Energy Medicine

[Diane]

Why isn't there any neurophysiological explanation or neurodynamic explanation also provided as support for this form of active movement? Why are the belief memes sandwiched or shoe-horned in there along with the descriptions of the exercises? I thought we were suposed to be physical therapists. Not belief system mongers.

[bernard]

I think there are three major questions to ask of an energy medicine proponent as it pertains to their specific energy of interest:

1.) Can you detect the energy?
2.) Can you discern the energy?
3.) Can you predictably manipulate the energy?

You have to reply to these questions prior yours!

1. Is there energy?
2. Where is it located?
3. How long is its range of action?

[Jon Newman]

In the absence (and maybe even in the presence of) a decent theory there is a pragmatism for constructs but consideration of possible harm should be taken into account in determining a particular construct's usefulness over alternative constructs.

[bernard]

1/ Is there energy?
Yes, energy rules Universe. Each atom is/has a "potential force".
Here is simple aspect of the complexity =>
http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/Hbase/enecon.html

[bobmfrptx]

Energy is. I believe not understand that the changes I get in my clients comes from within them. I do seem to remember some early studies where the Healing Energy which was being espoused by Reiki was measured. I will try to find it. It was from the 80's. I do believe there are things going on which I am unaware of so I choose not to deny things I truly can't prove as false. But I really do like this Soma Simple forum. So many educated brilliant minds with much to offer.
thanks for the opportunity to share.

[ian s]

http://awakeningtoenlightenment.type...aling-tou.html

This might be a way of discussing 'energy' . The Blakeslees understanding and transmission of knowledge is perhaps the biggest breakthrough for communication between alternative and mainstream practices (if people are open to talking and changing their mind that is)

[Luke Rickards]

Thanks for that one Ian. There's so much great stuff in the Blakelslee's book. I've just started my second read.

[Diane]

This review of Oschman's book on "Energy Medicine" is found on Paul Lee's (a PT) site, Quackbusters. Here are a few excerpts of Harriet Hall's review of Oschman's thinking on "energy medicine":

Oschman suggests that further experiments should be done to find out how this force affects healing; he doesn't suggest that the original experiments should be repeated to confirm whether the force really exists: "If the phenomenon is as robust and repeatable as it seems," this discovery will go down in history. At the same time, he admits the finding is "tenuous in that it has not been widely replicated." Well, which is it? If it's tenuous, it can't very well be robust. "Unbelievable" might be a better word.

Here is another excerpt re: invoking "quantum theory" for everything to do with "healing":

Quantum Theory Strikes Again
Pseudoscience and new age philosophies frequently invoke quantum theory out of context. Oschman's book is no exception. If there is a God of Quantum Physics, he ought to smite those who take his name in vain. Physicists such as Victor Stenger [11] assure us that quantum theory does not apply to large objects or to human consciousness. But quantum theory says strange things can happen, so it provides a convenient excuse for believing ideas that don't make sense to science. For example, Oschman borrows the concept of scalar potentials from quantum theory-the idea that when two waves cancel each other out, residual information is still available. He then argues that physics allows for spooky action at a distance and instantaneous propagation of scalar waves (not bound by the limit of light velocity), proposes that this has biological effects, and claims the only way to study this is to observe electromagnetically sensitive individuals. He discusses microgenesis, "a unified theory that brings together language, perception, learning, action (movement), feeling, time awareness, and the nature of the self." This isn't recognized by neuroscientists "because it is based on a wealth of clinical detail that few are familiar with," but it has something to do with quantum units of consciousness with a bottom-up unfoldment, and storage of traumatic patterns that can be released in a lifechanging instant of clarity. Yeah, right.

Blue color my addition.
One more:

He claims that there is a growing body of evidence for energy healing, but that even carefully controlled studies have been dismissed, simply because science does not recognize their rationale. This is not true; the positive evidence is of poor quality and is outweighed by the negative evidence that this book consistently refuses to acknowledge.

Science is not a matter of cherry picking whatever supports your hypothesis. Rather it is a self correcting methodology where all the evidence is considered and critiqued, and competing hypothesis are tested. This book masquerades as science, but it amounts to little more than speculation and polemic in support of a preconceived belief...energy medicine believers now have a book whose very title may lead them to think there is "proof" that their experiences have a scientific basis. Many scientifically naïve readers will be convinced. Critical thinkers will not.

[BB]

I make no attempt to change an energy as a metaphor explanatory model of my patients, so long as I'm comfortable that it is a metaphor. Actually, I believe Ian and I (and others) had a discussion about this recently.

Bob's link gives an explanation for the energy aspect of Qi Gong that I was looking for.

3,000 years ago, the ancient Qigong masters in China were practicing their meditative discipline to balance and invigorate the human energy field. They called this vital energy that pervades all forms, both animate and inanimate, Qi The Qi is the vital energy of the body; while gong means the skill of moving this Qi and working with it.

This is similar to the energy aspects I've heard for this particular example in the past. For it to even be considered there needs to be a description of what the "human energy field or vital energy" is. Also, my understanding is that this energy is to be measured, affected through meridians, channels of "flow" of the energy fields through the body. Any arguments with this summary?

From Ian's link by Blakeslee:

Unfortunately, science has never been able to show that energetic biofields exist.

Of course, Oschman does not agree with this. But, here is what Harriet Hall says about how he supports this in his book in the link Diane provided:

-Generation of magnetic fields that strong would imply strong loop currents that would probably be enough to vaporize tissue. [3]

-They were not able to measure any current whatsoever, which would seem to indicate that the electromagnetic field was not really present.

-There is no evidence that Qi exists at all.

-It's far more likely that inadequate controls or measurement errors caused these 3/37 positive results in three of the 37 subjects.

-The experiment was done in 1992 and has never been replicated.

Bob said:

I do believe there are things going on which I am unaware of so I choose not to deny things I truly can't prove as false.

Try proving that unicorns don't exist. This is the point I believe Jon recently tried to make between construct and theory. Theory remains supported or not, while construct remains believed in or not. The theory of unicorns is not supported even if we can't prove they don't exist.

Ian's link provides a much more plausible theory as to the effects of work commonly attributed to energy. Occam would definately have his razor in use on this one.

[bernard]

The modern concept of energy medicine bore about 1791 with the famous opposition between Volta and Galvani.

If the primer "killed" the theory of the second, history and medicine retained the second. Why? The myth of an electric body pleased our industrial sens of progress and opened a way to rule Nature.

On publication of Galvani's work, a more physical thread of investigation was re-instituted by Alessandro Volta (1745-1827) of Pavia. Volta's interest in electricity had led him to develop delicate and highly sensitive electrometers (electroscopes provided with a scale for measuring deflection of the movable element). With these instruments, he failed to find any electric charge stored in the animal tissues and ascertained that the muscular contractions depended entirely on the presence of a bimetallic junction (direct contact between two different metals) connected externally by the frog's leg or body.

Of course, we are, now, able to measure potential differences that "exist" between the two side of a cell. Perhaps we do not understand the meaning of potential.

[Diane]

Bob said:

Quote:
I do believe there are things going on which I am unaware of so I choose not to deny things I truly can't prove as false.

Try proving that unicorns don't exist. This is the point I believe Jon recently tried to make between construct and theory. Theory remains supported or not, while construct remains believed in or not. The theory of unicorns is not supported even if we can't prove they don't exist.

This excerpt from Cory's post cuts to the heart of the matter. Every PT who insists on holding the door open for something that is antiscientific or pseudoscientific puts the whole profession into jeopardy, turns it into something that more resembles chiropractic than what physio/physical therapy could be if it would ever grow up. Think about that. Take a stand.

[Diane]

From the link:

1. Pseudoscience

Pseudoscience may be defined as an alleged body of knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is claimed to be scientific or made to appear scientific but does not adhere to the scientific method,[2][3][4] lacks supporting evidence or plausibility,[5] or otherwise lacks scientific status

pseudoscience is any subject that appears superficially to be scientific or whose proponents state is scientific but nevertheless contravenes the testability requirement, or substantially deviates from other fundamental aspects of the scientific method

2. Antiscience

Antiscience is a position critical of science and the scientific method. Antiscientific views generally claim that science is non-objective method generating non-universal knowledge, and that scientific reductionism is flawed. Antiscience criticises the perceived power and influence of science, and objects to what proponents perceive as an arrogant or closed-minded attitude amongst scientists.

Or non-holistic?

Sounds like "Energy Medicine" to me, based on Harriet Hall's deconstruction of that book by Oschman:

quantum theory says strange things can happen, so it provides a convenient excuse for believing ideas that don't make sense to science.

..and all the other thoroughly a-scientific theories carefully gathered, dusted off, and showcased by Oschman at every conference he's ever invited to, every piece of c**p he writes.

I do NOT understand WHY this individual continues to be invited to speak at conferences, such as the fascia conference Schleip helped organize. I do not understand why reputable people speaking alongside him do not confront him or question his logic, his ideas, his motivation. I do not understand why the manual therapy community tolerates him to the extent that it does. I do understand that Barnes et al base much of their so-called teaching on his lunacy.

It makes me nauseous to think that this.. stuff.. is being taught at a university level by Davis, with no challenge by the authorities there. One is obliged to assume that the term "academic rigor" is a foreign concept in Miami - perhaps the term "scientific rigor" is likewise unheard of.

[bernard]

We could explore the concept of energy a bit further.
All alternative points of views take the cell as origin of this energy.

Physicists insist in the fact that energy "flows" in any direction. As I said, it is governed and verified by the Gauss Law.

Here is a little drawing that shows the flux but...

[Diane]

Bernard, maybe an exploration of cell as origin of energy should be a separate thread?

(I think this one is to deconstruct energy medicine, or the idea that "energy" can be passed from one person to another...)

[bernard]

Diane,

It is exactly the same. My simple explanation will bring definite contradictions to the energy medicine concept.
Remember that Oschmann takes the same origin.

If we want to pass energy from a body to another, you need at least a cell. Unfortunately a cell doesn't emit large EF (electric field) and never constant ones. And a major problem raises with the direction of the emission...