Myofascial Release; The Great Conversation

[nari]

Scott

You mention bias

,"which is unscientific"

; I wonder about the bias shown by your group/s who insist on ignoring basic science. Sounds very unscientific.
You are also very angry, and that is unfortunate as it suggests you are on shaky ground with respect to your own beliefs and opinions.
Blogs are blogs - anyone can do what they wish with them - anyone placing material in a blog leaves it wide open for anyone to do what he/she wishes.
No crime there. Public material.

I think we can capably decide whether we are being manipulated or not...thanks all the same.

Threats on a forum such as this one don't go down very well, either. I'm surprised you are so keen to save a reputation which, in your own words, is

a tanker.

Rowing boats don't usually damage tankers much.

Nari

[Jon Newman]

Scott, your post was intriguing as it pertains to interpretation of the writing and/or comments of others. For example, you state

Having articles on your website such as "Not in Kansas Anymore", "No More Mr Nice Guy" etc are not only very poor taste for a PT professional/writer/educator but possibly a violation of ethics.

You say "possibly" indicating there is doubt in your mind that this actually constitutes an ethical violation which I think is astute on your part. Barrett does not call Barnes names like "small minded" or "petty" but he does go about demonstrating how the theories propagated by Barnes are bereft of scientific accuracy. This would actually be consistent with the code of ethics you cited--ethics principle 1.1B--A PT shall be guided by concern for physical, psychological and socioeconomic welfare of all patients / clients.

In fact you state

obviously it would be helpful for the scientific side of healthcare to help us better understand the mechanism of why MFR works

Aren't those essays the starting line for this process? E.E. Cummings may be right when he says "To destroy is the first step in any creation". The catch is that it is not John Barnes that is being destroyed. It is the mistaken explanations that he offers and which others ultimately cling to. It will be his (and your) choice to go down with that tanker or climb aboard the row boat. There's room and you're welcome; just watch out for the whirlpool.

[bernard]

Scott,

I'm simply frightened by your menaces.
I'm the admin and you accepted the rules of the board while registering.
If you aren't happy with my affirmations, no problem! Just bring some facts or papers that show the contrary.

Remember this when picking out patients like poor Dottie..... whom I still assume ... since Dorko avoided answering, that no-one got her permission to post her blog and critique it on your forum SomaSimple?

There isn't copyright about the material and "Dottie" is not sufficient to break the privacy you claimed.

We are waiting for some simple responses, to simple questions since... the begining of the thread. The only thing I heard continuously from Barnesians is Barrett here, Barrett the evil, Barrett vs APTA. I becomes jealous. :thumbs_do

So I said that theory behind John Barnes MFR was a bullshit and pseudo-scientific. :mg:

Does that mean you do not contest the pseudo-scientific part? I say this because you are "insulted" about "bullshit" but not about the latter.

So here is my logical statement and you'll have to bring a logical and only scientific response. If you don't, I will, personally moderate your replies with a visible bold lining of all "out off context" phrases.

• MRF helped my patient (fact)
• Communication within myofascial tissue is higher than light speed (theory)

Link the two with detailed facts/explanations, please! and good luck!

[Barrett Dorko]

Scott,

Glad you're back. I think you represent Barnes' work and community in a way I never could. Maybe one of your MFR colleagues can be found to offer an opinion on what you've said.

You aren't done, are you?

[bernard]

Scott,

Here is the public profile of Dottie and all her public informations => Nothing

You lose!

[Barrett Dorko]

Scott,

One more thing. This thing about talking to lawyers for the APTA; I'm not supposed to actually believe you am I? If this is true I'll be very pleased to see that Barnes' practice and advertising are finally getting the attention from the authorities they deserve.

I really hope this isn't just talk on your part. Any idea what Barnes thinks of all this attention?

You should also be alerted to the fact that Barnes' work, especially his brochure design,are now being discussed by the readers over at RehabEdge.com The word "creepy" has shown up twice already. Not by me by the way.

Surely this merits another call to the lawyers.

[bernard]

Scott,

I could cite, too, the HON codes principles =>

4.Attribution

Where appropriate, information contained on this site will be supported by clear references to source data and, where possible, have specific HTML links to that data. The date when a clinical page was last modified will be clearly displayed (e.g. at the bottom of the page). SomaSimple try to put clear references about citations and papers. It tries also to provide direct links to PubMed and medical journals.
Principle 4 guidelines

5.Justifiability

Any claims relating to the benefits/performance of a specific treatment, commercial product or service will be supported by appropriate, balanced evidence in the manner outlined above in Principle 4.
Principle 5 guidelines

Because, I try to maintain this kind of behaviour, I ask members (you and Barnesians) to fulfill these rules.

[Bas Asselbergs]

Scott - you really need to brush up on various areas: scientific discourse, ethics and law for instance. In the first, you have shown to have very little grasp of the difference between science and pseudo-science. In the second, MFR needs to be much more worried about ethics (as per the APTA) than anyone here - check the claims made in the flyers (that even I get here). In the third, well, let me say that anyone putting out a blog on the web is OBVIOUSLY making it public domain - Dottie put it out there.....Do you really think that there is ANY legal recourse against someone talking about it?
Wait, I should say: do you really think? and leave it at that.
And Bernard - thank you!

[Diane]

Here is a link to a site about logical fallacies, just one of thousands and thousands. There's a nice list on the left. I was able to spot several that have been used by the MFR supporters in this thread; "Appeal to popularity" for example... how many times has Walt used the "50,000 satisfied customers can't be wrong" argument on this thread, to support his contention that MFR theory is flawless? He has repeatedly mentioned his disapproval of Barrett's efforts to bring up the topic of flawed MFR theory in the first place, which is "Ad Homenim." Surely anyone has the right to critique whatever theory they want, and let the theory stand or fall on its own. The objection to a close examination of Dottie's blog, which is in public domain, is "Red Herring" IMO. Check the list and see how many fit this thread. It looks like if the science is poor/nonexistent, then fallacious arguments are all you've got.

[Nick]

"Hey, this setting is so comforting, aches and pains almost disappear before you get your Hanes off you, and therapists get their hands on you!"

from an article about Therapy on the Rocks in Sedona


Weird description of PT, don't you think? Aptly attributes much of the comfort to the setting. That cascading waterfall sounds very nice.

Nick

[nari]

Weird, but not suprising. If they felt better just being in the room, how come they hung around to be 'handled'??? Probably no need for all that wrenching and digging...


Nari

[Walt Fritz]

I feel like a Bird, SJ that is.

Hello All,

Well, it seems that I was blocked from this site! I had to log off and re-register under a different name. Barrett, have you been up to your old tricks again? (For those of you not familiar with what I am referring to, Barrett got in a bit of hot water when he apparently deleted a few posts of someone who was challenging his beliefs on RehabEdge). So, for those of you in charge, wouldn't Bernard's posting of an obscene word, not once but twice, qualify for such a treatment? I would refer Bernard to the Forum Rules, below: Oh, I forgot, he is the admin! Above the rules, Bernard?

Forum Rules

Registration to this forum is free! We do insist that you abide by the rules and policies detailed below. If you agree to the terms, please check the 'I agree' checkbox and press the 'Register' button below. If you would like to cancel the registration, click here to return to the forums index.

Although the administrators and moderators of SomaSimple Forums will attempt to keep all objectionable messages off this forum, it is impossible for us to review all messages. All messages express the views of the author, and neither the owners of SomaSimple Forums, nor Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd. (developers of vBulletin) will be held responsible for the content of any message.

By agreeing to these rules, you warrant that you will not post any messages that are obscene, vulgar, sexually-oriented, hateful, threatening, or otherwise violative of any laws.

The owners of SomaSimple Forums reserve the right to remove, edit, move or close any thread for any reason.

Seems a bit hypocritical.

Barrett, I'm so glad you've been able to hone your lecture down so that participants are able to get out 2 hours earlier. Now my admiration for you is even greater; an entire treatment paradigm in, what, 5 hours? Amazing!

A few days off from this site has given me some reflection time. The only difference between science and pseudo-science is in the minds of those who need to distinguish between the two, or more likely, who fear ideas that seem to move beyond their own. You've made it abundantly clear that you will never accept the theory of MFR, whether it is the structural fundamentals or the more esoteric nature of the work. This is fine with me. And, it seems to be fine with MFR practitioners. It is not because we have been brainwashed or are uneducated. Some folks are apparently wired differently; some need validation of all that they see, do, and say, even if the proof is taken from sources that they agree with and validate thier beliefs. Disrespecting a researcher only shows close-mindedness, on either of our parts. If I search hard enough, I will be able to find a contrary citation to any research any of you have cited, just as you've done to mine. I do not intend to do this, as there is no point in it. Other folks trust more what they have experienced, balanced with what they read and learn. Again, we receive our information from sources that validate what we want. There is a lot I admire from the folks on this site, I'm working my way through much of the literature, just as Scott is.

This thread is growing tiresome. It is not due to defeat, because as you've seen already, all of us are strong in our beliefs. It is not due to victory, as none of us will ever win this argument. So, Barrett, was this as fun as you ever imagined? I'm sure you are actually spending a bit more than the one minute bashing John Barnes in your mini-seminar...you seem to enjoy hearing yourself talk to stop in such a short period of time. My feeling is that you will be maore careful about what you say publically about John and the rest of us practitioners, trying to find the line between saying something within the realm of criticism and crossing the line as you've done so frequently in the past. Though, one never knows! I doubt that you are quaking in your boots knowing that some of us are aware of what you've said. But possibly, now that some of your own followers (and the vast number of your future fans) know how you treat another physical therapist and professional, you may think twice.

Walt

[Nick]

"Some folks are apparently wired differently" - Walt

Yup...some people have a nervous system that controls everything; others a fascial system that has evolved to communicate much more quickly. Some people are moved by muscles; others by fascial elongation. Some people store memories in their neural circuits; others in the fascinating ground substance known as, you guessed it, fascia.

Some have B.S. detectors and use science and logic as guideposts. In some others, these seem to be sorely lacking.

Maybe there are two kinds of people. Those who would follow John Barnes. And those who think HIS IDEAS are insane. I'm guessing he's just wired differently.

Nick

[Barrett Dorko]

As I've said, this thread has reduced significantly the amount of time I have to spend answering questions about what Barnes teaches, not that I ever said much anyway.

Now you've gone from complaining that I say anything "negative" to complaining about how much time I spend on this criticism to sarcastic comments about how little I could possibly be teaching in just a few hours anyway to how much I obviously love to hear myself talk to some speculation about the way I probably don't feel but might change anyway because, uh... okay, I'm lost.

Congrats Wal. I've been writing every day for a long time but I've never figured out how to pack that much into a single paragraph.

Actually, I think the paragraph before that one should be bronzed somewhere.

[Walt Fritz]

Barrett,
Mutual admiration, huh?
Walt