massage and bodywork professionals
a community of practitioners
Stop the Insanity!
I hope this gets everyone's attention, and I don't give a rip if anyone replies or not. I am posting this separately from the previous discussions on here that have deteriorated into the most vile insulting and mudslinging bunch of crap I have ever seen in my life.
It is distressing to me that massage therapists, researchers in the field, and anyone else associated with our profession in any way stoop to this kind of behavior. Not only is it not a productive discussion, it is starting to sound like a bunch of politicians on tv with their insulting of each other's credentials, standards, and abilities.
I am not interested in shame and blame, so who started it and who said what is irrelevant. I urge you all to remember that we are ALL in this profession because we have a desire to help people through the awesome power of touch, and that is what it is about.
We don't have to agree. We can all agree to disagree. The personal attacks, the character attacks, the arguing over which country does it better, is ridiculous, petty, and childish. This is not the first time this has happened. It is the main reason I avoid this site most of the time.
I am no better, or no worse than anyone else, and everybody is entitled to an opinion. That's what forums are meant for, so that people with differing opinions have a place to discuss those, but so much of what has gone on here is not a civil discussion. When I see people that I know to be hard-working, caring people, and people that I know to be brilliant minds and hard-working as well get into these mudslinging insulting arguments on here, I personally find that to be a bad reflection of what we are supposed to be about.
I don't have to be bad in order for you to be good. You don't have to be a failure just so someone else can be a success. One country who does things differently is not better or worse, they are just different. People get caught up in national pride, and that's okay, but it does not have to deteriorate into what some of these discussions have deteriorated into. Someone makes a comment, someone takes it the wrong way, or out of context, and it just goes downhill from there.
When you're writing like this, you can't hear people's tone of voice, you can't see their body language, and what might be civil if we were all in a room together comes off as a bunch of superior b*******, and one's just as guilty as the other. When anyone has anything intelligent to say, someone else seizes upon that and uses it as an excuse for the next round of arguing.
I wish everyone of you peace and prosperity, regardless of where you are from, what you do, or how you do it. We are all equal by virtue of the fact that we are all human and it's too bad that people are fighting like a pack of junkyard dogs instead of having a civil disagreement. I can't participate in it and I won't.
Views: 1076
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Ravensara Travillian on
-
I think it matters to be scrupulously careful how you talk about it, and in what context.
In a scientific context, to say there is no evidence for the claimed mechanisms is helpful, for one thing, in deciding how you want to allocate resources in designing a study, given that we don't have enough time and money to study everything. It's also helpful when you consider how research results are magnified by being put into practice by thousands of practitioners on many thousands of clients.
If a practitioner, on the other hand, has a client with intractable pain, and wants to offer acupuncture in hopes it might help, those research considerations aren't the highest priority to the client's experience of pain. I think it would be perfectly fine and humane in that case to say "Here's something that some people have reported helps them. If you want to try it to see if it works for you, I'd be willing to try it with you, and if that doesn't help, we'll keep looking for something else that might."
The risk of it is that it might not be the acupuncture that helps the client. It could be the presence of a caring, dedicated therapist, and the acupuncture is secondary to that person being there and being attentive.
To the client, it won't matter, because the pain is relieved. That's one of their primary considerations.
To the researcher, it will matter very much, because if the claim is made on behalf of acupuncture, when it's really the caring practitioner, then when they publish their results, they'll be sending lots of practitioners and patients down the wrong path looking for help. That's one of their primary considerations.
It's a big responsibility to be a researcher, and the need to get things exactly right is something we take very seriously. While being unsure about mechanisms in complementary medicine is not nearly as likely to kill patients as something like Werner Bezwoda's admitted lies about high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation vs standard chemotherapy for breast cancer, it's still the same principle.
Researchers' efforts are magnified by the number of practitioners and clients who use those researchers' published results to make decisions. When the stakes are that high, you have to be really picky about doing it right, and speaking extra carefully about what we do and do not know.
It's not about denying people's experiences. It's about what can we ethically say, based on what we do know and what we don't know, and knowing that these pronouncements are taken very seriously by people who will use them in making decisions with real consequences.
Ezekiel OBrien said:I am saying I am not sure that it really matters or not if it is or isn't. If you get satisfying results from anything in life be it travel, a spouse, or needles stuck in tsubo would it matter to you if it was scientifically provable? We are descended from a culture of brilliant scientific minds that in addition to the internet and pop tarts thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, leeches could cure any disease that reddened, that surviving "trial by ordeal" aka burning or drowning a defendant was a way to determine quilt, and that Thalidomide was a great cure for morning sickness. In my own experience I tend to, as one commenter put it have my neck hairs curl, when grandiose health claims are made about massage, acupuncture or anything for that matter. But so far I have enjoyed my handful of acupuncture sessions enough so that if I feel the need for more sessions then I will happily pay. In the Bay area we have cheap quality "community acupuncture clinics" which makes it even more appealing.
Daniel Cohen said:
So Acupuncture is a placebo? It is strictly based on acupoints and meridians. Nixon had his appendix removed with only acupuncture as the anesthesia. He was hardly a New Age promoter prone towards placebos. Acupressure has a bit more behind it since in addition to acupoint/meridian theory it also uses the acupoints that are called trigger points in the west and deep pressure on muscle and fascia with stretch therapy.
-
Permalink Reply by Alexei Levine on
-
As far as the risks of not knowing if healing is occurring because of the placebo or some other effect,I don't think it's quite that cut and dry. Most therapists I know don't blindly follow researchers reccomendations. If we try a treatment, and it doesn't work, we don't use it.
Ravensara Travillian said:
I think it matters to be scrupulously careful how you talk about it, and in what context.
In a scientific context, to say there is no evidence for the claimed mechanisms is helpful, for one thing, in deciding how you want to allocate resources in designing a study, given that we don't have enough time and money to study everything. It's also helpful when you consider how research results are magnified by being put into practice by thousands of practitioners on many thousands of clients.
If a practitioner, on the other hand, has a client with intractable pain, and wants to offer acupuncture in hopes it might help, those research considerations aren't the highest priority to the client's experience of pain. I think it would be perfectly fine and humane in that case to say "Here's something that some people have reported helps them. If you want to try it to see if it works for you, I'd be willing to try it with you, and if that doesn't help, we'll keep looking for something else that might."
The risk of it is that it might not be the acupuncture that helps the client. It could be the presence of a caring, dedicated therapist, and the acupuncture is secondary to that person being there and being attentive.
To the client, it won't matter, because the pain is relieved. That's one of their primary considerations.
To the researcher, it will matter very much, because if the claim is made on behalf of acupuncture, when it's really the caring practitioner, then when they publish their results, they'll be sending lots of practitioners and patients down the wrong path looking for help. That's one of their primary considerations.
It's a big responsibility to be a researcher, and the need to get things exactly right is something we take very seriously. While being unsure about mechanisms in complementary medicine is not nearly as likely to kill patients as something like Werner Bezwoda's admitted lies about high-dose chemotherapy and autologous stem-cell transplantation vs standard chemotherapy for breast cancer, it's still the same principle.
Researchers' efforts are magnified by the number of practitioners and clients who use those researchers' published results to make decisions. When the stakes are that high, you have to be really picky about doing it right, and speaking extra carefully about what we do and do not know.
It's not about denying people's experiences. It's about what can we ethically say, based on what we do know and what we don't know, and knowing that these pronouncements are taken very seriously by people who will use them in making decisions with real consequences.
Ezekiel OBrien said:I am saying I am not sure that it really matters or not if it is or isn't. If you get satisfying results from anything in life be it travel, a spouse, or needles stuck in tsubo would it matter to you if it was scientifically provable? We are descended from a culture of brilliant scientific minds that in addition to the internet and pop tarts thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, leeches could cure any disease that reddened, that surviving "trial by ordeal" aka burning or drowning a defendant was a way to determine quilt, and that Thalidomide was a great cure for morning sickness. In my own experience I tend to, as one commenter put it have my neck hairs curl, when grandiose health claims are made about massage, acupuncture or anything for that matter. But so far I have enjoyed my handful of acupuncture sessions enough so that if I feel the need for more sessions then I will happily pay. In the Bay area we have cheap quality "community acupuncture clinics" which makes it even more appealing.
Daniel Cohen said:
So Acupuncture is a placebo? It is strictly based on acupoints and meridians. Nixon had his appendix removed with only acupuncture as the anesthesia. He was hardly a New Age promoter prone towards placebos. Acupressure has a bit more behind it since in addition to acupoint/meridian theory it also uses the acupoints that are called trigger points in the west and deep pressure on muscle and fascia with stretch therapy.
-
-
It's true that, based on how it seemed, we originally thought the sun revolved around the Earth. As we got better at observing, though, we got closer to the truth of the matter.
Are you saying that not being instantly right all the time is uniquely the scientists' fault? For one thing, I see the capacity to learn, grow, and improve our knowledge as a strength, not a weakness. For another, I don't know any non-scientists who are always perfectly right, either.
Also, as we did get better at understanding the world around us, the forces of the Church refused to accept the new data, and burned the scientist Giordano Bruno at the stake (and tried and imprisoned Galileo, as well) for not recanting heresy. Are you blaming the brilliant scientific minds for that, as well?
Leeches are another thing that was an incorrect first guess, but got put aside as medical knowledge improved. I really don't see how forgiving people for not being 100% right the first time, but being willing to change and grow as we learn, is something to mock them for. Do you also mock Tibetans for putting mercury and lead in their traditional medicines, or do you just say that's not a practice we want to carry out anymore, in light of what we know now, as compared to what they knew then?
As for "trial by ordeal", do you really think that was the scientists doing that? It was the Church, again. I think it's mixing apples and oranges to blame scientists for atrocities carried out by the Church.
Thalidomide *is* a great cure for morning sickness--that much is true. It's just that the side effects totally aren't worth it. It is very tragic that we had to learn that in the way we did, but that's a consequence of rushing the drug to market. Countries where regulation slowed down the process suffered many fewer birth defects than the countries who were in a big hurry to make a buck off of it. So we had to learn the hard way. Now thalidomide is proving to be a huge help for people with leprosy, tuberculosis, and AIDS. As long as there is no risk of the patient getting pregnant, thalidomide is a wonder drug.
I'm glad you enjoy your acupuncture sessions, and I think you should continue getting them as long as you want.
But I don't care for the shabby way you and other people here talk about scientists and researchers, and blame them for what non-scientists do wrong, as well as for not getting everything right instantly. I am referring specifically to your sarcastic term "brilliant scientific minds" when I say you talk about us in a shabby way.
And I'm not saying this to ignite another flame war. I prefer to walk away than to do that again. If one breaks out, then I'm sitting it out, because it's stupid and destructive, and I've got far better things to do.
If the profession splits because evidence-oriented practitioners and researchers are perceived as the enemy and as somehow threatening and "harming" massage, then I think the split's a lot better and healthier than trying to paper over our differences at the cost of being demonized.
Ezekiel OBrien said:I am saying I am not sure that it really matters or not if it is or isn't. If you get satisfying results from anything in life be it travel, a spouse, or needles stuck in tsubo would it matter to you if it was scientifically provable? We are descended from a culture of brilliant scientific minds that in addition to the internet and pop tarts thought that the Sun revolved around the Earth, leeches could cure any disease that reddened, that surviving "trial by ordeal" aka burning or drowning a defendant was a way to determine quilt, and that Thalidomide was a great cure for morning sickness. In my own experience I tend to, as one commenter put it have my neck hairs curl, when grandiose health claims are made about massage, acupuncture or anything for that matter. But so far I have enjoyed my handful of acupuncture sessions enough so that if I feel the need for more sessions then I will happily pay. In the Bay area we have cheap quality "community acupuncture clinics" which makes it even more appealing.
Daniel Cohen said:
So Acupuncture is a placebo? It is strictly based on acupoints and meridians. Nixon had his appendix removed with only acupuncture as the anesthesia. He was hardly a New Age promoter prone towards placebos. Acupressure has a bit more behind it since in addition to acupoint/meridian theory it also uses the acupoints that are called trigger points in the west and deep pressure on muscle and fascia with stretch therapy.
-
Permalink Reply by Daniel Cohen on
-
Everything changes and that is not to put a value positive or negative on the change. As the field develops, it might indeed split. We already have a number of splits that we struggle with to develop standards (East/West, Energywork/Pfysical, Faith/Evidence Base). Currently MTs have the choice to take CEs from all of the variety. What is the problem with that? Study what you feel develops you and the ability to help others. The field is broad. Does this hurt obtaining good research? Is there room for all. Do having titles showing the difference in study hurt a profession (Doctors immediately come to mind)?
We are growing. Growing produces stress and pain. Hopefully where we go to helps all concerned.
-
-
That's very gracious of you, Ezekiel. I appreciate your apology, and accept it wholeheartedly.
I also agree with you that the media plays a large part in this.
Ezekiel OBrien said:Ravensara my apologies. It was meant jokingly to put it in perspective. All three of the other three members of my nuclear family have PHD's in the sciences as you can probably guess I do not. So it would be pretty destructive to my identity to deeply disrespect sciences. My joking reaction to the sciences probably has to do with presentation by scientists and the media. Scientists sometimes seem oh so sure of themselves to the point of promoting drugs that have disastrous side effects because they are so focused on one outcome. And of course the media caters to our cultural ADD by packaging so many studies in cliff notes headlines that most of us in the non-scientific public look at it as a choose your own diagnosis. Thanks for calling me out on this.
-
-
Like a cineplex :).
Ezekiel OBrien said:
And up here in the crunchy, granola, gestalt Bay Area we label the phenomenon you describe "projection.'
Ravensara Travillian said:
Having been raised in the Deep South myself (Alabama), the people I've seen who are absolutely the most passionate about taking down the things you name are Christian fundamentalists, who see them as manifestations of Satanism.
Ezekiel OBrien said:
Daniel-I think it got hijacked shortly after the regurgitated comments about therapists in the South, woo woo's etc. call it a mercy hijacking.
Alexei-I don't want to disabuse anyone of their belief system but in my heart of hearts I always hope that someone who tries to take down Qi lines, pyramids or clearing the energy is a skeptic through and through and an avowed Atheist because otherwise it is, to paraphrase what the Jewish Carpenter said, "A case of casting the first stone." And I don't think He would approve.
-
Permalink Reply by Matthew D. Stewart on
-
the irresponsible reporting by the media.
But that would be the fault of journalists and media, and the need for a sensation headline to sell papers, not scientists, right?
All the more reason for MT's to get some research literacy skills under their collective belt. And the journalists too.
-
Permalink Reply by Emmanuel Bistas on
-
I would Matthew, especially now that we are MP friends, more so than before. Apology accepted, we all make bad attempts at humor from time to time :)
Matthew Stewart said:Posting a public comment "So, will you take up that invitation to visit the World Massage Festival? ;-) Mike Hinkle never did answer Susan Chapelle's question of whether there was going to be a ferris wheel at the festival!" after all this messy discussion does not create a climate of cooperation or trust, is that right Matthew?
I happen to like ferris wheels Emmanuel, the tend to give perspective on the world and move at a calming pace.
If my clumsy attempts at humour offend you Emmanuel, my full apology.
I'll let that comment of comparing me to a racist slide because, even though I haven't met you Emmanuel, I sure you are an intelligent, compassionate guy if your are involved in massage and teaching I couldn't imagine you'd actually say something like that to me face-to-face.
-
Permalink Reply by Vlad on
-
I always hope that someone who tries to take down Qi lines, pyramids or clearing the energy is a skeptic through and through and an avowed Atheist because otherwise it is, to paraphrase what the Jewish Carpenter said, "A case of casting the first stone." And I don't think He would approve.
Since everyone is all lovey dovey now, I just want to set the record straight - I'm not an Atheist. I'm not sure that the tendency to label someone as a skeptic or an atheist because they question isn't what He (I'm taking that you mean JC or God or whatever?) would want either, is it? It's like labeling someone a liberal if they find something wrong with the medical system here - presumptuous and just dumb.
Also, for the record, the last time I said "screw this" when I was on this board was when some uber-skeptic atheist said my view of science was flawed. The reason I decided to get off here wasn't because of the *God question* - it was because I realized I shouldn't be trying to *turn anyone on* to science or research, or just being informed because I didn't know enough about it myself (and I still don't).
Just because someone doesn't buy into something doesn't mean they don't have an open mind either.
I'm off again.
-
-
Time to wheel out an old Greek for a quote:
It is the mark of an educated mind to be able to entertain a thought without accepting it. ~Aristotle
Vlad is now roadkill said:I always hope that someone who tries to take down Qi lines, pyramids or clearing the energy is a skeptic through and through and an avowed Atheist because otherwise it is, to paraphrase what the Jewish Carpenter said, "A case of casting the first stone." And I don't think He would approve.
Since everyone is all lovey dovey now, I just want to set the record straight - I'm not an Atheist. I'm not sure that the tendency to label someone as a skeptic or an atheist because they question isn't what He (I'm taking that you mean JC or God or whatever?) would want either, is it? It's like labeling someone a liberal if they find something wrong with the medical system here - presumptuous and just dumb.
Also, for the record, the last time I said "screw this" when I was on this board was when some uber-skeptic atheist said my view of science was flawed. The reason I decided to get off here wasn't because of the *God question* - it was because I realized I shouldn't be trying to *turn anyone on* to science or research, or just being informed because I didn't know enough about it myself (and I still don't).
Just because someone doesn't buy into something doesn't mean they don't have an open mind either.
I'm off again.
-
Permalink Reply by Christopher A. Moyer on
-
There is a difference between disbelief and actively trying to discredit someones belief system.
True. Some of us don't think therapies should be entirely based on belief systems, but should incorporate evidence. And we have good reasons for thinking that.
-
-
It just bristles my neck hairs when a follower of Zeus makes fun of and tries to discredit a copper pyramid healer.
Who is discredited here? The copper pyramid owner is making claims about some energy vortex in her room having healing properties. You don't think there's any issue with our so called "profession" getting discredited here?
I don't give care what anyone believes as far as "energy" or "spirit", but I do care if they are massage therapists *selling" claims because I will be brushed with that same paint - and so is every other therapist.
Also, the "let the marketplace decide" argument is a weak one, but it's indicative of how we're an industry and not a profession. We can sell any claim - screw the evidence behind them. If the public buys into it, then what's the harm? If most people think that, then we'll never be a profession even if educational standards are raised.
© 2024 Created by ABMP.
Powered by
