sorry. I said in my comment that we do can conclude on case of Apricot because clinical improvement was obvious..however I stated that in general we cannot come to conclusions.when clinical improvement is the fact
I believe we do not need myriad scientific reasons.
Please forgive me but I am here to defend Apricot case LOL.she didn't say that condition is the same but opposite she said that Apricot doing better and we saw it.what we saw is wasn't arch and twist of neck and this is biggers evidence of improvement. The question is, if we believe to this case presentation as this lady did. I personally 100% believing to her.It just my intuition that she is very decent and good woman and wouldn't go so low to describe "arch and twist of neck"(very difficult neurological picture)as she did and not to tell the true.
I'm sorry.in my post I never mentioned, as well didn't thought for a 1 second that your comment is"disparagement against this woman" I'm sorry that you felt this way. I just shared my opinion in regards of crucial point "is it true testimonial?"This all.
At the time of my last year in graduate school our professor brought guest speaker Lady by name Guna.
She demonstrated energy work with no touch on huge Amazon frog that was connected to the sensors. It was obviously that she affecting positive function of organs and systems. Most of us who was in class this day including myself, asked why not to place hands on and to incorporate energy potentials at the time when performing massage?. For last 38 years I am practicing hands-on scientifically developed medical and sports massage and do incorporate energy work based on available scientific data. From personal experience I can tell you that this is make big different.At this discussion please find my article on the subject. No doubt that potentials that we are activating by soft tissue mobilization is a main original stimulation but with no sense of touch/energy work it less effective.
Boris, I have truly enjoyed reading all your posts on this topic. I think the video is just amazing with Apricot. I have received two Reiki sessions myself and am always amazed as to what takes place. I am hoping one day to learn Reiki.
Thank you for nice words. Really have not enough knowledge about Reiki but as I stated in my previous post as well in my article, I believe and practice incorporation of energy work at the time of the hands on massage procedure.
Thanks for posting this beautiful video. That's what it's all about...and ahhh, to share life on that level! Too bad those skeptics out there don't have a clue. Maybe the scientists can one day figure out a way to slide into the skin of a recipient, and until then, I'm afraid the academic world won't quite be able to unravel and explain this dynamic...and there's brilliance in the notknowing as well. Peace ~m
Well, I'm a skeptic, and I believe that I do experience life on that level, including my interactions with my five pets, whom I love. I have profound interactions with the humans and the animals in my life all the time. My bond with my dog (who happens to be a bit feral and wolf-like, actually) is very deep; I've known her since the day she was born, over 13 years ago, and she has played a most important role in my life. She and I communicate all the time - I just don't happen to think that it happens according to the principles of energy medicine.
Please don't assume that because someone is skeptical or scientific in their thinking that it must mean they live an impoverished life.
Doc, I didn't mean to imply there is anything impoverished about not believing in energy work...that you're a skeptic is well-known. The point I meant to make was, the receiving end of it must be a challenge to validate scientifically since it is such a subjective experience...like trying to describe the taste of food to somebody else. I love that people endeavor to try (people on this site, Lynne McTaggert, Schwartz, et al) and I applaude and follow the research as much as possible. Callie looks amazing for a thirteen year-old canine, you obviously must have "the touch" as well! ;)
not related issue.I do understand and to some degree share with :" scientific evidence needed"I personally was involved in many researchers,and was principal investigator in some of them. I'm practicing scientific through research developed methodology of medical and sports massage but should we accept any study reports?and ignore what we saw with our eyes in case of Apricot?Recently New York Times published interview with Prof. Tchaikovsky who did in my opinion nonscientific study and claiming that massage therapy do not promoting blood supplies to tissues.
Should we accept this nonsense only because research was done and he published paper?I personally as a respond to this publication working on scientific review on the subject and will prove that this studies protocol and results is absolutely unacceptable by us and should be rejected by general public. Therefore my recommendation let's compromise a bit. In this case of scientific evidence of Tchaikovsky I'm not skeptic but extremely outraged. http://well.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/06/02/phys-ed-does-massage-help-...
"should we... ignore what we saw with our eyes in case of Apricot?"
No, I don't think we should ignore what we saw. I think we have to ask ourselves, carefully and critically, what it is that we saw. I can only speak for myself, but what I saw was an animal that certainly appeared to be calmed and soothed by affection, attention, and touch from its human companions. Possibly, though I hasten to add I didn't see it directly in this case, we might also have seen a reduction of symptoms (e.g., perhaps the animal moved more easily or showed less expressive signs of pain afterward; I'm not sure, but I could imagine witnessing this). I could maybe add some other details, but I think you probably get what I'm saying here.
What I didn't see was unambiguous evidence that those behaviors in the animal were caused by energy medicine. In fact, there are many theories that are much better supported by what we know about animal behavior than that one which can account for the animal's behaviors in that video.
Once again, I'd like to emphasize the famous case of Clever Hans. Animals have all kinds of ways of responding to us and their environments, and because they have different sensory sensitivities than we do (or, in some cases, entirely different senses), it can be very difficult for us to understand from casual observation how or why they do what they do. To the casual and credulous observer, Clever Hans appeared to be able to do math. But, by examining that phenomenon in a more careful and controlled way, Pfungst was able to prove that this was not the case; what Hans was actually doing was reading the minute and unintentional signals that his handlers communicated in their body language, which is perhaps more amazing.
I'll pass on commenting on your position on the Tchaikovsky study for now.
"I'll pass on commenting on your position on the Tchaikovsky study for now."
Why Christopher?it is too important issue. I hope you agree with me on this. I believe this discussion could be multi-beneficial for all of us. Disagree with you on this one. Absolutely disagree. You must have opinion on this and not to express it?
Coming back to Apricot.you describe behavior of this animal in general which is also objectives to consider improvement in condition. I paid attention on additional clinical improvement such as not twisted neck which is most expressive phenomenon for difficult would say very difficult neurological condition.
BTW.as you know most clinical studies in medicine starts on animals before it coming to human subject.famous case of Clever Hans has nothing to do with pathology treatment as well research to find way to heal humans. This is fair or not but this is reality.therefore in such a cases I would recommend you to give up to use as an example famous case of Clever Hans.of course all up to you including not to express opinion on the Tchaikovsky study.