Re: Additional Reflexology Research

[Guest guest]

Hello Georgiou,

I don't have an opinion on Reflexology that supports or that is critical

of its supposed efficacy.

If anything, my bias would be to negate the commonly held beliefs of

practitioners that it is an ideal treatment modality for all ailments.

I too, am skeptical.

As a BMS practitioner, I find that results from my chosen method of

'treatment' has satisfactorily achieved outcomes that are often

predictable, sustainable and repeatable.

Maturity and experience tend to temper ones enthusiasm for a single

treatment method and as a result all the other not so mainstream, often

'left of centre' approaches can have acceptable results as well.

Because Pilates is now touted by GP's and other health professionals as

an ideal treatment solution for low back pain, or Deep Tissue Massage is

perfect for muscle contraction release, or Chiropractic intervention

strategies etc etc, does not mean it is the only way to resolve the

presenting problems.

If a client presents with an ailment that is logically resulting from a

postural, stress or trauma induced base, and I achieve a positive result

using my tried and true methods, good for us all. If there is concern

about other physiological involvements then my experience or knowledge

unhesitatingly says REFER.

There is a place for all types of physical therapists in the Wellness

Industry as long as they know their limitations and constantly seek

knowledge and remain open to critical evaluations of their treatment

outcomes. If someone is confident that poking a rigid digit into an

alimentary point on the bottom of my foot will resolve my long standing

biliousness, and it does, I am not going complain but I will ask how.

I resolve severe neurogenic pain (associated with teeth) in less than 4

minutes with vibration. It's a tad different to analgesics but it's an

alternative method that works, I think I know how and no-one has ever

asked for the pain back :-)

This forum a provides a large group of people an opportunity to share

information about a enormous variety of complementary therapies that

need to be challenged and understood and in many instances will be

included in their treatment tools.

The question is often more important than the answer.

Alan BROWN

MELBOURNE

Georgiou Chrisostomos wrote:

>

> Hi, Mr Brown,

> I appreciate the fact, that you posted some research to support your

> opinion, and not a personal story. But I am still suspicious for many

> reasons. I cite some of them below. Lets don't stick on reflexology,

> since I have the same opinion for every alternative therapy (of course

> with no offense to the supporters).

>

> 1) Who did fund the study? Was it the government, a pharmaceutical

> company, sb else who would benefit? (If I remember correct, studies

> from pharmaceutical companies have 10 times more significant important

> results than government studies). I am sure, sb could guess the

> results by reading the journals title: " China Reflexology Association "

>

> 2) In epidimiology, there is a bias known as " reverse tower of Babel

> bias " in which most of the locally produced and published literature is

> spuriously statistically significant. Have a look

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280

> <http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9551280>

> Isn't it true that reflexology has it's roots in china?

>

> 3) Of course we are not epidimiologists. So big organizations do the

> work for us. One well known is Cochrane Collaboration

> http://www.cochrane.org/. <http://www.cochrane.org/.> You can hardly

> find an effective

> alternative therapie in there!! Thats because they consider only well

> designed studies.

>

> 4) Last but not least, reflexology is not based on physiology, so it

> does not make sense. There aren't any " mirracle " therapies who can do

> so many things (and so irrelevant with one another) as these you

> posted nor will there be.

>

> Georgiou Chrisostomos

> Ioannina Greece