a stereotype (never a good idea) and, ultimately, a pejorative term. Calling all massage therapists "right brained" would be similar. It is equally inaccurate and unfair.

My favorite part of your post is this: "Science itself is, in fact, a belief system. It is my experience that conventional science changes it's mind constantly about what is fact and what is not. But a scientist is what you are and that makes you you. I'm glad for scientists, because I think it does further human understanding and new options."

Such a statement certainly confirms your claim not to be a scientist because it redefines the very nature of The Enlightenment, something not uncommon in the "alternative" community. There's just too much here to address (once again) but let me say that I for one am grateful that you are "glad" for me.

Again, welcome.

[Christopher Squires]

Mr. Dorko,
Thank you for your welcome. I have appreciated everyone's posts on this thread.

While I appreciate the offer, I do not require scientific citations that demonstrate that TCM works sometimes. Can you say that mainstream medicine works all the time? I presume you do not need references to illustrate the fact that it does not.

The point I was trying to make is that any healing modality is directly dependent upon it's belief system. If you disagree with this statement, then there's not much point in continuing.

Your presumption that I am referring to you in particular being, well...anything, is your presumption. Generalization is often necessary for discussion. The only thing I can assume about you is that you are highly intellectual, educated, and blunt. All fine qualities. Would you disagree that "scientists" base their beliefs on research data? Clearly, no one is right-brained or left-brained. Otherwise they couldn't function. Yin and yang, indivisible balancing components. I believe that the scientific community has a tendency to be myopic, quickly discarding the forest in favor of the trees. This may be an effect of specialization due to the astronomical amount of knowledge involved. It would also appear that alternative modalities are quick to disregard the discoveries of science. I don't have empirical data to support this feeling, it is based on my own experience, something I will always hold higher than knowledge.

I'm not a historian, so I cannot comment on what is or is not the nature of "The Enlightenment."

You say you want 'sense', not proof. Would you please define "sense" for us please? Because I'm sure the mfr'ers believe their approach makes sense to them. It seems you want proof to base your sense on. Is this incorrect? Even if it is, there is no fault in that. Everyone does this. Obviously, it is easier to achieve one's goals if there is some sense of predictability to things. But, why would you want everyone to see things the way you see them? Can you imagine how stifling and boring that would be? We'd all have nothing to do but sit around and agree with each other. How fun?!

What about love? What about God? What about infinity? Are you able to make sense of the reality these words point to? These are rhetorical questions, and I know I'm going off-topic, so I digress. Cheers.
-Chris

[Barrett Dorko]

Chris, You say: "The point I was trying to make is that any healing modality is directly dependent upon it's [sic] belief system. If you disagree with this statement, then there's not much point in continuing."

Of course I disagree, but thanks; this is going to save me a lot of time.