Censorship in Any Form is Still Censorship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 7:48pm

This pledge asks therapists to divide and not practice NCB approved classes. We are still waiting on the rest of Christopher's List of what he thinks are sham modalities. So far anyone doing Reiki is doing quackery. But we want to know what others so we don't waste our time learning them too.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 7:55pm

Where does it ask therapists not to practice NCB approved classes?

Mike Hinkle said:

This pledge asks therapists to divide and not practice NCB approved classes. We are still waiting on the rest of Christopher's List of what he thinks are sham modalities. So far anyone doing Reiki is doing quackery. But we want to know what others so we don't waste our time learning them too.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 7:55pm

Geez Louise Laura----look what you started ;)

Angela Palmier said:

Where does it ask therapists not to practice NCB approved classes?

Mike Hinkle said:

This pledge asks therapists to divide and not practice NCB approved classes. We are still waiting on the rest of Christopher's List of what he thinks are sham modalities. So far anyone doing Reiki is doing quackery. But we want to know what others so we don't waste our time learning them too.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 8:04pm

Does NCB certify any Reiki instructors, in Reiki?

Angela Palmier said:

Where does it ask therapists not to practice NCB approved classes?

Mike Hinkle said:

This pledge asks therapists to divide and not practice NCB approved classes. We are still waiting on the rest of Christopher's List of what he thinks are sham modalities. So far anyone doing Reiki is doing quackery. But we want to know what others so we don't waste our time learning them too.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 8:22pm

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit.

Mike Hinkle said:

Does NCB certify any Reiki instructors, in Reiki?

Angela Palmier said:

Where does it ask therapists not to practice NCB approved classes?

Mike Hinkle said:

This pledge asks therapists to divide and not practice NCB approved classes. We are still waiting on the rest of Christopher's List of what he thinks are sham modalities. So far anyone doing Reiki is doing quackery. But we want to know what others so we don't waste our time learning them too.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Mike conflates a topic with censorship. Over at another massage blog, where the emphasis is on science, one of the topics concerns a pledge that one can sign to indicate that they are in favor of evidence based practice. You can download it and sign it if you like. Presumably, you could hang it in your practice to let patients know you're not a quack.

But the participants on that other blog, one of whom is me, don't much care whether your do this or not. We'll talk with you either way. No one is being silenced for not signing it. Hell, we don't even know who has or hasn't signed it.

So far there is no censorship at the site Laura mentioned. Scientists don't go much for censorship.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on December 13, 2009 at 8:54pm

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Nicola Hogan on December 13, 2009 at 8:55pm

Big Ups to the smileys!

massagenerd said:

What I've noticed is, it all relates back to what they were taught in massage school and it's hard for some people to look beyond their schooling. I've heard this quote many times: "The more education you have...the dumber you get". I don't totally agree with it, but people tend to take on others beliefs too much and some are not willing to look beyond the massage table. As massage students, they are like sponges and believe most things their instructors tell them and when they get in the real world, they seem to see many other options...it all depends if they can see all the sides to it.

I've seen people get into arguments about what style or technique to use on a client and it all boils down to what actually works for that individual client. My belief is try something and it if doesn't work, then try something else and if this certain style or techniques works, then it might not work for the next client...keep your options open and your mind clear.

Another thing, writing down peoples thoughts/beliefs is totally different than voicing them in person and that's why somebody back in the day invented smileys.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 9:12pm

In reading # 6 of the pledge---I read it that they ask those who chose to sign the pledge to not support the groups.....but I don't see any definition of what massage pseudoscience or sham means here. I would interpret that as making the decision for myself...what I believed to be pseudoscience or sham. They would have to state what the "sham" was and I would have to agree, based on the evidence to sign The Pledge.

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

Since these individuals are part of "the industry" their perspectives need to be heard as well---and I've forwarded the pledge, along with the thread so that it can be seen.....remember I'm not judging right or wrong, good or bad, I'm simply forwarding the information.

These are not the scientists that get to decide what is pseudoscience and what is not either----they do have a right to their opinion, and maybe this is where the disconnect is-----again, I need to go back and look, but it really shocks me that a claim specifically directed to a modality that was not supported by any type of research just surprises me. It's a tough position for them to be in.....scientists--especially researchers usually don't have the luxury of expressing opinions, they just do the work, report the findings and come up with a conclusion based on those findings---nothing says they are right or wrong---it's just there until someone provides an alternative conclusion.

I would like to see the "list" as well.....it would be interesting to see what they come up with and the rationale.

To be clear----I do support and believe in evidence-based practice. I see this thread of comments as being a separate issue altogether. I applaud you stepping up and having your voice heard. It's important and it's critical to the growth of the profession. It's unfortuate that there are so many lurkers and so few contributors to blogs such as this one. It would be a great thing if all MT's engaged the process. Now I know what to ask Santa to bring us for Christmas! ;)

Mike Hinkle said:

Angela, I don't know how else you can read #6 of this pledge. Yes, the scientist called Reiki quackery. And present no evidence to prove it. I do not see the NCB's Industries Perspective here standing up for those doing this practice. I hear you supporting the Pledge.

There has been so little research. But when these are the scientist that get to decide what is psuedoscience or not, which folks get the research funds, get therapists to sign pledges and then have industry leaders back it up; I have to speak up. Besides somebody has to. I am still waiting to see the Pseudoscience Modalities List from the scientist.



Angela Palmier said:

I believe so.

So, if I understand you correctly, you have come to the conclusion that the pledge asks therapists to divide and not to practice NCB approved courses?

I don't read it that way---and remember, that research findings work both ways-----I'll need to go back when I get the chance and read posts which call Reiki "quackery" in the group, but if that was posted on the group, I would assume that since these are scientists we are talking about, they would have backed up that claim with some sort of study. Post studies that support the use of Reiki to refute them. Actually, researchers love this! Either way it is beneficial----if your study proves that their study is false, then you've made your point. If it doesn't, then it will either point out an opportunity for you, or someone else to provide a counter study to their arguement. Everyone wins here.

I hate that it appears that this dialogue is taking a negative spin. The beauty of this discussion is that it is making people think, question, talk, share and Mike, that will unify the profession and bring people together. This profession is not unique in that we have differing opinions, specializations, etc. In talking with many other association professionals (other fields), I do find that we are a bit unique in that it tends to tear down opposing views rather than build the knowledge base. In fact, we direct our barbs internally---our organizations, practitioners, associations, etc. Certainly the members of the American Medical Association do not all agree----but when it counts, they come together and make things happen. That's why they have such a tremendously high level of influence in this country, and others for that matter. We can learn from their example. Debate, research, both pro and con builds knowledge---knowledge is power and it is something that all professions need. We (massage therapists) are really experiencing some growing pains right now---but what a great pain to have. We're engaged, we're talented---and best of all-----we have opinions. Now if we could find a way to take those opinions and put them to good use----we would all benefit

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 13, 2009 at 9:18pm

Angie, I don't know which part she found offensive, and since she deleted the whole thing I don't know if I can repeat it word for word, but it went something like this:

I am sick and tired of therapists who act as if those who do Swedish or relaxation massage are not valuable. Many people want to be "pampered", "nurtured", or whatever you want to call it, and many people cannot tolerate deep tissue massage. What I really object to is anyone who acts as if what they do is superior to what someone else does.

My designation, other than NCTMB, is Licensed Massage & Bodywork Therapist, and I'm satisfied with that. I believe if you act like a professional you will be treated like a professional. The other therapists in my clinic have the same designation, and while they do medical massage, they would not refuse a client who wants a Swedish massage. That is up to the client.

In six years we have had ONE person act inappropriately, and it was some 80 year-old codger who thought he was in his second childhood. It wouldn't matter if you called yourself the Pope, there's still going to be that 1% of people who think it's about sex.

That's to the best of my memory what I said. If anyone noticed something I left out, please feel free to interject it.

Angela Palmier said:

Laura, would you mind posting the comment that was considered to be offensive? I'd like to see the discussion in it's context.

I've read so many of your posts over the years, and while some of the comments were direct, specific, asking tough questions, asking for clarification, asking for the logic behind the decision, etc., I've never interpreted anything that you've posted to be of a personal attack. It's simply not your style and I would argue with anyone who said that it was----in fact I have :)

There are some legal implications to posting things which could be considered defamatory (only if they aren't true) and so on, but I'm wondering if the person who censored your comment was simply looking for a platform to state his/her opinion, and if someone posted something that was contrary to that opinion, then it wouldn't help a self-serving post to begin with. In the future, perhaps the person should simply say that "this is my opinion and I'm not interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts??"

At the risk of being slammed from both sides, I'd like to throw out the possible theory that perhaps most of the maladies that people go to allopathic or complementary therapists for are based in stress, either physical, psychosomatic, or otherwise and perhaps step 1 of the massage intervention (after assessment of course) would be to simply try to bring the body back to a homeostatic place----and then the root of the issue could be treated?

Perhaps the person has recently taken a class, been told by their instructor that effective outcomes can only be achieved if there is only a clinical model followed. Maybe the person is trying to justify the expense of taking a course?

I understand, have seen and practiced very specific, clinical based massage---specific to the knee for many, many, many years. I was motivated to do so to treat my own injury, however the other reason was that Swedish massage was just too hard for me! It's quite a bit of work for the therapist, it is not only time-intensive, but labor intensive too!!!!

The massage strokes that we all use are all the same basic movements---the intent, duration, depth, speed, etc., may change, but they are the same......wondering if perhaps the person who censored your comments really meant to ask a different question/make a different statement???? Sure wish I could see this thread--now I'm really interested!

Anyone willing to share the thread??

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Laura.

I've also seen a thread on this site, in which I was a very active participant, entirely deleted with no explanation. That's definitely frustrating. I put quite a bit of time and energy into saying some things that I thought were important, and then - poof! Gone.

-CM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Angela Palmier on December 13, 2009 at 9:21pm

I'm missing something-----where was the personal attack? Was she the 80 year old codger??? :) Sorry, I couldn't resist!

Laura Allen said:

Angie, I don't know which part she found offensive, and since she deleted the whole thing I don't know if I can repeat it word for word, but it went something like this:

I am sick and tired of therapists who act as if those who do Swedish or relaxation massage are not valuable. Many people want to be "pampered", "nurtured", or whatever you want to call it, and many people cannot tolerate deep tissue massage. What I really object to is anyone who acts as if what they do is superior to what someone else does.

My designation, other than NCTMB, is Licensed Massage & Bodywork Therapist, and I'm satisfied with that. I believe if you act like a professional you will be treated like a professional. The other therapists in my clinic have the same designation, and while they do medical massage, they would not refuse a client who wants a Swedish massage. That is up to the client.

In six years we have had ONE person act inappropriately, and it was some 80 year-old codger who thought he was in his second childhood. It wouldn't matter if you called yourself the Pope, there's still going to be that 1% of people who think it's about sex.

That's to the best of my memory what I said. If anyone noticed something I left out, please feel free to interject it.

Angela Palmier said:

Laura, would you mind posting the comment that was considered to be offensive? I'd like to see the discussion in it's context.

I've read so many of your posts over the years, and while some of the comments were direct, specific, asking tough questions, asking for clarification, asking for the logic behind the decision, etc., I've never interpreted anything that you've posted to be of a personal attack. It's simply not your style and I would argue with anyone who said that it was----in fact I have :)

There are some legal implications to posting things which could be considered defamatory (only if they aren't true) and so on, but I'm wondering if the person who censored your comment was simply looking for a platform to state his/her opinion, and if someone posted something that was contrary to that opinion, then it wouldn't help a self-serving post to begin with. In the future, perhaps the person should simply say that "this is my opinion and I'm not interested in hearing anyone else's thoughts??"

At the risk of being slammed from both sides, I'd like to throw out the possible theory that perhaps most of the maladies that people go to allopathic or complementary therapists for are based in stress, either physical, psychosomatic, or otherwise and perhaps step 1 of the massage intervention (after assessment of course) would be to simply try to bring the body back to a homeostatic place----and then the root of the issue could be treated?

Perhaps the person has recently taken a class, been told by their instructor that effective outcomes can only be achieved if there is only a clinical model followed. Maybe the person is trying to justify the expense of taking a course?

I understand, have seen and practiced very specific, clinical based massage---specific to the knee for many, many, many years. I was motivated to do so to treat my own injury, however the other reason was that Swedish massage was just too hard for me! It's quite a bit of work for the therapist, it is not only time-intensive, but labor intensive too!!!!

The massage strokes that we all use are all the same basic movements---the intent, duration, depth, speed, etc., may change, but they are the same......wondering if perhaps the person who censored your comments really meant to ask a different question/make a different statement???? Sure wish I could see this thread--now I'm really interested!

Anyone willing to share the thread??

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Laura.

I've also seen a thread on this site, in which I was a very active participant, entirely deleted with no explanation. That's definitely frustrating. I put quite a bit of time and energy into saying some things that I thought were important, and then - poof! Gone.

-CM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 13, 2009 at 9:24pm

Again, I have to go back to read the threads to see the Reiki comment---I'm swamped right now, but I'll go back through and look at it.

I'm not sure which specific comment you are referring to, but if this refers to the extensive discussion that I participated in a while back on this site, you won't find it. You know why? Because Mike - the one opposed to censorship - deleted it!

Meanwhile, he now cites this pledge as a form of censorship, which of course it isn't, and makes demands of people (e.g., to provide lists, etc.) to deflect attention from the fact that he is off-topic.

-CM

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 13, 2009 at 9:34pm

I didn't know that was happening, but I'd bet my last dollar that it wasn't Lara Bracciante or any administration here that did it. To the best of my knowledge, they will only delete when anyone is blatantly using a forum for advertising. I didn't use profanity or mention anyone's name or even directly quote anything anyone had said. These forums are for the open exchange of ideas, open being the key word. I just don't have any patience for close-minded people. A "discussion" includes civil disagreement and debate, and either she does not respect that, or she's never heard of freedom of speech.


Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Laura.

I've also seen a thread on this site, in which I was a very active participant, entirely deleted with no explanation. That's definitely frustrating. I put quite a bit of time and energy into saying some things that I thought were important, and then - poof! Gone.

-CM

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• …
• 9
• Next ›
• Page