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 Lee Edelberg on
-
Well said, Mike. A nice summary.
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
"I think therapists are using the information taught them in schools. If you want them to accurately represent the science you want then you need to go to the schools and start there. Therapists are going to repeat what they were taught by their teachers. Most do not even take continuing education classes and will continue to give out the info that is available to them."
Yes, we are in agreement on that.
"It seems there is personal influence being used here. You said there is no methodology used in Acupuncture at all."
You are overgeneralizing what I said. I said the study you referred to did not have any solid methodology behind it. You are the one who generalized that to "acupuncture at all".
"I see such a discourse from the World Health Organization telling me it is safe and effective and you basically saying it is not."
The World Health Organization is not infallible, and it has political concerns that it must accommodate. One tell is their use of the word "allopathic" in their documents about CAM. Just because the WHO is sympathetic to homeopathy doesn't make it effective, either. And a good thing, too--because if water really retained the "memory" of substances it came into contact with, then going through the water cycle would make it "remember" countless generations of animal poo, and I'd never drink anything other than beer again.
An argument to authority (WHO in this case) does not make the statements about acupuncture true. You have to look at what work the authority does. Their bias is clear in the use of the word "allopathic", so that is something to take into account when evaluating how solid their work is.
"I do not believe therapists should change their claims based on your claims."
If it were only a matter of opinion, I would agree with you. But you are saying that article "proved" that acupuncture cures rhinitis. I've provided reasons that people can check for themselves why it doesn't do so. The fact that people can verify it for themselves takes it out of the realm of opinion (mind-dependent), and puts it in the mind-independent realm.
"As I stated above it is a miniscule amount of therapists that would even be making these claims. If a therapist is misrepresenting anything their association can take action because of their ethics laws."
Acupuncture's out of scope for MTs anyway, unless they are specially trained. We are talking about the principle that, if we aspire to become a profession, then we have to behave in a professional manner.
One aspect of professional behavior is not making untrue claims. As you say, if it comes to that, the association can punish, but it is better if it doesn't have to come to that because a real professional takes ethics seriously enough to not make such claims.
"There is nothing to stop anyone from making these claims anyway. How would you know it or be able to stop it? The key is to teach them in school so they are promoting correct information."
Yes, I agree with you on both counts. If someone doesn't care enough about professional ethics to make sure to get the facts right, there is nothing to stop them from making false claims. And the key is education; you're right about that as well. The problem is that right now, the students are not receiving the education they deserve, and the teachers have not been adequately prepared to deliver that information.
We need to support both students and teachers with good information if they, realistically, are going to pass along good information to clients and to each other.
"The bickering about modalities has come about by a researcher naming 10 modalities he personally wants quashed and done away with. He has said so on numerous sites and through discussions. As long as this intent is obvious I will argue, bicker and continue to make sure they aren't."
So it's just a personal beef with him, then? What do the facts say about the matter about the effectiveness of the modalities themselves?
"I have seen Swedish massage done hundreds of different ways, it is still effective. I have seen acupuncture approached in many ways, it was still effective. Are some better than others? Let's find out, not quash the service. Because researchers can not explain something doesn't mean we do away with it. Nor should they be trying to."
When you say "Are some better than others? Let's find out", it sounds like you agree with me that we should be promoting modalities that prove themselves effective, and letting go of the ones that don't prove themselves. But then you say elsewhere that we should hold on to all modalities, and I don't understand the contradiction.
Mike Hinkle said:I think therapists are using the information taught them in schools. If you want them to accurately represent the science you want then you need to go to the schools and start there. Therapists are going to repeat what they were taught by their teachers. Most do not even take continuing education classes and will continue to give out the info that is available to them.
It seems there is personal influence being used here. You said there is no methodology used in Acupuncture at all. I see such a discourse from the World Health Organization telling me it is safe and effective and you basically saying it is not.
I do not believe therapists should change their claims based on your claims. As I stated above it is a miniscule amount of therapists that would even be making these claims. If a therapist is misrepresenting anything their association can take action because of their ethics laws. There is nothing to stop anyone from making these claims anyway. How would you know it or be able to stop it? The key is to teach them in school so they are promoting correct information.
The bickering about modalities has come about by a researcher naming 10 modalities he personally wants quashed and done away with. He has said so on numerous sites and through discussions. As long as this intent is obvious I will argue, bicker and continue to make sure they aren't.
I have seen Swedish massage done hundreds of different ways, it is still effective. I have seen acupuncture approached in many ways, it was still effective. Are some better than others? Let's find out, not quash the service. Because researchers can not explain something doesn't mean we do away with it. Nor should they be trying to.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
You said there is no methodology used in Acupuncture at all. I see such a discourse from the World Health Organization telling me it is safe and effective and you basically saying it is not.
No methodology at all? In any study in it? Who said that? There are some excellent studies in acupuncture (anyone want to find one and we'll discuss it?). The one that the site you listed warped the information from a worthless study.
I invited comment on that study since it should be clear to anyone (not just therapists) that the study it referred to is junk and the commentary on it on the site you listed is even more flawed since it didn't even represent the junk study correctly.
Do you know the difference between efficacy and effect? At what stage in this thread did anyone say that acupuncture is ineffective?
I do not believe therapists should change their claims based on your claims.
The only claim that I'm making is that we're all kept in the dark as far as research goes. Is that a bad claim? If so, I'll just stop posting completely. If people are not aware of their own ignorance then there's no point discussing this even further. Hey MTs!!! NEVER question what you're told and just ignore that massive conduit of information coming from the research world that can make you better at what you do.
The bickering about modalities has come about by a researcher naming 10 modalities he personally wants quashed and done away with. He has said so on numerous sites and through discussions. As long as this intent is obvious I will argue, bicker and continue to make sure they aren't.
No one should care what one researcher believes or thinks - UNLESS it has an obvious influence on the research work they produce. If a researcher really, really believes in modality x and they get funding from an organization made up of people that really really believes in modality x, then it would probably be advisable to apply a higher level of scrutiny to that study. Aside from that no one should give a rat's arse about other people's opinions - get informed and make up your own mind and start asking questions - one of those questions could be "How come I haven't been taught about how to use research?"
Let's find out, not quash the service.
Yeah, I agree with that - let's quash ignorance instead.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
Then again, how do you know it is the professional asssociation member or one not participating in continuing education? How are you going to get the info to those already out there saying what they were taught in school?
Repeating what they were told in school does not make them unprofessional, especially if the researchers are the ones putting out the bad info. Sounds likie you need to try and control your field, instead of ours. Then you would all be on the same page. Impossible you say? Then why is it being asked of us to all be on the same page? Why are you saying different things than WHO or other researchers? If there is conflicting research, doesn't that call for more research, rather than just accepting your approach?
-
-
So questioning what we were taught in school is professional, but questioning those that are demanding that we replace this "ignorance" with their approach is wrong?
The only claim that I'm making is that we're all kept in the dark as far as research goes.
First -There are some excellent studies- Then we are in the dark?
-
-
Whatever, man. I give up.
I became highly aware of my own ignorance about one and a half years ago. I fixed it. It had an impact on many areas of my practice in a very positive way. If others aren't interested in that, so be it.I was waiting on someone linking to a good study, but the fact that no one did is probably a good indication that they don't know how to find one. That's pretty sad.
I'm off.
-
-
"Then again, how do you know it is the professional asssociation member or one not participating in continuing education?"
Sorry, I don't understand the question.
"How are you going to get the info to those already out there saying what they were taught in school?"
I have some ideas on the subject, but that's really a dialogue the industry needs to have.
"Repeating what they were told in school does not make them unprofessional, especially if the researchers are the ones putting out the bad info."
In a sense, that's true. It's not someone's fault what someone else taught them. But it's also true that at some point, you do become responsible for the information you pass on, even though you learned it from someone else.
If we really mean what we say about being client-centered, then the question becomes "does the client get the good information from us that he or she is entitled to"? If the answer is "no", then we're not living up to the ideal of client-centeredness, and something has to change.
And what is the bad information put out by researchers that you are referring to? The acupuncture study you praised was put out by a clinician; WHO is an arm of the UN, which is an international political organization. They are not researchers.
"Sounds likie you need to try and control your field, instead of ours."
Ok, now you are trying to other me, just because you don't like what I say. That is an abusive and thoroughly inappropriate tactic, and I will not tolerate it.
Othering means:
Othering is a way of defining and securing one’s own positive identity through the stigmatization of an "other." Whatever the markers of social differentiation that shape the meaning of "us" and "them," whether they are racial, geographic, ethnic, economic or ideological, there is always the danger that they will become the basis for a self-affirmation that depends upon the denigration of the other group. (Source: http://www.cwrl.utexas.edu/~ulrich/rww03/othering.htm)
You know damn well that I am an MT, because you interrogated me about my credentials and where I live on the MTAA thread. The Rev also interrogated me about my credentials on another thread. This question has been asked and answered multiple times, not that it's a criterion for participating on this board, but I have been a good sport about it.
I have not seen anyone else on this board interrogated about their credentials as often as I have been, and yet you still try to pull this "your field" vs. "our field" business,
So you can take your othering crap, and put it away in favor of having a civil professional discussion based on the facts, because if you really have to resort to insults, attacks, and othering, then you know deep down you've got nothing.
"Impossible you say?"
What is it with this site and people putting words in my mouth? Do me the favor of sticking to what I actually say, instead of overgeneralizing, or just making things up.
Then why is it being asked of us to all be on the same page? Why are you saying different things than WHO or other researchers? If there is conflicting research, doesn't that call for more research, rather than just accepting your approach?
I am asking you to do the work of interpretation yourself, instead of just cherry-picking other people's interpretations that you happen to like. I connect the dots on my interpretations, so that you can follow them, and agree or disagree as you like. Then we hash out the conflicting interpretations on their respective facts and merits.
And I am saying that if the purpose of all of this is apologetics--to decide the conclusion of never dropping a modality in advance--and then selectively pick the evidence to bolster that and ignore contradictory evidence--then we are all wasting our time, money, and passion with talk of research literacy, professionalism, and client-centeredness.
Mike Hinkle said:
Then again, how do you know it is the professional asssociation member or one not participating in continuing education? How are you going to get the info to those already out there saying what they were taught in school?
Repeating what they were told in school does not make them unprofessional, especially if the researchers are the ones putting out the bad info. Sounds likie you need to try and control your field, instead of ours. Then you would all be on the same page. Impossible you say? Then why is it being asked of us to all be on the same page? Why are you saying different things than WHO or other researchers? If there is conflicting research, doesn't that call for more research, rather than just accepting your approach?
-
-
"So questioning what we were taught in school is professional, but questioning those that are demanding that we replace this "ignorance" with their approach is wrong?"
On the one hand, it is a good general principle to question everything. But if there is no amount of evidence that will ever convince you to change your mind, then it's just a waste of everyone's time.
I have, on multiple occasions, provided the criteria that would get me to change my mind about energy healing and homeopathy. Any time anyone wants to provide those criteria--and I will let you all judge that they have done so--I will publicly change my mind.
What would get you to change your mind about whether any modalities can ever be proven so ineffective that they should be let go in favor of more effective ones? If the answer is "nothing at all", then we are all wasting our time.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
What would get you to change your mind about whether any modalities can ever be proven so ineffective that they should be let go in favor of more effective ones?
I am looking into my crystal ball... I confidently predict you will not get a straight answer to this question.
-
-
Thanks, Ty.
Maybe if I released the "long form" of my massage license, it would satisfy the doubters? :)
Ty C said:"You know damn well that I am an MT, because you interrogated me about my credentials and where I live on the MTAA thread. The Rev also interrogated me about my credentials on another thread. This question has been asked and answered multiple times, not that it's a criterion for participating on this board, but I have been a good sport about it".......Ravensara
Yes, you have been a splendidly good sport about your credentials and residency being questioned. You are a bit like the President, the "opposing party" keeps looking for a way to disqualify you. I've read on this site "There is room for all" at the same time reading personal attacks on those who disagree with or choose to correct misinformation within a topic that has been posted up. I do hope you (and others) keep posting as I appreciate a two sided view. I am interested in well done research (I am learning my way through the maze of it) and the future of our profession, industry or whatever it is nowadays.
-
Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on
-
I don't consider myself qualified to comment on the quality of studies other than saying that in my limited amount of knowledge, there should be a control group and double-blind study, which seemed to be lacking there.
That being said, I have used acupuncture for the inflammation in my back for several years. I sometimes get inflamed right on my spine between the shoulder blades to the point where I can melt an ice pack in ten minutes. It feels like prickly heat and it can make me feel miserable. I first tried acupuncture about five years ago because of my aversion to taking any drugs, including those that are anti-inflammatory. The instant the first needle went in almost felt like the bursting of a balloon to me, because I could feel the heat start dissipating immediately. Since that first time, I have received it probably four times a year or so for the same condition, with the same results every time. Is that scientific proof? Not in the least. All I can say is, if it is the placebo effect, I'll still take it, because of the relief I have gotten.
I have found that two shots of Irish whiskey does the same. The first shot doesn't touch it, but apparently the second one is enough to deaden my nerve endings and give me some relief. I just can't sit around in my office swilling whiskey, obviously, so acupuncture is the choice when I'm working. If anyone wants to study the effect of Bushmill's on inflammation, I'm your willing subject ;)
-
-
there should be a control group and double-blind study, which seemed to be lacking there.
Double-blinding is impossible in acupuncture research.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
