Censorship in Any Form is Still Censorship

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Kat Farber on December 16, 2009 at 9:46am

Hi Kim;

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming in. I didn't ask a question. (Maybe you were answering something Bert asked and I missed it)

I understand it is possible to run a study that would research a multidisplinary approach. I'm saying we don't seem to do it. Most funders and IRB's don't seem to like it. And there may be a small sample of examples out there in which people are doing research on multidisplinary technique; but it's not common. And I'm not saying we should do away with testing individual components (as I know someone's going to say next); I just believe we should progress those studies into multidisplinary approaches.
But I'm not asking any questions here; I'm just stating my opinions about where our research and science is; and why we shouldn't be so contemptous about modalities and techniques that science doesn't explain. Though, of course, if someone doesn't believe in energy healing they have every right to say so; I've just seen a lot of messages on different discussions here that tend to lean towards name calling and derogatory remarks. All of my comments can boil down to: "Light up!"

Laura, sorry this got so off topic of censorship. I still completely agree with you about that issue and with your statements regarding the validity of relaxation massage as a therapy.



Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on December 16, 2009 at 10:09am

Hi Kim,

Good luck with finals! I have to throw a wrench in here; some would argue there is no placebo in this control and it makes the findings invalid. What would you say to that Kim? This is what hard core scientists still imply about MT. It's amazing you've gotten past this Christopher; could it be the discrimination you've experienced as a psychologist in a field that has been recently accepted itself?

I think what they mean is the psychological effect of anticipating the massage treatment is not present in this control (regardless of the pleasant environment).

Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on December 16, 2009 at 11:27am

Hi Bert -

True - we are often interested in the interactions of individual components or variables, and these can quickly become numerous. There are very well-established ways to measure the effects of such interactions, though I don't think I can explain them succinctly right here right now. Trust me, though, it can be done and we do it all the time! Scientists are very interested in such phenomena.

An example that comes to mind is my own dissertation, in which we found that how a massage recipient felt about their relationship with the therapist, and whether or not they conversed during sessions, each had their own effect on outcomes but also interacted with each other.

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.




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 Robin Byler Thomas on December 16, 2009 at 12:07pm

What'd you find Christopher?

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Bert -

True - we are often interested in the interactions of individual components or variables, and these can quickly become numerous. There are very well-established ways to measure the effects of such interactions, though I don't think I can explain them succinctly right here right now. Trust me, though, it can be done and we do it all the time! Scientists are very interested in such phenomena.

An example that comes to mind is my own dissertation, in which we found that how a massage recipient felt about their relationship with the therapist, and whether or not they conversed during sessions, each had their own effect on outcomes but also interacted with each other.

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.




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 Bert Davich on December 16, 2009 at 12:17pm

Hello Kim, I enjoy your posts. I do have some relevant comments regarding this one. For one thing you apparently missed the point I was trying to make regarding the parts acting synergistically. Your solution separates the parts to evaluate the effect of each part alone as if there is no synergistic relationship. The results will be valid for each part acting alone. The parts do not act alone in a real situation, they act together. If you are familiar with chemistry, think about the parts of a solution made up of several compounds and then think of each compound taken alone. I assure you no one part of that solution can be attributed to the resulting solution. NOW think about human emotions and tell me how many compound thoughts are involved that affect the resulting experience of the client to the whole massage experience. The sum of the APPARENT parts does not necessarily equal the total of the whole.

There are some other notable observations in your solution but I don't have time to answer now as I must leave to work. I will post later or possibly tomorrow.

Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Bert Davich on December 16, 2009 at 12:22pm

Chris, I definitely will answer this one later. Thanks for your post. In the mean time see my post to kim just made before this one came up on my computor.

Christopher A. Moyer said:

Hi Bert -

True - we are often interested in the interactions of individual components or variables, and these can quickly become numerous. There are very well-established ways to measure the effects of such interactions, though I don't think I can explain them succinctly right here right now. Trust me, though, it can be done and we do it all the time! Scientists are very interested in such phenomena.

An example that comes to mind is my own dissertation, in which we found that how a massage recipient felt about their relationship with the therapist, and whether or not they conversed during sessions, each had their own effect on outcomes but also interacted with each other.

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.




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 Kim Goral on December 16, 2009 at 12:47pm

Hi Kat,

Sorry, I must have been combining yours and Bert's posts in my head and sort of came up with a joint "answer" or post that I addressed to you alone rather than both of you. I think I better understand where you are coming from now, thanks for the clarification.

Kat Farber said:

Hi Kim;

I'm not sure where the confusion is coming in. I didn't ask a question. (Maybe you were answering something Bert asked and I missed it)

I understand it is possible to run a study that would research a multidisplinary approach. I'm saying we don't seem to do it. Most funders and IRB's don't seem to like it. And there may be a small sample of examples out there in which people are doing research on multidisplinary technique; but it's not common. And I'm not saying we should do away with testing individual components (as I know someone's going to say next); I just believe we should progress those studies into multidisplinary approaches.
But I'm not asking any questions here; I'm just stating my opinions about where our research and science is; and why we shouldn't be so contemptous about modalities and techniques that science doesn't explain. Though, of course, if someone doesn't believe in energy healing they have every right to say so; I've just seen a lot of messages on different discussions here that tend to lean towards name calling and derogatory remarks. All of my comments can boil down to: "Light up!"

Laura, sorry this got so off topic of censorship. I still completely agree with you about that issue and with your statements regarding the validity of relaxation massage as a therapy.



Kim Goral said:

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Kim Goral on December 16, 2009 at 12:51pm

Hi Bert

I now understand what you are referring to, about the whole make up of the experience (the chemistry example was a good one). As for what the answer is of how do you study that or is it possible to, I'm going to be upfront and admit that I don't know enough yet to answer this question. Hopefully Chris can explain it better than any attempt I would make ;) And this is an important question, especially when looking at something like massage (or energy work or anything with this component).

Bert Davich said:

Hello Kim, I enjoy your posts. I do have some relevant comments regarding this one. For one thing you apparently missed the point I was trying to make regarding the parts acting synergistically. Your solution separates the parts to evaluate the effect of each part alone as if there is no synergistic relationship. The results will be valid for each part acting alone. The parts do not act alone in a real situation, they act together. If you are familiar with chemistry, think about the parts of a solution made up of several compounds and then think of each compound taken alone. I assure you no one part of that solution can be attributed to the resulting solution. NOW think about human emotions and tell me how many compound thoughts are involved that affect the resulting experience of the client to the whole massage experience. The sum of the APPARENT parts does not necessarily equal the total of the whole.

There are some other notable observations in your solution but I don't have time to answer now as I must leave to work. I will post later or possibly tomorrow.

Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Kim Goral on December 16, 2009 at 12:57pm

Thanks for the luck, Robin, I think I did well on my exam this morning though it would have been less stressful if my car would have started and I didn't have to bum a ride from my neighbor (who was very luckily coming to school the same time I needed to!). But that's a different issue :)

As for your question about the control, I am again going to defer back to Chris for fear of giving an incorrect or inaccurate answer. If most or all people here were experts I wouldn't be as afraid of taking a stab at it, but given that most people reading do not know much about research I would hate to put incorrect info out there.

I believe from previous conversations, Robin, that you have been doing some research as well- how have you been addressing it at your lab/school? It's a very good question and I'm interested to learn how you or others address it.

Robin Byler Thomas said:

Hi Kim,

Good luck with finals! I have to throw a wrench in here; some would argue there is no placebo in this control and it makes the findings invalid. What would you say to that Kim? This is what hard core scientists still imply about MT. It's amazing you've gotten past this Christopher; could it be the discrimination you've experienced as a psychologist in a field that has been recently accepted itself?

I think what they mean is the psychological effect of anticipating the massage treatment is not present in this control (regardless of the pleasant environment).

Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Robin Byler Thomas on December 16, 2009 at 1:11pm

I haven't gotten to do any RCT's yet; so far formative research through mostly qualitative methods and lit. reviews only.

I'm starting to think this is something else to just let go. The diehards will probably never change their minds and when someone says "you don't have a placebo" I update them on the controls and studies we do have. Most other providers, scientists, and the general public are not aware of the current MT research.

PS After next Monday you'll think you have superpowers you'll have so much energy available now that the semester is over (after a sufficient crash period, of course). ENERGY, there's that word again and in a different form. I could be slap happy; too much time on the PC. Gotta go be productive in a different way.

Kim Goral said:

Thanks for the luck, Robin, I think I did well on my exam this morning though it would have been less stressful if my car would have started and I didn't have to bum a ride from my neighbor (who was very luckily coming to school the same time I needed to!). But that's a different issue :)

As for your question about the control, I am again going to defer back to Chris for fear of giving an incorrect or inaccurate answer. If most or all people here were experts I wouldn't be as afraid of taking a stab at it, but given that most people reading do not know much about research I would hate to put incorrect info out there.

I believe from previous conversations, Robin, that you have been doing some research as well- how have you been addressing it at your lab/school? It's a very good question and I'm interested to learn how you or others address it.

Robin Byler Thomas said:

Hi Kim,

Good luck with finals! I have to throw a wrench in here; some would argue there is no placebo in this control and it makes the findings invalid. What would you say to that Kim? This is what hard core scientists still imply about MT. It's amazing you've gotten past this Christopher; could it be the discrimination you've experienced as a psychologist in a field that has been recently accepted itself?

I think what they mean is the psychological effect of anticipating the massage treatment is not present in this control (regardless of the pleasant environment).

Kim Goral said:

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

Permalink Reply by Marilyn St.John on December 17, 2009 at 7:06am

Laura,
it appears your Censorship Discussion has been hijacked and the people from the EBP site have arrived discuss scientific method instead. Hmmm, maybe we could design a study about inappropriate content ;o) ... censorship in any form is still wrong. ~m

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on December 17, 2009 at 8:06am

Yes, it does seem that way. I don't care if it goes off topic. At least they did weigh in on the censorship first, overwhelmingly against it.

Look at all the open discussion on here, and the person who censored me thought I was out of line, LOL! I think it's pathetic that she falsely accused me of making a personal attack in light of what goes on out here in the real world, but what the heck. I'd rather be with the crowd that feels free to say what they think!

Marilyn St.John said:

Laura,
it appears your Censorship Discussion has been hijacked and the people from the EBP site have arrived discuss scientific method instead. Hmmm, maybe we could design a study about inappropriate content ;o) ... censorship in any form is still wrong. ~m

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

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