massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Don't Throw Out Acupuncture Just Yet!!!
Research is proving that Acupuncture is Curing Chronic Sinus Congestion.
See details at http://www.healthcmi.com
And according to the World Health Organization (WHO), acupuncture is a safe and effective treatment for the following conditions:
- Lungs - Some bronchial asthmas.
- Ears, Nose, and Throat - Toothaches, pain after tooth extraction, ear aches, sinus inflammation, nasal inflammation or dryness.
- Eyes - Central retina and conjunctiva inflammation, nearsightedness (in children), and some cataracts.
- Stomach and Intestines - Digestive tract problems, hiccups, inflammation of the stomach, chronic duodenal ulcers, inflammation of the colon, constipation, diarrhea, dysentery caused by certain bacteria.
- Nerves - Headaches, migraines, some facial paralyses and nerve pain, post-stroke weakness, nerve ending inflammation, and sciatica.
- Muscles - Tennis elbow, frozen shoulder, lower back pain, osteoarthritis, knee pain, sprains and strains.
- Miscellaneous - Incontinence (including bed wetting) and many gynecological problems.
Views: 386
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Cohen on
-
Yes, I believe there will always be a blend which serves to make it an even more valuable practice.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Ravensara, I was not attacking anyone. If instructors writing these books, that we are passing info on about, are getting bad research from researchers, it sounds like they need help more than the therapists repeating the wrong info. But you can't control them, you can't control the therapists so really it's just conversation.
I heard you used to do massage in Washington.You live in England and are a researcher now. That's all I have heard. I'm not picking on anyone.
I will continue to post articles and if they don't pass your level of expectation of methodlogy or expertise, I'm sorry. I will not be okaying them through you. Are you the research police? Now I am picking.
If someone promotes something, that I believe works, has worked for me and I find interesting, I will continue to post it. I have said it before, acupuncture works... if you think not - "Prove it!" If you can't, I will continue. Thanks!
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
I heard you used to do massage in Washington.You live in England and are a researcher now. That's all I have heard. I'm not picking on anyone.
The last time you tried to exclude me on the MTAA thread, you said it was because you got the wrong information from my Facebook profile. I corrected you then.
Obviously, it didn't stay corrected. I am a practicing MT in 2 countries, whether or not you like that fact, and if you try to other me again, I will call you out on it again. It's inappropriate, and you've now been corrected publicly on the issue twice.
I will continue to post articles and if they don't pass your level of expectation of methodlogy or expertise, I'm sorry.
That's fine. If you continue to post rubbish, poor-quality articles and overstate their results, I will continue to critique them on their merits or lack thereof. That's how the process works.
I will not be okaying them through you.
I wouldn't expect you to.
Are you the research police?
No more and no less than anyone else who evaluates the quality of research and information. That's the beauty of evidence; it's the great leveler. If it were nothing more than dueling opinions, the one who shouts the loudest would win. Referring to actual, mind-independent evidence makes information accessible and empowering to anyone.
Actually, now that you mention it, Emmanuel's remark on the other thread about research "in the hands of the right people, of course" is the closest thing I've seen to anything like a concept of "research police". I've certainly never come across anything like it on the scientific side.
-
-
I did not know your were practicing in the UK. One place has you listed in Washington State and one had England, so I guess you are giving out wrong information as well. I guess your energy could be there.
I don't care how many places you practice in. You are saying there's a problem with what therapists are sharing. We only share what we are taught, so go to the source- researchers and teachers. For all this BAD research, I don't see yours or Christopher articles challenging their article or anyone challenging their work, under the article. If they are wrong... why not?
More coming soon!
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
For all this BAD research, I don't see yours or Christopher articles challenging their article or anyone challenging their work, under the article. If they are wrong... why not?
Ha. That's funny, since you have no familiarity with Raven's work or my own. That statement proves it, not that any additional proof was needed at this point.
-
-
Yeah, I understand - you talk the talk. You challenge behind the scenes with those you know are not familiar with the process, but lack the integrity to face your peers about the issue. You are right ... funny.
-
-
There's nothing happening behind the scenes. All of my work is posted publicly. If you're going to assert that my work (or anyone else's for that matter) does not back up what I say in this forum, then I'm going to call you on the fact that you haven't read any of it.
I can be blunt, sometimes rude, and even wrong, but lacking integrity and avoiding challenge from my peers is not something I get accused of from anyone but you and one or two other folks on this forum. Put the work in and back it up, if you can.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
Actually, you got a point there, Mike.
What should happen to the "so-called researchers" that are pumping out junk to back up a belief system?
The first thing that should happen is that everyone and their dog should be able to identify those researchers. But then, you're saying that you don't identify any researcher that "kinda shows that the modality I like works - to people who don't know a dang thing about how to read research" as bad researchers. So really how can we decide who *they* are?
People shouldn't think of that. The only thing that matters is what they produce. I can guarantee that any researcher worth their grant money will WELCOME scrutiny of their studies. I tried to get people to comment on one of Doc's papers ages ago, but couldn't get much interest going. I think that's because of the main problem of "WTF is this about?" that all of us have. We don't know the lingo, we don't know why some people have come to the conclusions they have because of lack of exposure to any of the main concepts of "how do we know if something works".
It's interesting how people view researchers though - Raven and Doc have been demonized because they throw a spanner in our wee world of loveliness in believing that something works because of our own experiences or what we've been taught. They challenge us. Is that really a bad thing?
What I see is that when they do, there's an immediate attack on them personally. Doc isn't an MT, therefore he doesn't know a dang thing about our job and he's a cold-hearted piece of nastiness that wants to tear our world apart and he does that by stating some modailites that he thinks are bunk (mostly when he's asked for his opinion) and then everyone seems to regard him as master of the Universe since his opinion is gold (which it's not. Mine is). Raven is, in my opinion (re: previous sentence), one of the smartest people I'll ever meet (and I've met a LOT of smart people in my old job), but we're not asking her questions - we're attacking her instead and I can't believe that people are asking her "are you a therapist? how long have you been practicing?" I'm waiting on someone asking her how many times a day she wipes her butt. (Wait - she's NOT human! She wipes her butt WAY too many times a day!). A real eye-opener for me was when she went through the pranic healing videos in detail, and one person replied - one person? No questions raised? Wow.
I hope that studies are posted more on here and we'll look at the merits and weaknesses of THE WORK and not resort to personal attacks. THE WORK is all we should be criticizing.
-
-
If you're going to assert that my work (or anyone else's for that matter) does not back up what I say in this forum, then I'm going to call you on the fact that you haven't read any of it.
Me, too. You clearly haven't read any of my work, either, and all you've got are personal insults.
-
-
Christopher, I didn't write the article. I am sharing information that is available online with other therapists. Your group of four or so are the one's challeging that. But just to those here. If your peers are putting out bad research or not to your standards - then tell them.
Yes, you have been rude here, as I have. It was you that raised the integrity issue. You are right, I don't understand your work. You say you are a researcher. I have read some of your work online. Great! Now you are an authority on all research. So if fellow researchers are printing false information, why not approach them? You are an authourity. Cause they will tell you where to get off... So you try to interject why the information is wrong to us? You offer no research, you just say their method was flawed or didn't take this or that into consideration. And we are just supposed to accept your word?
I don't see where you build that by challeging therapists.
-
-
I didn't write the article. I am sharing information that is available online with other therapists.
Do you, as a professional, have any responsibility at all to ensure the validity of information you pass along?
-
-
I agree with about everything here.... except... Christopher isn't giving his opinion of bunk modalities. He is calling for them to be quashed.
Both he and Ravensara are very bright people, I can tell. They have not been as nice as they could have been as well. They made people feel like they were talking above them. Maybe they need to break research down so that therapists CAN understand.
You had no knowledge and a few months later, you won a research award. I think, we could get loads of people into the research aspects if they aren't greeted by the researchers as they are now. Many have written and said as much. Now they can take that to heart and be patient and break it down for therapists or do without a lot of grant money that could have come in.
I would not be having a Research Conference if I did not want more research done.
Vlad said:Actually, you got a point there, Mike.
What should happen to the "so-called researchers" that are pumping out junk to back up a belief system?
The first thing that should happen is that everyone and their dog should be able to identify those researchers. But then, you're saying that you don't identify any researcher that "kinda shows that the modality I like works - to people who don't know a dang thing about how to read research" as bad researchers. So really how can we decide who *they* are?
People shouldn't think of that. The only thing that matters is what they produce. I can guarantee that any researcher worth their grant money will WELCOME scrutiny of their studies. I tried to get people to comment on one of Doc's papers ages ago, but couldn't get much interest going. I think that's because of the main problem of "WTF is this about?" that all of us have. We don't know the lingo, we don't know why some people have come to the conclusions they have because of lack of exposure to any of the main concepts of "how do we know if something works".
It's interesting how people view researchers though - Raven and Doc have been demonized because they throw a spanner in our wee world of loveliness in believing that something works because of our own experiences or what we've been taught. They challenge us. Is that really a bad thing?
What I see is that when they do, there's an immediate attack on them personally. Doc isn't an MT, therefore he doesn't know a dang thing about our job and he's a cold-hearted piece of nastiness that wants to tear our world apart and he does that by stating some modailites that he thinks are bunk (mostly when he's asked for his opinion) and then everyone seems to regard him as master of the Universe since his opinion is gold (which it's not. Mine is). Raven is, in my opinion (re: previous sentence), one of the smartest people I'll ever meet (and I've met a LOT of smart people in my old job), but we're not asking her questions - we're attacking her instead and I can't believe that people are asking her "are you a therapist? how long have you been practicing?" I'm waiting on someone asking her how many times a day she wipes her butt. (Wait - she's NOT human! She wipes her butt WAY too many times a day!). A real eye-opener for me was when she went through the pranic healing videos in detail, and one person replied - one person? No questions raised? Wow.
I hope that studies are posted more on here and we'll look at the merits and weaknesses of THE WORK and not resort to personal attacks. THE WORK is all we should be criticizing.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
