Censorship in Any Form is Still Censorship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kat Farber on December 15, 2009 at 1:00pm

Laura, I just want to say thank you for bringing up a controversial topic like this. Censorship is wrong. I completely agree that everyone has the right to voice an opinion; with the little add-on that they acknowledge it to be an opinion and not fact.

Mike and others about the “division” discussion, I can kind of see both sides. I agree that there shouldn’t be a division of massage, but I can see an argument for different types of massage. But having different types of massage doesn’t make any one “type” better than any other. And we should all work together to promote each “type” of massage for what it’s useful for. For instance, I don’t do relaxation massage (I do more orthopedic type). So when new people call, I explain this to them. But I also explain to all my clients and strangers that what we call “relaxation” massage is still therapeutic and then I explain why. It’s just not what I do and if that’s what they need I send them to another associate I know.

I also in some ways, agree with you, Mike, about the science discussion. One of my big arguments is; if science can disprove a therapy then okay call it a sham. But just b/c science hasn’t proven it doesn’t mean it’s disproven it either. Science is flawed and current research methods just can’t prove everything b/c of those flaws.
So these negative terms we’re using to describe other techniques such as Reiki are inappropriate. And it’s exactly the type of thing people said about massage years and years ago. . . “oh, it’s a sham”. . .yet, now there is more research and better science for proving what massage does. Maybe 10 years down the road science will actually be able to explain how Reiki and other techniques work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 15, 2009 at 1:45pm

I agree with you on every point, Kat! You hit it on the button.

Kat Farber said:

Laura, I just want to say thank you for bringing up a controversial topic like this. Censorship is wrong. I completely agree that everyone has the right to voice an opinion; with the little add-on that they acknowledge it to be an opinion and not fact.

Mike and others about the “division” discussion, I can kind of see both sides. I agree that there shouldn’t be a division of massage, but I can see an argument for different types of massage. But having different types of massage doesn’t make any one “type” better than any other. And we should all work together to promote each “type” of massage for what it’s useful for. For instance, I don’t do relaxation massage (I do more orthopedic type). So when new people call, I explain this to them. But I also explain to all my clients and strangers that what we call “relaxation” massage is still therapeutic and then I explain why. It’s just not what I do and if that’s what they need I send them to another associate I know.

I also in some ways, agree with you, Mike, about the science discussion. One of my big arguments is; if science can disprove a therapy then okay call it a sham. But just b/c science hasn’t proven it doesn’t mean it’s disproven it either. Science is flawed and current research methods just can’t prove everything b/c of those flaws.
So these negative terms we’re using to describe other techniques such as Reiki are inappropriate. And it’s exactly the type of thing people said about massage years and years ago. . . “oh, it’s a sham”. . .yet, now there is more research and better science for proving what massage does. Maybe 10 years down the road science will actually be able to explain how Reiki and other techniques work.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Goral on December 15, 2009 at 1:51pm

Kat- can you elaborate on this? "Science is flawed and current research methods just can’t prove everything b/c of those flaws."

I'm just curious what you mean by it, or anyone else who agrees with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Farber on December 15, 2009 at 7:53pm

Hi Kim,

What I was trying to say is that science simply doesn't explain everything that exists. And current research is flawed in that the ways we do research simply can't be applied to everything; for instance it really can't prove the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary approach to medicine b/c we have to boil everything down to base components to test. I understand why we do it; otherwise how would we know what was working and what wasn't. But it still creates areas that don't test well.

So I say again; if science can actually prove the claim of a therapy or drug or anything else to actually be inaccurate, then so be it. But just b/c science doesn't prove it doesn't automatically mean it's invalid or, as we seem to be fond of saying, a sham. For instance, our sense of smell. We don't actually know how we distinguish between so many smells (science can't currently explain it). . .yet we do it all the same (it's not a sham). So bringing it closer to home, maybe science can't yet explain how Reiki works, it may still work all the same.

Kim Goral said:

Kat- can you elaborate on this? "Science is flawed and current research methods just can’t prove everything b/c of those flaws."

I'm just curious what you mean by it, or anyone else who agrees with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on December 15, 2009 at 11:11pm

Hello Kim,
This is in answer to your asking if anyone else agrees with Kat's post.

Yes, what Kat says is accurate in my opinion. Below is an example:
In another discussion group I went back & forth with another member whom I respect but do not agree with regarding this topic. It was about a study regarding 'manipulating human energy fields'; specifically to test if it was possible to detect a human energy field through the human hand. I was unfamiliar with the particular energy work discipline which is not associated with massage. It is a no touch modality.

Frankly I don't believe the claims attributed to the 'modality' that they can cure human illness by 'manipulating their energy field back to health'. The results of the test showed that within the parameters of the test, none of the participants could detect a human energy field. In other words it could not be proved by this test that it was possible to detect a human energy field.

Even though I don't believe their claims of manipulation, I could recognize there was no conclusive proof that it is not possible to detect a human energy field; only that it was not possible within the parameters of the study for the particular participants to do so. (All the participants were volunteers from the same energy group)

The study was flawed in several ways, particularly in the limitations and conditions imposed on the participants and the conclusion was invalid not only from the flaws in the study, but the conclusion stated that based on the results, the study conclusively proved that claims of detecting a human energy field to be false and that there was no place for this in treatment. When I checked out the study itself, it turned out to be conducted by a 6th grader and supported by "quack watch" podcast which claims everything other than modern Allopathic medicine is quackery.

The point here is because one group could not prove their claim to be able to detect a human energy field by passing the test, there was a leap to conclusion that it is impossible for anyone to detect a human energy field. In logic that would be the fallacy of leaping from the specific to the general.

To Kat's point, because the participants could not prove it within the limits of one study it was presumed to be conclusive proof that it is impossible for one human to detect another human's energy field. A valid conclusion would have read that it could NOT be proved that a human energy field could be detected by another human.

I am a body worker not a human energy field manipulator and make no claims regarding human energy fields, which I do not fully understand. But I can say I have felt something energetic from some individuals on different occasions. Sometimes very strongly. And I don't think I am alone. Am I detecting another humans energy field? I cannot say, but the sensation is strong enough that I cannot dismiss the possibility because scientific studies have not been able to prove it can be done.

That being said I want to make clear I do not believe that someone can be rendered healthy by having another human manipulate their energy field back to health, and will not until it is proven. Furthermore claims of that nature are an impediment to legitimate research opportunities.

Kat Farber said:

Hi Kim,

What I was trying to say is that science simply doesn't explain everything that exists. And current research is flawed in that the ways we do research simply can't be applied to everything; for instance it really can't prove the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary approach to medicine b/c we have to boil everything down to base components to test. I understand why we do it; otherwise how would we know what was working and what wasn't. But it still creates areas that don't test well.

So I say again; if science can actually prove the claim of a therapy or drug or anything else to actually be inaccurate, then so be it. But just b/c science doesn't prove it doesn't automatically mean it's invalid or, as we seem to be fond of saying, a sham. For instance, our sense of smell. We don't actually know how we distinguish between so many smells (science can't currently explain it). . .yet we do it all the same (it's not a sham). So bringing it closer to home, maybe science can't yet explain how Reiki works, it may still work all the same.

Kim Goral said:

Kat- can you elaborate on this? "Science is flawed and current research methods just can’t prove everything b/c of those flaws."

I'm just curious what you mean by it, or anyone else who agrees with it.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nancy Toner Weinberger on December 16, 2009 at 5:21am

Laura says what she has to say and she says it with passion. I hereby deem her an honorary New Yorker.

If you don't like what she has to say, then say so, or just ignore it. Why delete part of the discussion? If you think she is making an a__ of herself, then that is her problem, not yours. If you just disagree, well, make your case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 16, 2009 at 5:33am

Come on now Nancy, when have I ever made an ____ of myself, ROFLOL!

Nancy Toner Weinberger said:

Laura says what she has to say and she says it with passion. I hereby deem her an honorary New Yorker.

If you don't like what she has to say, then say so, or just ignore it. Why delete part of the discussion? If you think she is making an a__ of herself, then that is her problem, not yours. If you just disagree, well, make your case.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 16, 2009 at 7:00am

Kat Farber: What I was trying to say is that science simply doesn't explain everything that exists.

Hi Kat.

No one can disagree with that statement, but then science doesn't claim to explain everything. It is, however, definitely the best system we have for increasing our understanding of natural phenomena.

And current research is flawed in that the ways we do research simply can't be applied to everything; for instance it really can't prove the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary approach to medicine b/c we have to boil everything down to base components to test.

This is a common misconception. We certainly can study the effectiveness of multidisciplinary approaches to treatment, and this is what all clinical research does.

What I believe you may be trying to imply - that the more variables involved, the less precisely we can make conclusions about any specific one - is true. But it is also true that we can study how a blend of treatments interact to produce outcomes.

For example, say we wanted to know if folks who visit your massage therapy clinic experience a reduction in anxiety after you treat them. If we find that folks are less anxious after being at your clinic, that's great - we can conclude, with reasonable confidence, that Farber's clinic reduces anxiety. But how does it do that? We might not be sure. It could be the massage that they receive, or it could be the nice music you play for them, or it could be that you have a terrific receptionist who puts everyone at ease, or it could be the nice pastel colors you have used to paint your walls... It can even be the interaction of these discrete features (e.g., the combination of a great massage X hearing great music X chatting with the terrific receptionist all combine to create a superlative anxiety-reducing experience that is greater than the sum of its parts). In this study, we can only generalize to "Farber's clinic." We could, if we chose, design a subsequent study to find out which details of the clinic are providing the effect we are interested in.

Does that make sense?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on December 16, 2009 at 8:13am

Chris,
It makes sense until the last sentence:
"We could, if we chose, design a subsequent study to find out which details of the clinic are providing the effect we are interested in."

The parts often act synergistically. An example would be the nutritionist telling us B-carrotine is the 'part' that is the anti oxidant cancer preventing substance in say, carrots or Thyme. Well there are more than 25 carrotine compounds in Thyme that some now believe act synergistically. B-carrotind supplements have since been shown to have no cancer reducing effect, but eating whole foods that are high in anti oxidants have. You cannot separate the parts as if they were additive or acted independently and expect reliable, much less conclusive results.




Christopher A. Moyer said:

Kat Farber: What I was trying to say is that science simply doesn't explain everything that exists.

Hi Kat.

No one can disagree with that statement, but then science doesn't claim to explain everything. It is, however, definitely the best system we have for increasing our understanding of natural phenomena.

And current research is flawed in that the ways we do research simply can't be applied to everything; for instance it really can't prove the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary approach to medicine b/c we have to boil everything down to base components to test.

This is a common misconception. We certainly can study the effectiveness of multidisciplinary approaches to treatment, and this is what all clinical research does.

What I believe you may be trying to imply - that the more variables involved, the less precisely we can make conclusions about any specific one - is true. But it is also true that we can study how a blend of treatments interact to produce outcomes.

For example, say we wanted to know if folks who visit your massage therapy clinic experience a reduction in anxiety after you treat them. If we find that folks are less anxious after being at your clinic, that's great - we can conclude, with reasonable confidence, that Farber's clinic reduces anxiety. But how does it do that? We might not be sure. It could be the massage that they receive, or it could be the nice music you play for them, or it could be that you have a terrific receptionist who puts everyone at ease, or it could be the nice pastel colors you have used to paint your walls... It can even be the interaction of these discrete features (e.g., the combination of a great massage X hearing great music X chatting with the terrific receptionist all combine to create a superlative anxiety-reducing experience that is greater than the sum of its parts). In this study, we can only generalize to "Farber's clinic." We could, if we chose, design a subsequent study to find out which details of the clinic are providing the effect we are interested in.

Does that make sense?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Farber on December 16, 2009 at 8:19am

Hi Chris,

I do understand what you're saying. I don't think you completely understood what I'm saying though. First, of course, science is one of the best systems we have. I just find that some people tend to be as fanatical about believing in science as others are about religion. I believe in science, but it simply doesn't prove or explain everything. And therefore, you can't throw away concepts and ideas just b/c science doesn't explain it.

Second, your example doesn't really apply to what I was saying, b/c it would only be testing a single approach: Farber's massage. What I'm saying is it's very hard to do a research study that would combine, let's say Farber's massage and Doe's Reiki. If a person gets both together, how would you know which one actually reduced the person's anxiety. This is what I mean by a multidisciplinary approach. Just like Farber's massage and Jones' physical therapy for the treatment of pain. Or Farber's massage and Dr.'s pain killers.
I'm not saying it's impossible to design a study that actually would research a multidisplinary approach; I'm saying, it's not the common approach right now. And I'm saying I believe it to be a flaw b/c generally speaking, in reality, most people use more than one approach to treat themselves. . . whether for pain, anxiety or other conditions.
I still believe in good research and good science. It's simply my personal opinion that neither are ABSOLUTE; or that if something doesn't fit inside our current parameters of research or science then it's a sham. And I'm not trying to say that we shouldn't argue the science of our treatments. The point I've really been trying to get across is that maybe we shouldn't be so extremely critical and, at some points, downright nasty in regards to other modalities (especially ones that aren't DISPROVEN by science.)

(Yes, I keep using Reiki as an example over and over; b/c it seems to be one of the most debated energy modalities on this forum.)

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Kat Farber: What I was trying to say is that science simply doesn't explain everything that exists.

Hi Kat.

No one can disagree with that statement, but then science doesn't claim to explain everything. It is, however, definitely the best system we have for increasing our understanding of natural phenomena.

And current research is flawed in that the ways we do research simply can't be applied to everything; for instance it really can't prove the effectiveness of a multi-disciplinary approach to medicine b/c we have to boil everything down to base components to test.

This is a common misconception. We certainly can study the effectiveness of multidisciplinary approaches to treatment, and this is what all clinical research does.

What I believe you may be trying to imply - that the more variables involved, the less precisely we can make conclusions about any specific one - is true. But it is also true that we can study how a blend of treatments interact to produce outcomes.

For example, say we wanted to know if folks who visit your massage therapy clinic experience a reduction in anxiety after you treat them. If we find that folks are less anxious after being at your clinic, that's great - we can conclude, with reasonable confidence, that Farber's clinic reduces anxiety. But how does it do that? We might not be sure. It could be the massage that they receive, or it could be the nice music you play for them, or it could be that you have a terrific receptionist who puts everyone at ease, or it could be the nice pastel colors you have used to paint your walls... It can even be the interaction of these discrete features (e.g., the combination of a great massage X hearing great music X chatting with the terrific receptionist all combine to create a superlative anxiety-reducing experience that is greater than the sum of its parts). In this study, we can only generalize to "Farber's clinic." We could, if we chose, design a subsequent study to find out which details of the clinic are providing the effect we are interested in.

Does that make sense?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kat Farber on December 16, 2009 at 8:49am

Thank you, Bert. You've definitely clarified yet another point.

Bert Davich said:

Chris,
It makes sense until the last sentence:
"We could, if we chose, design a subsequent study to find out which details of the clinic are providing the effect we are interested in."

The parts often act synergistically. An example would be the nutritionist telling us B-carrotine is the 'part' that is the anti oxidant cancer preventing substance in say, carrots or Thyme. Well there are more than 25 carrotine compounds in Thyme that some now believe act synergistically. B-carrotind supplements have since been shown to have no cancer reducing effect, but eating whole foods that are high in anti oxidants have. You cannot separate the parts as if they were additive or acted independently and expect reliable, much less conclusive results

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Goral on December 16, 2009 at 9:19am

Hi Kat and Bert, thanks for your explanations.

Kat, if I am understanding what you are saying correctly (and let me know if I'm not), you are saying that you can't separate the pieces of this example of going to your clinic, especially if someone is getting multiple treatments (massage plus Reiki, for example). But, there actually is a way to do that- that's where control groups come in to play.

For example, if we wanted to test massage versus the friendly therapist, or the music, or even the effect of laying on the table for an hour, we can. All we have to do (and we have done this) is to run two separate procedures that are identical with the exception that one involves the actual massage, and the other does not. So in both conditions, a subject would come in, lay on the table, interact with the therapist, listen to the same music, the same temperature in the room, turn over at approximately the same time (supine tp prone or vice versa), but in only 1 condition would the subject actually get the massage. That way, we can pretty conclusively determine if it was the massage causing the effect, or some other component of the treatment. Obviously we'd do more than each once, and this is a short explanation, but that is how it can be done. And you can do that for different variables, too.

So theoretically, if you were interested in the massage/energy combination treatment, one thing you could do would be to set up 4 different treatments: one in level, they would go to your clinic, go through the motions of signing in, being in the treatment room with the music and therapist, but not receive any treatment. Another level could go in, same conditions, and receive massage only. A third would receive Reiki only. The fourth would receive both. Then you could look at the differences in effectiveness between all 4 groups and try to narrow down exactly what the difference was- more research might be needed once you have narrowed down some elements, but that would be a good place to start, anyways.

Time to go to school for finals, but let me know if this example makes sense and answers your question at all, or if I was missing the target :)

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 4
• 5
• 6
• 7
• 8
• 9
• Next ›
• Page