Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

New Here... aren't most people who post in this section? :)

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • HeadStrongPT
    replied
    I think I've heard this one before...

    Curious. As someone who has had my share of horn-locking with my fellow members here (including many moderators), let me encourage you to take your time here. No need to rush in headlong.

    I might also suggest spelling words like "masturbation" correctly here. It's like hanging a fat curve over the middle of the plate.

    Welcome to SS.

    Last edited by HeadStrongPT; 28-08-2012, 04:10 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Diane
    replied
    I had hoped this would be a place for critical thinking and interesting discussion. Not a place for mental masterbation.
    Not sure what you meant by this, but whatever it means, it's spelled wrong.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious One
    replied
    Originally posted by zimney3pt View Post
    We do put our energy toward looking at ideas about therapy and questioning them here (the person and the ideas that person brings are separate), thus putting the ideas on the hot seat not the person. The idea is looked at to see if it can stand the rigors of scientific questioning to help determine value going forward. If you prefer not to be the person defending an idea, then no need to reply to any questions and enjoy reading what is here.
    Thanks for your response. It's amazing how a post can come across when written on the "short".

    The feel of this post is much more open ended than your first and I appreciate it.
    Last edited by Curious One; 28-08-2012, 04:06 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious One
    replied
    Originally posted by Randy Dixon View Post
    CO: To be honest, I am feeling a little like someone is looking to find something I am at fault at with the hope to jump in and give me a big kick or criticize, just for your own personal fun.


    RD: Yes, that is exactly what is going on. That doesn't mean that the questions asked of you are personal or not relevant though. There is a lot to learn here, you just have to get past the unwelcoming atmosphere to get to it. The way you practice is regularly criticized here, this is what is driving the reception. I don't think it is fair to you, who is brand new and isn't familiar with the criticisms leveled, but that is the way it is. I suggest you let it be like water off a duck's back, hang around and look around and respond to what you want to and ignore the rest. I think you can enjoy your stay. I hope you do.
    Ahhh... thanks. I always love having to go through an unwelcoming atmosphere to find something beneficial. :clap2:

    I expected more from a forum of such well-educated professionals.


    Originally posted by joebrence9 View Post
    Not picking on you C. Again, this is about ideas---not you. I am going to lay this out there...and it has nothing to do with you as a person. Only the methods in which you practice.

    Chiropractic was ...
    Reflexology is ...
    I am a Physical Therapist. My profession has many faults as well. And I criticize this. You can read more on my blog: www.forwardthinkingpt.com . I performed garbage interventions. I no longer do. Because I thought, asked questions and learned.

    Joining this forum is the first step to becoming a better clinician. We discuss ideas, methods and look at things from a scientifically-plausable model of explanation. We often defer thinking to Occam's razor. I don't always agree with individuals on this site who are prominant users of the site. But I question their ideas. I don't criticize.

    Again, welcome to this forum. I suspect if you stay, much of what you do will be questioned. But I also suspect you will become a much, much better-thinking clinician.
    Noooooo... you're not picking on me... it's cleverly disguised in the way you are kindly questioning why I chose alternative care as my healing profession.

    There's certainly nothing wrong with that. Surely that's exactly how you approach other health care practitioners you meet on a daily basis. Why would you be interested in creating bridges? :/

    I find it interesting that you immediately question the "methods in which I practice" because I am a DC and listed Reflexology as another portion of my practice. I am not a nut-job, I do not prey on people and I do help patients and clients to effectively heal.

    Yes, there are DC's who are poor representations of the profession... but, that does not mean that all DC's are shysters.

    I assumed you were just asking they physiology question to gain some insight. I did not realize it was to test me; I'll leave it to you to do your own research if you are really all that interested in studies regarding the physiological effects of reflexology. Or, maybe you could create your own research studies in that area.

    To say that you "suspect that" I "will become a much, much better-thinking clinician", because I came to your forums, suggest you already think my clinical skills are without merit. What's that all about?

    I had hoped this would be a place for critical thinking and interesting discussion. Not a place for mental masturbation.

    And, to whoever was trying to give me "charity" - Were you giving me help... or mercy? Should I say thanks?

    I'm not here to be tested. I am here to see what you have to offer, and what I may have to offer in return.

    I'll do a little more reading, but I doubt I will dive much further into conversation... unless I find more affable members.
    Last edited by Curious One; 28-08-2012, 04:08 AM. Reason: typo...

    Leave a comment:


  • zimney3pt
    replied
    Curious, I just asked the question to understand your clinical practice and ideas better, no need to feel personally in the hot seat, especially if you prefer not to defend your clinical practice ideas to others. It is not meant to waist my or your energy.

    We do put our energy toward looking at ideas about therapy and questioning them here (the person and the ideas that person brings are separate), thus putting the ideas on the hot seat not the person. The idea is looked at to see if it can stand the rigors of scientific questioning to help determine value going forward. If you prefer not to be the person defending an idea, then no need to reply to any questions and enjoy reading what is here.

    I would agree with you that sound clinical decision making that is grounded in science based medicine should always, not just many times, direct our path when giving care to others. Especially in such a vulnerable area as another's health. I guess I'm not sure why you would see that clinical decision making is not apart of evidence based practice concept? Again no need to answer the question if you prefer not too.

    Leave a comment:


  • Walt Fritz
    replied
    If there is a need to confirm that Curious is in fact who she says she is, I can attest to knowing her and her real name. Welcome...Curious

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    Fun? This isn't fun.

    Way to go Randy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Randy Dixon
    replied
    [QUOTE=Curious One;137318]I guess if you need some kind of research, you can read pubmed for more info... but, on the quick, I located this for you. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...65229997800039

    To be honest, I am feeling a little like someone is looking to find something I am at fault at with the hope to jump in and give me a big kick or criticize, just for your own personal fun.

    Yes, that is exactly what is going on. That doesn't mean that the questions asked of you are personal or not relevant though. There is a lot to learn here, you just have to get past the unwelcoming atmosphere to get to it. The way you practice is regularly criticized here, this is what is driving the reception. I don't think it is fair to you, who is brand new and isn't familiar with the criticisms leveled, but that is the way it is. I suggest you let it be like water off a duck's back, hang around and look around and respond to what you want to and ignore the rest. I think you can enjoy your stay. I hope you do.

    Leave a comment:


  • John W
    replied
    When I stated that your clinical evolution appeared promising in its movement towards gentler techniques I was sincere. I also meant it when I stated that it lacked a strong science-base, which Joe Brence has now come right out and made clear.

    I was trying to be charitable. :angel:

    Leave a comment:


  • Guest's Avatar
    Guest replied
    Welcome to the forum Curious.

    I have been reading through this thread and it seems to gently tie in with Barrett's The Dog Stars thread.
    From Amazon and the book description: Risking everything, he flies past his point of no return—not enough fuel to get him home—following the trail of the static-broken voice on the radio. But what he encounters and what he must face—in the people he meets, and in himself—is both better and worse than anything he could have hoped for.
    This is a place where ideas beyond our comfort zone or horizon are examined. I hope you stay and take a look through some of the threads Jason Silvernail collected HERE to get oriented. In particular the Chestnut Challenge will give you the quickest insight into the reasons some of us are here.

    Karen Lines RMT
    Last edited by Karen L; 28-08-2012, 01:18 AM. Reason: grammar

    Leave a comment:


  • joebrence9
    replied
    But, it seems like many of you on this forum is really sharp and could pick apart any sentence, if for no other reason than the picking.

    I am not comfortable with being in the hot seat, just because you have nowhere else to assert your energy. :/
    Not picking on you C. Again, this is about ideas---not you. I am going to lay this out there...and it has nothing to do with you as a person. Only the methods in which you practice.

    Chiropractic was developed by a magnetic healer. It is a pseudoscience built around the idea of a subluxation, which your own profession can barely define. It preys on many individuals who are taught misinformation about postural theories which are supported by no evidence. It takes 2 dimensional x-rays to extract 3-dimension info. It constantly criticizes the medical community, which has loads of scientific evidence to support their practice.

    Reflexology is another pseudoscience. The study that you sent me had a n 20 (10 per interventional group). The significantly greater reductions in BRS were a mear difference in 4 participants. This study was published in 1997 and was severly poorly designed.

    I am a Physical Therapist. My profession has many faults as well. And I criticize this. You can read more on my blog: www.forwardthinkingpt.com . I performed garbage interventions. I no longer do. Because I thought, asked questions and learned.

    Joining this forum is the first step to becoming a better clinician. We discuss ideas, methods and look at things from a scientifically-plausable model of explanation. We often defer thinking to Occam's razor. I don't always agree with individuals on this site who are prominant users of the site. But I question their ideas. I don't criticize.

    Again, welcome to this forum. I suspect if you stay, much of what you do will be questioned. But I also suspect you will become a much, much better-thinking clinician.
    Last edited by joebrence9; 28-08-2012, 01:08 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Barrett Dorko
    replied
    You've been questioned, not criticized.

    Leave a comment:


  • Curious One
    replied
    Originally posted by joebrence9 View Post
    Welcome to the forum C,

    Please don't take anything personal. We are here to discuss and reform ideas. Not our personal lives (I do love the Steelers, my wife Kristen and my dog Ellie and noone can take that away). So when we criticize things, it will never be about you personally. It may feel like it but its not.

    So lets begin here:

    Can you give some insight on how reflexology works physiologically?
    I guess if you need some kind of research, you can read pubmed for more info... but, on the quick, I located this for you. http://www.sciencedirect.com/science...65229997800039

    To be honest, I am feeling a little like someone is looking to find something I am at fault at with the hope to jump in and give me a big kick or criticize, just for your own personal fun.

    You may not be trying to come across like that, but it is the definite message that is being sent out by questions about "not seeing a strong science-base to support your clinical evolution" and "So, lets begin here...".

    It could just be that you all have been around each other so long, you expect that everyone takes you with the same grain of salt, but as a newbie, it is a tad overstimulating.

    But then, maybe you don't like new blood and this is your way of encouraging people to leave... I'm not sure if this is the group for me or not, but I'll stick around a little longer to find out.



    Originally posted by zimney3pt View Post
    Welcome Curious. Enjoy the reading of past, current and future threads. I find it interesting that you state:


    Do you not think a science-base is needed to support treatments and outcomes of patients or is just getting outcomes enough?
    I think there is a time and a place for everything. Evidence based practice is a nice concept but many times clinical decision making skills determine what direction one will proceed. Yes, for me, there are times when getting an outcome *is* enough.

    But, that was not the question I was asked originally. For my particular clinical evolution, it was not the necessary factor in all of the licensing I chose to take.

    But, it seems like many of you on this forum is really sharp and could pick apart any sentence, if for no other reason than the picking.

    I am not comfortable with being in the hot seat, just because you have nowhere else to assert your energy. :/
    Last edited by Curious One; 27-08-2012, 10:56 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • zimney3pt
    replied
    Welcome Curious. Enjoy the reading of past, current and future threads. I find it interesting that you state:
    I did not need a strong science-base to support my clinical evolution,
    Do you not think a science-base is needed to support treatments and outcomes of patients or is just getting outcomes enough?

    Leave a comment:


  • joebrence9
    replied
    Welcome to the forum C,

    Please don't take anything personal. We are here to discuss and reform ideas. Not our personal lives (I do love the Steelers, my wife Kristen and my dog Ellie and noone can take that away). So when we criticize things, it will never be about you personally. It may feel like it but its not.

    So lets begin here:

    Can you give some insight on how reflexology works physiologically?

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X