RehabEdge Physical Therapy Forum

Forums  Register  Login  Forgot Login?
  My Profile 
My Subscription
  My Forums 
Search
  FAQ  Log Out
Follow @RehabEdge

RE: A problem arises...

 
Logged in as: Guest
Users viewing this topic: none
  Printable Version
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> RE: A problem arises... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Login
Message << Older Topic   Newer Topic >>
RE: A problem arises... - July 4, 2012 5:17:09 PM   
Niko

 

Posts: 137
Status: offline
Thanks TI, I agree.
Sebastian, you must be practicing in a different universe if you disagree that PTs have been struggling to find which manual therapy technique is the most effective through research, everyday practice, or plain arguments. One of my points was that no manual therapy technique is better or more “Scientific” than another. I don’t care if it is chiropractic or massage therapy or joint mobilization or simple touch.

In school I was taught Maitland, when I started practicing I used to do only SNAGS, then focused on deep tissue work, neural manipulation, MFR, MET, craniosacral, functional indirect/ osteopathic, I practiced every one of Philip Greenman’s suggested techniques. Eventually, I found out that I could reproduce same and better functional outcomes with the use of exercise alone. I’m not referring to the traditional exercise protocols alone, but far beyond that with mindful practices like Qi Gong and yoga. Then I started using manual therapy primarily for other reasons and not for “technical” reasons like improving ROM etc. I primarily use manual therapy to build a strong connection with the patient, reassure them that I’m here to help, remove the protective barrier that we all humans have, and allow them get in touch with their body. I meet these goals with manual therapy every time. I do not need any research to validate this. And I’m still evidence based through exercise.

(in reply to TransientImage)
Post #: 21
RE: A problem arises... - July 5, 2012 4:59:58 PM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
Good for you Niko.
You do not need research to validate your practice?
Qi Gong.
Really? And THAT is what you call
quote:

I’m still evidence based through exercise.
??
And finally: Why would you be concerned about being "evidence-based" - you are the one who says you do not need research to vaildate a part of your practice.

Where did I say
quote:

disagree that PTs have been struggling to find which manual therapy technique is the most effective through research, everyday practice, or plain arguments.
?
Yes, I do live in a different universe than you, although I have done as many techniques as you have. That was more than 18 years ago though. I need research and science to provide me with the "why" something works, "why" people can have pain with untraceable sources, "why" so many different approaches seem to "work", "what is the best" and most cost-effective, patient-centered path to take.
If you are fine without - so be it.
We are different PTs then.

(in reply to Niko)
Post #: 22
RE: A problem arises... - July 5, 2012 10:00:50 PM   
Niko

 

Posts: 137
Status: offline
Dear Sebastian, since you are asking for a reply here you go:

First of all I want to thank you for your entertaining reply. I suggest next time before you reply to people to actually read carefully what they have to say. Let's examine each one of your arguments.

-Your first argument is that Qi Gong is not evidence base. I did not say it is, but I said
“I’m not referring to the traditional exercise protocols alone, but far beyond that with mindful practices like Qi Gong and yoga”. That means that I do what you do, but I also go a step further than that. Talking about science, it is mathematically impossible for you to be more effective than me if you only do half of what I do. Maybe taking a philosophy class or a class in statistics/possibilities will help you better understand this. Furthermore, I do actually believe that Qi Gong is evidence based, the scientific principles of exercise physiology apply to any therapeutic movement and not just traditional exercise protocols.

- your second argument: "you are the one who says you do not need research to validate a part of your practice". I also didn’t say that. All I said “I meet these goals with manual therapy every time. I do not need any research to validate this”. The goals I was referring to are helping people get in touch with their body, reassure them that I’m here to help etc. I was not referring to objective findings that can be clearly measured like range of motion. I enjoy treating not only symptoms but the individual as whole.

-your 3rd argument stating “ where did I say:
“disagree that PTs have been struggling to find which manual therapy technique is the most effective””
This is what you said “Niko, I do not know where you find that anyone goes "on and on" about what technique is "the best". You must be reading different threads than I am”. This whole thread is just another effort of a PT in search of what manual therapy techniques work or not, in this case, looking for reassurance that original chiropractic is pseudo-science.

Lastly, you said “I need research and science to provide me with the "why" something works, "why" people can have pain with untraceable sources, "why" so many different approaches seem to "work", "what is the best" and most cost-effective, patient-centered path to take.

My answer to that is: none of the pioneers of PT had research to back up their practice. They were all open minded people who went beyond what research at their time had to offer. That is the main difference between us. That is the main difference between followers and leaders in our profession.

Cheers

< Message edited by Niko -- July 6, 2012 2:38:22 AM >

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 23
RE: A problem arises... - July 6, 2012 7:14:50 AM   
rwillcott

 

Posts: 1123
Joined: March 21, 2006
From: Canada
Status: offline
quote:

My answer to that is: none of the pioneers of PT had research to back up their practice. They were all open minded people who went beyond what research at their time had to offer. That is the main difference between us. That is the main difference between followers and leaders in our profession.


I agree Niko. The followers are the blind sheep in our profession following the guru who has techniques that they explain work based on unsupported claims. The leaders are like Sebastian who is interested in understanding why certain techniques we use work. Next time you're on a course with PT's ask them why they think a manual therapy technique works and you will here all sorts of explanations that have been refuted in the evidence.

(in reply to Niko)
Post #: 24
RE: A problem arises... - July 6, 2012 8:08:00 AM   
JSPT

 

Posts: 440
Joined: April 20, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
Niko- Can you clarify your statements? Not trying to hi-jack the discussion, I just can't follow your points.

Talking about science, it is mathematically impossible for you to be more effective than me if you only do half of what I do. What? So by that logic, if you do exercise and manual, and I do manual, exercise, modalities, education, and fire-cupping, I'll get better outcomes, because of 'math'?

- your second argument: "you are the one who says you do not need research to validate a part of your practice". I also didn’t say that. All I said “I meet these goals with manual therapy every time. I do not need any research to validate this”. You seem to directly contradict yourself. Doesn't "I do not need any research to validate this" mean exactly the same thing as "you do not need research to validate a part of your practice".

..none of the pioneers of PT had research to back up their practice. They were all open minded people who went beyond what research at their time had to offer. That is the main difference between us. Again, huh? How have none of the PT pioneers had research? Which "pioneers" are you referring to? Barnes? Cyriax? Childs? Upledger? Kendall? Butler?

I'm not trying to bait you, and I apologize if English is not your first language (not meaning that as an insult, either). Just trying to understand where you're coming from.

(in reply to rwillcott)
Post #: 25
RE: A problem arises... - July 6, 2012 8:40:12 AM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
thank you, Rob.

Thank you for that ramble, Niko.
quote:

That means that I do what you do, but I also go a step further than that. Talking about science, it is mathematically impossible for you to be more effective than me if you only do half of what I do. Maybe taking a philosophy class or a class in statistics/possibilities will help you better understand this.

Interesting you make this point. Mathematics? Really? - is that how you evaluate therapy effectiveness? Do more?
Because there is actually science out there that shows that in treatment of patients in pain, sometimes doing less is MORE effective. Real research. With statistics for your perusal

quote:

The goals I was referring to are helping people get in touch with their body, reassure them that I’m here to help etc. I was not referring to objective findings that can be clearly measured like range of motion. I enjoy treating not only symptoms but the individual as whole.

Why would you not need validation of that aspect of your practice? My argument still stands. And guess what? If you look around the available research, you can actually find studies that support this aspect of your practice!
quote:

Furthermore, I do actually believe that Qi Gong is evidence based, the scientific principles of exercise physiology apply to any therapeutic movement and not just traditional exercise protocols.

Do you know what chi gong stands for?!? If you mean you have your patients move slowly and mindful, while breathing rhythmically - excellent (send them to a t'ai chi class at the YMCA) . But chi gong stands for much more. I hope you do not adhere to the basis of the discipline: balancing and cultivating "qi".

I will repeat with bolds:
quote:


Niko, I do not know where you find that anyone goes "on and on" about what technique is "the best".

Check and see how many threads there are here going "on and on" about "the best". It is never about the "best". It always ends up being about "what is most plausible" and what "fits what we know up to now about human pain and suffering".


And finally, I love the "open mind" argument. In the past, my mind has been so open that my brain threatened to fall out. CST, MFR, Connective tissue, acupuncture, muscle balancing, ortho-manual therapies, colour therapy, bioenergetics etc etc. All taught by really cool people ahead of the research and ahead of their time. All without a shred of prior plausibility. Since then it has been the research (especially in the neurosciences) that has provided me with the best evidence and plausible explanations for why so many of the "techniques" seem to work - and what additional stuff needs to be done to be even more efficient for the patient.

Thank you for the insight to your thinking, but I maintain that "what" you do is not as important as "why" you do it.

(in reply to rwillcott)
Post #: 26
RE: A problem arises... - July 6, 2012 10:07:09 AM   
honker23

 

Posts: 217
Status: offline
Qi Gong, CST, MFR????
I think the pioneers should test a hypothesis in the lab/clinical trial and THEN distribute to the masses if found to be effective, safe, scientifically plausible.  Unfortunately these pioneers distribute "knowledge" to the masses first, become rich, and then allow others to test their hypothesis in a lab or clinical trial.  Seems like we could avoid a lot of confusion if we operated differently.

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 27
RE: A problem arises... - July 6, 2012 1:45:49 PM   
jesspt

 

Posts: 182
Joined: April 4, 2007
From: Illinois
Status: offline
I had similar questions myself...


quote:

ORIGINAL: JSPT

Niko- Can you clarify your statements? Not trying to hi-jack the discussion, I just can't follow your points.

Talking about science, it is mathematically impossible for you to be more effective than me if you only do half of what I do. What? So by that logic, if you do exercise and manual, and I do manual, exercise, modalities, education, and fire-cupping, I'll get better outcomes, because of 'math'?

- your second argument: "you are the one who says you do not need research to validate a part of your practice". I also didn’t say that. All I said “I meet these goals with manual therapy every time. I do not need any research to validate this”. You seem to directly contradict yourself. Doesn't "I do not need any research to validate this" mean exactly the same thing as "you do not need research to validate a part of your practice".

..none of the pioneers of PT had research to back up their practice. They were all open minded people who went beyond what research at their time had to offer. That is the main difference between us. Again, huh? How have none of the PT pioneers had research? Which "pioneers" are you referring to? Barnes? Cyriax? Childs? Upledger? Kendall? Butler?

I'm not trying to bait you, and I apologize if English is not your first language (not meaning that as an insult, either). Just trying to understand where you're coming from.


_____________________________

Jess Brown, PT
Board Certified in Orthopaedic Physical Therapy

(in reply to JSPT)
Post #: 28
RE: A problem arises... - July 8, 2012 4:11:39 PM   
Niko

 

Posts: 137
Status: offline
When I talk about mindful movement practice one on one with a therapist whether is Qi Gong, Yoga, Pilates etc and you guys talk about fire-cupping and YMCA classes, then I wonder if it is worth my time helping you understand the difference. I will do you this favor although I doubt that you will change your mind. I only made an analogy with math so you can understand my point since all of you sound to be strictly science and evidence-based. I have three degrees in science myself so I know where you come from. Mindfulness is the energy of being aware and awake to the present. When you flex and extend the elbow for an exercise, while I flex extend the elbow, and then progress to combining rhythmic body movements (Qi Gong) up and down the kinetic chain and the spine,coordinating breathing with movement, facilitating a balance between the body and mind, then I’m going a step further. Any sensible individual will agree that I should be more effective for patients that have not responded well to traditional exercise protocols alone. Regular elbow flexion extension might not work as well for the individual who worries too much about pain and tries to escape from anything that aggravates it. And this is only a small example.

I do not need any research to validate that I help individuals get in touch with their body. There is probably research out there validating this, but regardless, I think that some things are common sense. Do you need research to validate that discussing about your pain is therapeutic on its own?(think of support groups) Even better, do you need research to validate that people in our society want and need to be touched? The therapeutic effect of manual therapy derives primarily from the power of touch. Some people are now figuring out the influence of the sensory nervous system in recovering from an injury like it’s a new discovery. Just think of how you feel when a friend taps your shoulder. That is manual therapy to me, as it helps not just release a trigger point, but also your mind and spirit. With manual therapy I still do what you do, I just don’t give up or get disappointed because some research shows no significant change in range of motion etc. Functional capacity can improve regardless, if you help the mind relax and become stronger.

Pioneers of PT including Cyriax, Maitland, Mulligan, McKenzie, Sahrmann, Kendall, Butler, etc etc could not possibly have any major research to validate that the exact techniques they came up with where actually valid and reliable from the very beginning. Some of them over the years where proven wrong and some right. They tested their hypothesis in the treatment room, which is basically the same as a research lab. Why not share the knowledge and yes honker23 become rich if you bring something new to the table that you find helpful. People like you just go online and read articles, then you follow them like a bible until the next research article proves you wrong again. And then you claim to be leaders in the profession. You are not leaders, you are not actually conducting a large scale research yourselves or coming up with new treatment techniques on your own, or bringing anything new to the profession at all.

Sebastian et al. , this is my suggestion to you. If you want to evolve as PTs start playing a musical instrument, invest into arts, appreciate the simplicity of life and stop over-analyzing things. What we do is not a rocket science, we help individuals cope with injuries. Everybody is different and the practice of PT is an abstract art more than a science. Use current research as guidance but realize that helping people recover is a beautiful art, not statistics and numbers.

Sebastian, Qi Qong is an ancient art that has been practiced for over 5000 years and researched in China for over 4000 years. Even though you sound like a stubborn grumpy old man, you have not lived that long to judge or even have an opinion (without first studying/practicing) about something so historical. Cultivating spiritual awareness alone is very therapeutic. Before replying for the sake of arguing alone, stop and think. I suggest that you try it yourself, if not for you then for your difficult RSI and chronic pain patients. You don’t have to believe in Qi, (which is essentially energy inside of us)you can still believe in your own God if you have any faith at all.

With love,

Niko

< Message edited by Niko -- July 8, 2012 7:19:22 PM >

(in reply to jesspt)
Post #: 29
RE: A problem arises... - July 9, 2012 7:11:48 AM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
quote:

They tested their hypothesis in the treatment room, which is basically the same as a research lab.
"Basically the same as a research lab".

quote:

stop over-analyzing things.

No, it is just called analyzing.

quote:


Qi Qong is an ancient art that has been practiced for over 5000 years and researched in China for over 4000 years.


Ahhh, the "authority from antiquity" argument. Bloodletting was about that old too.

quote:

you have not lived that long to judge or even have an opinion (without first studying/practicing)


Another old horse. "You have to study it, learn it , practice it before you are allowed to even think about it or have an opinion on it." nonsense.
As an additional point: I studied and participated in Qi Gong in 1989 - at the same time I was heavily involved in another "ancient" therapy: acupuncture. For which I still somewhere hold about 4 certificates (in a box in the garage - collectibles...). It is interesting that because I think it is hogwash, you assumed I haven't "studied or practiced" it.

I also do not give exercises in isolation - I wonder if you have EVER read any other posts of mine on Rehabedge.

quote:

You don’t have to believe in Qi, (which is essentially energy inside of us)


Oh, that's what it is. "Energy inside of us".

quote:

Everybody is different and the practice of PT is an abstract art more than a science.


Really? Everybody is different? In my 30 years of practice, I hadn't noticed that at all. Come on!

And you have three degrees in science?!?

Niko, I think there is a big misunderstanding in you with regards to science and how scientific thinking can weed out nonsensical or wrong assumptions. Your post is full of perceptual fallacies: science showed us that, but I guess I must analyze that too much.

And finally: "Love"?!?

To quote my youngest daughter (16): OMG.

< Message edited by Sebastian Asselbergs -- July 9, 2012 7:12:58 AM >

(in reply to Niko)
Post #: 30
RE: A problem arises... - July 9, 2012 7:25:59 AM   
JSPT

 

Posts: 440
Joined: April 20, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
Niko- I hear where you're coming from as far as the art of PT goes. As for finding the best treatment, Socrates said it best:

"The life which is unexamined is not worth living"

Sticking your head in the sand and not following the research and science that is produced is not in accordance with the standards of "best practice", and with your background, I would think you would know that.

The only way for us to know whether we are helping people and not simply providing a placebo is to develop and test theories. Incidentally, many of the things you mentioned are well validated; pain education, group sessions, etc. You can argue that placebos are valuable, but is it right to charge patients good money for a procedure that they could just as easily get by attending a pain support group or going to a Tai Chi class? Why not just point them there? Why have them pay to come see you?

If we're just going to go with our gut and not try to find the best treatment out there, then why do we go to school and get degrees? Why not just become massage therapists? Self-delusion is a powerful thing. I thought I could properly assess motion segment restrictions and sacral torsions until I found research which showed that motion palpation is less than accurate, to put it mildly.

As for the argument from antiquity, sorry, that just won't fly. Just because something is thousands of years old doesn't mean it does anything beyond placebo. Take accupuncture: while it supposedly has been around for many, many centuries, it didn't become prevalent until the 1900's, when the government wanted to give medical access to the poor. It couldn't afford to reach everyone with real medicine, so it trained accupuncturists to go out into the countryside. More:

http://www.sciencebasedmedicine.org/index.php/puncturing-the-acupuncture-myth/

Science is the only system we have to validate what we think we know about the world. Everything else is just supposition.

I think you're more correct than you sound, but your logic and explanations just don't hold up. That being said, we're both operating under different ideologies, so I don't expect either of our positions to change.

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 31
RE: A problem arises... - July 9, 2012 11:10:48 AM   
honker23

 

Posts: 217
Status: offline
I have not been trained as a PT to cultivate spiritual awareness, or help someone find their Qi.  To me this is outside of our scope.  It also should not be paid for by insurance companies under the umbrella of PT. 

I also have a problem with someone making money spreading bad information as scientific evidence (CST, MFR)

I will also continue to use evidence to guide my practice and change when evidence changes, I guess that is odd to some....oh well.

(in reply to JSPT)
Post #: 32
RE: A problem arises... - July 9, 2012 12:08:06 PM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
JSPT, thank you for that reasonable post. I will strive to achieve that kind of calm thoughtfulness.

honker - thumbs up.

(in reply to honker23)
Post #: 33
RE: A problem arises... - July 9, 2012 10:57:40 PM   
Niko

 

Posts: 137
Status: offline
Sebastian, I really enjoy your arguments. The fact that you studied Qi Gong and acupuncture 20 years ago and failed to see positive outcomes that does not conclude that acupuncture and Qi Gong are not effective. That concludes that you were terrible at both! It also tells me that you are an individual who gets discouraged and gives up easily, a commonality of people with not much faith. I work with a lot of chronic pain patients and I also work with acupuncturists. I have seen patients progressing more with acupuncture alone than with any PT modality. In fact, I find myself a lot of times wanting to just stick a needle at an active trigger point. That makes more sense than what most PTs do (primarily joint work). Acupuncture is difficult to be validated by research simply because every point of the human body is an acupuncture point. That is were skill and experience becomes important. From what I hear you did not have any. Some more food for though, insurance reimbursements for acupuncture are higher than any PT modalities.

Honker23: This is the scope of PT practice at least where I live:

2620. (a) Physical therapy means the art and science of physical or corrective rehabilitation or of physical or corrective treatment of any bodily or mental condition of any person by the use of the physical, chemical, and other properties of heat, light, water, electricity, sound, massage, and active, passive, and resistive exercise, and shall include physical therapy evaluation, treatment planning, instruction and consultative services. The practice of physical therapy includes the promotion and maintenance of physical fitness to enhance the bodily movement related health and wellness of individuals through the use of physical therapy interventions.

Notice that the word art is first and then science. Also notice “treatment of any bodily or mental condition”. Finally notice the word wellness.

JSPT, I agree with Socrates that “the life which is unexamined is not worth living". I examine and challenge the current research while you blindly follow anything as long as it is published. I do believe and follow research every day in my practice; I'm just aware that what is thought to be true today can be easily proved to be false tomorrow. Look at the hx of research in PT and the many confounding variables of research studies, and then tell me otherwise. You believe in current/ limited evidence more than your profession. I know it sounds confusing but let me help you understand: If research were to suggest tomorrow that PT modalities are not more effective than rest alone and general exercise would you quit your job or challenge the research?

With Love,

Niko

PS: Sebastian, I suggest learning more from your daughter.

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 34
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 5:57:27 AM   
JSPT

 

Posts: 440
Joined: April 20, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
quote:

JSPT, I agree with Socrates that “the life which is unexamined is not worth living". I examine and challenge the current research while you blindly follow anything as long as it is published. I do believe and follow research every day in my practice; I'm just aware that what is thought to be true today can be easily proved to be false tomorrow. Look at the hx of research in PT and the many confounding variables of research studies, and then tell me otherwise. You believe in current/ limited evidence more than your profession. I know it sounds confusing but let me help you understand: If research were to suggest tomorrow that PT modalities are not more effective than rest alone and general exercise would you quit your job or challenge the research?


Well, Niko, here is how science works. If a major paradigm is overturned in the still of the night, I would challenge the research. Just like I would if the germ theory of disease were overturned at the stroke of midnight, I would hope someone would challenge those findings as well. If Qi was discovered to be the one true energy, or if therapeutic touch practitioners were suddenly able to reliably detect life energy, I would expect that to be re-tested as well. Marcello Truzzi once said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence", and I like that. By the way, energy is defined as the ability to do work; is that what you're working on? "I'm going re-direct your energy-to-do-work now; just lie still".

One of the largest guiding principles of true scientist is the larger the "discovery", the more unlikely it is to actually pan out. This is why that while Yahoo News is breathlessly reporting "God Particle Found", the CERN announcements go more like 'we have found some preliminary data which suggests that the particle that was theorized is in the place and form that we thought it might be, but more testing and data collection is needed.'

For you to suggest that I read an article and say 'well, them's the facts now, I better do this with everyone I see with this problem from now on' is a childish suggestion, and I suspect that you know that and don't actually think that is what evidence-based PT's do. You're trying to use 5th grade arguments to make a point, and I doubt you'll convince anyone that way. Again, I know what you're trying to say, but the manner in which you state your case causes the message to get lost because it is so far off point.

Edit: Also, you should really publish your accupuncture anectdotes (I mean "research"), because the hundreds of blinded studies performed on it to date show that an untrained practitioner has outcomes as good as a trained one, and tapping the skin of someone with toothpicks works as well as actually inserting a needle. Without your data, we may see teenagers walking around charging hundreds of dollars poking painful folks with little wooden sticks. Maybe Medicare will start to reimburse for that and we'd all be up a creek?!

< Message edited by JSPT -- July 10, 2012 6:01:04 AM >

(in reply to Niko)
Post #: 35
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 7:20:34 AM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
You are funny Niko.
quote:

and failed to see positive outcomes that does not conclude that acupuncture and Qi Gong are not effective.


Did I say that? Not at all. Have had many success stories with both. And still get "old" patients looking for me to get more of those techniques.
I dropped them because they are not supported by science - many things I do nowadays do not look much different than in the past, but get explained to the patient MUCH different. And that is where you are missing the boat completely. You equate good outcomes as proof of effectiveness of your techniques. As a triple science grad, you should know that these two are wholly different animals.

Just to make sure you understand: I hold four certificates in acupuncture, was a member of the executive Education Committee at the Acupuncture Foundation Institute of Canada and practiced with needles successfully for 19 years. Does that put it in a clearer perspective? It was not because of "failure" of skill. The intervention was proven to be no better than good placebo in the practice of a caring therapist. Much like so many other "techniques".

It would be interesting to see what you make of the research about "patient expectation" and outcomes of therapy. Take a look at al that is available on that subject. Check Moseley's and Butler's work. Take a look at the science references and stories in "The brain that changes itself" by Doidge. Maybe you can understand better where I see science playing a role in our profession.

I do appreciate the "art" of the porfession - it is in the individual sessions where we apply that the most. Finding just the right connection and words with each patient is exactly where the art lies.
It is in the creativity with which we address each uniquely individual case at each unique session.

What I do not agree with is that the word "art" allows us to use whatever non-scientific approach or technique. That is where MFR and CST and Reiki live. There is more than enough science out there to help us guide patients to health. Using the word "art" is not a blanket approval to use nonsensical approaches.
As soon as you do that, you logically also HAVE to allow "cupping" "past-lives regression" "cranial osteopathy" "organ manipulation" "chakra energetics" (and MFR, Reiki, CST) and so forth.
Are you comfortable with PTs using those techniques?

(in reply to JSPT)
Post #: 36
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 12:03:06 PM   
honker23

 

Posts: 217
Status: offline
The word "art" is NOT in my state's practice act, either it "spiritual" or "life-energy"
Effective vs better than placebo is important to differentiate

The popular money making process seems to go like this. Invent or "discover" a new energy, subluxation, restricted fascia, rotated suture, altered flow. Make sure there is no way to test it, define it, or prove it exists. Then teach others to "find" it and "treat" it. Charge a lot of money for this knowledge. When scientists question this new discovery, tell them their instruments are not sensitive enough to determine what this guru's sensory system can pick up. Continue to deceive the public and take their money. Claim your technique can treat anything, when in reality this technique is just relying on the therapeutic interaction effect or placebo. Then using the effect as evidence to prove the "flow, subluxation, energy" exists, when anyone with an understanding of science knows this is junk.

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 37
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 12:38:52 PM   
Sebastian Asselbergs

 

Posts: 2293
Joined: September 30, 1999
From: Barrie, Canada
Status: offline
Here is a link to an article that really explains well WHY research and science are so important:
http://www.bboyscience.com/why-science-part-1/

(in reply to honker23)
Post #: 38
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 6:24:20 PM   
JSPT

 

Posts: 440
Joined: April 20, 2005
From: Michigan
Status: offline
Bas,

Good lord man, that is one of the best articles I've read in a long, long time. If the general population could just read and internalize, it....wow.

Since we don't have "Like" buttons on RE, the highest compliment I can pay is to make it one of my rare Facebook posts :-)

Great find!

(in reply to Sebastian Asselbergs)
Post #: 39
RE: A problem arises... - July 10, 2012 11:22:17 PM   
Niko

 

Posts: 137
Status: offline
Honker23,
Im sorry that your State’s practice act is limited. You disagree that physical, emotional, mental and spiritual health are interdependent? Why are you so uncomfortable with spiritual believes? Since Sebastian started a show and tell then I’ll play along:
“Comprehensive research evidence shows that religious and spiritual beliefs and practices help prevent many physical and mental illnesses, reducing both symptom severity and relapse rate, speeding up and enhancing recovery, as well as rendering distress and disability easier to endure”.
--------------------------------
Honker23 and JSPT, I did not say that I try to cultivate Qi within my patients. I already gave an example of how I incorporate Qi Gong into therex. Look into the concept of mindfulness. Find current research about it. Then practice it yourself and tell me that it is not therapeutic. You can still do what you do at work and incorporate this simple concept in your treatments without additional effort. I’m only trying to help you here.
Take a look:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NbizmVKHdgs

In terms of manual therapy techniques: I did not argue that every specific technique out there has something different to offer or that we should trust it regardless of research. My original argument is that all the techniques out there act through the same physiological pathway whether is manipulation, mobilization, soft tissue work, acupuncture or even ultrasound. These are all passive modalities. They act through what is called the sensory nervous system. Info is integrated in the central nervous system and message is sent back to the structures saying “hey its ok, you can relax now”. That's it. This is what I mean stop over-analyzing. And find me research that proves otherwise.
-------------------------------------------
Sebastian,
You had great outcomes with acupuncture and Qi Gong, but you stopped practicing because you think that they are not supported by science? If I find one research article right now supporting both, wouldn’t you feel foolish for ignoring all those people who needed your help? Honestly, even though I know it’s out there I’m hesitant to do that, as if I do then we wont have any arguments to entertain each other anymore.
I never said that research is not important. The first thing I learned in PT school is how to critically think and challenge current literature. Is that so bad? Finally, you have made some progress by admitting that there is some art in what we do. I’m happy for you!

Niko

(in reply to JSPT)
Post #: 40
Page:   <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
All Forums >> [RehabEdge Forum] >> Open Forum >> RE: A problem arises... Page: <<   < prev  1 [2] 3 4 5   next >   >>
Jump to:





New Messages No New Messages
Hot Topic w/ New Messages Hot Topic w/o New Messages
Locked w/ New Messages Locked w/o New Messages
 Post New Thread
 Reply to Message
 Post New Poll
 Submit Vote
 Delete My Own Post
 Delete My Own Thread
 Rate Posts



Google Custom Search
Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5.5 Unicode

0.156