massage and bodywork professionals

a community of practitioners

Fascinating work here. Definitely needs to be more research work done.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4GC1Sw__ooE

Views: 286

Replies to This Discussion

I only passed on discussing the Tchiakovsky issue at first because of limited time today, and because I wanted to stick with the original topic of the thread. I'm willing to discuss it, though.

As for your assertion that the lessons of the Clever Hans case do not apply to the present case of Apricot, or of pathology studies more generally, I could not disagree with you more. If we see a change in an animal's behavior, which could include symptomatology, gait, posture, and others, we certainly cannot assume that energy medicine is the explanation before we rule out the more mundane (but still very interesting) mechanisms, of which there are many.

If we (or whomever) want to test the possibility that energy medicine is at work, the scientific tool for doing so has been around for over 250 years. It requires an experiment, in which competing explanations for the observed phenomena are controlled.
Hi Christopher.
I am enjoying my discussion with you. You are extremely good in interchange the topics of discussions. Therefore I believe this one should be last one discussion of Apricot case. Just to summarize on what I was talking about.a) Apricot was diagnosed with spinal inflammatory conditions. For diagnostic of this condition most likely a veterinarian used MRI test. B) twisted neck is a clinical evidence of severe inflammatory conditions possible spinal cord edema.c) during 3 treatments obviously neck wasn't twisted which means less inflammation/compression d) I am happen to believe and concluding that in such a case of so rapid positive clinical changes just regular acceptable treatment wouldn't cause(take much more time) but real powerful energy work stimulation. And by this thank God I personally completed my discussion with you on Apricot case. Up front my apology for not responding in case if you will decide to continue.
Of course I would love to discuss with you other issues including Tchaikovsky claims .
As I promise I am working on it and soon will be full scientific review on this subject as well on this non-scientific claim by Tchaikovsky.
But meantime I will offer link to my short reply/ reaction on this study.
http://www.massageprofessionals.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2887274%3...
Thank you Boris, I am also enjoying our discussion.

"I... happen to believe... that in such a case of so rapid positive clinical changes just regular acceptable treatment wouldn't cause(take much more time) but real powerful energy work stimulation."

This is where we are in the least agreement. I think I understand your point - that improvement in a severe, anatomical, and degenerative condition is strong evidence (as compared to, say, clearing up a cold, or improving the patient's mood). Nevertheless, there are plenty of documented cases where severe, chronic, and degenerative conditions go into remission or spontaneously improve without treatment. If Apricot does exhibit real, measurable improvement (and I don't remember that such measurement were taken in Apricot's case, but no matter, I can still respond as if they were), we can't be sure that her improvement was not due to her bodies own regulatory and healing processes. Nor can we be sure that her bodily processes were not improved as a result of relaxation, comfort, encouragement, and motivation engendered by the attention she is receiving from her caregivers.

If we assume that Apricot is demonstrably better, we have several competing hypotheses for why this is so. To keep things simple, here are just three of them:

1. She improved because energy medicine, based on biofields and their manipulation, took place.
2. She improved because the treatment ritual provided beneficial attention that impacted her psychologically, which in turn had a positive effect on her body's natural regulatory and healing processes.
3. She entered remission or underwent spontaneous healing due to natural processes in her body that we do not fully understand (but not due to biofield energy healing).

I find 2 & 3, or even a combination of them, to be FAR more compelling than one. There are many reasons for this. One is that we know that 2 & 3 occur in nature, whereas we have no good scientific evidence that 1 occurs (I note that some people on this site have disagreed with me about the existence of scientific evidence for energy medicine; I have never seen any that meets standards of scientific evidence). Another is that the principles of energy medicine are inconsistent with much that we know about verified forms of energy.
Regarding the Tchaikovsky study, I have only read the overview of it that appeared in the NYTimes. I have not read the actual study itself. What I read in the NYT did not strike me as very controversial. It described a laboratory approach to try and determine the effect of a specific massage procedure on circulation in a specific part of the body. They found that massage did not promote circulation, or even found that it diminished it (I can't recall which, but the point is about the same in either case), contrary to what has often been stated by massage proponents.

How well their specific lab procedure translates to the real world of massage, I can't say, but I recognize that as a very important potential criticism of the study. As I noted in the thread for which you provided a link, the study is very high in internal validity, but perhaps not very high in external validity. I don't have a problem with that, so long as the researchers are not overstating their findings as they apply to the real world.

I'll certainly read your review and critique when you complete it.
Dear Christopher .
Don't know how many years you spend in treatment room and how many difficult neurologIcal cases you managed to treat .According to your comments not enough. Real experience clinician would appreciate Apricot case .and never would write:
“If we assume that Apricot is demonstrably better, we have several competing hypotheses for why this is so. To keep things simple, here are just three of them:

1. She improved because energy medicine, based on biofields and their manipulation, took place.
2. She improved because the treatment ritual provided beneficial attention that impacted her psychologically, which in turn had a positive effect on her body's natural regulatory and healing processes.
3. She entered remission or underwent spontaneous healing due to natural processes in her body that we do not fully understand (but not due to biofield energy healing).
I strongly believe that practitioner with strong clinical back ground would agree that nothing what you have wrote above applicable for this case. I thought my discussion with you on Apricot case due to my request is over but I'm glad that you didn't respect what I have requested. Because I believe this summary will help members to separate in their minds” beautiful “demagogic theories with real clinical work.
You wrote :”This is where we are in the least agreement. I think I understand your point - that improvement in a severe, anatomical, and degenerative condition is strong evidence (as compared to, say, clearing up a cold, or improving the patient's mood) .”
My goodness Christopher .”does this case about anatomical and degenerative condition?”
If this was your understanding then I understand why we argue and not discussing .
Was presented difficult neurologIcal case. Now I am positive or you didn't treat enough of this kind of conditions or maybe at all never have put your hands on people with neurologIcal conditions like this.
I'm here to discuss and not to argue .what here to discuss if your understanding that Apricot suffered from “anatomical and degenerative condition”whatever anatomical conditions means.
during my thank God long combine research, teaching, and most important clinical career in fields of medical and sports massage I was witness different people/scientists. Some of them demonstrated notcompetents some of them intellectually dishonest.would love to make a statement that most of the people that I met in our fields are very good decent scientists and clinicians who passionately love massage therapy. Tchaikovsky in my opinion and after I have study his paper and reading his interview and after reading how he introduced himself to readers of New York Times come to conclusions that he is both intellectually dishonest and not competent scientist. when reading his interview to New York Times you missed how he present his specialty :"His academic specialty is the study of blood flow to muscles, particularly in diseases like diabetes, and he decided to put the therapists’ words to the test."
even abstract in New York Times describing experiment that in no way not applicable to people who suffer from diabetes. What do you think would conclude
people who suffer from diabetes by reading this article??????at the time clinically proven that massage therapy can play crucial role in slow down and prevent vascular complication within people who suffer from diabetes. I believe his intellectual dishonesty in this case is a terrible sin.
I strongly believe that practitioner with strong clinical back ground would agree that nothing what you have wrote above applicable for this case.

You're mistaken in that belief. I know plenty of experienced clinicians who would understand and agree with what I outlined.
Tchaikovsky in my opinion... is both intellectually dishonest and not competent scientist.

Wow.

That's quite an accusation, to accuse someone of intellectual dishonesty, let alone based on a brief newspaper overview of a single study they conducted.

Why not just critique the study on its merits? He has data; do you have data?

In science, data trumps clinical experience.
Christopher.the following is my explanation why I am accusing Tchaikovsky with intellectual dishonesty.now you please explain why you believe that he intellectually innocent and responsible scientists. No spinning please anymore. Just answer.

"Tchaikovsky in my opinion and after I have study his paper and reading his interview and after reading how he introduced himself to readers of New York Times come to conclusions that he is both intellectually dishonest and not competent scientist. when reading his interview to New York Times you missed how he present his specialty :"His academic specialty is the study of blood flow to muscles, particularly in diseases like diabetes, and he decided to put the therapists’ words to the test."
even abstract in New York Times describing experiment that in no way not applicable to people who suffer from diabetes. What do you think would conclude
people who suffer from diabetes by reading this article??????at the time clinically proven that massage therapy can play crucial role in slow down and prevent vascular complication within people who suffer from diabetes. I believe his intellectual dishonesty in this case is a terrible sin."
I read it the first time.

In the absence of data to support your claim, your public condemnation of Tschakovsky as "intellectually dishonest" is outrageous.
Christopher.thank you for outrageous. You still spinning by saying I'm seeing this first-time, and not answering why you think
calling Tchaikovsky intellectually dishonest is outrageous. by the way speaking of outrageous. To offer pictures of your dog was outrageous and disrespectful to member who participate in discussion with you.what was the meaning,or reply in in this picture?how it was related to Apricot case? You obviously feeling superior.I don't think anyone can feel superior and especially in discussions.you also never answer how many years you practicing massage?if you do not answering to my questions than all come to the point of a waste of time. most likely my discussions with you is over.
I saw you posted some other comment will review and maybe will reply maybe not.
Boris, I'm so sorry you were disrespected and outraged by a picture of my dog, which I posted not in response to you, but to another poster.

As for answering your questions, I do believe I've answered the relevant ones. Ad hominems and arguments from authority do not interest me.

Something we do seem to agree on is that this discussion is rapidly becoming a waste of time.

RSS

© 2022   Created by ABMP.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service