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 Christopher A. Moyer on
-
Your fellow researcher is calling into question my professionalism for not checking research writings and yet you say you do. All I hear you say is that it is flawed.
Changing the subject, as always. Further, I've barely said a thing about the research discussed in this thread, except to note that blinding is difficult to impossible in acupuncture research. I haven't been involved in the discussion of the specific studies that you and Raven and Vlad have discussed.
Where is your rebuttal to the WHO about this and Reiki in over 800 hospitals in the US that they are sending research out about.?
Why would I make a 'rebuttal' to WHO about acupuncture? That doesn't even make sense. As for hospitals 'sending research out' about reiki, that statement is further proof that you don't know what you're talking about. The fact that lots of hospitals permit reiki is not at all the same as producing research on it.
And we return to square one with ..... Perhaps, but as we've pointed out over and over again, science isn't about authority. One either has the evidence, or they don't. And You don't have the evidence to prove they are bunk!)
Square one indeed. Once again, you ignore the most basic facts of scientific evidence that we've provided you with over, and over, and over. One cannot prove a negative. Which is beside the point that there is plenty of evidence in physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and neuroscience for why reiki is totally implausible.
So it comes down to your word versus an entire industry... think I'll stay with them.
What 'industry' is that? When have I said you or anyone else should take 'my word'?
Oh, right - never. That'd be never.
-
Permalink Reply by Mike Hinkle on
-
I (us) vs them is life. In this instance, I shared an article that I thought would enlighten some. Now I am responsible for it's contents. See how it develops?
I am not against you, Vlad. Even, if you were a researcher and evidenced based therapist. I would love to see evidence base research instead of this. EBP folks are taking a hard approach that will slow down their acceptance by many. But that is their decision. Many have expressed interest, but have taken a step backwards because of the exchanges... and that is a shame for the profession.
Vlad said:In many cases it is I against them. People pick sides in everything. Not all sides are the same all the time, but everyone does it. They read each side and decide who they agree with. And I'm sure I am the minority many times. Won't change a thing. But that's okay.
Are you against me? I'm a MT who isn't a researcher and I'm not evidenced based. What side am I supposed to pick here?
Can someone please tell me? I need someone to tell me what to think.
-
-
Christopher, you are right. All 800 are not posting their work yet. But am I the only one that can't understand how you say it is not plausible and 800 hospitals are offering the service? They are making a lot of money for nothing? Is it professional to sit back as a researcher with your knowledge that they are stealing from patients and not condemn these hospitals?
The industries... are the ones you want quashed and you are the researcher that is stepping up calling things inplausible with NO EVIDENCE and acting as an authority, how's that? Closer?
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
I shared an article that I thought would enlighten some. Now I am responsible for it's contents.
You shared a *link* to a site that you thought had good information. The information on that site *could maybe be appraised* as being good or it could be appraised as being bad - or somewhere in between - they talk about "levels of evidence" for a reason and very often it's a case of trying to figure out where that level is. I don't know how anyone with any basic knowledge of research could appraise the information on the site you listed as good. If you can explain how you think the study was good and the representation of the study was good, then please point them out. We can learn from that.
You're not responsible for the content of the site, but when anyone *promotes* something that is obviously flawed (in this case, it should be obvious to everyone), then people should be made aware of it. If anything, this is a good thing since people can learn from it and we should say "Here's a claim made on a site - it's referencing a study - let's look at it in more detail". It should happen more often. What shouldn't happen is name-calling and ad-hominems on a board that is about professional massage that can be viewed by anyone - including the public.
-
-
I agree. But you are saying then that you are the *link* police. You are saying anything challeged should be taken down?
You have been shown a method that can explain to you that it is flawed? Put that method online for everyone. There is no case that is obvious to therapists. Where is the "acceptable" research?
This is going to stay as is as long as it is left as is. Most therapists don't even want to talk about research and as soon as "unprofessional" ewnters the conversation... you lost them. Stop saying things like it should be obvious. Just because it is to you.
Reseach studies are done in many ways which are usually determined by the finances avaliable. Every study does not have to reach a double blind level to be accepted. It almost sounds like professional jealousy between the chefs!
I am glad you comsider it a good thing. Because despite the clamour I will continue to post as I have and they can argue points few will get.
I do not have the time to or will research every article I put up online. If I read something and like it, I probably will share it. It wasn't the protocols for anything, it was a report that says acupuncture cures chronic sinus congestion. I hope by sharing it, someone will get relief.
-
-
Christopher, you are right. All 800 are not posting their work yet.
Research isn't 'posting' work. It's nothing like that at all. And no, I'm not going to take the time to describe the whole process to you yet again, so don't ask. Myself and others have already done that over and over again.
But am I the only one that can't understand how you say it is not plausible and 800 hospitals are offering the service?
No, you're not the only one, not even close. That's obvious.
They are making a lot of money for nothing? Is it professional to sit back as a researcher with your knowledge that they are stealing from patients and not condemn these hospitals?
I do condemn them. Hospitals should not be in the business of endorsing nonsense. I've been very clear about that.
The industries... are the ones you want quashed and you are the researcher that is stepping up calling things inplausible with NO EVIDENCE and acting as an authority, how's that? Closer?
Not much, no.
I can call things, such as reiki, tremendously implausible. I can go on to back this up by noting that fairly basic evidence in physics, chemistry, biology, anatomy, physiology, psychology, and neuroscience all support my opinion. It doesn't also follow that I must now provide an elementary education to you in each and every one of those fields. I waste enough time here already. Besides, when I and others have done that, you just ignore it and then come up with the very same stuff later.
And the truth is, I don't care what you personally believe. If the fact that 800 hospitals (which, by the way, is little more than only 10% of the number of hospitals in the US) allow or provide reiki as a service is convincing to you that reiki must work, then fine. That's your right. I happen to demand a much higher standard of evidence than that. Arguments from popularity and from authority don't cut any ice with me.
I'm not sure how or why you see me 'acting as an authority.' I say what I think when I have reason to believe I know what I'm talking about. Take it or leave it. If you want to know the reasoning and evidence for my position, I'll provide it when I can, but it doesn't fall on me to provide you with an education, and that's especially true when you're not willing to take the time to learn the background information. You've made it clear you're not, and that's also fine. The only problem with that is you can't then spout off and demand explanations from other people who have put in the work, work which you are not prepared to try to understand.
And do not spin that as condescension, because it isn't. Not everyone needs to spend their precious time learning the stuff that I or someone else cares about, just as I don't have to spend my time learning about stuff other people care about. But what I don't do is argue, or continue to argue, with people when I don't know what I'm talking about, and then revel in my ignorance. That, more than anything I can think of, typifies the lack of integrity that you accused me of having.
So to repeat, think whatever you like. Really, I mean that. But also realize that when you spout off nonsense in a public forum, people might challenge you by asking you to give your reasoning and evidence. And if you don't have any, or it isn't very good, then you're likely to get called on it.
-
-
No nonsense has been spouted..an article was posted... that you oppose within the safe confines of this discussion. I saw no rebuttal or references from you at all or anyone else.
Thank you for your permission to think whatever I like. I give you the same.
I am supposed to research my articles written by researchers before posting but it isn't your job to police your profession? I know that isn't what your job title entails ... it is what you could do, as much as I could research articles. Neither will happen.
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
You are saying anything challeged should be taken down?
I think leaving it up, and leaving up the discussion that follows, is a very good learning experience for people to follow.
I don't think you should take it down; I just think you shouldn't take it personally when someone else's published work is critiqued, and then start throwing insults and attacks at people who are analyzing the work.
If you don't want to put up work that's going to be criticized, then you can vet it more carefully to be sure you put up only good information.
You have been shown a method that can explain to you that it is flawed?
I did explain that, in response to Vlad's question, on the very first page, I think.
This is going to stay as is as long as it is left as is. Most therapists don't even want to talk about research and as soon as "unprofessional" ewnters the conversation... you lost them. Stop saying things like it should be obvious. Just because it is to you.
You made it very clear that you will continue to speak your piece, and I will do the same.
As an MT who cares about the industry, I care about how we represent ourselves to our clients through the claims we make.
If we want to become a profession, we need to address this issue. I will feel free to express my opinion on matters that affect my industry of massage therapy. Anyone who doesn't want to talk about research is free to skip the posts.
I do not have the time to or will research every article I put up online.
You might consider putting up fewer articles that you vet more carefully. That would improve the quality of the information; lots of poor information doesn't really add as much to our knowledge as less, but better-quality, information.
-
-
Well then, in the future, why not ask the question "What do people think of this site and the claims made on it?" and give the link. Then invite comment on the site and the research. That would be great. That way you're handling your own confirmation bias in a much more constructive way - it's like saying "I like what this is saying since it seems to be backing up my belief, but I should still be objective in assessing the study". That's pretty much what most of us will do most of the time anyway. We're all prone to confirmation bias in some way or other.
If you look back to the article that was posted about methods used in acupuncture, you might get a reference to much more interesting studies. As for the flaws in the study from the site - I'm not going to point them out again since Raven already covered most of it earlier in the thread. Plus kudos to Laura for giving it a shot.
I gave a link to an eBook back earlier in the thread that gives some basic information on research. I don't view myself as an expert in research by a long shot and so I'm not going to try to teach people about it on here. I tried that before and I sucked at it. My advice would be to get a book or attend a course on research literacy as a starting point and get stuck into google scholar and start gathering up studies on whatever people are interested in. Spend a bit of time looking at research and put together your own list of "What should I look for in this?". Baby steps.
The other thing I recommend is that if anyone sees a researcher reference something and you don't know what they're on about, say "can you explain that a bit further?".
There is another wee free ebook that I recommend for anyone that is interested in critical thinking skills:
http://www.sciencenet.cn/upload/blog/file/2010/11/20101111610621178...
Ok - I gotta make dinner here.
-
-
I disagree. Bet you are shocked. I say put the information out there. How about you putting up some research that you are happy with.
I mean you guys are here correcting it right? I'll see what I can find.
Ravensara Travillian said:You are saying anything challeged should be taken down?
I think leaving it up, and leaving up the discussion that follows, is a very good learning experience for people to follow.
I don't think you should take it down; I just think you shouldn't take it personally when someone else's published work is critiqued, and then start throwing insults and attacks at people who are analyzing the work.
If you don't want to put up work that's going to be criticized, then you can vet it more carefully to be sure you put up only good information.
You have been shown a method that can explain to you that it is flawed?
I did explain that, in response to Vlad's question, on the very first page, I think.
This is going to stay as is as long as it is left as is. Most therapists don't even want to talk about research and as soon as "unprofessional" ewnters the conversation... you lost them. Stop saying things like it should be obvious. Just because it is to you.
You made it very clear that you will continue to speak your piece, and I will do the same.
As an MT who cares about the industry, I care about how we represent ourselves to our clients through the claims we make.
If we want to become a profession, we need to address this issue. I will feel free to express my opinion on matters that affect my industry of massage therapy. Anyone who doesn't want to talk about research is free to skip the posts.
I do not have the time to or will research every article I put up online.
You might consider putting up fewer articles that you vet more carefully. That would improve the quality of the information; lots of poor information doesn't really add as much to our knowledge as less, but better-quality, information.
-
-
No nonsense has been spouted..
Plenty of nonsense gets spouted on this site.
an article was posted... that you oppose within the safe confines of this discussion. I saw no rebuttal or references from you at all or anyone else.
Right. That's because I haven't had anything to say about the article you've posted in this discussion. Which I've already noted.
Thank you for your permission to think whatever I like. I give you the same.
I am supposed to research my articles written by researchers before posting
I never said that. What I've said is you shouldn't keep arguing about things that you admit you do not know about.
but it isn't your job to police your profession?
No, it's not my job to 'police' all research everywhere all the time. And good thing, too, because when researchers do attempt to highlight research shortcomings here, you seem to do everything in your ability to muddle the issues.
But in another more limited sense, you are right that it is my job, and I do it. I'm on the editorial board of two different journals and have served as peer reviewer for several others. I do carefully scrutinize dozens of research articles and a couple of book chapters a year. It's hard and often tedious work, usually for no pay. So in that sense you are right, it is my job to 'police,' or more accurately to peer review, the work being done in my area of research. And I do plenty of it.
-
-
All I said from a personal point was don't throw out acupuncture. I repeated what the article said. I think that does give my view pretty much. I do believe in Acupuncture because it "cured" my lower back pains. So nothing "Doc" or anyone else says is going to change that. If it doesn't do this for one other individual it doesn't change the fact it did for me. I lived with these pains for over 20 years and in one session, that was six years ago, I was and AM painfree! So yes I am bias. The same way "Doc" comes to the table not accepting because of his knowledge that it can't help. He is not open either. He says prove it. I say prove it doesn't. He uses theory. I have the fact of no pain. I am glad I found acupuncture before meeting him and being told not to waste my time. I hope others will keep an open mind to alternate medical procedures and perhaps find relief.
I also care about claims to clients. The claims we make are made by authors and researchers. But I will leave it up to the institutions to get their info correct. Most therapists are not researchers and we are to police and challenge their findings? If a researcher finds wrong or inaccurate info being published and chooses to just approach those that share it and never approaches the source... is that professional? I am not going to check articles I post. We have ya'll here and you are doing that, right?
Enjoy dinner!!!
Vlad said:Well then, in the future, why not ask the question "What do people think of this site and the claims made on it?" and give the link. Then invite comment on the site and the research. That would be great. That way you're handling your own confirmation bias in a much more constructive way - it's like saying "I like what this is saying since it seems to be backing up my belief, but I should still be objective in assessing the study". That's pretty much what most of us will do most of the time anyway. We're all prone to confirmation bias in some way or other.
If you look back to the article that was posted about methods used in acupuncture, you might get a reference to much more interesting studies. As for the flaws in the study from the site - I'm not going to point them out again since Raven already covered most of it earlier in the thread. Plus kudos to Laura for giving it a shot.
I gave a link to an eBook back earlier in the thread that gives some basic information on research. I don't view myself as an expert in research by a long shot and so I'm not going to try to teach people about it on here. I tried that before and I sucked at it. My advice would be to get a book or attend a course on research literacy as a starting point and get stuck into google scholar and start gathering up studies on whatever people are interested in. Spend a bit of time looking at research and put together your own list of "What should I look for in this?". Baby steps.
The other thing I recommend is that if anyone sees a researcher reference something and you don't know what they're on about, say "can you explain that a bit further?".
There is another wee free ebook that I recommend for anyone that is interested in critical thinking skills:
http://www.sciencenet.cn/upload/blog/file/2010/11/20101111610621178...
Ok - I gotta make dinner here.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
