So, is the wolf pack satisfied?

Replies to This Discussion

Permalink Reply by Lee Edelberg on May 7, 2011 at 8:46pm

Hi Vlad,

 

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.  There are many points made in it and, since I"m responding to it off the top of my head, this won't really be a comprehensive post!

 

Boris asked me for examples of my point about "getting it wrong", so I'm going to write him a reply. But in the meantime I'll simply say that science is our modern way of trying to understand how things work and while it is providing huge amounts of useful information I see it as part of a bigger picture that includes things not yet recognized let alone understood by scientific disciplines. The Western ones anyway :-)  I use that term to acknowledge that the word science is used by some in reference to some other highly organized systems, like traditional chinese medicine, that originate in other parts of the world.

 

I'm going to take a peek at those books you mention.  I remember skimming a book  that was a skeptical view of many modalities, and it was so extreme in it's views that I thought it was useless. The author(s) were dismissive, as expected, of any sort of energy modality like Reiki or Polarity therpary, orgone, etc. But when they trashed established, functioning systems like acupuncture, or even something like Feldenkreis work, I just rolled my eyes and put the book back.

 

I agree that I certainly haven't been trained to read research studies. Who would think of that as part of our job?  We read articles vetted by the likes of AMBP. We have ongoing education.  We talk to colleagues.  I haven't been on this site long but in the time I've been here I've seen very few links to research that people thought should be read. I'm going to give your link about low-back pain a try later on, probably tomorrow.  I tried to read some articles in AMBP magazine about evaluating somatic education research but they didn't hold my interest and I didn't see relevance for me.

 

Well, maybe that's enough for the moment. BTW that first foot-bath video was high on the lame chart. I was in rural Vermont a couple of years ago and I wandered into a  health-food store to buy something. The owner said he had a cool machine, and for some $ would I like to try it?. I said "What does it do?" He said "It'll cure any disease" (this is a true story!). I said "Then why aren't you rich?".

 

Cheers,

 

Lee

 

PS: edited a bit for clarity!

 

Vlad said:

Lee,
Yes, I've heard the (Western) science can get it wrong line before.  I've seen it addressed in a couple of books, but I can't remember if it was Goldacre or Specter or Singh or Gould that wrote about it the best, but yeah.  It's not a new argument and I think a lot of people share your view, so you're not alone there.
By the way, science is science - is there such a thing as Northern science?


Since there doesn't seem much interest in science on this board and I've seen a little bit of evidence that people seem to gravitate to the *science* that backs their beliefs, do any of you believe in pseudoscience, or is that all just made up stuff by experimental purists?
I don't ever see or read the line "Pseudoscience can get it wrong".  In fact, I wonder if people think such a thing exists, but a thread on this site lately made me think that it's highly unlikely that people know it when they see it (if they think that such a thing exists - I do, but that's just an opinion and if there's one thing I've learned, it's not to force my opinion on anyone else!).

Also, the
I see it, therefore it works.   And it's a crock (or is it?)
I see it, therefore it works.   And it's a crock (or is it?)
issue is all over the web.


Confirmation biases come into play in every aspect of our lives, and we're not even aware of it.  "I want *information* that backs my belief, and I'll just ignore that other stuff that doesn't show me what I want to see"
It happens all the time.

Anyway, there is one thing that I'm pretty sure of.  There is very little *evidence* on this site that people have been educated on just the basics of massage therapy research.  If that were the case there would be cool discussions on Cherkin's low back pain protocols and the like.  THAT, to me is the biggest issue that we have.
The debates are all over "you don't believe what I believe" and nothing is given to the common ground - looking at massage therapy research.  Why is that?  Well, I think it's because not many know how to interpret and critique it.  But I also think that it's a sign of other things - possibly:
- I can't be bothered learning this since it's not *cool* enough 
- It's too hard
- I can't be bothered thinking and figuring things out
- I already know all I need to know, thank you very much
- Oh, who wants to *read stuff* when we've got videos online?
- I'd like someone to sort through all this stuff and tell me what to think, please (i.e - I want authority figures)
- Who needs this stuff?  My teachers have taught me all I need to know to be good at my job?

- I don't want to look at it because it will take me out of my comfort zone and it might show me things that I don't want to see

There could be others, I dunno.  I could go on about how much I've gained from basically fixing my ignorance on it to some degree, but I think it would be a waste of disk space.
This to me is the biggest ethical issue.  People are not equipped with the basics in research literacy in MASSAGE THERAPY, OF THAT THERE IS NO DOUBT.
But, with regard to all that we have available to us, people are also not equipped with the skills to be well informed in order to make a fully informed choice with their education and there no time given at all (as far as I can tell) to the development of critical thinking skills.
If a therapist wants to study a modality, they should have the ability to find and critique all of the research that has been done on it before investing time and money into learning it and that is not happening.  The way things are now we  just have to go with what they are told and most of the time I believe it has to do with popularity - if a modality is popular and people *love it*, then we'll study it.  And then we will go about convincing ourselves that *it works the way that we've been taught and all the claims are true*.
When they've studied it and they start providing it and dishing out the claims surrounding it, then it is *very* difficult to let go - especially if their clients believe those claims.
I know this because I went through it. To be honest, I was pissed off about the fact that I was not taught how to critique research OR integrate it into my work, but that's just me - it doesn't look like anyone else on here is much bothered about it, so that's OK.

Anyway, I was going to put up a photo of Clint Eastwood here with a word bubble saying "The way I figure it, there ain't no such thing as "Western" science, just "Spaghetti Western" science" but I'm tired and I can't be bothered arsing about with photoshop.


I hope you all had a great work day.  I did.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 8, 2011 at 9:01am

Hi Raven.for sake of fairness and to make changes,to  improvequalities of professional discussions, in my opinion you me and everyone else should stop blaming  on all wrong what happened at our discussion(I,you, Christopher) on Apricot example ,Gary,reference  Prof. Chaikovsky's despicable claims about non benefits of massage  at New York Times.

you just cannot do it because the moment when you finally did reply to my demand, instead to continue disagree, disagree and disagree, just to offer your opinion,and suddenly all change and we could produce useful information. This is what discussion about. Everyone has to learn otherwise it will be not a discussion but you know what.I would recommend that you just check yourself, and come to some conclusions how you could prevent all this.and you could. Actually in  the end you did.I checked with my American friends who know English, and they believe that Gary's expression about mom,

is just slang with meaning, that  when one where very young the other one already had some experiences. Honestly you should offer all sentence or would be the best if you wouldn't support all this new post.

Best wishes.

Boris

Ravensara Travillian said:

About the only thing I haven't heard insulted on this site is someones momma...and that could just be a matter of time.

 

Well, actually, Ty, Gary considers referring to when Chris' mother "lost her pills 30 years ago" appropriate professional discourse, so even that's been done here.

 

Thank you and Choice and Vlad for standing up to bullying behavior, but I agree with Chris and Choice--life's too short to repeat an experience as boring as junior high dynamics in the name of anti-knowledge.

Ty said:

Okay - here's my response: When I joined this site the big "skeptical about energy work" thread (over 600 replies I believe) was going full force.  I believed full tilt in energy work at the time and jumped in both feet with my opinion.  For those not around then this was quite the lively discussion.  While there was considerable disagreement about this subject everyone remained civil for the most part.  I don't recall nasty name calling, credential checking or extreme bullying.  Well times have changed - our manners have become poorer, our passion about our work and our beliefs has become abusive.  I've learned this site is cyclical - same,same,same, hmmm..a bit boring and then Wham! Someone lights a fire with a topic and rather than listening to each other we now start a verbal fist fight.  About the only thing I haven't heard insulted on this site is someones momma...and that could just be a matter of time.

This site for me used to be about meeting other therapists and hearing their opinions.  I appreciate diversity, I appreciate passion, I appreciate that people are willing to share their experience and knowledge with all on these pages.  If people with differing opinions, with different experiences, different levels of education are subjected to bullying and name calling then this is not the mbp that I want to experience and you might notice that with over 8,000 members only a small percentage post.

At this point I would like to see this site as a source that continues to make me think, research, study and occasionally have a laugh. 

This part is for Chris -  Thank You.  You have caused me re-evaluate some of my beliefs and you, along with others, have made me realize I needed to research more what I "was" telling my clients.  I appreciate education along with experience Dr. Moyer and you have helped add to my education even if I was kicking and screaming at the time.  I also learned you can be a funny guy......:)

It was posted once when Rosemary left "it was our loss".  This applies again.

Ty (also known as Terry Capuano,NCTMB)

 

 

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 8, 2011 at 10:49am

Hi Lee.

Since coming out from Soviet Union when first-time I  have heart “alternative medicine”name I was a bit confused and didn't like this definition at all. My question was alternative to what medicine ?

I knew that medicine, could be surgical, primary care medicine, preventive medicine, sports medicine, physical medicine, traditional medicine, psychiatric medicine etc.. The treatment could include  medications, physical method of treatment, psychological support treatment , could combined few methodologies, including medications. Medicine/therapy can be provided using different methodologies, but must contribute to health improvement including but not limited  to successful management of diseases, prevention of diseases etc.. The basic and first of all ,legal, moral, ethical principles is not to harm. Which means negligent is not acceptable and all aspects and responsibilities have to be included. Of course a second and Main idea of therapy/medicine is to provide results. Therefore I asked what does it mean alternative medicine?. Alternative to what? For example. Non-medication therapy with no side effects and  when working well for certain cases is a great alternative to medications with side effects therapy.Or, post surgical scar tissue management and adhesions management by massage is alternative to repeat surgery in order to “shave” this scars .No doubt that sometime science going wrong. For example . Some beautiful theory, can be researched and very nice professional paper on this research will be published, but when you start utilizing it in treatment room it doesn't work well enough. In most cases this has happened when study didn't include enough participants and therefore in the end medical statistics was acceptable but when massively utilizing its proving to be that  because of “individual  response factor” this scientifically proven methodology wasn't good enough. Then this is “ dead”theory.But, At the time of scientific experiment when you performing massage on Amazon frock connected to blood dynamic and other computerized sensors, and you discovering multiple positive changes in functions of organs and systems should you ignore this data? Of course not. And when some scientifically developed massage protocols, clinically proven as safe and working should you ignore it? Of course not. If evidence-based therapy working well in certain cases and cannot be explained scientifically, should you ignore it? Of course not.

We all know from our experiences that some disorders, will react very positive on certain  modalities  much better than on others. But what is interesting, that the same disorders and because we treating human disorders, will be improved and individually for each absolutely the same case, by applying different modalities.

 Obviously interruptions and discussions in Christopher/Vlad style is not beneficial for our clients. The bottom line all our discussions should be not about our ambitions, stupidity of “you win, I win”etc. but  about improvement at our clients health.

Human factor in our healing art fields playing crucial roles in treatment out comes . And this applicable to science-based massage therapy, and not science base therapy. Our discussions could be “agreed and disagreed” but cannot confuse and disturbe energy status of people who will participate and will read this discussions because after reading it we stepping into the treatment room. Until lately I didn't know how much you defended us from Christopher attempts for enforcing his doctrine  .in my opinion you did right . Mike in your post you like trying to explain your” responsibilities” because you brought this beautiful tape with apricot Wolf. I believe that not a lot of us having this gift to heal like this lady on tape but this tape is beautiful by nature as well can “wake up”healer potentials in some of us, and no matter what methodology, scientific proved or” science cannot explain” we are practicing. Using the opportunity, additional time I thank you for offering this video.

Best wishes.

Boris

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Lee Edelberg on May 8, 2011 at 11:23am

Hi Boris,

Thanks for the nice reply.  I think I understand you to say that this particular discussion was not a good spot for me to write that post, and that examples would make it better. I am not interested in participating in destructive arguments, either, but will try to give examples from which I derive my point of view. If it doesn't work, I will drop out and wait for a better time!

Here is a brief list of examples from within my lifetime that demonstrate weakness in how science and research can manifest: thalidomide; DDT; hemmorhoid surgery; back surgeries as a whole;  SSRI's for teenagers,

What I see is: research uncovers some sort of cause-and-effect. A new product/procedure is developed and implemented. After some time passes unexpected negative effects occur, some of them devastating.  New product/procedure is modified, discarded, whatever.  Over and over, this is how science and industry work together and move things forward.  The other oft-repeated scenario is that newer research seems to contradict earlier research.: the decades-long flip-flopping about eggs and cholesterol, for example. Meanwhile policy is set, protocols are enforced, the public is informed of the latest findings, and a certain amount of it is completely wrong.

What I learn is: science and research often miss important information and move prematurely into over-reaching conclusions. People get hurt, literally. Other people get discredited. Useful procedures and information are tossed out, only to be resurrected later on when the findings are modified or overturned.

I'm not anti-science.  Modern medicine has many amazing technologies. I owe my life, literally, to modern antibiotics. I take the R&D though with a big grain of salt.  When something new is introduced and it's hailed as a miracle, I don't buy the hype. There will be unknown side-effects, a certain percentage of negative reactions, or as is the case of the antibilotics that saved my life, the completely unforseen development of "super" bugs that are resistant.  

So.........I say those who are interested should keep on researching, but don't be in a rush to implement big changes based on premature conclusions. And don't knock things that have a history but can't yet be explained in a laboratory. In the meantime I will fall back on my own life experience, guidance from people I respect, and suspicion of people who cling tenaciously to one belief or system that purports to explain everything.

Best,

Lee

Boris Prilutsky said:

Hi Lee.

I personally wouldn't say:"Over and over science gets things wrong."but "wrong" it does happen.  in general very difficult to disagree with your post and in particular in this discussion environment.this discussion as Vlad structure, leading to nowhere but to destructive arguments.Lee. In my opinion you brought good example that would be very healthy to discuss and I will be happy to participate but first  I will reply to Vlad.

Best wishes.

Boris

Lee Edelberg said:

Vlad,

 

Over and over science gets things wrong. I feel ethically responsible to tell the truth. I don't feel ethically bound to agree with (Western) science when it seems to contradict my views about something.

 

Cheers, Lee

Vlad said:

.......... It's our ethical responsibility for us to tell the truth and acknowledge when science is showing us that something isn't working the way we thought (or was taught through tradition or otherwise).

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Boris Prilutsky on May 8, 2011 at 4:16pm

Hi Lee,

you said :”I think I understand you to say that this particular discussion was not a good spot for me to write that post…:”I will drop out and wait for a better time!”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

I'm sorry. most likely didn't explain myself well enough. I didn't meant to say that it wasn't good spot for you to write that post, and I think you shouldn't drop out because your discussions is not destructive but  productive, and will help people to come to some conclusions, but moderate one, in  harmony  with reality.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

you said :Here is a brief list of examples from within my lifetime that demonstrate weakness in how science and research can manifest: thalidomide; DDT; hemmorhoid surgery; back surgeries as a whole;  SSRI's for teenagers,

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

I agree with you that many back /spinal surgeries can be prevented by our treatment but God forbid if one will start development of incontinence and or will start losing other reflexes in such a case God bless surgeons who in this emergency cases operating and releasing significant threatening pressure on nerves components  including spinal cord . This surgeries is a gift of scientific community. On the other hand if my colleagues will decide to treat someone in this cases and will not refer to surgeon then client life can become miserable significant disabilities.

Thanks to scientific data we also know our limitations as well what we can and what we cannot do .

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

You said:What I see is: research uncovers some sort of cause-and-effect. A new product/procedure is developed and implemented. After some time passes unexpected negative effects occur, some of them devastating.  New product/procedure is modified, discarded, whatever.  Over and over, this is how science and industry work together and move things forward.  “

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

Absolutely,NEW, doesn't mean that this is good,or better and safe and “over-reaching conclusions” often happened intentionally because of greedy and dishonest people who hiding under word “scientific”

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

You said :I'm not anti-science.  Modern medicine has many amazing technologies. I owe my life, literally, to modern antibiotics. I take the R&D though with a big grain of salt.  When something new is introduced and it's hailed as a miracle, I don't buy the hype. There will be unknown side-effects, a certain percentage of negative reactions, or as is the case of the antibilotics that saved my life, the completely unforseen development of "super" bugs that are resistant.  

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

God bless this scientist, who developed this antibiotics that save your life, as well as penicillin that stoped  pandemics  of tuberculosis as well saved many millions of lives, including immunizations, including development of insulin replacements for people with diabetes type I etc. etc. etc.. Science is science with all weaknesses and with all huge power. >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

You said:So.........I say those who are interested should keep on researching, but don't be in a rush to implement big changes based on premature conclusions. And don't knock things that have a history but can't yet be explained in a laboratory. In the meantime I will fall back on my own life experience, guidance from people I respect, and suspicion of people who cling tenaciously to one belief or system that purports to explain everything.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 

absolutely agree with you. Only tolerance, respect do things that one don't know, and cannot understand and cannot explain will allow to discover true, to learn from it and to use it for sake and benefits  of others as well for ourselves. Usually real professional discussions including “agreed, disagree” helping to find rational, practical part of it. Thank you very much for nice conversation and I'm hoping that it was also beneficial for others too.

Best wishes.

Boris

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Stephen Jeffrey on May 8, 2011 at 4:40pm

Ravensara Travillian said:

Stephen:

I disagree with that statement, Chris seemed to enjoy confrontation, the way he replied too, or started discussion (energy work), was always angled towards "lively debate" to the point where I began to think the community on this site was being used as part of a phycology experiment.

 

R = So people whose communication style is something other than just always going along with the prevailing winds aren't welcome here?

 

S = Communication style is all important or message is lost, prevailing winds or not.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

R= You realize what that means for all those lovely-sounding claims of diversity, tolerance, and so forth, right?

It means they're nothing more than lip service, and if you don't behave or think a certain way here, you get attacked. That is not how people who are secure in their own skin react to other people, even those with very different styles.

S= Secure in own skin or not, during discussion's one can hit a nerve deliberatly or accidently, how you then continue to use your "style" is apparent to all.

 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

R= It wasn't an experiment, any more than any exchange of ideas in everyday life is an experiment. Every time you perform a treatment on a client, you test an idea. If that idea doesn't work, you drop it and move on to something else.

Chris and I were in effect testing the assumption that people at this site were open to new information, and to hearing what the facts had to say, and that they would listen with an open mind and integrate it with what they already knew to improve practice. It was the idea we were testing, not anyone here.

S= Raven, in one sentence you say you are not experimenting then in the next you admit you are testing ??? 

S= do I read this right = you are saying that if I do not integrate your's and Chris's sugguestions/facts into my practice I must be closed minded ? 

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

R=That assumption's been pretty thoroughly blown out of the water now, and since one of the definitions of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again, expecting a different result, I'm also going to find something more productive to do with my time.

S= Thats a shame...but then you've had such a testing time.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>

 

 

Our profession may have much to benifit from science/research but those promoting it to our community need to find a better way of communicating. IMO.

 

When one side is bound and determined never to change their minds, neither the more gentle ways--which have been tried at length,as the record here and elsewhere shows--nor the confrontation is going to get any traction.

S= I think gentleness could be tried v much longer. 

 

 

 

Laura: I know you are a good and kind person, who always sees the best in other people. My experience, however, is very different from yours. As much respect as I have for you, I cannot just take your word over my experience here.

I also know Mike Hinkle personally and he is one of the most tireless people I know when it comes to working for the good of massage therapists.

 

He also started the credential interrogation about where I live, how much experience I had, and so forth, continued by the Rev in a different thread, and by Boris' "if you would ever go into the clinic, Raven" condescension, the "Raven the cold clinician" b******* from Gary--I could go on and on, but there is no point. Nothing here is going to change.

 

Mike is not the massage border police, and I don't have to show him or anyone else my papers. No one else gets that credential checking here except me. It's just the same "you're not an MT, Chris" rubbish, except they can't really say that about me, so they can only try othering me and disparaging the experience I do have.

 

Besides, as I asked Nathan, if you reject Chris' input, because he's not an MT, why do you accept Candace Pert's as a biochemist (not an MT), or anyone else outside of massage, who says something you *want* to hear? Why the double standard?

 

*crickets chirping*

 

On the acupuncture thread, Mike stated categorically that he feels absolutely no responsibility for the validity of information he passes along to clients and other practitioners. I'm serious: that's an exact quote.

 

I cannot ethically be any part at all of an industry that holds an ethical position like that, without anyone pushing back.

 

Meanwhile, Boris loses his temper at the drop of a hat and accuses me of "dishonesty". Sure, he eventually took it back after an extended kabuki, and now he's acting all collegial, but this will happen again. I have absolutely no doubt.

 

This is not professional ethics and behavior, and I cannot be a part of it. So I will leave, too, and have nothing more to do with it.

 

I am satisfied that when the history of massage in this period is written, that I have publicly stood up for passing on valid information to clients, and that I had stood up to public bullying behavior. That's good enough for me.

 

You are a genuine and kind person, Laura, and you see good in everyone. But even though you vouch for them, I can't and won't take any more of this treatment from them in the name of a supposedly helping "profession". Since this type of behavior and attitudes about information are what this "professional" site is about, I will leave it to you all and I won't post here again.

 

I am grateful to Laura, Ty, Choice, and Vlad for calling out bad behavior. It is courageous and right, and I appreciate your doing so. But the calls for civility will fade, the cycle will repeat itself, and then everyone's back on the hamster wheel. It's boring, as well as anything else, and those biodiversity summits and refugee health fairs aren't going to organize themselves. Those are far better uses of my time than being stuck in the movie Groundhog Day.

 

Peace.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 8, 2011 at 4:50pm

 

Ummm......guys.

I know you all like to get the last word in, but there's no point directing anything more at Raven. 

She ain't coming back either. 

But if she does happen to pop on here and look (and probably shake her head) at you all beckoning her to respond, I'm wondering if she'll feel needed in some way.  It's a pity you all didn't just ask her questions about science and data and research and lovely stuff like that since she's actually quite a handy person to know for questions like that.

 

But anyway, if any ladies are looking on, be sure and give the same advice that has been given to Raven and *check yourself*.  We all need reminded to do our monthly self-check exam (I put my reminder in my diary), so gentle (or sometimes no-so-gentle) reminders are always a good thing.

Coolness.

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 8, 2011 at 6:14pm

Hi Lee,

Thanks for your reply.  I'm glad that you're a good sport about the reference to western science.  I'm not sure why the phrase has gained so much popularity, but I think like most they see it as the opposite (or something) to TCM.  But as you pointed out, that's traditional Chinese Medicine - different thing altogether and the research methods used in it are actually the same - an example was given in the acupuncture thread.  I gave a link to a paper about what they do in RCTs in it on that thread.  But there was also an example (on that same thread) of how something that can come with the trappings of science can be used to sway people. Most of us can't distinguish between the two and most of the public can't either.

Actually, since I couldn't get anyone to comment on the rat study, that also could be viewed as something with the trappings of science (I'm not saying I'm viewing it as such - to each their own), since in that case the study was done after RCTs had shown that the work in question didn't show us what we wanted to see.  So, we popped down to the bottom of the pyramid and started over again with rats (this is all our tax money at work, folks), but even if there was a decent methodology (control group, blinding and some other basics) and it did show us what we wanted to see, then what would it have shown?  Well, maybe it could have been viewed as a study with a high level of internal validity - in some way, maybe,  but since people seem to just love external validity (it must reflect the real world scenario), then how come people aren't slamming it?  Unless we're doing that particular modality on rats in our practices?  Do any of us have wee rat tables, with special rat face cradles?  Of course it would have to have some special thing for the little guy's tails.  Well, we wouldn't have to worry about draping, anyway, so at least we wouldn't see long threads on rat draping on forums.

 

Oh and before anyone goes off and finds some study *that shows it works*, please don't expect me to get involved in a  a discussion going on it - I've tried that with the acupuncture thread and I wanted someone to get a half decent RCT on it, and since the ones that we could have got some good objective discussions with (Raven and Chris) have left, so there isn't much point.

 

Anyway, I used this as another example of *we've got to know what we're looking at*, employ critical thinking skills, get educated in research literacy and by all means, we should always be open-minded.  We should be open-minded to the fact that sometimes we may have been told or read information that is there to make us think what someone wants us to think (which is the usual case) and even if they really believe it, we should check things out for ourselves and see what science says about it.

 

The foot bath video was pretty awful, I know.  I didn't watch it all, but that's just another example of how people can be easily swung.  If anyone is having a poop-foot issue, they have a seriously serious issue.   Did the people selling it pay good enough attention in A&P class?  Possibly not.  Or they possibly don't care about the claims they're making.  Still - "The placebo is strong, Luke", and all that.

 

 

I don't agree with your science and research jumping to conclusions fast, but I understand why you say that.  The way I view it is that the media cause a frenzy when one study comes out that sounds ground-breaking or there seems to be wow-making sciencey-stuff going on.  I think the media prey on our nature to like debating (climate change) (oh, energy work  :) ), and also the "they got it wrong" thing - but there's very little given to when they *get it right*.  Getting it right is soooooo boring.  But anyway, I understand where you're coming from.

 

Let's see - what else?

Oh yes!  The ABMP *vetting* with regards to research.  Well, you know, I'm a member of AMBP (better get this on here before they ban me from the site :)), and they're a great organization, but I don't think it's their job or any other organization's job to go through all the research or teach us on how to interpret it.  I see listings in magazine that show *this works* and *that works* and *yay, ain't it great*, but the ability to even look at an abstract and have an immediate notion of how much evidence is even carried with the type of study would be a benefit - even if we don't understand all of it.  Also, since external validity is loved so much, we should be writing case reports and showing our clinical reasoning, protocols and results in peer reviewed journals.  We're definitely not taught how to do that and that would be soooooooo useful for all of us. 

Another thing that we need to realize that the "Oh crap, it doesn't work" studies are more than likely thrown in a drawer somewhere and never published.  Chris referred to this in one of his papers (at least one)  - the "file drawer threat". 

 

OK - I gotta go here and get stuff done before Game of Thrones comes on. Hope ya'll are enjoying it as much as I am.

 

 

 

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Gordon J. Wallis on May 9, 2011 at 1:36am

The interesting thing is that SCIENCE HAS PROVEN THE PLACEBO EFFECT IS REAL.

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 9, 2011 at 8:19am

No one is saying it isn't.

Does that mean that the claims that we make can then become *valid*?

If someone feels better after using one of those silly foot bath things, is it OK to tell them a bunch of rubbish in order to get them to purchase a session?

Two chiropractors within 2 miles of my practice have *big fancy* ionic foot baths.  Their patients believe them because they're doctors.  In fact, I bet the placebo effect is even enhanced because of the fact that a *doctor* has told them rubbish.  Does that make it all OK?

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Laura Allen on May 9, 2011 at 8:38am

The whole problem could be solved by people being willing to speak the truth: "There is no scientific evidence that this works, but it might have a good placebo effect, if you'd like to spend you $$$ on it to find that out."

 

That'll happen about the same time pigs fly :)

• ▶ Reply

Permalink Reply by Vlad on May 9, 2011 at 8:56am

Pigs can fly.

I saw it on the internet, therefore it's real.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_WWbWBRV-c

• ▶ Reply

▶ Reply to Discussion

• ‹ Previous
• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• Next ›
• Page