Massage Therapy Body of Knowledge

Comment

Comment by Bert Davich on October 22, 2009 at 7:43pm

Keith,
I agree with your statement and conclusion....

"that based on both the observations and our current understanding of the nature of the universe, that expectation of detection is currently quite small, a conclusions that I have to agree with."

However that was not the conclusion Chris has supported. The conclusion he supported was .....

"Their failure to substantiate TT's most fundamental claim is unrefuted evidence that the claims of TT are groundless and that further professional use is unjustified"

Which is fundamentally different than your QUALIFIED statement & conclusion. That qualification makes your statement quite different from the conclusion of the study and can be logically supported.

The TT question is not important to me, but if that kind of unqualified conclusion is going to be applied to TT, then we can expect it to be applied to other questions in the Massage Therapy Universe.

Also, Bayes Theorem is as valid (or invalid) as the data supplied for statistical interpretation.

And by the way, you are quite an great educator.

Comment by Gloria Coppola on October 22, 2009 at 4:11pm

With the utmost respect for all that you do Mike, Thank you. And for all of you that work so diligently to enhance our standards. Thank you too!

Comment by rudy m smith on October 22, 2009 at 3:49pm

Keith, you always seem to nail it.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 3:35pm

Noel,

You are wrong. Gloria is the person, I know most has no ego involved. She is one of the brightest and most tolerable people in this profession. The opposing side and myself to a large degree all have egos. To me, it helps make who we are. We are not fighting here. We are trying to make this BOK, work for all of us.

Her comment was about EBP, I know because I solicited it by starting the discussion and then asked her opinion. She was not referring to you.

Comment by Gloria Coppola on October 22, 2009 at 3:05pm

I am choosing to not further this discussion, not because of my ignorance. I hope I clarified what was needed and never intended to attack you Noel or anyone else about their qualifications. If you want to email me personally, please feel free to do so as this seems to be a personal issue.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 22, 2009 at 2:55pm

Gloria: Your apology is overly qualified to be heartfelt. FYI - it's no secret that relatively few massage therapists choose to participate in advancing our field. If your wish was simply to defend Mike, it's sad you failed to make that clear. Additionally:

a. What caused you to believe that the people whom you named are failing to hold their own against the rest in this ongoing discussion?

b. Re your not delving into the "accusation of ignorance"; What facts led you to believe that I could be properly stigmatized as being among those in our field who "aren't even aware of what is happening in our profession at all. They just complain."?


Mike: Since Gloria failed to reference EBP, I believe that I properly took her comment about "a battle of the ego. There I have said it!" as referring to all on this thread but for "Stephen, Gerry , Rudy and Mike."

Comment by Gloria Coppola on October 22, 2009 at 2:22pm

Noel ,etal. I am not insulting or embarrassing anyone. Apologies. I was hoping that perhaps some would realize that Mike is really trying to help us all here and it seems he is being attacked as I read these discussions. He is inquiring as a voice for us.

I choose not to delve into the accusation of ignorance . ..........

Please realize many individuals do not get actively involved. I speak in many places and so many people aren't even aware of what is happening in our profession at all. They just complain.

I have too, for over 20 years been involved and changing laws locally etc.. I am not arguing against you. I was saying give the people a chance to set a standard to get this rolling. We have to get some unification statewide at a basic level. I have never said shut up! Absolutely the opposite.

I also realize that many practitioners out there for 15, 20 and 25 years have never continued their education. Quite surprising, but fact. I also realize that as a former school owner, instructor etc. schools and state regulations are different everywhere. We need to have a standard set. Did you know most massage therapist in states who don't require Ce's, don't even care if they ever take another one?

None of us know the destiny of any of these organizations at this point. I have hoped for many years NCB would have been the team we were all hoping for to raise the standards in our profession. Obviously, it has disappointed many.

As for all of these "separate" alliances - sorry, but why do we all need to start new ones?

I also realize that those who have "studied" diligently deserve to be set at a higher standard of competence. However, I have also seen many who think they are Doctors! If we want to be seen as health care professionals, then we need to implement standards across the board that provide the opportunity for more thorough education.

I don't have the answers and I am not going to attack anyone who is trying. I just think we need to find a common page to be on and get the ball rolling in a positive direction now!

So Noel, you are not correct to think it was my wish to embarrass anyone. I was not putting a finger at any one person. So if you took this personal, there is nothing I can do about that, except extend an apology that you read it wrong.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 2:20pm

Noel, You are mixing apples and oranges. She was responding to the discussion Carl relayed above, on EBP. He was saying the only reason for licensing was because of prostitution. She was not referring to people opposed to BOK.

Comment by Noel Norwick on October 22, 2009 at 1:59pm

Gloria: Am I correct to think you wish to embarrass those of us who were not selected to be part of these committees into shutting up and trusting in the good intentions of those who were?

I'm offended by your implication (based on your own ignorance) that those of us who are "complaining and arguing" have failed to get involved and/or contribute. FYI - I have been politically active on behalf of California massage practitioners & schools during the past 11 years that I have taught in the field, was one of the original group of "subject matter experts" that the FSMTB brought to Chicago to develop the MBLEx exam and applied for but was not selected to be part of the California Massage Therapy Council board and the MTBOK task force.

Comment by Mike Hinkle on October 22, 2009 at 1:46pm

I'm really trying to understand if NCB will even exist soon. I know those loyal to NCB (which I have been a member of since becoming a therapist) don't want to hear it, but I wonder. They have lost many states to MBLEx and all that revenue.

The Alliance seems to want to address credentialling, (NCB's mission) since NCB isn't. They will lose more revenue.

I have no idea about the Alliance's decision as to the final version as we still have two versions to go. I don't even know mine yet. If unhappy, I'll let you know.

I don't know how the FSMTB will use the BOK for MBLEx evaluation or even if they will. BOK is guidelines, not rule or law. They may use parts, they may not.

What I do know is that without the BOK, Model Practice Act, Title Acts and Standards of Practice we are "dog paddling" in the water. It is time to swim!

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• …
• 31
• 32
• 33
• 34
• 35
• …
• 51
• Next ›
• Page